6 ms·
I believe it was something to this affect that prevented us from implementing decent crypto for vehicles. There was some rule about export (possibly to the US o
by bArray 6y ago
I believe it was something to this affect that prevented us from implementing decent crypto for vehicles. There was some rule about export (possibly to the US or out of the US) that meant there was a limitation on how secure we could make the software. As a result, everybody ended up getting the same shitty low-security version of the product worldwide (they wanted to limit the number of variations for test coverage).
- jtbayly 6y agoThat sounds like a win for vehicle owners, honestly, given that encryption is often used for locking owners out of the ability to change things about their car without paying the manufacturer more money.
- bArray 6y agoYou might think so, but the encryption used at the time was such that only somebody with quite a few resources (such as a government actor) could reasonably break the encryption. It wasn't a win for owners or tinkerers. What's more worrying is that there are a bunch of vehicles out there with security that is going to age * very * fast compared to that used every day (SSH, certs, etc). Consider that the automotive industry might be under similar constraints with regards to autonomous vehicles, something a bad actor could really cause some damage with.