4 ms·

So the immobilizer does not immobilize as much as expected/hoped. While that sure isn't something the manufacturer should be proud of, it is hardly a really cri

by usrusr 11y ago

So the immobilizer does not immobilize as much as expected/hoped. While that sure isn't something the manufacturer should be proud of, it is hardly a really critical problem, nowhere close to "stop driving until resolved". Immobilizers may have lowered car theft before, but never fully stopped it. The incentive situation for thieves has shifted a bit, that's all, a gradual change, not a 180 degree bit flip. The bigger mistake than sourcing imperfect components is the attempted cover-up and I am positively surprised that this is even reflected in the headline. (at least theoretically: the first glance takeaway message for this story will always be "security hole in car!", no matter how much the author tries to put the cover-up in focus)

kllrnohj 11y ago
The title seems to just be the standard clickbait approach to titles. They got an injuction so that's a pretty public way to go about trying to do a "cover-up".
- scott_karana 11y ago
  They've had the injunction for two years, but haven't initiated a recall in the meantime! "Cover up" sounds accurate to me.
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    A recall for what? There's no safety issue here. There's no functional loss. Unless they advertised the car as being unstealable or anything close there's not even a marketing point that's not working as one could reasonably expect. Carmakers call this a theft-deterrant feature, they don't even call it anti-theft or similar. The immobilizer is not as secure as one would hope, but nobody ever promised you anything here in the first place. What keeps your car from being stolen is not the immobilizer. The government and laws are what keep your car from being stolen.
    - scott_karana 11y ago
      It's obviously not a safety recall, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious. Other companies have been known to do voluntary recalls defective locks, why is VAG exempted in your mind? "It barely can even be considered an immobiliser" is almost certainly contrary to reasonable consumer expectations, and it wouldn't surprise me if the EU, at least, had laws regarding this kind of issue.
      - kllrnohj 11y ago
        It's not serious. It still requires someone to specifically target you & your car with special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical car thief.
        ethbro 11y ago
        > It's not serious. It still requires someone to specifically target you & your car with special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical car thief. It wouldn't fill me with warm and fuzzies if I were sold a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe that was only exploitable with 'special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical thief.'
        djrogers 11y ago
        >It wouldn't fill me with warm and fuzzies if I were sold a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe that was only exploitable with 'special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical thief.' Then you'd better never buy a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe, they all have that in common.
        ethbro 11y ago
        I'm not familiar with the current state of physical security exploitation, but I get the sense that it would take more than 30 minutes and pushing the button on a black box someone built for me to compromise. Unlike this. The issue with electronic exploitation is that the know-how component is relatively trivially automated. Script kiddies, etc. If I bought an $80k Porche, I'd be bit miffed that it could be stolen from a parking lot in the time it took me to have a sit-down lunch.

by usrusr 11y ago

kllrnohj 11y ago

The title seems to just be the standard clickbait approach to titles. They got an injuction so that's a pretty public way to go about trying to do a "cover-up".

scott_karana 11y ago
They've had the injunction for two years, but haven't initiated a recall in the meantime! "Cover up" sounds accurate to me.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  A recall for what? There's no safety issue here. There's no functional loss. Unless they advertised the car as being unstealable or anything close there's not even a marketing point that's not working as one could reasonably expect. Carmakers call this a theft-deterrant feature, they don't even call it anti-theft or similar. The immobilizer is not as secure as one would hope, but nobody ever promised you anything here in the first place. What keeps your car from being stolen is not the immobilizer. The government and laws are what keep your car from being stolen.
  - scott_karana 11y ago
    It's obviously not a safety recall, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious. Other companies have been known to do voluntary recalls defective locks, why is VAG exempted in your mind? "It barely can even be considered an immobiliser" is almost certainly contrary to reasonable consumer expectations, and it wouldn't surprise me if the EU, at least, had laws regarding this kind of issue.
    - kllrnohj 11y ago
      It's not serious. It still requires someone to specifically target you & your car with special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical car thief.
      - ethbro 11y ago
        > It's not serious. It still requires someone to specifically target you & your car with special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical car thief. It wouldn't fill me with warm and fuzzies if I were sold a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe that was only exploitable with 'special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical thief.'
        djrogers 11y ago
        >It wouldn't fill me with warm and fuzzies if I were sold a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe that was only exploitable with 'special gear and know-how far outside the realm of the typical thief.' Then you'd better never buy a high-end door lock / alarm system / safe, they all have that in common.
        ethbro 11y ago
        I'm not familiar with the current state of physical security exploitation, but I get the sense that it would take more than 30 minutes and pushing the button on a black box someone built for me to compromise. Unlike this. The issue with electronic exploitation is that the know-how component is relatively trivially automated. Script kiddies, etc. If I bought an $80k Porche, I'd be bit miffed that it could be stolen from a parking lot in the time it took me to have a sit-down lunch.