3 ms·
I used to think that this kind of system must be the future, but now I can only think of the greatly increased attack surface if my self-controlled car is not o
by Swenrekcah 8y ago
I used to think that this kind of system must be the future, but now I can only think of the greatly increased attack surface if my self-controlled car is not only taking directions from visual input and other sensors, but also all sorts of other unknown devices.
- chongli 8y agoThe system needs to be sane. The network should not be able to force your car to drive into a wall. Like any safety critical system, it should fail-safe. That means if the data it receives over the network would be unsafe to follow, given information from the other sensors, then it should discount that information as erroneous. This is something humans do all the time when, for example, reading a stranger's intentions.
- Swenrekcah 8y agoBut people are just too creative when it comes to exploiting systems. What if I force someone’s car to halt just under a bridge and then accidentally drop another car on top of it. Oops, a terrible ‘accident’! I realise this is a bit ridiculous but some other people are way more creative than I in this way.
- Cpoll 8y agoWhat if I point a gun at someone and shoot them? As usual, the only thing that keeps you alive is that there are no motivated individuals that want to kill you. If there are, then they don't need you to drive a self-driving car.
- m0zg 8y agoYou're ignoring the possibility of a mass-exploit, meaning the kind of cheap exploit that affects multiple vehicles at the same time, possibly killing a bunch of people, destroying infrastructure, or stopping the flow of traffic. Your typical adversarial "single pixel" change that makes your network believe unreasonable things, but in the real world. The existence of such exploits has already been demonstrated.