6 ms·

My car wouldn't drive without software telling it what to do. I find it very disturbing that I can't it. I think life-critical software should be open source

My car wouldn't drive without software telling it what to do. I find it very disturbing that I can't it. I think life-critical software should be open source by law ..

yuvadam 15y ago
Though nothing would delight me more than to be able to hack my cars open-source firmware, I can't see that happening by a long shot. Security-by-obscurity is still a - supposedly - valid claim nowadays.
- pantaloons 15y ago
  There's nothing that would delight me less than driving on the road with someone who has hacked their cars firmware. In any case this seems more like competitive advantage through obscurity than security through obscurity, for the same reason that manufacturers don't include blueprints and engine schematics.
  - MoreMoschops 15y ago
    "There's nothing that would delight me less than driving on the road with someone who has hacked their cars firmware." Engine tuners already do this.
    - d99kris 15y ago
      Yes. And also developers/testers of other electronic control units in the vehicle. The early phase development is always in simulators and on test tracks, but typically car manufacturers have deals with the governments which allow them to drive on regular roads with systems under development. Of course, should something happen, there's a number to call to get towed away quickly.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      Only a very small part of the firmware, or more specifically, not really the firmware but just some chips that control the ignition timing and gas mixture. None of which puts other drivers at risk; at worst they blow up the engine of their own car (I don't know if that's possible with chip tuning, just saying). Many 'types' of car tuning that cause danger are already prohibited on most places. But if somebody could rewrite the firmware so that the car stereo controls all of a sudden are the only way to actuate the brakes, that could create very dangerous situations. Which I why I hope that there will remain strong regulations on what firmware people can load onto their cars, at least in as far as they use that car on public roads.
      - leviathant 15y ago
        Fairly recently, a box came out for the car I drive that lets you use the steering wheel volume controls to upshift and downshift. The same box has a trick that, under very controlled circumstances, allows you to lock only the front brakes (the car is RWD) until your speed is > 5mph. You have to be in fake-manual mode, set to 1st gear, with the brakes depressed, and the box enabled. Then you pull back on the cruise control stalk to engage the brakes. There's really no way to accidentally engage the mode, but yeah, that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're worried about. Using the cruise control stalk to trick the car into thinking it hit a patch of ice, so it selectively engages the brakes. I should note that a) I don't do burnouts and would never use this option, and b) I believe you can enable/disable it via USB and the programming utility. Happy driving ;)
      - stevenrace 15y ago
        >> rewrite the firmware so that the car stereo controls all of a sudden are the only way to actuate the brakes Aside from some minor pulsing of the ABS module, it's a purely mechanical/hydraulic system. You push the pedal in, the master cylinder creates pressure in the line, and the brake caliper pistons get pushed out onto your brake rotors. On the other hand, as seen in the Pruis nonsense last year, an increasing number of cars do use a electronic throttle which can lead to some interesting failure conditions. The 'firmware' your discussing in your hypothetical situation is hacking the CANbus system - not the ECU firmware. One could, in todays systems, remap any CANbus device (even as odd as a headlight switch) to manipulate another CANbus device (such as the electronic throttle). Doing such nepharious things are possible today, but would take days worth of hacking and proprietary diagnostic hardware. ECU controls, on the other hand, have been reverse engineered in nearly all cars being actively tracked/raced today. Bosch (BMW/Porsche), GM PCMs, Honda/Acura, Mistubishi, etc can be modified to control timing/fuel...add additional I/O and features (such as traction control, launch control, antilag, etc ...even when not equipped by the OEM). Of my vehicles still running an OEM ECU, all have been running 'hacked' firmware without incident for nearly a decade. Even my ABS controller has been upgraded for better threshold braking performance. If you're intersted in such things, please check out EFIuniversity [0], Ostrich, and persuse Motec's manuals for an idea of what's possible. [0] www.efi101.com [1] http://www.moates.net/documentation.php?documentation_id=24 http://www.moates.net/documentation.php?documentation_id=24 [2] www.motec.com%2Ffiledownload.php%2FM4_M48_M8_Manual_A5.pdf
- shabble 15y ago
  Even with open source, I'd be doubtful (and concerned) were that an option. There's no reason you can't have open source code (available for public scrutiny/liability purposes), but require that on-road, cars require a particular signed variant. Sort of the anti-GPL3. Some sort of public bugtracker/remote update mechanism (again, given suitably authenticated binaries) would also be nice. Actually, it occurs to me from watching far too much Top-Gear, that a fair number of high-end cars have a "Sport" button that does all sorts of things to your ECU, brakes/suspension/steering controls, and (afaik) is strictly speaking only legal for off-public-road/private racetrack usage. Having something similar (and with a log of entry/exit times into each mode for use in crash investigation)[1] might make it possible to experiment. Still strikes me as pretty scary though. [1] And a flashing bright yellow tail-light. To make sure everyone else knows it as well :)
  - robin_reala 15y ago
    The Nissan GT-R (in Japan at least) knows from the GPS where you are and only lets you engage sports mode at registered race tracks.
  - haentz 15y ago
    > (afaik) is strictly speaking only legal for off-public-road/private racetrack usage No, it isn't…
rahoulb 15y ago
The brakes are a bit spongy ... `nice -10 brakesd`
rohit89 15y ago
They should put some sort of manual override switch.
roel_v 15y ago
I wouldn't want any 18-year old ricer who thinks that that one update he downloaded from the internet will give him an extra 5 hp but in reality makes the brakes lock up under certain circumstances to be able to upload his own firmware with nothing more than a usb cable. Having 'read-only' access to source code - maybe, although I'm not sure it would actually make a difference. But anyone being able to upload anything to something that controls 1500 kg of steel at lethal speeds in the vicinity of others, and that the vast majority of people are simply incapable of of understanding, no thanks. This is one situation where I'd rather give up my 'freedom' (for certain contrived definitions thereof) for a modicum of 'safety' (queue the 'deserves neither' quotes).
- Maxious 15y ago
  Ricers have been replacing/modifying software for years. eg. http://www.autotechengineering.com.au/ECU%20Tuning/ECU%20Tuning.htm http://www.autotechengineering.com.au/ECU%20Tuning/ECU%20Tun... http://www.vi-pec.com/index.html http://www.vi-pec.com/index.html
  - roel_v 15y ago
    Of course, but all of that is within regulated limits. Only tested and approved components can be imported, and if you do a grey import of an unlicensed part and the police catch you with it, they impound the car (some regions have different regimes/exact measures I guess, that's not my point). So modifications are already controlled, it's not that everybody can just machine their own parts and put it on the road, without having it tested/centrally regulated. While if anybody could just modify the firmware in their car, there would be no way to check if that version is safe. The only option would be to allow only (a) certain, manufacturer-approved version(s), which is the exact point I was making. And by making it difficult to upload custom firmware, we (as in, regular citizens who have no interest whatsoever in changing the software in our cars, but who are put in jeopardy by morons who think they are capable of making something better but really can't) can protect ourselves (to a certain degree) against the hackery of said morons.
    - 15y ago

My car wouldn't drive without software telling it what to do. I find it very disturbing that I can't it. I think life-critical software should be open source by law ..

yuvadam 15y ago

Though nothing would delight me more than to be able to hack my cars open-source firmware, I can't see that happening by a long shot. Security-by-obscurity is still a - supposedly - valid claim nowadays.

pantaloons 15y ago
There's nothing that would delight me less than driving on the road with someone who has hacked their cars firmware. In any case this seems more like competitive advantage through obscurity than security through obscurity, for the same reason that manufacturers don't include blueprints and engine schematics.
- MoreMoschops 15y ago
  "There's nothing that would delight me less than driving on the road with someone who has hacked their cars firmware." Engine tuners already do this.
  - d99kris 15y ago
    Yes. And also developers/testers of other electronic control units in the vehicle. The early phase development is always in simulators and on test tracks, but typically car manufacturers have deals with the governments which allow them to drive on regular roads with systems under development. Of course, should something happen, there's a number to call to get towed away quickly.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    Only a very small part of the firmware, or more specifically, not really the firmware but just some chips that control the ignition timing and gas mixture. None of which puts other drivers at risk; at worst they blow up the engine of their own car (I don't know if that's possible with chip tuning, just saying). Many 'types' of car tuning that cause danger are already prohibited on most places. But if somebody could rewrite the firmware so that the car stereo controls all of a sudden are the only way to actuate the brakes, that could create very dangerous situations. Which I why I hope that there will remain strong regulations on what firmware people can load onto their cars, at least in as far as they use that car on public roads.
    - leviathant 15y ago
      Fairly recently, a box came out for the car I drive that lets you use the steering wheel volume controls to upshift and downshift. The same box has a trick that, under very controlled circumstances, allows you to lock only the front brakes (the car is RWD) until your speed is > 5mph. You have to be in fake-manual mode, set to 1st gear, with the brakes depressed, and the box enabled. Then you pull back on the cruise control stalk to engage the brakes. There's really no way to accidentally engage the mode, but yeah, that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're worried about. Using the cruise control stalk to trick the car into thinking it hit a patch of ice, so it selectively engages the brakes. I should note that a) I don't do burnouts and would never use this option, and b) I believe you can enable/disable it via USB and the programming utility. Happy driving ;)
    - stevenrace 15y ago
      >> rewrite the firmware so that the car stereo controls all of a sudden are the only way to actuate the brakes Aside from some minor pulsing of the ABS module, it's a purely mechanical/hydraulic system. You push the pedal in, the master cylinder creates pressure in the line, and the brake caliper pistons get pushed out onto your brake rotors. On the other hand, as seen in the Pruis nonsense last year, an increasing number of cars do use a electronic throttle which can lead to some interesting failure conditions. The 'firmware' your discussing in your hypothetical situation is hacking the CANbus system - not the ECU firmware. One could, in todays systems, remap any CANbus device (even as odd as a headlight switch) to manipulate another CANbus device (such as the electronic throttle). Doing such nepharious things are possible today, but would take days worth of hacking and proprietary diagnostic hardware. ECU controls, on the other hand, have been reverse engineered in nearly all cars being actively tracked/raced today. Bosch (BMW/Porsche), GM PCMs, Honda/Acura, Mistubishi, etc can be modified to control timing/fuel...add additional I/O and features (such as traction control, launch control, antilag, etc ...even when not equipped by the OEM). Of my vehicles still running an OEM ECU, all have been running 'hacked' firmware without incident for nearly a decade. Even my ABS controller has been upgraded for better threshold braking performance. If you're intersted in such things, please check out EFIuniversity [0], Ostrich, and persuse Motec's manuals for an idea of what's possible. [0] www.efi101.com [1] http://www.moates.net/documentation.php?documentation_id=24 http://www.moates.net/documentation.php?documentation_id=24 [2] www.motec.com%2Ffiledownload.php%2FM4_M48_M8_Manual_A5.pdf
shabble 15y ago
Even with open source, I'd be doubtful (and concerned) were that an option. There's no reason you can't have open source code (available for public scrutiny/liability purposes), but require that on-road, cars require a particular signed variant. Sort of the anti-GPL3. Some sort of public bugtracker/remote update mechanism (again, given suitably authenticated binaries) would also be nice. Actually, it occurs to me from watching far too much Top-Gear, that a fair number of high-end cars have a "Sport" button that does all sorts of things to your ECU, brakes/suspension/steering controls, and (afaik) is strictly speaking only legal for off-public-road/private racetrack usage. Having something similar (and with a log of entry/exit times into each mode for use in crash investigation)[1] might make it possible to experiment. Still strikes me as pretty scary though. [1] And a flashing bright yellow tail-light. To make sure everyone else knows it as well :)
- robin_reala 15y ago
  The Nissan GT-R (in Japan at least) knows from the GPS where you are and only lets you engage sports mode at registered race tracks.
- haentz 15y ago
  > (afaik) is strictly speaking only legal for off-public-road/private racetrack usage No, it isn't…

rahoulb 15y ago

The brakes are a bit spongy ... `nice -10 brakesd`

rohit89 15y ago

They should put some sort of manual override switch.

roel_v 15y ago

I wouldn't want any 18-year old ricer who thinks that that one update he downloaded from the internet will give him an extra 5 hp but in reality makes the brakes lock up under certain circumstances to be able to upload his own firmware with nothing more than a usb cable. Having 'read-only' access to source code - maybe, although I'm not sure it would actually make a difference. But anyone being able to upload anything to something that controls 1500 kg of steel at lethal speeds in the vicinity of others, and that the vast majority of people are simply incapable of of understanding, no thanks. This is one situation where I'd rather give up my 'freedom' (for certain contrived definitions thereof) for a modicum of 'safety' (queue the 'deserves neither' quotes).

Maxious 15y ago
Ricers have been replacing/modifying software for years. eg. http://www.autotechengineering.com.au/ECU%20Tuning/ECU%20Tuning.htm http://www.autotechengineering.com.au/ECU%20Tuning/ECU%20Tun... http://www.vi-pec.com/index.html http://www.vi-pec.com/index.html
- roel_v 15y ago
  Of course, but all of that is within regulated limits. Only tested and approved components can be imported, and if you do a grey import of an unlicensed part and the police catch you with it, they impound the car (some regions have different regimes/exact measures I guess, that's not my point). So modifications are already controlled, it's not that everybody can just machine their own parts and put it on the road, without having it tested/centrally regulated. While if anybody could just modify the firmware in their car, there would be no way to check if that version is safe. The only option would be to allow only (a) certain, manufacturer-approved version(s), which is the exact point I was making. And by making it difficult to upload custom firmware, we (as in, regular citizens who have no interest whatsoever in changing the software in our cars, but who are put in jeopardy by morons who think they are capable of making something better but really can't) can protect ourselves (to a certain degree) against the hackery of said morons.
  - 15y ago