4 ms·
That's not more effective, and much much more risky, and this method leaves evidence, while powered off or zeroed and rebooted dram contents don't.
by nullifidian 5y ago
That's not more effective, and much much more risky, and this method leaves evidence, while powered off or zeroed and rebooted dram contents don't.
- klmadfejno 5y agoThere's a low upper bound on efficacy. You can only kill someone once. Realistically both methods leave evidence. To do a code exploit you need to find something, sit on it hoping its upatched, and then hope nobody can figure out that you did it when they do their extensive analysis of why a car suddenly did something extremely rare and dangerous, else you lose the exploit.
- nullifidian 5y ago>car suddenly did something extremely rare and dang In absence of anything else, and cleaned up dram + fake logs is really an absence, it's always ascribed to driver oversight, distraction, loss of control. >Realistically both methods leave evidence. Yes, computing leaves "evidence" in form of heat(entropy).
- klmadfejno 5y agoI'm not a security expert but I find this idea to be unlikely. That someone could hack into a car, force it to drive into a guaranteed lethal accident, and successfully remove all traces, and manage to fool the telemetry analysts into thinking that it was just a fluke when things like this never happen is extremely improbable to me.
- jsight 5y agoExactly, and the real risk is if you fail. Brakes can overpower motors on these cars. Even if you can exploit the system well enough to trigger full power (you can't) you'd then have a high risk that the person would notice, hit the brakes, and stop in time. If they didn't stop in time, you'd have the risk that the accident wouldn't be fatal. This can easily lead to an investigation and a failed assassination. The lowest risk option is the one that works every time, despite how fun the movie plot scenarios are to think about.