3 ms·
This is not even the first time, if we look at the car industry. Possibly different wireless protocol, but same idea: proximity without (tight-enough) time-of-f
by k_sze 4y ago
This is not even the first time, if we look at the car industry. Possibly different wireless protocol, but same idea: proximity without (tight-enough) time-of-flight check. How has Tesla not learned the lesson?
- bipson 4y agoThey are very proud of the fact that they don't follow other's "lessons learned" - because Elon assumes everyone else is an idiot and their assumptions suck. Sometimes he's right. Often he is not. Several dramatic "defects" of Tesla's could have been prevented - but why should Tesla care? "Bring it in for a fix!" they say. "It is not our money! Haha!" they say. And investors and buyers keep coming.
- manicdee 4y agoWhat lesson is there to learn? Why do you single out Tesla? The title is wrong, this is a generic attack against BLE.
- k_sze 4y agoRelay attacks (not specific to BLE) had been demonstrated at least more than 3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18608452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18608452 The lesson should have been to 1) pick or come up with an adequate protocol that includes tight time-of-flight checks or 2) not use proximity auth at all, if it is impossible to mitigate against relay attacks, in terms of physics and maths. I'm saying Tesla's engineers should have known better, by 1) paying attention to news in the industry; and 2) properly understanding BLE before choosing it as the auth protocol.