4 ms·

This seems like a little bit of FUD. This isn't any different from hooking up a device to the brakes that receives a mobile signal and stops them from working m

This seems like a little bit of FUD. This isn't any different from hooking up a device to the brakes that receives a mobile signal and stops them from working mechanically.

watty 16y ago
I agree, it'd be nice to know how much easier it is (if at all) to mount an tie in a computer to their car. They do make a good point: "But as they look at all of the wireless and Internet-enabled systems the auto industry is dreaming up for tomorrow's cars, they see some serious areas for concern."
- TeHCrAzY 16y ago
  http://www.limitless.co.nz/ http://www.limitless.co.nz/ sells the cable + software for re-flashing a variety of ECU's. I think he makes the cables by hand (he also started offering a nifty GPS + flashing unit as well). It's impressive work. It's quite easy to play with (and also quite easy to physically damage your car if you don't know what you are doing). Having physical access to the car would make it impossible to stop: It's relatively easy to replace the ECU in a vehicle, which would be essentially impossible to notice (in my cars case, it's tucked in behind the glove box). Then you could have much wider levels of control over the vehicle than an ECU would generally provide, by using your own custom hardware. I find it highly unlikely that the ECU would be networked (so to speak) with the car entertainment system (wireless/internet etc).
- jerf 16y ago
  Hopefully, the wireless and Internet-enabled systems will be completely isolated from the CAN-bus. At first I hoped it would be air-gap isolated, but after I thought about it for a bit I realized that's not possible. In particular, one obvious application for the Internet is playing network MP3s to your car radio, which is also pretty intimately tied into the CAN-bus in modern designs. So while there may not be an "official" path from Internet->CAN-bus, it's one buffer overflow in the car radio away from working, probably. And what are the flerking odds that the car radio is implemented in anything other than (spit) C, which in the hands of embedded engineers who haven't had to think about security for decades pretty much guarantees buffer overflows will abound? And of course if we're going to implement remote condition monitoring in the style of OnStar, there may very well be direct Internet<->CAN-bus interconnects built right in. I'm sort of regretting having taken the time out to think about this. Now I'm scared.
  - zenocon 16y ago
    Speaking from a little bit of experience in this area...these networks are often not isolated. It depends on the vehicle and network architecture, but there are valid business reasons for getting at the entire network through Wi-Fi. Buffer exploits in C aren't the issue. The issue is cracking the weak encryption scheme, and figuring out the unpublished sequence of CAN bits to send that do things like lock/unlock doors or change the powertrain calibrations. OEMs try to hold this info close to the vest for obvious reasons, but there is a large subculture out there reverse engineering it.
  - NateLawson 16y ago
    This is exactly what the real problem is. Comments about cutting break cables being easier don't get this. Many cars are not air-gapping these two networks and a failure in any of the components that bridge the two can lead to remote attacks of this type. I would not buy a car that has Internet-anything in it.
hugh3 16y ago
Perhaps it could be done less traceably, especially if the crash investigators aren't expecting non-mechanical brake tampering? Still, it's a pretty difficult and high-failure-probability way of killing somebody.
- TeHCrAzY 16y ago
  It depends on the car's ECU, and your technical skill-set. For a car like a Mitsubishi Evolution, there is a largish community re-flashing: http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash-179/ http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash-179/ is a nice place to learn and understand the craft. I think if crash investigators lack the ability to dump the ECU rom and have it compared to an original, they are somewhat incompetent.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Sure, but only if they think of it. I doubt "hacked ECU" is at the top of the list when they start investigating causes. On the other hand, I guess once they figure out you crashed without braking (no skid marks) but were still conscious when you did so (you've probably tried swerving to avoid an accident) they'll pretty quickly narrow it down to complete brake failure, which I guess has a much smaller list of possible causes, especially if the brakes look physically okay.
- mattmcknight 16y ago
  Cell records aren't traceable?

This seems like a little bit of FUD. This isn't any different from hooking up a device to the brakes that receives a mobile signal and stops them from working mechanically.

watty 16y ago

I agree, it'd be nice to know how much easier it is (if at all) to mount an tie in a computer to their car. They do make a good point: "But as they look at all of the wireless and Internet-enabled systems the auto industry is dreaming up for tomorrow's cars, they see some serious areas for concern."

TeHCrAzY 16y ago
http://www.limitless.co.nz/ http://www.limitless.co.nz/ sells the cable + software for re-flashing a variety of ECU's. I think he makes the cables by hand (he also started offering a nifty GPS + flashing unit as well). It's impressive work. It's quite easy to play with (and also quite easy to physically damage your car if you don't know what you are doing). Having physical access to the car would make it impossible to stop: It's relatively easy to replace the ECU in a vehicle, which would be essentially impossible to notice (in my cars case, it's tucked in behind the glove box). Then you could have much wider levels of control over the vehicle than an ECU would generally provide, by using your own custom hardware. I find it highly unlikely that the ECU would be networked (so to speak) with the car entertainment system (wireless/internet etc).
jerf 16y ago
Hopefully, the wireless and Internet-enabled systems will be completely isolated from the CAN-bus. At first I hoped it would be air-gap isolated, but after I thought about it for a bit I realized that's not possible. In particular, one obvious application for the Internet is playing network MP3s to your car radio, which is also pretty intimately tied into the CAN-bus in modern designs. So while there may not be an "official" path from Internet->CAN-bus, it's one buffer overflow in the car radio away from working, probably. And what are the flerking odds that the car radio is implemented in anything other than (spit) C, which in the hands of embedded engineers who haven't had to think about security for decades pretty much guarantees buffer overflows will abound? And of course if we're going to implement remote condition monitoring in the style of OnStar, there may very well be direct Internet<->CAN-bus interconnects built right in. I'm sort of regretting having taken the time out to think about this. Now I'm scared.
- zenocon 16y ago
  Speaking from a little bit of experience in this area...these networks are often not isolated. It depends on the vehicle and network architecture, but there are valid business reasons for getting at the entire network through Wi-Fi. Buffer exploits in C aren't the issue. The issue is cracking the weak encryption scheme, and figuring out the unpublished sequence of CAN bits to send that do things like lock/unlock doors or change the powertrain calibrations. OEMs try to hold this info close to the vest for obvious reasons, but there is a large subculture out there reverse engineering it.
- NateLawson 16y ago
  This is exactly what the real problem is. Comments about cutting break cables being easier don't get this. Many cars are not air-gapping these two networks and a failure in any of the components that bridge the two can lead to remote attacks of this type. I would not buy a car that has Internet-anything in it.

hugh3 16y ago

Perhaps it could be done less traceably, especially if the crash investigators aren't expecting non-mechanical brake tampering? Still, it's a pretty difficult and high-failure-probability way of killing somebody.

TeHCrAzY 16y ago
It depends on the car's ECU, and your technical skill-set. For a car like a Mitsubishi Evolution, there is a largish community re-flashing: http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash-179/ http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash-179/ is a nice place to learn and understand the craft. I think if crash investigators lack the ability to dump the ECU rom and have it compared to an original, they are somewhat incompetent.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Sure, but only if they think of it. I doubt "hacked ECU" is at the top of the list when they start investigating causes. On the other hand, I guess once they figure out you crashed without braking (no skid marks) but were still conscious when you did so (you've probably tried swerving to avoid an accident) they'll pretty quickly narrow it down to complete brake failure, which I guess has a much smaller list of possible causes, especially if the brakes look physically okay.
mattmcknight 16y ago
Cell records aren't traceable?