3 ms·

> 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 G

> 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 ago
I 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.

the_duke 7y ago

I 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.