3 ms·

Counter argument. The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply. Just be-careful of the weapons you choose to wield again

Counter argument. The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply. Just be-careful of the weapons you choose to wield against well funded campaigns. Do we want another “giving access to car maintenance data will lead to you being attacked in dark car parks”? My point is, if the anti right to repair side came out with “omfg, rtr will allow hackers to attack food production”; we can come back with pointing out how dumb of an idea it is (just no one point out the car hacking village to anyone :-p), but if you lead with the national security angle, you have given the the anti r2r side free rein to say “no, closed locks are better then open locks when it comes to keeping the bad guy out of your home”.

atatatat 5y ago
You can give the user a firmware write-screw (Chromebooks), and bootloader locks (and reasonable smartphone). Prop up the next excuse!
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  I'm for right to repair, my point was about how it plays out in the "publics" eyes, not techies eyes. But the issue I personally have with "firmware write enable" switches is that the ave person doesn't want to mess about with then every time there is an update and bootloader locks are still locks you often have to seek the permisson of the vendor to unlock OR they get disabled once you need "unsupported access" and not re-enabled (sometimes, re-enabling them disables what ever you needed it disabled for in the first place so you can't re-enable it). One of the criticisms of Windows XP was that lots of "ave joes" just ignored Windows Updates, so even though MS released patches for bugs you could still find plently of vulnerable systems, after all your ave joe just wants to "get on with it" when they are using their computer. Putting in hinderances for the "avg joe" will (imo) only lead to fewer devices taking up firmware updates. However a) we are talking about farm gear, so its not like its your "avg joe" using them, plently of farmers are used to getting it fixed, even if its just a bodge so they can get their job done b) if the bootloaders/firmware switch still allows updates from "a trusted source" while locked then it doesn't hinder auto-updates and allows the techies of the world to play outside the sandbox.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    You're describing an education problem, not a software problem. Trying to retrofit the same code to 100k different models of machine will never work, even when we're at Windows 18. Educate the people around you about basic computing shit, and donate to institutions that do it at scale.
jasonladuke0311 5y ago
> The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply. No, they don't. In fact, this makes them MORE vulnerable IMO. Hack John Deere and push a malicious update that bricks the fleet.
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  Just stating what the arguement will/has been. It was a simpliar aguement to what what was recently stated in auto right to repair https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44?t=60 https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44?t=60 - not terrorists but still pretty dam high on the fear factor. I fully agree that its just a single supplychain hack away from remote bricking not just John Deere but also pretty much anything connected. I'm just trying to make the point that the other side are not against using scare tactics already, do we really want to push them to even greater scare tactics? EDIT: Remember, its not the geeks you have to win over, its the general public and / or lawmakers (who stereotypically have not always what I would call "geeks") that have to be won over. Thankfully in that Massachusetts case the bill allowing mechanics to access the data passed, I personally don't think an escalation of the tactics from our side would end well for us.
Mordisquitos 5y ago
Counter-counter argument: If farm equipment must have software that is critical for it to function (which is debatable), it's hardly rocket surgery to air-gap farm equipment by design. In fact, it takes a shocking amount of arguably pointless effort for it not to be air-gapped. That would make it immune to any cyber terrorist without physical access to each individual machine. If they did have access to a significant amount of farm equipment, then software protection would be the least of the concerns in terms of food security.
- Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
  The problem with that is they are getting more and more connected for fleet management and automation, so the arguement would be that things like JDLink are no longer permitted.
  - clankyclanker 5y ago
    At that point, it’s more time effective for the attackers to disable the management hub or attack any other piece farther up the supply chain. The oil pipeline ransomware shutdown is a perfect example of attack efficiency. I don’t know of a situation where air-gapping already automated farm equipment is the most important next step.

atatatat 5y ago

You can give the user a firmware write-screw (Chromebooks), and bootloader locks (and reasonable smartphone). Prop up the next excuse!

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
I'm for right to repair, my point was about how it plays out in the "publics" eyes, not techies eyes. But the issue I personally have with "firmware write enable" switches is that the ave person doesn't want to mess about with then every time there is an update and bootloader locks are still locks you often have to seek the permisson of the vendor to unlock OR they get disabled once you need "unsupported access" and not re-enabled (sometimes, re-enabling them disables what ever you needed it disabled for in the first place so you can't re-enable it). One of the criticisms of Windows XP was that lots of "ave joes" just ignored Windows Updates, so even though MS released patches for bugs you could still find plently of vulnerable systems, after all your ave joe just wants to "get on with it" when they are using their computer. Putting in hinderances for the "avg joe" will (imo) only lead to fewer devices taking up firmware updates. However a) we are talking about farm gear, so its not like its your "avg joe" using them, plently of farmers are used to getting it fixed, even if its just a bodge so they can get their job done b) if the bootloaders/firmware switch still allows updates from "a trusted source" while locked then it doesn't hinder auto-updates and allows the techies of the world to play outside the sandbox.
- atatatat 5y ago
  You're describing an education problem, not a software problem. Trying to retrofit the same code to 100k different models of machine will never work, even when we're at Windows 18. Educate the people around you about basic computing shit, and donate to institutions that do it at scale.

jasonladuke0311 5y ago

> The software locks help prevent the cyber terrorists from attacking the food supply. No, they don't. In fact, this makes them MORE vulnerable IMO. Hack John Deere and push a malicious update that bricks the fleet.

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
Just stating what the arguement will/has been. It was a simpliar aguement to what what was recently stated in auto right to repair https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44?t=60 https://youtu.be/EozPi1qmH44?t=60 - not terrorists but still pretty dam high on the fear factor. I fully agree that its just a single supplychain hack away from remote bricking not just John Deere but also pretty much anything connected. I'm just trying to make the point that the other side are not against using scare tactics already, do we really want to push them to even greater scare tactics? EDIT: Remember, its not the geeks you have to win over, its the general public and / or lawmakers (who stereotypically have not always what I would call "geeks") that have to be won over. Thankfully in that Massachusetts case the bill allowing mechanics to access the data passed, I personally don't think an escalation of the tactics from our side would end well for us.

Mordisquitos 5y ago

Counter-counter argument: If farm equipment must have software that is critical for it to function (which is debatable), it's hardly rocket surgery to air-gap farm equipment by design. In fact, it takes a shocking amount of arguably pointless effort for it not to be air-gapped. That would make it immune to any cyber terrorist without physical access to each individual machine. If they did have access to a significant amount of farm equipment, then software protection would be the least of the concerns in terms of food security.

Crosseye_Jack 5y ago
The problem with that is they are getting more and more connected for fleet management and automation, so the arguement would be that things like JDLink are no longer permitted.
- clankyclanker 5y ago
  At that point, it’s more time effective for the attackers to disable the management hub or attack any other piece farther up the supply chain. The oil pipeline ransomware shutdown is a perfect example of attack efficiency. I don’t know of a situation where air-gapping already automated farm equipment is the most important next step.