14 ms·
Tesla Model 3 spoofed off the highway
- williesleg 7y agoI'd say we're all gonna die! Stay home! Oh, and the country's going to hell!
- gen3 7y ago> Even though this research doesn’t demonstrate any Tesla-specific vulnerabilities, that hasn’t stopped us from taking steps to introduce safeguards in the future which we believe will make our products more secure against these kinds of attacks. What would the solution to this be? Signing GPS signals?
- marcell 7y agoExisting laws? Surely intentionally hacking a cars navigation system is a crime in most (all?) states. Analog would be that I can’t go around laying nails and thumbtacks on the highway.
- swsieber 7y agoMany different methods of hacking are illegal, and yet they still occur. Nails and thumbtacks less frequently.
- gen3 7y agoSpoofing GPS is already illegal, but that doesn't mean people cant do it.
- dx87 7y agoThat's like saying that "Gun Free" zones are the solution to preventing shootings. If the law is practically unenforceable, you need a different solution.
- _jn 7y agoOnboard computers can have compasses and a pretty good idea of how fast they're going. You could just be monitoring for any weird jumps or incongruences (eg. there is a road here, but it's at a different angle than the GPS signal indicates, the path recently followed doesn't match up with the map based on current GPS reading, ...) assuming you have good enough accuracy and can track it over time.
- tempestn 7y agoSeems like the spoofers could work around that and still do damage if they wanted to, by gradually shifting away from reality. The open-loop position estimate will never be perfect, so some margin would have to be designed into such a check, and that could be exploited. It would still be better than nothing though.
- _jn 7y agoYep, should work on those hundreds-of-miles-straight midwest roads ;)
- rightbyte 7y agoNitpicking but compasses are useless in a driving EV.
- jaytaylor 7y agoWhy is that? Claims without explanation don't move the conversation forward much.
- rightbyte 7y agoOh, ye, the current gives strong magnetic fields. YMMV but I've done IMU measurements in a EV and the compass course changed like 90 degrees from zero to full throttle. Was a low voltage 50V EV prototype though (higher currents). To be fair I'm not too sure how sensitive compasses are in high voltage EVs.
- 7y ago
- tobylane 7y agoA couple of years ago there was a headline about Israeli research into keeping track of movements without GPS, like in a cave. I wonder if these systems could keep track of the last mile or minute and compare various sources.
- the8472 7y agoHow would you prevent replay attacks?
- notatoad 7y agoCorrelating gps/glonass/galileo data to see if they all agree should be fairly effective, right?
- saulrh 7y agoFor me, the most interesting part of this article was the casual mention of "the Black Sea spoofing attack of 2017". Apparently an unknown attacker pretty thoroughly messed up traffic in the area by making everyone's navigation systems think they were over a nearby airport. Given that we've had several major maritime collisions reach the news in the last year with no attacks involved at all, I could imagine dozens of deaths and potentially billions of dollars of damages if they'd done this in a major harbor or with hostile intent. Just spoof an oil tanker into the docks at Corpus Christi (edit: or mess with stationkeeping on an oil platform) and you'd have an impossible disaster on your hands. https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/mass-gps-spoofing-attack-in-black-sea https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/mass-gps-spoof... https://www.gpsworld.com/spoofing-in-the-black-sea-what-really-happened/ https://www.gpsworld.com/spoofing-in-the-black-sea-what-real...
- Cshelton 7y agoRight. If you were to be caught doing that, especially in a busy harbor... I'd imagine you'd be labeled a terrorist and no, you won't even get a trial. If you like the ideal of life in jail, that's one way for sure.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- notatoad 7y agoMy memory of the Black Sea spoofing attack was a lot of speculation that the Russian government was behind it. Consequences that deter an individual (like life in jail) don't necessarily deter state actors.
- bdamm 7y agoThis is, I think, the essential definition of a "state actor". The actor is operating on behalf of a state that will shield that actor from most if not all consequences of their actions.
- 7y ago
- Cshelton 7y agoProviding internet is not the only reason SpaceX's StarLink [0] is a project ;p Yes, GNSS spoofing is an industry wide vulnerability, and not to just cars. If I'm not mistaken, at least in the U.S., it is highly illegal? [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...)
- ohazi 7y agoMost things that can be described as "shenanigans over RF" are illegal, but they're difficult to trace. Sure, if you broadcast from your house 24/7, the FCC will eventually send their direction-finding vans to look for you. But actual attacks can be localized, low power, and short duration.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jimmaswell 7y agoIt's come to my mind that someone could easily cause a small panic transmitting a fake EAS broadcast about some disaster or attack over FM stations duting heavy traffic in a city. Never heard of anyone doing it though. In high school I did play a fake alert from youtube about incoming nukes through the aux-in of a portable radio and had someone believing it for a minute.
- Theodores 7y agoNext you will be shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- stordoff 7y agoReminds me of The War of the Worlds: > The program has become famous for supposedly tricking some of its listeners into believing that a Martian invasion was actually taking place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_d...
- xGrill 7y agoI wonder if, as self driving technology becomes more prevalent and more of these "hacks" become dangerous, if some federal laws around spoofing cars and using objects to influence an autopilot system become major felonies.
- pwodhouse 7y agoVandalism, murder, and hacking are already illegal.
- Symmetry 7y agoIn this case the hack isn't dangerous but I imagine spoofing a self-driving car into driving off a cliff would carry the same penalty as painting over lane lines to get a human to do it in the dark. Which is to say it's clearly murder if the vehicle occupant dies.
- merkaloid 7y agoDon't see anywhere in the article that this was _responsibly_ disclosed to automakers. They're literally publishing how to kill people on the road for the sake of making a buck (company seems to peddling spoof resistant GNSS).
- CriticalCathed 7y agoIt's not exactly new information.
- imglorp 7y agoNo killing, ideally, but getting lost maybe. The car should use its optics to stay on SOME road no matter what; in this case maybe it didn't stay on the RIGHT one.
- pwodhouse 7y agoThere's nothing to disclose. Tesla and everyone knows their system is vulnerable, and knows that the solution is that the driver of the car is responsible for driving the car, which prevents this attack from succeeding. Also it's not anymore dangerous than Google maps telling you to make a wrong turn or a map being out of date. Navigation is not a safety feature.
- merkaloid 7y agoIn the article it says that it makes the car drive recklessly, brake checks in the middle of the highway and zigzagging across lanes. I'm not sure how you can equate that to Google maps showing you an out of date map. Also, even if this isn't new information, that doesn't excuse them from writing an article with dangerous information, I don't recall getting bomb making instructions in the New York Times...
- falcolas 7y agoGo to your local library and check out the "Anarchists Handbook^wCookbook" then. It's about as equally available as your average blog post.
- stcredzero 7y agoAlthough the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the spoofing attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet away—abruptly slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a sharp turn off the main road. This could be used in an assassination. To prevent this, motorcades should use human drivers until self driving cars become smart enough to realize when they're being spoofed.
- keldaris 7y agoThis is sarcasm, right? "Self-driving" cars can't handle normal road conditions in most of the world, the idea that anyone would replace drivers skilled in offensive/defensive driving under urban combat conditions with an autopilot system is patently laughable.
- Chris_Chambers 7y agoHow long is it going to take you imbeciles to realize that self-driving cars will never work?
- jaytaylor 7y ago> Yonatan Zur, Regulus Cyber CEO and Co-Founder, emphasized this goes way beyond Regulus Cyber and Tesla: “We designed a product to protect vehicles from GNSS spoofing because we believe it is a real threat. .. By reporting and sharing incidents such as this we can ensure the autonomous technology will be safe and trustworthy.“ Regulus is reporting a host of vulnerabilities, and conveniently has already developed a product to "protect" against the problem (not necessarily solve it, no details are divulged in TFA). Regulus could be a good actor, but there is no denying they have incentive to slant the research and findings in a way favorable to their bottom line - SALES. I noticed a lot of fear statements in the article. Appealing to the emotion of fear is a classic, common sales tactic. Especially when it's difficult to precisely quantify the risks, likelihood, and full implications of the negative outcome. Until the claims are replicated and verified by an independent third party, best to take this report with a grain of salt. Especially regarding the Regulus Product purporting to protect against GPS / GNSS spoofing. --- An interesting and relevant moral question is: How many people are killed every day by human drivers? Would it be better if all motor vehicles switched to autonomous and the death by automobile accident rate drastically lowered, but was still greater than zero? Even with exploits like this GPS attack, I suspect the death rate will probably be substantially lower than it is with humans at the helm. As another thread points out, human drivers can be blinded with maliciously operated lasers, yet such events remain rare.
- the_duke 7y agoI don't know why you are downvoted, you make very valid points. This "report" was a very weird read for me. There is a lot of vague information, it uses language like "mission critical", "high impact", .... It then mentions that the immediate driving decisions are not affected, the attack can affect high level routing decisions - like making the car turn off the highway. Then it mentions all other car manufacturers as vulnerable, and indeed conveniently mentions it's product which will protect the car. There are plenty of concerns one should have about self-driving cars, but this is blatant self-promotion and obviously a PR piece.
- kosievdmerwe 7y ago> How many people are killed every day by human drivers? Would it be better if all motor vehicles switched to autonomous and the death by automobile accident rate drastically lowered, but was still greater than zero? The problem with this is the assumption that autonomous motors are good enough that switching everyone over would even be a net win. Accidents are already rare per mile, so evaluating safety is hard. And the makers of the autonomous vehicles are incentivized to fudge their data as it's potentially a massive market. That's never mind the fact that there's no clear quality control on what counts as autonomous. As an extreme example, a shitty Arduino app hooked up to servos and a single webcam could count and it almost certainly would not be safer than humans.
- jedberg 7y agoYou can shoot a laser into the eyes of a human driver and cause it to veer off the road too. But that’s illegal and immoral so most people don’t do it. All of these “attacks on self driving cars” are just different illegal things that a single person can do against a single car. But it doesn’t prove they’re any less safe.
- MuffinFlavored 7y agoI don't know if you can legally buy dangerous lasers, but anybody can access code + laptops, right?
- jedberg 7y agoA simple pen laser would be enough to blind someone and you can get them on amazon for $10, which is a lot cheaper than a laptop.
- loeg 7y agoLiterally anyone can buy a dangerous laser from China off ebay, alibaba, or other mostly legitimate ClearNet sites. They're not even expensive.
- fastball 7y agoYou can buy lasers strong enough to blind pilots[0], so you can definitely buy lasers strong enough to blind motorists. Also, the attack in this article required $550 worth of hardware in addition to code + laptop. [0] http://mentalfloss.com/article/65424/what-pilots-see-when-you-shine-laser-pointer-aircraft http://mentalfloss.com/article/65424/what-pilots-see-when-yo...
- knd775 7y agoAnyone (in the US at least) can legally buy dangerous lasers.
- toss1 7y agoyou can google "high powered handheld laser for sale" as fast as you could type that and find "50000mW burning laser" for $240 and 500mw lasers for $39 among the top listings... Yes, you can find cheap high-power lasers that will blind people and ignite things easily available and cheap.
- nippoo 7y agoAs a fair comparison, has anyone tried spoofing a car GPS with a human driver? If my satnav tried to tell me to exit off the highway (falsely) in 0.2 miles, you’d probably see me “signalling unnecessarily” and changing lanes at incorrect locations. After a while, I might distrust the GPS and attempt to navigate by using road signs instead (and a driverless car could also choose to disable GPS input in case of significant disagreement) but in both cases, a motivated attacker could probably convince the driver to navigate somewhere erroneous.
- reaperducer 7y agohas anyone tried spoofing a car GPS with a human driver In some of the more remote parts of America, GPS doesn't work very well, especially if you're near a military facility. (It's a pretty good indicator that you're near an "undeclared" military facility in the middle of nowhere.) I can't count the number of times my GPS map has shown me driving through a lake, or over flying over a mountain.
- 0xffff2 7y ago>I can't count the number of times my GPS map has shown me driving through a lake, or over flying over a mountain. That's odd because I can count the number of times it's happened to me. It's 0. This despite having actually been in the military. Civilian GPS receivers work fine these days, even on military installations. >It's a pretty good indicator that you're near an "undeclared" military facility in the middle of nowhere. What does that even mean? If it's really "undeclared" (I'm taking the scare quotes to imply "secret"), how would you actually be able to verify it?
- reaperducer 7y agoIf it's really "undeclared" (I'm taking the scare quotes to imply "secret"), how would you actually be able to verify it? Visually.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
- alkonaut 7y agoA simpler spoof is to paint new lane markings that just turn off the road and into a field or a bridge pillar (And I genuinely think handling that should be part of safety testing for all cars with lane assist tech. Not because it’s likely but because it’s the worst case outcome of bad markings). GPS can be wrong whether spoofed or not, and it should only make the car safely take the wrong exit in the worst case. It must be able to tell if the exit looks right and could reasonably represent the desired exit.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoSo spoof a fairly typical construction zone? Lanes leading into barriers and whatnot is pretty typical.
- fiftyfifty 7y agoAP definitely doesn't handle construction zones well. That's one of the main differences with human drivers is we look at more than just the road, we can see a construction zone a half mile ahead and read the signs that warn us when we get closer. We know the lanes are about to get messed up and we are ready for it. My wife's Tesla is surprised every time the lanes do something funny. We drove through a construction zone on the highway last weekend where they had shifted the road over and left the old lane lines on the road in addition to the new lines they had just painted, basically turning a 3 lane highway into 6 mini-lanes. The Tesla lost it's mind trying to figure out what to do and I had to take over. To a human it was pretty clear as the old lane lines were faded and the new ones were bright white. As humans the lanes are not our only point of reference, the lanes just keep the cars organized on the road. Until we have an autonomous system that can look beyond just the road and lanes and recognize the environment around the road I'm not sure we'll ever see fully autonomous driving.
- hathawsh 7y agoA few years ago, I was driving home late at night on a wide interstate highway with a nearly-pristine blanket of snow that fully obscured all the lane lines. The plows had not reached that section of road yet and no one was ahead of me. So I made my own path. It was weird, but obviously safe to any human. I wonder what fully autonomous cars would do in those conditions.
- ricardobeat 7y agoA lot of words here, but the video shows nothing besides the spoofed GPS location in the onboard screen. In particular, this is missing any kind of detail: > Although the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the spoofing attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet away—abruptly slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a sharp turn off the main road. The driver was not prepared for this turn and by the time he regained manual control, it was too late to attempt to maneuver back to the highway. So they forced the car to take the wrong exit? They stated just before that physical navigation/driving has no dependency on GPS. That’s a lot less dangerous than implied for “veering off road”, but the description is too fuzzy to know what really happened, and gives the article a suspicious tone.
- fastball 7y agoAlmost like the authors of the article have a conflict of interest as they are actively trying to sell a product to "mitigate" these attacks. In practice, I'm fairly certain that such an attack being highly illegal (which it already is) would be more than enough deterrent in 99.99% of cases, just as it is with people throwing rocks onto cars from bridges or shining lasers into driver's eyes.
- jacquesm 7y ago> just as it is with people throwing rocks onto cars from bridges or shining lasers into driver's eyes. Both of which happen with alarming regularity.
- modeless 7y agoMisleading headline. They spoofed GPS and caused the car to safely exit the highway at a different exit than planned. This is hardly an emergency. A human might easily make the same mistake if their GPS was spoofed. I don't trust Autopilot myself, I've had too many phantom braking incidents. But GPS spoofing is not a good reason to criticize Autopilot.
- judge2020 7y agoSay FSD comes online or NOA is enabled for city streets. A driver without their attention on the road might not notice the mistake, and a dedicated attacker could navigate the car wherever they wanted and do malicious things (attack the car, harm the passengers, etc). Sure, it's not a big problem now, but it could be a problem when the Tesla self-driving fleet comes online and it drives you to a back alleyway to get mugged and/or killed.
- modeless 7y agoA driver might also trust their phone's instructions with the same consequences. We know people often trust their GPS over road signs.
- jaimex2 7y agoYep. Its been done to death by security theatre "researchers", there's even an xkcd on it: https://xkcd.com/1958/ https://xkcd.com/1958/
- torpfactory 7y agoWe have a whole ecosystem of ride sharing apps that IMO are even more ripe for nefarious activities. If your Uber or Lyft driver wanted to hurt you, they very well could. This is such a low likelihood risk that it's barely work talking about.
- function_seven 7y agoAll that sounds pretty implausible. Sure, it's all technically possible, but it's a more complicated way of attacking a target. For one, the attacker would have to know in advance that you'll a) be actively navigating at the time, and (b) what your programmed route is (they have to know what to spoof). Then, they'll need to get their radio gear together, wait for you to come near, enable the spoofing contraption, hope you don't notice that the car just made an error and pulled into a dark alley instead of 42nd Street, and ambush you. Not gonna happen for a simple mugging. If you're a specific target, then sure, but your days are probably already numbered.
- dheera 7y agoI don't get these fears about spoofing autonomous cars to crash. It's already incredibly easy to spoof a human driver off the highway -- just toss a cadaver or mannequin into the road from a bridge. It's dangerous, illegal, and criminal. Spoofing autonomous cars with willful intent to injure the humans inside should be treated no differently.
- danhak 7y agoScale is everything.
- elisto 7y agoThere should be a lot of concern over stuff like this in the future when technology is expected to lead the way. Who pays the cost when something an accident caused by spoofing/etc happens? Who is in charge of checking the firmware/software to confirm what happened? What does the owner of the car do while there is an investigation (lease a car with insurance money?) How would the police find out the perpetrator? What if the perpetrator is out of their jurisdiction?
- gcb0 7y ago> Tesla emphasizes that “in both of these scenarios until truly driverless cars are validated and approved by regulators, drivers are responsible for and must remain ready to take manual control of their car at all times.” So, tesla/elon are officially thankful for regulation prevent themselves from screwing up worse than they are already?
- ausbah 7y agois it worthwhile for big firms like Tesla that produce these critical software and hardware systems consider hiring independent groups to try and exploit these critical systems for previously unseen bugs before they go into production? outside observers never seem to hurt with these sort of things
- rasz 7y ago> Although the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the spoofing attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet away—abruptly slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a sharp turn off the main road. Designer fail, why is navigation system explicitly trusting GPS signal while the car has multiple sources suitable for dead reckoning(1)? ABS sensors alone (distance) would tell you something was wrong (being teleported 2.5 miles forward), then you have accelerometers, compass, cameras supposedly able to recognize side roads. Tesla needs to work on their kalman filter implementation. 1) Etak https://patents.justia.com/patent/5948043 https://patents.justia.com/patent/5948043 dead reckoning patents expired by now.
- Waterluvian 7y agoI think you're a bit mixed up. The higher layer that manages strategy was tricked to make the lower layer safely exit at the wrong exit. At least that's my reading of it.
- antsar 7y agoI think 'rasz is suggesting that a well-designed higher layer should cross-check its various inputs before doing stupid things. If GPS says we moved but tire rotation says we didn't, well, maybe don't blindly trust the GPS?
- rasz 7y agoThats not even all that high level, as per Etak patent: "Based on the previous position of the object, the GPS derived position, the velocity, the DOP(dilution of precision) and the continuity of satellites for which data is received, the system determines whether the GPS data is reliable."
- rasz 7y agoCar made a sudden decision based on spoofed data from a single sensor despite abundant alternative sources. Article also mentions being able to manipulate victims suspension. Again you have tons of sensors reading road is glass smooth and straight but you listen to one unauthenticated source telling you its a bumpy dirt back alley - who are you going to believe?
- viburnum 7y agoI love all the comments here saying that the hack isn’t a problem because the car didn’t crash. That’s a pretty low bar.
- rando444 7y agoThat's literally the best possible result though. The only alternatives I can think of are using the military's encrypted gps, or tesla launching their own encrypted GPS satellite network. .. neither of which seem like realistic options. If you have a way to navigate cars without GPS, you should probably contact Tesla so you can make millions of dollars.
- viburnum 7y agoThe best result is to not claim to have an autopilot at all because they don’t work.
- howard941 7y agoRelated submission from yesterday notable for Tesla's snark https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227439
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoIs there maybe a future possibility of an eventual replacement for GPS being cryptographically signed in some way, so that we can verify it came from the United States government or what-have-you?
- dmitrygr 7y agoIt can be done, but is not as trivial as you might think. To start with, the actual bitrate of the data is quite low, and adding more bytes to send is not easy.
- Shivetya 7y agoI would hazard a guess that to provide some protection is that the system would would not permit real time update to existing road structure and using inertial guidance would rule out any change to its location that would be impossible to achieve within a set time. So say you tell the car an exit it has been confirming for sometime is three miles, any change in that distance based on what the car knows it is doing should be enough to flag it and require intervention. Granted a lot of the article is one sided but the cars need to be smart enough to know where they should be relative to where satellite places them especially when that information changes to quickly to be valid. the problem of self driving is fascinating and it just goes to show there is always someone or something that will throw a wrench into the process
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoJammer – ADALAM PLUTO $150 Spoofer – Blade RF SDR $400 FCC violation – Priceless If you're going to test RF spoofing please hardwire the transmitter to the receiver so nobody else is affected.
- 0xffff2 7y agoThe FCC hands out a lot of violations in Israel, does it? Regardless, I've never heard of Regulus before but they seem to be a legitimate company, not just a bunch of people winging it. Presumably they know better than we do whether they're violating any laws or regulations.
- ajross 7y agoCan someone help me here? I'm scanning through this and... not really finding much meat. They used a deliberate radio attack to spoof GPS signals and change the car's idea about where it was in a fundamentally unrecoverable way, and it seems the only thing they got the car to do incorrectly was... take a wrong turn? I mean, yeah. If you take away someone's maps and compass they might get lost. What am I missing?
- eridius 7y agoNot just lost; you can make them drive exactly where you want them to go. As long as a human is behind the wheel this won't be terribly effective except as a disruptive tactic, but once there's nobody behind the wheel you could use this to hijack any autonomous car and make it drive where you want it to drive. This might be especially effective when using autonomous vehicles for long-range shipping, where you could force the truck to drive to a warehouse under your control where you can then steal its cargo.
- ajross 7y agoTo be fair, that's not at all what was demonstrated. But... OK. If you can put a transmitter on top of a vehicle in motion you can take control and make it drive to your destination? How is that significantly more damaging or dangerous or "bad" than just grabbing it with a tow truck? Or hijacking it? Or just stealing the vehicle itself? I mean... this just doesn't really seem like an indictment of autonomous driving to me. People were successfully stealing stuff out of horse drawn carriages (or hell, just stealing the horses) and we all seemed to survive just fine. Seriously, this just doesn't seem like a doomsday kind of thing. Needs more spin.
- eridius 7y agoBecause this doesn't require putting a transmitter on top of the vehicle. As the article itself mentioned, this sort of GPS spoofing has already been demonstrated to be effective at range. For the purposes of Regulus's tests they didn't need to do it at range, mounting a transmitter on the top of the car was sufficient to demonstrate that an external spoof is possible > The spoofer can easily use an off the shelf high-gain directional antenna to get a range of up to a mile. If they add an amplifier, a range of a few miles is very much possible. It has already been proven that spoofing can even occur across dozens of miles, for example in the Black Sea spoofing attack in June 2017. And literally nobody is saying this is a doomsday. What they are saying is that autonomous cars need to recognize this attack vector and take steps to combat it. The fact that stealing or hijacking vehicles has always been possible doesn't mean we need to deliberately turn a blind eye toward a new and potentially very effective attack against autonomous vehicles.
- mattbeckman 7y agoCould you spoof the car to exit and continue thinking you were still on a freeway? A car being spoofed into thinking it was still on a freeway, while driving on city streets, might not prioritize certain rules when it approaches an intersection.
- arwineap 7y agoThere's two components in the system. The first component is the autodrive which uses only visual sensors to stay in the lane, stay away from the car in front of you, and maintain speed. The second component seems to be the routing which enabled the first component to use turn signals, and route with maps. This is the piece that uses gps. Since their attack only affects the cars GPS it does not affect the car's driving style.
- cr4zy 7y agoRelated recent research that handles decoy waypoints [1][2]. They use imitation learning for path planning directly from sensor data, instead of just using machine learning for perception, tracking, prediction and doing MPC/LQR for the planner. This allows inferring weird paths, perhaps, like "run into this narrow pit stop" :) [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06544 https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06544 [2] https://sites.google.com/view/imitativeforecastingcontrol https://sites.google.com/view/imitativeforecastingcontrol
- Zarathustra_ 7y agoI guess I'm an interesting blend of geek and luddite. I enjoy tinkering with computers immensely, but prefer to leave them in their place. I don't like carrying a phone, don't use social networks, don't play video-games, etc. As part of this perspective, I have an intense distrust of self-driving cars. There is a great deal of difference between digitizing analog devices (using new devices to fill old roles), and creating new roles for tech to fill. I'm just a little too wary when it comes to driving. I can't stand the idea of a car grabbing control from me and braking, though some people I know drive such cars and regard it as a feature. I don't know if this comes because of a technical background or not. As I have learned more about software development, assembly, cybersecurity, etc. over the years, I have become more rather than less accepting of things like self-driving cars. This applies to IoT as well. I will never, ever, ever have one of those glorified wiretaps they call "voice assistants". What do they do, any way? I don't really care about being able to tell a speaker to order more laundry detergent. Nor do I want any of these goofy "smart" appliances - why do I care about my toaster sending me push notifications when my bread is done? Or mining bitcoin? I guess I just felt like ranting. I hope one of you can convince me such a cynical outlook is wrong, as I get a bit sick of viewing new stuff with negativity.
- Hi_I_am_Eddie 7y agoThey actually just put up a link to a webinar for live Q&A on this. I plan on attending and getting some clarifications. Hope they invited Tesla rep too. https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Etd3Z1ZjRTWaU95kPfPfhQ https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Etd3Z1ZjRTWaU95kPfPfhQ