4 ms·

What do you mean by "still exist"? Obviously a vuln was found in one that was inside a Model S, reported to Tesla and fixed.

stefan_ 7y ago
Marvel fixed the bug in their firmware and apparently Tesla shipped some sort of update, I don't see anything that necessarily requires Parrot, the obscure maker of these modules, to do anything.
- cjbprime 7y ago
  Oh! You misunderstood my question: I meant to ask whether Tesla's latest software update continues to ship a 2.6.36 kernel on Parrot, or a newer kernel instead, as they do for their other modules. (Tesla uses the name Parrot to refer to this system in the car.) A reason for them not to still be on 2.6.36 is that it's deeply exploitable.
  - stefan_ 7y ago
    I think the root of the confusion here is that you think Parrot is just a Tesla nickname. But Parrot is the name of the manufacturer of the fully-integrated WiFi+Bluetooth module so Tesla likely have nothing to do with the firmware that runs on that module with the ancient kernel. As far as I can tell, Parrot-the-module-maker split from Parrot-the-drone-company and is now http://parrot-faurecia-automotive.com http://parrot-faurecia-automotive.com
    - cjbprime 7y ago
      Oh, I didn't get that impression. Keen's previous Black Hat paper made it sound like Tesla is dual-maintaining 2.6.36 and 4.x kernels, because they're unable/unwilling to upgrade from 2.6.36 on the Parrot board but are still issuing kernel fixes for it.
      - stefan_ 7y ago
        Looking at the datasheet some more, it does seem like the intention is for Tesla (or some other customer) to develop userland software and integrate that with Parrots SDK into a final firmware image for the module. But in that case, their situation is much the same as it is with the nVidia Tegra entertainment board: you are totally dependent on nVidia and Parrot to provide the basic infrastructure from bootloader to a Linux kernel with drivers to interface all the functionality they are selling you (a BSP). None of their hardware has any part upstreamed. In Teslas position, as the ultimate vendor that is shipping this stuff on thousands of cars, you might decide that your supplier isn't forthcoming with security updates and decide to backport some isolated fixes to the kernel, but an upgrade from 2.6 to say even 4.4 is entirely out of the question; there are thousands of lines of hacked-together proprietary vendor code in those kernels where just going up a minor version will break the build. For a 2.6 based system in particular, you would essentially need to convert the entire board support to a device tree based system.
        cjbprime 7y ago
        This is fine, but not an answer to the actual question of whether Tesla is still shipping 2.6.36 on a Model S's Parrot system today. Parrot-the-company could have given an updated kernel in the year or so since the vulnerability was reported, or like you say Tesla could have taken on the mammoth task of maintaining an out of tree arch port themselves. It would be useful to know whether this happened, since if it's still running 2.6.36 it would be reasonable to consider the devices as extremely vulnerable in the wild today. > but an upgrade from 2.6 to say even 4.4 is entirely out of the question We did this kind of transition at OLPC ten or so years ago, helping Marvell upstream enough of their arch support code for a new ARM SoC to move us from their private 2.6 branch to latest public upstream (including the move to device tree), and with only a few kernel engineers working on it. Tesla surely has many times more resources; it's not entirely out of the question, but it's true that it's probably not economical for a minor support chip. Although, it's the minor support chip that's connected to the outside world..
        mschuster91 7y ago
        > there are thousands of lines of hacked-together proprietary vendor code in those kernels where just going up a minor version will break the build. For a 2.6 based system in particular, you would essentially need to convert the entire board support to a device tree based system. What I don't get with these cases at all: by the GPL manufacturers are forced to provide the full (!) Linux kernel source code, same goes for u-boot. But while Tesla at least seems to provide source code (https://github.com/teslamotors https://github.com/teslamotors), why the fuck and how can Android phone and other embedded device makers get away with not publishing anything? Let's just take two examples of hardware that I know run Linux because I managed to root them: - Sony A7S2 camera: the firmware is at https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/downloads/00016077 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/downloads/00016077, but no mention at all about contained open-source code, licenses, or build instructions - HP Z2100 24-inch plotter: firmware is at https://support.hp.com/sg-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-designjet-z2100-photo-printer-series/3204963 https://support.hp.com/sg-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-designje... (you have to select Windows XP 32-bit to see the firmware download, even though the firmware can be installed via anything capable of running a browser), and again, no mention of anything regarding Linux.

stefan_ 7y ago

Marvel fixed the bug in their firmware and apparently Tesla shipped some sort of update, I don't see anything that necessarily requires Parrot, the obscure maker of these modules, to do anything.

cjbprime 7y ago
Oh! You misunderstood my question: I meant to ask whether Tesla's latest software update continues to ship a 2.6.36 kernel on Parrot, or a newer kernel instead, as they do for their other modules. (Tesla uses the name Parrot to refer to this system in the car.) A reason for them not to still be on 2.6.36 is that it's deeply exploitable.
- stefan_ 7y ago
  I think the root of the confusion here is that you think Parrot is just a Tesla nickname. But Parrot is the name of the manufacturer of the fully-integrated WiFi+Bluetooth module so Tesla likely have nothing to do with the firmware that runs on that module with the ancient kernel. As far as I can tell, Parrot-the-module-maker split from Parrot-the-drone-company and is now http://parrot-faurecia-automotive.com http://parrot-faurecia-automotive.com
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    Oh, I didn't get that impression. Keen's previous Black Hat paper made it sound like Tesla is dual-maintaining 2.6.36 and 4.x kernels, because they're unable/unwilling to upgrade from 2.6.36 on the Parrot board but are still issuing kernel fixes for it.
    - stefan_ 7y ago
      Looking at the datasheet some more, it does seem like the intention is for Tesla (or some other customer) to develop userland software and integrate that with Parrots SDK into a final firmware image for the module. But in that case, their situation is much the same as it is with the nVidia Tegra entertainment board: you are totally dependent on nVidia and Parrot to provide the basic infrastructure from bootloader to a Linux kernel with drivers to interface all the functionality they are selling you (a BSP). None of their hardware has any part upstreamed. In Teslas position, as the ultimate vendor that is shipping this stuff on thousands of cars, you might decide that your supplier isn't forthcoming with security updates and decide to backport some isolated fixes to the kernel, but an upgrade from 2.6 to say even 4.4 is entirely out of the question; there are thousands of lines of hacked-together proprietary vendor code in those kernels where just going up a minor version will break the build. For a 2.6 based system in particular, you would essentially need to convert the entire board support to a device tree based system.
      - cjbprime 7y ago
        This is fine, but not an answer to the actual question of whether Tesla is still shipping 2.6.36 on a Model S's Parrot system today. Parrot-the-company could have given an updated kernel in the year or so since the vulnerability was reported, or like you say Tesla could have taken on the mammoth task of maintaining an out of tree arch port themselves. It would be useful to know whether this happened, since if it's still running 2.6.36 it would be reasonable to consider the devices as extremely vulnerable in the wild today. > but an upgrade from 2.6 to say even 4.4 is entirely out of the question We did this kind of transition at OLPC ten or so years ago, helping Marvell upstream enough of their arch support code for a new ARM SoC to move us from their private 2.6 branch to latest public upstream (including the move to device tree), and with only a few kernel engineers working on it. Tesla surely has many times more resources; it's not entirely out of the question, but it's true that it's probably not economical for a minor support chip. Although, it's the minor support chip that's connected to the outside world..
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        > there are thousands of lines of hacked-together proprietary vendor code in those kernels where just going up a minor version will break the build. For a 2.6 based system in particular, you would essentially need to convert the entire board support to a device tree based system. What I don't get with these cases at all: by the GPL manufacturers are forced to provide the full (!) Linux kernel source code, same goes for u-boot. But while Tesla at least seems to provide source code (https://github.com/teslamotors https://github.com/teslamotors), why the fuck and how can Android phone and other embedded device makers get away with not publishing anything? Let's just take two examples of hardware that I know run Linux because I managed to root them: - Sony A7S2 camera: the firmware is at https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/downloads/00016077 https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/downloads/00016077, but no mention at all about contained open-source code, licenses, or build instructions - HP Z2100 24-inch plotter: firmware is at https://support.hp.com/sg-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-designjet-z2100-photo-printer-series/3204963 https://support.hp.com/sg-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-designje... (you have to select Windows XP 32-bit to see the firmware download, even though the firmware can be installed via anything capable of running a browser), and again, no mention of anything regarding Linux.