4 ms·

> cars companies that generally don't know a ton about software building technology that's generally insecure Why do you think this is insecure? Because its ca

> cars companies that generally don't know a ton about software building technology that's generally insecure Why do you think this is insecure? Because its cars? > I partially blame Tesla for starting this trend. Ford. Ford started with Sync. Mentioning Tesla is a outsider move. Why would you think billion dollar fortune 500 companies wouldnt hire programming and security experts?

ken 8y ago
I've worked at a company which could be described that way (in aerospace). I know by experience that they're terrible at this. They're not a software company, so not only do they lack experience, they lack the company culture. As a PG essay once pointed out (in the context of American car design), if your manager lacks knowledge of a thing, then they also lack knowledge necessary to identify a competent expert to hire. The company is world-class at systems integration. If you want a giant component built in Italy to mate with a giant component made in Japan, they can manage to deliver the specs, have them built and tested independently, shipped to their factory floor, and joined perfectly. And repeat the manufacturing process, every day, for years. If you suggest that the database should use a transaction for saving a crucial piece of data, they're lost. They've got internal policies that work great for bolts and wires (standardize all the things!), but suck for software (every software system must use the same database system, which we selected 30 years ago, i.e., it's no longer maintained). Specs are written like hardware specs which will change only minimally (we need a larger bolt), but of course they change all the time in significant ways (need to add a new core feature to the software which will require a completely different schema). Release cycles are literally measured in months, and they have a culture of hard public deadlines, so most problems simply can't get fixed in time, even if they're identified. It doesn't surprise me in the least that car companies are having problems with software.
sonaltr 8y ago
> Why do you think this is insecure? Because its cars? Because of the engineering culture. As an example, I've interviewed at GM for software positions and i've interviewed at actual tech companies for similar positions and their process, questions and answers all show how different software is thought of by upper management. it's changing ofcourse, but it's slow and in the mean time people will get hurt. > Ford. Ford started with Sync. Mentioning Tesla is a outsider move. Ford started it with Sync. But no one cared about Ford. You don't see youtube videos of excited people claiming their Ford can be remotely started via an app on their phone for example. It was a sales/marketing pitch by Ford. Tesla on the other hand...brought the your car is a phone on wheels concept to the masses and popularized it to the point that other car companies feel the need to add it all to cars whether they have the skills or not. (not that Tesla is any better, as that recent post by an ex-engineer showed) > Why would you think billion dollar fortune 500 companies wouldnt hire programming and security experts? This is like asking why Equifax would not hire programmers and security experts yet they as we all know...even after that massive data breach, Equifax has yet to change their culture or process or hiring.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  > not that Tesla is any better, as that recent post by an ex-engineer showed Link to post please?

ken 8y ago

I've worked at a company which could be described that way (in aerospace). I know by experience that they're terrible at this. They're not a software company, so not only do they lack experience, they lack the company culture. As a PG essay once pointed out (in the context of American car design), if your manager lacks knowledge of a thing, then they also lack knowledge necessary to identify a competent expert to hire. The company is world-class at systems integration. If you want a giant component built in Italy to mate with a giant component made in Japan, they can manage to deliver the specs, have them built and tested independently, shipped to their factory floor, and joined perfectly. And repeat the manufacturing process, every day, for years. If you suggest that the database should use a transaction for saving a crucial piece of data, they're lost. They've got internal policies that work great for bolts and wires (standardize all the things!), but suck for software (every software system must use the same database system, which we selected 30 years ago, i.e., it's no longer maintained). Specs are written like hardware specs which will change only minimally (we need a larger bolt), but of course they change all the time in significant ways (need to add a new core feature to the software which will require a completely different schema). Release cycles are literally measured in months, and they have a culture of hard public deadlines, so most problems simply can't get fixed in time, even if they're identified. It doesn't surprise me in the least that car companies are having problems with software.

sonaltr 8y ago

> Why do you think this is insecure? Because its cars? Because of the engineering culture. As an example, I've interviewed at GM for software positions and i've interviewed at actual tech companies for similar positions and their process, questions and answers all show how different software is thought of by upper management. it's changing ofcourse, but it's slow and in the mean time people will get hurt. > Ford. Ford started with Sync. Mentioning Tesla is a outsider move. Ford started it with Sync. But no one cared about Ford. You don't see youtube videos of excited people claiming their Ford can be remotely started via an app on their phone for example. It was a sales/marketing pitch by Ford. Tesla on the other hand...brought the your car is a phone on wheels concept to the masses and popularized it to the point that other car companies feel the need to add it all to cars whether they have the skills or not. (not that Tesla is any better, as that recent post by an ex-engineer showed) > Why would you think billion dollar fortune 500 companies wouldnt hire programming and security experts? This is like asking why Equifax would not hire programmers and security experts yet they as we all know...even after that massive data breach, Equifax has yet to change their culture or process or hiring.

brokenmachine 8y ago
> not that Tesla is any better, as that recent post by an ex-engineer showed Link to post please?