4 ms·

Current cybersecurity standards enforced in the automotive industry will probably completely kill the possibility of after-market car parts and the usage of use

Current cybersecurity standards enforced in the automotive industry will probably completely kill the possibility of after-market car parts and the usage of used parts in cars. I say this as someone working in this field that has asked a couple of people doing work in this exact direction. I point blank asked them if this will happen, and they just shrugged their shoulders and said... yeah, kinda'.

technofiend 3y ago
From the article: "federal regulators claim that malevolent third parties could "utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Which really means auto makers built a terribly insecure system and hope to hide the fact behind security as obscurity? If so, that's the real problem. The vulnerabilities described should not be there in the first place.
- RealityVoid 3y ago
  It's an open secret in the industry that the CAN bus is not authenticated. If you connect, you can read the data on the bus and inject the data on bus. But, that does require physical access to the car and hooking to the wires. Nobody complains that if you hook to the buses on a PC you can own it. Now they have this security concept where every ECU on the car will have their own private key in their own secure enclave. You need that key to put authenticated data on bus and it can only be updated by the OEM's. The authenticated bus infra will probably not protect against remote attacks ( since if you own the ECU SW you have the cert and you will still be able to publish signed messages) but will kill ability to change HW. I really would not like to kill our ability to fix our vehicles but I feel this is the thing that is going to happen.
  - harambae 3y ago
    > Now they have this security concept where every ECU on the car will have their own private key Not just a concept, on vehicles you buy today (from, for example, Ford and VW) https://cdn.vector.com/cms/content/products/VectorCAST/Events/Symposiums/4_Securing_Communications_-_Things_I_Wish_Someone_Had_Told_Me.pdf https://cdn.vector.com/cms/content/products/VectorCAST/Event...
  - hooverd 3y ago
    I hate computers. Seems like lately they're only used to make our lives worse.
    - gottorf 3y ago
      Since the Industrial Revolution, and only made worse with the Information Revolution, technology has advanced much quicker than the ability for laws and customs to adapt.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      It sometimes seems that way, but when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse. Cars in the 1930s were not fuel efficient, polluted a lot, and you have to do things like file the points every couple months. I remember when you called buildings not people - the phone was attached to the wall, and what just a voice device, it didn't hold Wikipedia or current maps to everywhere. However we forget how bad the past really want.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse In some ways. In other ways, things are worse now.
        bethly 3y ago
        I’m curious what maximization function you are considering
      - hooverd 3y ago
        For a fleeting moment they seemed like something about actually increase freedom, but now...
  - mycall 3y ago
    The devices on CAN bus can use embedded certificates to securely communicate with each other. Basically VPN over CAN.
- tkfu 3y ago
  It's not about security by obscurity. A better analogy would be the fight over "tivoization". In safety-critical and highly-regulated systems like automotive and health care, there's a meaningful regulatory interest in ensuring that the devices as sold and authorized to be on the road (or in patients' hospital rooms) don't get modified in dangerous ways. That means that the software and firmware running on each of the dozens of ECUs in a vehicle is part of the (regulated) functional safety spec of the system. There are real, meaningful technical challenges to overcome if you want to meet both the goal of ensuring that dangerous and malicious software can't run in safety-critical domains, and the goal of allowing users to modify their vehicles as they see fit. I'm speaking as one of the authors of the Uptane standard for secure software updates in vehicles, and as a life-long proponent of user freedom and open access to the computers we buy. There are possible solutions here, but they are not easy.
  - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
    Could you expand, or point to a good primer on the issues? I love "it's a complicated trade off" - it's way more interesting than whatever slogans end up defining "sides" in a debate
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Whenever I dig into this I discover that what people complaining really want to do is modify their cars so it no longer meets emissions standards (you can get more power and/or better fuel mileage by doing this). Nobody is replacing ECUs with one of their own design that otherwise meets emissions. Sensors and parts are easy to replace (sometimes at high cost), and mostly radially available. The OEMs already tell mechanics what all the diagnostics codes mean. sure most of us reading this have the skills to write new code for their ECU, but realistically almost none of us would do that anyway unless we want to make a trade off that effects emissions.
      - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
        OEMs only tell authorized mechanics what the codes mean. Most cars have the basic standardized OBD-II codes, and an additional much-more-useful set of codes/diagnostics that are proprietary.
- genter 3y ago
  > Which really means auto makers built a terribly insecure system and hope to hide the fact behind security as obscurity? Yes (I've reverse engineered the security system on an ABS controller for the top selling vehicle of a major auto manufacturer. It is atrocious. I'm pretty confident the whole reason it exists is so that they can claim they have one to use the DMCA to stop third party tools from interacting with it.)
harambae 3y ago
I also work in the industry and tend to agree. Right now if you get an official replacement ECU on a secured CAN network the device comes from the OEM already set up with the matching SecOC (AES-128) key that the OEM recorded in their backend database at time of manufacturing. But how would this work with a 3rd party ECU?
- RealityVoid 3y ago
  I suspect that auto makers are fully aware of this and are salivating at the idea of extra income with upgrade and repair fees. So far this has eluded public consciousness, but I expect it will hit the users hard at some point in the near future.
  - VectorLock 3y ago
    "Authorized parts" and "Authorized repair centers only" would be allow them to extract massive profits while providing no consumer benefit. That then incentivizes them to create even more fragile, unreliable vehicles.
- rolph 3y ago
  like this; an ECU is an ECU. match unit to make and model. gap the ECU from remote modifications. an ECU doesnt require keys, they are not part of the required properties of an ECU.
1970-01-01 3y ago
It's an ongoing battle. Giants such as the FTC are able and willing to fight these battles. Other large orgs such as SEMA are also pushing back, for both the right to repair and the right to modify. Additionally, OEMs don't want us to realize how they are putting themselves on top of a slippery slope. If we look at the NACS example, when one or two break away from a 'gentleman's alliance' it quickly creates a domino effect. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fi... https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2023/28/right-repair-agreement-distracts-need-pass-repair-act https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2023/28/right-repair-a...
MSFT_Edging 3y ago
There should really be some kind of airgap between internet connected entertainment systems and "mission-critical" aspects such as brake/drive by wire, steering input, etc. It seems incredibly short sighted to give your radio access to drive the car into a median.
bityard 3y ago
There are quite a few parts on modern cars already that you cannot just replace on your own car with either a new or used replacement because before they will work, they require a "relearning" procedure that only the dealership computers can initiate and those computers have to be online, connected to the automaker's mothership when they do it. So basically DRM on car repair/parts is already a thing.
josephcsible 3y ago
If I ever have to choose between security and freedom, I'd pick freedom all the way, every time. But usually this is a false dichotomy and you can in fact have both, despite claims to the contrary.

technofiend 3y ago

From the article: "federal regulators claim that malevolent third parties could "utilize such open access to remotely command vehicles to operate dangerously, including attacking multiple vehicles concurrently." Which really means auto makers built a terribly insecure system and hope to hide the fact behind security as obscurity? If so, that's the real problem. The vulnerabilities described should not be there in the first place.

RealityVoid 3y ago
It's an open secret in the industry that the CAN bus is not authenticated. If you connect, you can read the data on the bus and inject the data on bus. But, that does require physical access to the car and hooking to the wires. Nobody complains that if you hook to the buses on a PC you can own it. Now they have this security concept where every ECU on the car will have their own private key in their own secure enclave. You need that key to put authenticated data on bus and it can only be updated by the OEM's. The authenticated bus infra will probably not protect against remote attacks ( since if you own the ECU SW you have the cert and you will still be able to publish signed messages) but will kill ability to change HW. I really would not like to kill our ability to fix our vehicles but I feel this is the thing that is going to happen.
- harambae 3y ago
  > Now they have this security concept where every ECU on the car will have their own private key Not just a concept, on vehicles you buy today (from, for example, Ford and VW) https://cdn.vector.com/cms/content/products/VectorCAST/Events/Symposiums/4_Securing_Communications_-_Things_I_Wish_Someone_Had_Told_Me.pdf https://cdn.vector.com/cms/content/products/VectorCAST/Event...
- hooverd 3y ago
  I hate computers. Seems like lately they're only used to make our lives worse.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    Since the Industrial Revolution, and only made worse with the Information Revolution, technology has advanced much quicker than the ability for laws and customs to adapt.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    It sometimes seems that way, but when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse. Cars in the 1930s were not fuel efficient, polluted a lot, and you have to do things like file the points every couple months. I remember when you called buildings not people - the phone was attached to the wall, and what just a voice device, it didn't hold Wikipedia or current maps to everywhere. However we forget how bad the past really want.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > when you look at how people lived without computers things were worse In some ways. In other ways, things are worse now.
      - bethly 3y ago
        I’m curious what maximization function you are considering
    - hooverd 3y ago
      For a fleeting moment they seemed like something about actually increase freedom, but now...
- mycall 3y ago
  The devices on CAN bus can use embedded certificates to securely communicate with each other. Basically VPN over CAN.
tkfu 3y ago
It's not about security by obscurity. A better analogy would be the fight over "tivoization". In safety-critical and highly-regulated systems like automotive and health care, there's a meaningful regulatory interest in ensuring that the devices as sold and authorized to be on the road (or in patients' hospital rooms) don't get modified in dangerous ways. That means that the software and firmware running on each of the dozens of ECUs in a vehicle is part of the (regulated) functional safety spec of the system. There are real, meaningful technical challenges to overcome if you want to meet both the goal of ensuring that dangerous and malicious software can't run in safety-critical domains, and the goal of allowing users to modify their vehicles as they see fit. I'm speaking as one of the authors of the Uptane standard for secure software updates in vehicles, and as a life-long proponent of user freedom and open access to the computers we buy. There are possible solutions here, but they are not easy.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  Could you expand, or point to a good primer on the issues? I love "it's a complicated trade off" - it's way more interesting than whatever slogans end up defining "sides" in a debate
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Whenever I dig into this I discover that what people complaining really want to do is modify their cars so it no longer meets emissions standards (you can get more power and/or better fuel mileage by doing this). Nobody is replacing ECUs with one of their own design that otherwise meets emissions. Sensors and parts are easy to replace (sometimes at high cost), and mostly radially available. The OEMs already tell mechanics what all the diagnostics codes mean. sure most of us reading this have the skills to write new code for their ECU, but realistically almost none of us would do that anyway unless we want to make a trade off that effects emissions.
    - BenjiWiebe 3y ago
      OEMs only tell authorized mechanics what the codes mean. Most cars have the basic standardized OBD-II codes, and an additional much-more-useful set of codes/diagnostics that are proprietary.
genter 3y ago
> Which really means auto makers built a terribly insecure system and hope to hide the fact behind security as obscurity? Yes (I've reverse engineered the security system on an ABS controller for the top selling vehicle of a major auto manufacturer. It is atrocious. I'm pretty confident the whole reason it exists is so that they can claim they have one to use the DMCA to stop third party tools from interacting with it.)

harambae 3y ago

I also work in the industry and tend to agree. Right now if you get an official replacement ECU on a secured CAN network the device comes from the OEM already set up with the matching SecOC (AES-128) key that the OEM recorded in their backend database at time of manufacturing. But how would this work with a 3rd party ECU?

RealityVoid 3y ago
I suspect that auto makers are fully aware of this and are salivating at the idea of extra income with upgrade and repair fees. So far this has eluded public consciousness, but I expect it will hit the users hard at some point in the near future.
- VectorLock 3y ago
  "Authorized parts" and "Authorized repair centers only" would be allow them to extract massive profits while providing no consumer benefit. That then incentivizes them to create even more fragile, unreliable vehicles.
rolph 3y ago
like this; an ECU is an ECU. match unit to make and model. gap the ECU from remote modifications. an ECU doesnt require keys, they are not part of the required properties of an ECU.

1970-01-01 3y ago

It's an ongoing battle. Giants such as the FTC are able and willing to fight these battles. Other large orgs such as SEMA are also pushing back, for both the right to repair and the right to modify. Additionally, OEMs don't want us to realize how they are putting themselves on top of a slippery slope. If we look at the NACS example, when one or two break away from a 'gentleman's alliance' it quickly creates a domino effect. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fi... https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2023/28/right-repair-agreement-distracts-need-pass-repair-act https://www.sema.org/news-media/enews/2023/28/right-repair-a...

MSFT_Edging 3y ago

There should really be some kind of airgap between internet connected entertainment systems and "mission-critical" aspects such as brake/drive by wire, steering input, etc. It seems incredibly short sighted to give your radio access to drive the car into a median.

bityard 3y ago

There are quite a few parts on modern cars already that you cannot just replace on your own car with either a new or used replacement because before they will work, they require a "relearning" procedure that only the dealership computers can initiate and those computers have to be online, connected to the automaker's mothership when they do it. So basically DRM on car repair/parts is already a thing.

josephcsible 3y ago

If I ever have to choose between security and freedom, I'd pick freedom all the way, every time. But usually this is a false dichotomy and you can in fact have both, despite claims to the contrary.