5 ms·

There's a much better article on Wired that goes into more details: http://www.wired.com/2015/08/researchers-hacked-model-s-teslas-already/ http://www.wired.com

by breser 11y ago

There's a much better article on Wired that goes into more details: http://www.wired.com/2015/08/researchers-hacked-model-s-teslas-already/ http://www.wired.com/2015/08/researchers-hacked-model-s-tesl... It's also worth noting that Tesla pushed a patch to all of their cars for this yesterday.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Fiat/Chrysler - recalled 1.4M cars, estimate 80+% will get fixed. Tesla - pushed an OTA update, done. That pretty much paints the future of "smart software" in cars. That said, every science fiction book I've ever read where vehicles could be patched over the air, has been been used as a plot device and gone badly for the hero of the story. Interesting times indeed.
- bentcorner 11y ago
  Has there been an incident where an OTA mechanism resulted in something bad? (E.g., MITM attack pushes down evil bits) It could be argued that the existence of an OTA mechanism incentivizes lower quality (RTM patches); I'd counter that it might do so in the short term only, although I have no data.
  - wodzu 11y ago
    I would rather worry about bad guys pushing a harmful update to all the Tesla cars. Rather than hacking all the individual cars, hack the Tesla server and push the updates. Happened few times to open source software.
    - selestify 11y ago
      > Happened few times to open source software Interesting, what are some examples?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - breser 11y ago
      If you read the Wired article I linked earlier you'll see that this is indeed a concern since the updates aren't signed. Tesla is relying on the two way verification of their VPN that is used to communicate between the car and Tesla to validate the software.
      - snuxoll 11y ago
        This at least prevents a MITM or a malicious actor from hijacking DNS, etc - since the car effectively ensures it's at least talking WITH Tesla. This doesn't prevent a malicious employee from gaining access to the update server and pushing out an update, but you're going to have to worry about that regardless.
        Silhouette 11y ago
        This doesn't prevent a malicious employee from gaining access to the update server and pushing out an update, but you're going to have to worry about that regardless. I'm pretty sure that if your car isn't connected in the first place, so that its essential control systems can't be updated remotely by a single malicious actor like that, then this isn't a significant concern.
  - rhelmer 11y ago
    > It could be argued that the existence of an OTA mechanism incentivizes lower quality (RTM patches) Is there any evidence of this? I think of automatic updates more like a safety net, or a seat belt. Does the presence of those things change how acrobats or drivers perform?
    - teacup50 11y ago
      > Does the presence of those things change how acrobats or drivers perform? Yes. They change the risk analysis; this can make the difference between acrobats performing at all. As a thought experiment, just consider what you know about human nature and incentivisation of behavior. Do humans tend to: 1) Prioritize long term concerns over short term concerns? 2) Prioritize high -- but incremental -- costs to others over costs to themselves? 3) Prioritize future risk amortized over many small events? 4) Prioritize costs that can be externalized onto others over their own costs? Quiet OTA updates play to all of those weaknesses. The only possible result, as long as humans are involved, is lower quality software.
      - rhelmer 11y ago
        Thought experiments are fun, but I am coming to a different conclusion. I agree that it changes the risk analysis, but I don't think that it's necessarily for the worse. Performance doesn't necessarily improve under pressure, and extreme risk aversion can cause some funny side effects - for instance working around known bugs rather than risk correcting them. Is there any data to support the "only possible result" that you conclude? Or, maybe examples of high-quality software that doesn't have any kind of high-frequency automatic update mechanism?
  - teacup50 11y ago
    It's pretty well-accepted that OTA updates for games lowered quality across the board. Anecdotally, I've seen the same in general software. Traditional product recalls are very expensive, but they centralize costs on the manufacturer, and disperse much smaller individual costs across all consumers. In doing so, they incentivize manufacturers to not screw up. OTA externalizes costs to consumers, increasing their individual cost through the disruption of more regular updates and regressions, security issues, etc, while decreasing the manufacturers costs dramatically. This -- surprise! -- incentivizes shipping crap. Long-term manufacturers can lose brand goodwill due to shipping a buggy product, but if everyone is shipping crap, it's not like consumers have a choice or even particularly high expectations.
    - Cshelton 11y ago
      Right...but if everyone is shipping crap, that is just an opportunity for a company to not ship crap. Assuming a free market.

by breser 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Fiat/Chrysler - recalled 1.4M cars, estimate 80+% will get fixed. Tesla - pushed an OTA update, done. That pretty much paints the future of "smart software" in cars. That said, every science fiction book I've ever read where vehicles could be patched over the air, has been been used as a plot device and gone badly for the hero of the story. Interesting times indeed.

bentcorner 11y ago
Has there been an incident where an OTA mechanism resulted in something bad? (E.g., MITM attack pushes down evil bits) It could be argued that the existence of an OTA mechanism incentivizes lower quality (RTM patches); I'd counter that it might do so in the short term only, although I have no data.
- wodzu 11y ago
  I would rather worry about bad guys pushing a harmful update to all the Tesla cars. Rather than hacking all the individual cars, hack the Tesla server and push the updates. Happened few times to open source software.
  - selestify 11y ago
    > Happened few times to open source software Interesting, what are some examples?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - breser 11y ago
    If you read the Wired article I linked earlier you'll see that this is indeed a concern since the updates aren't signed. Tesla is relying on the two way verification of their VPN that is used to communicate between the car and Tesla to validate the software.
    - snuxoll 11y ago
      This at least prevents a MITM or a malicious actor from hijacking DNS, etc - since the car effectively ensures it's at least talking WITH Tesla. This doesn't prevent a malicious employee from gaining access to the update server and pushing out an update, but you're going to have to worry about that regardless.
      - Silhouette 11y ago
        This doesn't prevent a malicious employee from gaining access to the update server and pushing out an update, but you're going to have to worry about that regardless. I'm pretty sure that if your car isn't connected in the first place, so that its essential control systems can't be updated remotely by a single malicious actor like that, then this isn't a significant concern.
- rhelmer 11y ago
  > It could be argued that the existence of an OTA mechanism incentivizes lower quality (RTM patches) Is there any evidence of this? I think of automatic updates more like a safety net, or a seat belt. Does the presence of those things change how acrobats or drivers perform?
  - teacup50 11y ago
    > Does the presence of those things change how acrobats or drivers perform? Yes. They change the risk analysis; this can make the difference between acrobats performing at all. As a thought experiment, just consider what you know about human nature and incentivisation of behavior. Do humans tend to: 1) Prioritize long term concerns over short term concerns? 2) Prioritize high -- but incremental -- costs to others over costs to themselves? 3) Prioritize future risk amortized over many small events? 4) Prioritize costs that can be externalized onto others over their own costs? Quiet OTA updates play to all of those weaknesses. The only possible result, as long as humans are involved, is lower quality software.
    - rhelmer 11y ago
      Thought experiments are fun, but I am coming to a different conclusion. I agree that it changes the risk analysis, but I don't think that it's necessarily for the worse. Performance doesn't necessarily improve under pressure, and extreme risk aversion can cause some funny side effects - for instance working around known bugs rather than risk correcting them. Is there any data to support the "only possible result" that you conclude? Or, maybe examples of high-quality software that doesn't have any kind of high-frequency automatic update mechanism?
- teacup50 11y ago
  It's pretty well-accepted that OTA updates for games lowered quality across the board. Anecdotally, I've seen the same in general software. Traditional product recalls are very expensive, but they centralize costs on the manufacturer, and disperse much smaller individual costs across all consumers. In doing so, they incentivize manufacturers to not screw up. OTA externalizes costs to consumers, increasing their individual cost through the disruption of more regular updates and regressions, security issues, etc, while decreasing the manufacturers costs dramatically. This -- surprise! -- incentivizes shipping crap. Long-term manufacturers can lose brand goodwill due to shipping a buggy product, but if everyone is shipping crap, it's not like consumers have a choice or even particularly high expectations.
  - Cshelton 11y ago
    Right...but if everyone is shipping crap, that is just an opportunity for a company to not ship crap. Assuming a free market.