4 ms·
Right, but it's surprising that Tesla would be one of those vendors since they have an ongoing obligation to the security of their devices. It looks like their
by cjbprime 7y ago
Right, but it's surprising that Tesla would be one of those vendors since they have an ongoing obligation to the security of their devices.
It looks like their open source disclosure of the kernel source is a 4.4 kernel, so something weird is going on there. Maybe they got off 2.6 since the time the vulnerability was discovered?
I see something saying they moved to 4.4 in the 8.1 update in June 2017, which is confusing because it suggests the vulnerability was never live.
But I also see they have multiple CPUs running Linux and don't update the kernel on all of them at the same time, so perhaps the CPU running the 8686 driver wasn't updated?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- stopads 7y agoA former Tesla software engineer posted a thread on twitter a few months ago describing their development/release process and it was a total mess of hacky bad practices that barely worked at all. It does not seem like software is much of a priority for them.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoObviously delivering cars is their priority. I’m not sure what else you would expect?
- stopads 7y agoWell they are pretending to be a tech company to wall street and consumers, so someone is lying.
- dlgeek 7y agoMany (major) tech companies have just as bad internal engineering infrastructure.
- opless 7y agoWhat's worse is they are very resistant to change. Think Banks and Windows XP. Except without Microsoft drawing a line in the sand and saying that they're no longer offering even paid support for it. If the change doesn't bring in value for the shareholders (or business) there will be no change.