4 ms·

Yes, but that's a losing game - the manufacturers will continually tighten security until it's infeasible - see how difficult it is to jailbreak current-generat

by fouric 5y ago

Yes, but that's a losing game - the manufacturers will continually tighten security until it's infeasible - see how difficult it is to jailbreak current-generation iPhones and game consoles, for instance. The only ways out are social (consumers acting en masse to exert market pressure) or legal (regulation). You can't hack your way around this issue - as the attacker, the strong crypto that exists (and enables things like firmware signing) is not on your side.

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
Sadly, you are right. One of the themes in "Car Wars" is that laws are created which make it illegal to run unapproved software on the self-driving cars. The reasons cited for the laws are "for safety", but it seems like a thin veneer over the car manufacturer having complete control of the car's software, and by extension the car itself.
- atat7024 5y ago
  > laws are created which make it illegal to run unapproved software on the self-driving cars. Enforcement impossible.
Ygg2 5y ago
But the thing is, those things will be broken in the future. Even if unfeasible now, they will be in future.
fy20 5y ago
Not everyone cares about regulations :-) My country has (since fall of USSR) been one of the biggest used car markets in Europe, and as cars have added more and more electronics people have started figuring out how they work and developing tools to work around them. I recently came across (randomly browsing) a device developed here that plugs into the OBD port and disables the AdBlue system (an extra fluid you need to fill up often, which reduces emissions on newer diesel engines, if you don't the vehicle refuses to start). The advertising was targeted at commercial vehicles. It's not illegal for the manufacturer to make, and if the driver of the truck is ever stopped by police they just pull it out. Nobody is any the wiser. But saving ~5% of the fuel costs definitely affects the bottom line of the company.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Does AdBlue comply with some sort of legal regulations on emissions?
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  Honestly, I hope people who disable the emission control systems on their cars get the book thrown at them.
  - fy20 5y ago
    That's a tricky comment. For disabling something that is perfectly functional I agree, but if it's broken then what to do? Since the late 2000s all diesel vehicles sold in Europe have had a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that helps reduce NOx emissions. After 150,000 - 200,000km these end up becoming blocked up and need replacing. If you don't you'll have reduced engine power and could even damage the engine. Except you can't get a replacement, these parts are designed for that specific car, often have complicated electronics, etc. You can sometimes get remanufactured or used parts from salvage, but they probably aren't going to last very long and are still expensive (€1500+ for parts and labour). So you have a car that is perfectly functional, except the emissions system is broken. Replacing it may cost a significant fraction of the value of the car. What pretty much everyone does (even in Western countries) is have it removed. Of course you aren't supposed to, and this is supposed to be checked when the vehicle is inspected (visually, note that car inspections do not test NOx emissions in Europe), but everyone turns a blind eye. The manufacturers are the ones who are really to blame here. Why make something that can't be replaced on the car? I'd really like to see the EU taking a harder line on diesel engines (petrol is much less polluting), but it's probably not going to happen because of the big car manufacturers who are all heavily invested in diesel. In most of Europe petrol is taxed more than diesel, which from an environmental viewpoint really doesn't make any sense. With hybrid technology petrol can be just as fuel efficient, and is mechanically much simpler. At least EVs seem to be set to take over both for light vehicles.

by fouric 5y ago

thesuperbigfrog 5y ago

Sadly, you are right. One of the themes in "Car Wars" is that laws are created which make it illegal to run unapproved software on the self-driving cars. The reasons cited for the laws are "for safety", but it seems like a thin veneer over the car manufacturer having complete control of the car's software, and by extension the car itself.

atat7024 5y ago
> laws are created which make it illegal to run unapproved software on the self-driving cars. Enforcement impossible.

Ygg2 5y ago

But the thing is, those things will be broken in the future. Even if unfeasible now, they will be in future.

fy20 5y ago

Not everyone cares about regulations :-) My country has (since fall of USSR) been one of the biggest used car markets in Europe, and as cars have added more and more electronics people have started figuring out how they work and developing tools to work around them. I recently came across (randomly browsing) a device developed here that plugs into the OBD port and disables the AdBlue system (an extra fluid you need to fill up often, which reduces emissions on newer diesel engines, if you don't the vehicle refuses to start). The advertising was targeted at commercial vehicles. It's not illegal for the manufacturer to make, and if the driver of the truck is ever stopped by police they just pull it out. Nobody is any the wiser. But saving ~5% of the fuel costs definitely affects the bottom line of the company.

saagarjha 5y ago
Does AdBlue comply with some sort of legal regulations on emissions?
ChuckNorris89 5y ago
Honestly, I hope people who disable the emission control systems on their cars get the book thrown at them.
- fy20 5y ago
  That's a tricky comment. For disabling something that is perfectly functional I agree, but if it's broken then what to do? Since the late 2000s all diesel vehicles sold in Europe have had a diesel particulate filter (DPF) that helps reduce NOx emissions. After 150,000 - 200,000km these end up becoming blocked up and need replacing. If you don't you'll have reduced engine power and could even damage the engine. Except you can't get a replacement, these parts are designed for that specific car, often have complicated electronics, etc. You can sometimes get remanufactured or used parts from salvage, but they probably aren't going to last very long and are still expensive (€1500+ for parts and labour). So you have a car that is perfectly functional, except the emissions system is broken. Replacing it may cost a significant fraction of the value of the car. What pretty much everyone does (even in Western countries) is have it removed. Of course you aren't supposed to, and this is supposed to be checked when the vehicle is inspected (visually, note that car inspections do not test NOx emissions in Europe), but everyone turns a blind eye. The manufacturers are the ones who are really to blame here. Why make something that can't be replaced on the car? I'd really like to see the EU taking a harder line on diesel engines (petrol is much less polluting), but it's probably not going to happen because of the big car manufacturers who are all heavily invested in diesel. In most of Europe petrol is taxed more than diesel, which from an environmental viewpoint really doesn't make any sense. With hybrid technology petrol can be just as fuel efficient, and is mechanically much simpler. At least EVs seem to be set to take over both for light vehicles.