4 ms·
It's not ransomware i worry about. What about targeting the lidar/radar directly? Some people still have radar/laser jammers, and only ten states ban them. What
by Noos 10y ago
It's not ransomware i worry about. What about targeting the lidar/radar directly? Some people still have radar/laser jammers, and only ten states ban them. What on earth will your programming do to counter that?
Or what if an actor uses something like this:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/29/now-you-see-me-now-you-dont/ https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/29/now-you-see-me-now-you-don...
that confounds the car's sensors. Self-driving cars have a whole spectrum of attack vectors that human beings don't have.
- loup-vaillant 10y agoIt is likewise quite easy to throw a rock on the highway from a bridge. What you are really worrying about is new creative ways to kill and destroy. Yes, hostile input will have to be taken into account. Fortunately, this is easily detectable (just look at the logs). And if people die as the result, it will count as murder. Finally, one does not simply jam sensors from across the planet. You need a physical presence on site, and that's riskier than a remote hack.
- Noos 10y agoSelf-driving cars can make it easier to do this systemically, and not even purposefully. The jamming sensors I meant that another car passes by with a radar jammer on, for its intended purpose (jamming police radar sensors for speeding) and it hits the self-driving car too. A lot of the current driving issues do suck, but they still will suck with self-driving cars, as any computerized system has its own vulnerabilities. It's just they might be systemic and affect a lot more people in ways they can't compensate for.