9 ms·
>The fact that the manufacturer can remote into their cars, does not automatically mean that the car is vulnerable to remote hacking If your car can connect to
by lozaning 6y ago
>The fact that the manufacturer can remote into their cars, does not automatically mean that the car is vulnerable to remote hacking
If your car can connect to the internet it's vulnerable to hacking via the internet. My car, which is incapable of connecting to the internet suffers no such potential for abuse.
- bdamm 6y agoJust because the car has external connectivity doesn't mean the car has abusable vulnerabilities. Of course, some vendors are going to be better than others when it comes to hardening, pen-testing, and good operational security.
- mysterydip 6y agoEven if the only allowable connection is the legitimate manufacturer's, the manufacturer itself could be compromised one day (if not already), allowing malicious commands to be sent on the trusted downlink. Or an "oops I found a bug in the code you just pushed to 100,000 cars" could happen accodentally.
- Retric 6y agoIt’s unlikely but possible for an over the airway connection to actually be inherently secure. One example is an isolated system that could monitor say engine temperatures and oil pressure and nothing else.
- compiler-guy 6y agoThat sort of system is totally _possible_, but not the way any modern automotive connectivity works.
- outworlder 6y agoModern automotive connectivity is via the CAN bus. It is not a given that the system that's internet connected is even able to talk to the CAN bus.
- Dylan16807 6y agoHow's it going to unlock the car if it's not talking to the important parts? Sure someone could make a dedicated secure unlock wire or something, but they don't.
- novok 6y agoMost are. GM OnStar systems & Tesla I know for sure are designed in a way that a malicious hack of HQ computers + research into car firmware could lead to a push that would kill potentially millions of people simultaneously. If I really dived into the others, I wouldn't be surprised if ford, VW, toyota and others had similar system design issues. We are just lucky we live in a world where even 'hackers' don't go that low. I hope future regulation will mandate remote access airgaps. I don't think it's a big price to pay for non-entertainment / GPS software updates to require a physical connection
- tatersolid 6y ago> We are just lucky we live in a world where even 'hackers' don't go that low. Unfortunately they do go that low. There have been multiple murders committed by ransomware gangs attacking European and US hospitals in recent months. Example: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/patient-dies-after-ransomware-attack-reroutes-her-to-remote-hospital/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/09/patie...
- novok 6y agoThat's more spray and pray damage then a specific hack on hospitals.
- tatersolid 6y ago
- umvi 6y agoTheoretically if the systems are properly decoupled and airgapped than the hacking surface area should be quite low. You might be able to hijack the music coming through the speakers, but you should never be able to control the brakes over the internet. In real life is that what actually happens? Sadly, no. Car companies seem to make a lot of bone-headed systems engineering design decisions (such as having a computer network path connecting infotainment to critical safety systems)
- R0b0t1 6y agoHow small the surface is is irrelevant, an internet connected car is more of a risk. I don't want all these features in a car.
- Faark 6y ago> Theoretically if the systems are properly decoupled and airgapped than the hacking surface area should be quite low. Since an over the air update is supposed to improve your 0 to 60 times, pretty much all systems must allow to be updated and thus hardly can be airgapped.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoSomething that is connected to the Internet is, by definition, not airgapped.
- castratikron 6y agoIt's probably on a VPN or a private APN and not the internet.