26 ms·

Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

• shermix011 3y ago
  Son of Anton remix did this year's back
• HWR_14 3y ago
  Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.
  • carstenhag 3y ago
    But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.
    • blacksmith_tb 3y ago
      Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • tdiggity 3y ago
        There is some real-time data being downloaded while navigating. https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088 https://twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1641450299285209088
      • denlekke 3y ago
        i dont have a settled opinion on software unlockable stuff. in general i think users should be able to hack it without repercussions. however, thinking about the concepts you present i had some hypotheticals. if tesla does all the self driving processing outside the car, it feels a little reasonable to pay them for their processing. but what if they just moved the heat seating processing out of the car (comparing the actual temperature to the desired temperature and modulating the power) ? that would seem unreasonable to me because the car is fully capable of doing it. So then what if tesla ships an intentionally terrible processor so that most data processing happens outside the car ? maybe it's reasonable again . .. no point to this, just thinking out loud
        • rvnx 3y ago
          Software lockable stuff sounds like in-app purchases. Should unlocking this content become legal ?
      • judge2020 3y ago
        Self driving has an ongoing cost to Tesla for them to keep it updated and to improving upon its performance. It’s only a subscription because it doesn’t make financial sense to purchase it outright for $15k up-front (with a 6% interest rate, you’d need to own the car for 102 months to pay less than paying for the FSD subscription for those 102 months, and it costs more per month in your loan than the subscription https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FUp8jhSdchyuj0KJVtUKJrELjyRJG9eCCYs916YwF0AWotV4hY4e-3Dn7RgmbnDnNLgV2/pubhtml?gid=699400202&single=true https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSjfzhdfj0FU... )
        • blacksmith_tb 3y ago
          Sure, though that highlights why someone would be interested in unlocking it (even without updates going forward). Personally I think I'd want mission-critical sw to be as current as possible, I can see someone arguing they should be able to run what's already sitting there on the computer in their car.
          • code_runner 3y ago
            the software stack is different as far as I know. if you buy FSD and sign up for the beta program, you get a fairly massive software package downloaded. it is not instant and already on the device. of all the things to hate about elon, tesla, and this whole concept of locking down features in a car, FSD really isn't one of them, as its just a software issue and its a totally separate package that isn't core to the operational capability of the car's components.
    • babypuncher 3y ago
      Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy. If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.
      • Spivak 3y ago
        Yep, there would be issue at all if they sold the car and you install FSD with a download and a license key but if it comes with the car that's on you if/when the owner breaks the lock they own to access it. If you sell me a house with a safe in it and want to charge me for the code that's fine, but if get a welder to just break the door open you have no right to tell me no.
      • denlekke 3y ago
        in general you would think this is just a DRM race then between tesla and unlockers. however, with so many of tesla's features existing outside the car, tesla has a lot of leverage. a music cd or blu ray is generally finished content. a tesla is constantly getting software patches and most owners use the app which i'm sure is going through teslas servers is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ?
        • tadfisher 3y ago
          > is it reasonable for tesla to lock you out of the app or software updates if the software hash doesn't match what they provide ? Of course, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that. > would it be okay for them to void the warranty if you run software they didn't provide ? There are laws governing this exact thing (in the US it's the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act), and in general Tesla would have to prove your unauthorized modification caused the failure which you're claiming under warranty.
    • MostlyStable 3y ago
      I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models. As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.
      • toomuchtodo 3y ago
        So contract law and copyright aren't a thing because people don't want it to be? You own the hardware (you can shuck the car, part it out, mod it), you don't own the code it runs. By all means, root the car and take the features you want, but don't be shocked when Tesla either a) nukes the features remotely or b) sues you. You are taking issue with an existing legal and contract law framework. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla and be bound by agreements with them around their IP. Would you support a software company nuking someone's license to operate their software remotely if the customer defeated a license module they didn't pay for? (registered security researcher for my rooted Teslas)
        • MostlyStable 3y ago
          I'm not sure how contract law is relevant at all. As for copyright, they aren't copying or distributing it in any way. If you give me the code on it, I am allowed to execute it as I see fit. The only way I see copyright issues is if they weren't actually shipping the code and I had to pirate it and side load it. Which is a completely different issue than is being discussed. If you sell me a book, I'm not allowed to copy that book and sell those copies. I am allowed to chop it up and and repaste my own copy however I see fit. If I'm wrong and current copyright law does not permit this kind of thing, then current copyright law is bad and should be changed.
    • wredue 3y ago
      Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA? Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall. Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.
    • px43 3y ago
      The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • semiquaver 3y ago
      The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit. Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch. Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.
      • esotericimpl 3y ago
        [dead]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Zetice 3y ago
    Okay great, but now the lowest cost of the car is an extra $10k because the manufacturing just got a lot more complicated as a result of not being able to build every car the same way.
    • martin8412 3y ago
      They can't even build two cars the same way everytime, I think we'll be okay.
      • Zetice 3y ago
        That's variance, not intentional.
    • tadfisher 3y ago
      Then customers have the choice to purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer with more scruples who is willing to sell those features without charging to "unlock" them.
      • Zetice 3y ago
        ...can you name one? Because every manufacturer does this.
    • TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
      That sounds like problem of a manufacturer not problem of a user.
      • Zetice 3y ago
        The price of the product being higher isn't a problem for the user?
        • TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
          Correct. That's a problem of a manufacturer for not having a competing product.
  • shagie 3y ago
    Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability? Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner? Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?
    • eldaisfish 3y ago
      If something is opened or modified without manufacturer consent, there is no question of liability because there is none.
      • joecool1029 3y ago
        Except history hasn't really played out that way. Less serious but Grand Theft Auto had a sex game added to one of their titles that wasn't supposed to be accessible by gamers. People figured out how to unlock it using a modified save file. This ended up in all sorts of legal liability to the company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(minigame)
        • something168581 3y ago
          Hot Coffee is and was an absurd case with absolutely no merit behind it. It only became a large issue because it was a social fad for politicians and mass-media to dogpile "evil gaming companies corrupting poor mindless children", and Rockstar in particular with the GTA series was one of the most popular targets of said social fad.
      • shagie 3y ago
        So if you're using unlocked a version of FSD that has been recalled and don't get an OTA update then any and all faults that may be traced back to FSD even if it was clear that this is a bug in the software (e.g. the reason for the recall) the vehicle owner has full liability? https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicles-says-full-self-driving-beta-software-may-cause-crashes.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/16/tesla-recalls-362758-vehicle...
  • grecy 3y ago
    I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately. Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference. At what point below are you ticked off ? Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that. (I think this is how cars have always been sold, so it's "normal" and "acceptable" and nobody would complain - they paid $1000 less and got less features.) Level 2: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, but none of the wiring, plugs or software to make it function. (It was cheaper for them to just build the seats with the heater in there, so they did, but it will never "work") Level 3: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat and some wiring, but the main loom doesn't have provision for the high current draw, so it can't work. Level 4: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, but none of the plugs to actually connect it. Level 5: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, all the plugs (so all the physical hardware is there), but the software to turn it on is not present / not licensed. (Note: If you got ticked off at level 5, it's pretty much like buying a brand new MacBook and being ticked off that it can theoretically run Final Cut Pro, but you have to pay to make it work. Surely you gotta pay for software ? )
    • marcosdumay 3y ago
      Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner. We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.
      • code_runner 3y ago
        FSD is more like example 5
      • Kirby64 3y ago
        This is identical to 5, in my view. Its not licensed. Is anyone upset that if you download a version of software that has a "basic" and a "premium" version, but the premium costs more money, that you don't get the premium functionality? Just like you "can't change" whether you get premium functions if you don't pay for it, the same could be said for fsd or seat heaters.
  • prussian 3y ago
    I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.
    • shmatt 3y ago
      If you opt out of the heated seat package when you purchase the car, that doesn't mean the manufacturer can't add that hardware in a disabled state. That also doesn't mean you own the heating feature after you opted out That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked
      • HWR_14 3y ago
        The far better analogy for what Tesla is doing is "it's like Intel preventing you from overclocking your chip". Sure, you should not expect support for your hacked seat warmers.
        • pizzaknife 3y ago
          i came here to say this
      • nvr219 3y ago
        If I paid them money and they gave me hardware (in this case a heated seat) then I can do what I want with it, sucks for them if they don't want me to. They can give me the non-heated seat. And yeah if I brick my car trying to jailbreak it that's on me, fine.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • hooverd 3y ago
        Nah, that's like asking Intel to enable two more cores on a two core processor made from a four core binned chip that they also sell four core processors based on. The only difference is software.
  • hooverd 3y ago
    IP has gone too far. We're seeing more and more instances of computers forced into perfectly good physical products for the express purpose of degrading their functionality unless a ransom is paid. Now instead of toggling a relay, you have to go through an entire software stack and license check to heat your seats.
    • LesZedCB 3y ago
      which toggles a relay.
  • samstave 3y ago
    I won all my groceries, but once I consume them, they still turn to shit. - I think we need to hold all EV companies "responsible for their shit" So, if you buy a tesla - only tesla should be responsible for recovery from every crash and and turn in. Thus the environmental impact due to the heavy metals and all the plastics made are sole responsible from a closed, boring lopp to hyper the link to the fact that all these materials were made by stars. X.
    • samstave 3y ago
      (my point was I PAy/taxxed/etc) for my X-crement... I think my logic is off WRT analogy, but I beleive you get the premise... Can we find a complete model of the impact of the matters which are being affected by the musks? (im not judging musk - I am judging actions... many of these actions suck. IIATAH?
  • sowbug 3y ago
    I enthusiastically endorse this sentiment until I remember I'm a software engineer whose career depends pretty fundamentally on copyright law. As an industry, we sell things that make hardware more useful. That's what software is. But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own. And we do all that for money. *Substitute whatever you think the right terms are for these words (licensor, licensee, borrower, tenant, serf...) If we sold an app on a mobile-phone store, and a h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it, we'd take measures to stifle it (patching the code, increasing the obfuscation, sending a complaint upstream of whoever was distributing it, etc.), and I don't think any of us would think we're bad guys for doing so. We're just trying to feed our families. And I doubt any of us would feel compassion for someone who said they paid for that phone, own its hardware, and can do whatever they want with it including run your paid software for free. Tesla's sin, if any, is that they sold us hardware that's designed to work only with their software. And "their" software could include software they licensed from your company, if you work in their software supply chain. Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?
    • snypher 3y ago
      This is probably not productive, but I think the response would be; I bought the software from you so it's mine now.
      • spoiler 3y ago
        Yeah these discussions always give me a bit of cognitive dissonance. On one hand, I like owning my software or content I purchased (talking about DRM) On the other, people expect most things to be a "live service" in terms of updates, which isn't sustainable if you only ever get paid a small onetime fee for your software. If you make the fee large, like Modo/Photoshop did, then it acts as a financial gatekeeper to your product. Even then, I feel like it creates wrong incentives for the product, so I'm not sure it's good either.
        • 3y ago
  • kevincox 3y ago
    Arguably you didn't buy it. Sure you physically own the hardware but you didn't pay for it. Depending on how you look at it the hardware was paid for by: 1. Tesla as a "marketing" expense. They expect that the $50 of hardware will make a significant number of people pay $500 for the feature. If 1/5 people upgrade that is an expected return of $100 for that $50 marketing cost. 2. The people who purchase the heated seat upgrade. It was more cost effective to install the hardware in all cars than to set up a second production line. So if 1/5 people buy this package their effective cost is $250 ($50 * 5 cars) and $250 is Tesla's buffer + profit margin. So the people who pay for this package effectively pay for the hardware in all cars. If you enable this feature for all users both of these no longer exist. So the effective cost goes up which would likely raise the price. (Yes, I know that cost and price aren't directly related).
• Bissness 3y ago
  Ah yes, "full" self driving
  • oittaa 3y ago
    It's getting pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75A9g4HsQiU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75A9g4HsQiU
    • redundantly 3y ago
      The video being sped up makes it feel dishonest. Would have been nice to have a regular recording.
      • spikels 3y ago
        Omar post raw versions of all his FSD videos. There’s a link in the YouTube description. Here’s the one for this drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYspCLoLTY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFYspCLoLTY Frankly the sped up versions are more useful for understanding the technology because most driving is boring, even for a self-driving system. But it is good to be able to go to the raw version if needed.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    • internetter 3y ago
      This video seemed to have pretty good performance actually, but I've seen articles where the car just gets stuck, makes unsafe maneuvers or just violates laws and this guy (whole mars catalogue) defends it. Watching prior videos shows it fail to yield to stop lights, stop in the middle of intersections or just total incompetence about highway etiquette (such as the highly watched SF -> LA video (in this video the whole highway is dubious, also violations at 1:18, 1:24, 1:30, maybe 17:24, probably others I missed... 3 in the span of 15 seconds)). I'm not at the point where I trust this thing.
• johnl1479 3y ago
  I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
  • Libcat99 3y ago
    I'm somewhat torn too. IBM and I'm sure others have shipped enterprise hardware for years that was partially locked. You might get a machine with 16 cpus but you only paid for 8, for example, but you could license the rest as you grew. It seems a little similar and it was in no way underhanded, everyone knew what the deal was. However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad.
    • johnl1479 3y ago
      > However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad. I think thats the stance I'm leaning towards as well. To quote another commenter[1]: > If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36988514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36988514
    • NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      I'm of the opinion that these two things aren't comparable. True, IBM and others have locked extra capability through software... but they were only ever selling/renting to the corporate world, which presumably had enough in-house legal expertise to not be completely dicked over. To take that business practice, and then try to foist it on consumers who don't have $500/hour lawyers on retainer looking out for them is more than just morally questionable, it crosses a line into some sort of fraud/extortion-adjacent realm. If Tesla was really upset about this, it's a problem completely within their capacity to solve. Only send bugfixes OTA, require a service visit for new features. I'm betting that their software's such a trainwreck they wouldn't be able to compartmentalize it properly like that to save their own lives.
• Groxx 3y ago
  Let's start calling them what they are: Freedom fighters. "Hacking" carries quite a lot of negative connotations in most realms. These are people making sure you are able to make full use of your own stuff. There shouldn't be anything contentious about that.
  • px43 3y ago
    "Freedom fighters" has a lot of negative connotations in many realms as well. It evokes images of rebels using violence to push some political agenda. Sometimes for worthy causes, sometimes less so. No, we're keeping the word "hacker".
    • Groxx 3y ago
      While I agree with that image problem (I couldn't come up with any that didn't have it, and at least this one is descriptive)... I feel pretty confident claiming that "hackers" carries clearer and more consistent negative connotations to the general public (definitely not HN though).
    • zgluck 3y ago
      I mean, we used to use the word "cracker" for this up until the late 90s. A hacker was someone who created something cool.
  • cobbal 3y ago
    "A group of security researchers (aka hackers)" is an especially bad connection to be drawing for the general public.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• vz8 3y ago
  Cue the "You wouldn't download a car" memes.
  • mensetmanusman 3y ago
    https://youtu.be/52KR_eC8UFE https://youtu.be/52KR_eC8UFE I wonder which schools had the children watch this after the pledge of allegiance.
    • pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      That can't have been a thing?
      • mensetmanusman 3y ago
        There is a non zero chance this was played in a school… If it happened during first period, then, well…
    • x86x87 3y ago
      there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg I fixed it for you
• nottorp 3y ago
  Can they fix the power steering too then? Ref: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/steering-failures-are-teslas-new-federal-safety-worry/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/steering-failures-are-t... Apparently it's a software problem.
  • darknavi 3y ago
    Hope all the other recalls get fixes by hackers too. https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/hyundai-kia-recall-fire-risk https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/hyundai-kia-recall-fire-ris...
• mrkeen 3y ago
  "Full Self-Driving ... will soon allow the car to steer on its own". April 6 2023 [1] I think the hackers should have waited. [1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/is-tesla-full-self-driving-worth-it/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/is-tesla-full-self-drivin...
• j_walter 3y ago
  Will be interesting to see how they did it. Using low cost off the shelf parts means nothing if you have to dismantle the entire car and solder to the tiniest of points. I still remember the first Xbox mod...30+ wires attached to the smallest of points on the motherboard.
• retrocryptid 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • froggertoaster 3y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    • retrocryptid 3y ago
      Let's say you have a Tesla, but you didn't buy the "full" self driving package. You sell your Tesla to a third-party. Tesla (of course) resets the system to disable "full" self driving, but you have the tool to activate it so you turn it on for the new owner. Presumably you received money in exchange for the vehicle, as is traditional in our culture. You take some of that money and buy a 1958 Dodge D100 pickup truck and the Hayes Manual so you know where the spark plugs go. You use the remainder of the money to purchase a mix of mutual funds, Ford Motors stock, artwork by mediocre, yet somehow popular modern artists and maybe a crate of 2018 red wine. In 10 years you still have the D100, though you have spent more money on spark plugs and air filters than you would have imagined possible. The Hayes manual is covered with grease stains so it is no longer re-sellable. The Ford Motors stock has (of course) tanked, but it allows you to justifiably rant on internet message boards. The artwork has appreciated and you recently sold it to a European collector for a profit. The red wine would have appreciated in value, but by this time you've drunk all of it.
      • fredoliveira 3y ago
        Care to elaborate without this much analogy? I suspect you're trying to say the value of a Tesla ain't going to be there in 10 years, but I'm not quite sure that's true.
        • retrocryptid 3y ago
          Step 1. Unlock the "full" self driving feature you did not purchase. Step 2. Sell your tesla. Step 3. Unlock the "full" self driving feature for the new owner. Step 4. Take the money the new owner gave you and use it to purchase another vehicle. Step 5. Profit In this sequence of events, the value of the tesla in 10 years is of no consequence to you because you do not own it.
• vessenes 3y ago
  Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally. Buried in the article is the claim that this will let them pull the RSA private key the car owns out for other uses -- while this is likely to remain a very niche attack vector, that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla. On the other hand, post jailbreak you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers, which would be nice.
  • judge2020 3y ago
    Anonymizing your location - until you put in route and your car asks for traffic information from teslas servers.
    • d4l3k 3y ago
      If the map can't talk to Tesla it'll use Google maps directly. I usually don't allow connections to Tesla on my rooted Model 3
      • zoover2020 3y ago
        Hoe did you root yours? Did you lose out on any functionality?
        • d4l3k 3y ago
          There's some functionality loss but it's mostly been mitigated. I have a custom app I wrote since I can't use the stock app. The one feature I miss is that there's no voice commands since that requires Tesla's servers but at the same time I also haven't been bothered enough to plug in a custom backend
          • lrem 3y ago
• kotaKat 3y ago
  They haven't managed to "unlock" the features yet. They've got root on the IC which "could" lead to unlocking them.[1] https://www.blackhat.com/us-23/briefings/schedule/index.html#jailbreaking-an-electric-vehicle-in--or-what-it-means-to-hotwire-teslas-x-based-seat-heater-33049 https://www.blackhat.com/us-23/briefings/schedule/index.html...
  • mrkeen 3y ago
    Something which might work in the future, being announced as something that works now? How appropriate!
• helf 3y ago
  [dead]
• amelius 3y ago
  For now. They will plug the hole, just like Apple will stop any undocumented use of their GPU when it suits them. Why waste your time on these companies?
  • filcuk 3y ago
    Possibly because it's their job, it's interesting, educational, maybe there's a monetary reward, maybe the reward was the journey all along. The article mentions it can't be fixed by software update.
• dxxvi 3y ago
  > enable us to extract an otherwise vehicle-unique hardware-bound RSA key not ed25519? I know very little about these encryption thingies. The Internet recommends ed25519 over rsa.
  • pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    They haven't broken the encryption technique, they've bypassed it by extracting the key using weaknesses in the hardware-software. You have to redo the process for each physical device to extract the particular key in use in that device.
• Someone1234 3y ago
  While the exploit that allows them to run arbitrary code is unfixable, that doesn't mean Tesla couldn't update the vehicle to make accessing these features more difficult. For example, simply not delivering chunks of FSD to unauthorized vehicles server-side. I guess my point is: This will start an arms race. Eventually you'll need to pick between an on-network Tesla getting software updates from them, or an off-network Tesla with FSD and other things that unlocked can provide. Heated seats can likely be re-enabled electronically without software (i.e. splice in a switch). Personally, purely from a utilitarian perspective, I wouldn't choose to use FSD that wasn't getting continuous updates because it may not include road changes, state law changes, and frankly still has a lot of room for safety/reliability improvement. Maybe "Enhanced Autopilot" ($6K) just for lane change. PS - 9/10 of Tesla's recalls have been software updates. So you'd lose those with an off-network Tesla.
  • count 3y ago
    The arms race started the first time a Tesla shipped. They've had some serious security folks on the Tesla side since the early days.
• somerandomqaguy 3y ago
  Makes me wonder how Tesla's going to react to this. Can't imagine they're happy about this.
• fragmede 3y ago
  The real question is Tesla Supercharger capability. If you can't plug your car into that network, then you've lost a ton of value. But here's the thing. In order to disable supercharging, Tesla remotes into your vehicle to turn it off. It doesn't happen on the charger side, it happens on the vehicle. So if you have root on your Tesla, you can make sure you can always supercharge, which isn't mentioned anywhere else.
  • eschneider 3y ago
    Here's a question for the lawyers out there: if you notify Tesla that they're no longer authorized to access YOUR car, and they remote into it anyways, would that come under Computer Fraud and Abuse?
    • pbhjpbhj 3y ago
      IANAL. It seems like it should probably be covered anyway, without the notification. Assumed consent would cover updates and improvements. No-one is consenting to their car being crippled, surely.
      • eschneider 3y ago
        It gets me wondering how well Teslas will function with zero connectivity w/ Tesla. I mean, if the company goes under or (more likely) they drop support for older models, do older cars get bricked and disabled like clients for a multiplayer game that's gone offline?
        • dgunay 3y ago
          I doubt they'll completely brick (the car can reboot itself mid-drive while still having throttle/brakes/steering) but I could see most/all infotainment features ceasing to function.
    • xwdv 3y ago
      You agreed to EULA.
• kramerger 3y ago
  Wait a minute... heated seats are software locked on Teslas? WTF guys?
  • DistractionRect 3y ago
    I kinda get it. Rather than maintaining a supply of multiple parts which complicates your supply chain and install/repair procedures, Tesla is making cars nearly 100% identical physically and differentiating in software.
    • Workaccount2 3y ago
      And getting the suckers who pay up to cover the cost for all vehicles having it.
      • gruez 3y ago
        Isn't that fully borne by the manufacturer? Suppose you're the manufacturer of a car that costs $30k to make and sells for $50k. You're posed with the question of whether to add a non-functional part that costs $5k. If you add the part and don't raise the price, then you're eating a $5k loss. If you add the part and raise the price by $5k, you don't eat the loss, but it also means you could have charged $55k for the car. No rational consumer is going to be like "I would have paid $50k for this car, but now that it contains $5k of non-functional component, I'm willing to pay $5k more for it now!".
      • kevincox 3y ago
        Those suckers are getting a much better deal than if they had to pay the cost of an alternate production line and logistics flow.
    • LesZedCB 3y ago
      so make them all cost the same then.....?
      • yreg 3y ago
• PicassoCTs 3y ago
  Now comes the funny part, were tesla tries to make the platform trusted and locked down, and then people start to flash there own firmware and solder chip-mods, cause there is nothing GNUnder the sun. Wouldn't be surprised if Tesla has a defeat-device buried somewhere that allows for remote permanent deactivation once parked in case of piracy
  • autoexec 3y ago
    using the hardware you own should never be considered "piracy"
  • denysvitali 3y ago
    They can anyways remotely ssh into any parked Tesla nowadays
• EspressoGPT 3y ago
  In other news: If you intercept the boot process of a system and open a root shell there, you can access the system.
• system2 3y ago
  I won't be buying any car with software locked features.
• ngneer 3y ago
  Game theory at play. Tesla and its customers are adversaries, vying for the same dollars. Tesla implementing these security measures directly translates to being able to charge more for services. Same as John Deere and many others. This is a minmax problem. How to pay the least to cause the other actor to pay the most. If the feature costs $15K and breaking security costs $15K then it is effective security. Obviously not the case here.
  • logifail 3y ago
    > Game theory at play. Tesla and its customers are adversaries, vying for the same dollars Umm, I think this is more like "airlines vs passengers" when passengers read about "hidden city ticketing" in a travel blog, think it sounds cool yet haven't properly understand it, yet decide to go to town on it anyway.[0] Since most providers are entirely at liberty to tell a customer they're no longer welcome, as a customer you have to be really really sure you want to own up to the provider as being an adversary, since you might end up needing another provider. For ever. (Full disclosure: have been looking for, booking, and flying on less-than-entirely-legitimate airfares for a looong time. Have occasionally broken out in a cold sweat at an airport in some far-flung country on a dodgy itinerary when I think I've been rumbled...) [0] https://www.insider.com/skiplagging-american-airlines-banned-teenager-hidden-city-ticket-canceled-2023-7 https://www.insider.com/skiplagging-american-airlines-banned...
    • dktoao 3y ago
      Fascinating article, didn't know skip lagging was a thing or that it is illegal. It definitely shouldn't be, just seems to be government protecting entrenched corporate interests at the cost of the populace. aka par for the course.
      • whelp_24 3y ago
        Skip lagging isn't illegal, iirc a recent court case reaffirmed that. Airlines don't like it though so they may cancel you.
• catboybotnet 3y ago
  It seems the thought that Teslas are not cars, but rather tablets with wheels is accurate.
• gcanyon 3y ago
  Because what could possibly go wrong hacking a hunk of metal that transports you at lethal speeds...
  • iramiller 3y ago
    This line of reasoning is what is used to justify lock-in and anti-right to repair legislation. Following this reasoning you shouldn’t be allowed to change a flat tire on your car as it could be improperly tightened and fly off at speed. Technical constraints to lock out owners/users only serve to enforce a manufacturer’s feudalistic rent seeking and revenue extraction policies. In the overall scope of driving a personal automobile cellphone use or even adjusting the car entertainment system are far more common causes of accidents and death and yet these are not locked away via technical controls despite being very easy to accomplish.
    • gcanyon 3y ago
      Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It's a sketchy idea for the manufacturer to lock away features behind paywalls. 2. It's a really bad idea to monkey with the internals of a self-driving car.
  • gedy 3y ago
    As someone who made and drives a rat rod, it's basically the same situation? If the car fails due to my physical hacking, it's on me. Should be same for software.
    • gcanyon 3y ago
      I never said they shouldn't be able to do it; I said it's a bad idea to do it. To put it in your terms: I'm happy for you to be allowed to drive a rat rod (hello, fellow old? I haven't heard that term in a looong time), but clearly a car with likely no crumple zones, air bags, antilock brakes, etc., etc. is less safe than a modern sedan.
  • waterheater 3y ago
    Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative. Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security. To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things. The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage. [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislation-makes-airbags-mandatory https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...
• no_time 3y ago
  That's very cool. Especially if this could compromise the desktop version of this tech as well. Extracting my own TPM keys could be useful if MS/GOOG decides to boil the frog even harder.
• LocalH 3y ago
  Rent-seeking is the true American way, it seems. Good on the hackers. Good on everyone who helps to liberate us from the overreach of big business.
  • umvi 3y ago
    Is it rent seeking/overreach? I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it. Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking? But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers unlock it for everyone for free?
    • qup 3y ago
      Rent keeps getting paid. It's not a one-time purchase of $25.
      • gruez 3y ago
        What about games with monthly membership fees like world of warcraft?
        • kelnos 3y ago
          That's fine, since there's an on-going cost to maintain the cloud infrastructure that the game needs to function. The company is well within its rights to say "if you stop paying us, you stop getting to use our cloud services". But if there was a single-player or LAN version of the game (I know that's not really possible with something like WoW, but for the sake of the argument...), then players should absolutely not have to pay an on-going subscription fee to play that way.
          • martin8412 3y ago
            There's been plenty of WoW private servers throughout history hosted by people who had nothing to do with Blizzard.
• sakopov 3y ago
  Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly irresponsible to disclose this without going through proper channels first? They claim this hack unlocks a host of other features. Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences.
  • kerkeslager 3y ago
    No, fuck that. Tesla is locking people out of their own cars' features. Being allowed to mess with your own car is one of the privileges of owning a car.
  • sangnoir 3y ago
    > Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences People have always been able to do this with a wrench since before the invention of cars.
    • sakopov 3y ago
      I don't think anyone's taking a soldering iron to their on-board computer in a standard ICE vehicle. The fact that tesla has vehicle control code running on it (beyond your typical lane assist) makes this infinitely worse. Or am I missing something? I get that people disagree with these features being locked down and I agree. My point is this isn't like changing a cold air intake in your ICE car. This can have you go into a fucking wall at high speeds.
      • 1970-01-01 3y ago
        >I don't think anyone's taking a soldering iron to their on-board computer in a standard ICE vehicle. This is a multi-million dollar industry in the USA.
      • sangnoir 3y ago
        There's no reason to limit the components people can tinker with to electronics! Everyone is free to (attempt to) replace their brake fluid - or repair the brakes - which can cause disaster at high speeds if not done correctly. I'm yet to hear anyone asking for access to vehicular hydraulics to be locked down in order to protect people from themselves.
• dbg31415 3y ago
  Was the password, “XGonGiveIttToYa”?
• kklisura 3y ago
  > Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems. We need to bring back hackers/crackers of the old and NOT share exploits with these companies.
  • elvircrn 3y ago
    'sup
• jchw 3y ago
  > Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry. Popular is the wrong word. Common, maybe. But popular?
  • dathos 3y ago
    From the point of view of the auto industry I would say popular is the right word.
    • jchw 3y ago
      Call me pedantic but I think using the word popular without qualifying it any further really begs for you to interpret it more generally, even in this context. Prevalent or common are better terms here in my opinion, since they regard the status quo rather than opinions.
• rkagerer 3y ago
  Seeing this gives me the same warm, fuzzy feeling I had when I jailbroke my first iPhone to gain features that were impossible otherwise. I wonder if Tesla will start using physical one-shot fuse bits buried deep in hard-to-access components (eg. hardwire a heater control relay open in the final programming step at the factory) to make these type of attacks more difficult. Of course that would preclude up-selling the feature later.
  • frankus 3y ago
    I think it's all about the possibility to later upsell. I don't think the economics work out where it's cheaper to install something like a seat heater in every car and permanently disable for price discrimination purposes (the way you might for e.g. a CPU). My brain can kind of rationalize this as "it makes the up-front price lower, and you can add features to your car without even visiting a dealer", but my heart definitely recoils at the idea of paying for something like that already in my possession.
    • kevincox 3y ago
      I agree that it feels really wrong but I don't think it is actually unethical to lock features like this. (Although the way the locks are implemented may be unethical.) It allows making multiple logical models with a single production line. This lowers the cost and in theory that is valuable to consumers. I imagine that if there was no ability to "upgrade" later this wouldn't even be news. Consumers would just see it as a base model and a premium model, and Tesla found a very cost effective way to provide two models of car. Or four models if you count self-driving. But upgrading later is actually valuable. Why not let someone add features as their budget allows? It does "expose" that these are only software locks but I think that is actually fine. In theory it is just the people who purchase the premium upgrades that are paying for these features in all cars. It shouldn't necessarily affect the price of the base model and you aren't really paying for the feature unless you purchase the upgrade.
• londons_explore 3y ago
  There are already third party garages offering to unlock various things for less than Tesla wants (or upgrades Tesla simply doesn't sell). They tend to involve a gizmo intercepting can messages though. The gizmo is usually keyed to the serial number of the car so you can't clone/move/resell them.
• liendolucas 3y ago
  > Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry. Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
  • ryathal 3y ago
    You better be ok with building your own car then, because every major player is adding subscriptions for various features. Remote start and remote lock/unlock are the most common, along with satellite radio.
    • liendolucas 3y ago
      The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.
      • stjo 3y ago
        I could give companies a pass for features that require continuous maintenance from them, like remote unlock (properly secured servers). But there was a car company that tried to sell you your own seat warmers, which definitely crosses my barrier.
        • woah 3y ago
          The seats get warm by running Javascript single page apps which need to be served from the servers, and frequently updated by the company's front end developers to use newer frameworks that make them get even hotter
      • ulamel 3y ago
        big tech is trying to erase this concept from the consumer mind. Assuming someone tried to do everything legally (not pirating) when was the last time anyone "owned" anything. Music, Movies, TV shows, Software, you don't own any of it you are simply paying for server space.
• eimrine 3y ago
  Can electric car be not a computer-powered car?
  • okanat 3y ago
    You cannot get rid of the entire computerization because of the battery management. Also having some smarts for different terrain conditions generally enable some efficiencies. The hard truth is energy in Lithium ions will never be as energy dense as breaking a hydrocarbon bond. So electrification will always need some computers unlike the efficiencies we can gain from changing the mechanical design of the engine (which can also and did improve with computers). However as many industries the car companies try to keep the infinite growth premise alive by entirely computerizing all parts and close off any innovation with patents. Just like ICs, in the future nobody will own their car and those who want that will need hundreds of billions to burn to create companies that has no chance of competition.
  • alden5 3y ago
    It really depends on your definition, pretty much every car for the past 50 years has been computerized. If what you're really after is an ev with no lockouts there are plenty of ev's where the only lockouts are to ensure you don't do anything stupid (no over-discharge destroying the battery for slightly more range, etc) But if you're after complete control you'll find that in ev conversions with dedicated speed controllers will give you complete control, so you can shoot yourself in the foot if need be.
• advael 3y ago
  Big fan of anything that harms the control companies have over computers they've sold people, especially in deadly weapons like cars. Excellent work
• thevania 3y ago
  every time there is some HW hacking and its TU Berlin, only one man comes to mind prof. Seifert and his team: https://www.tu.berlin/sect/ueber-uns/team https://www.tu.berlin/sect/ueber-uns/team quite prolific
• 1023bytes 3y ago
  Doesn't seem like a good idea to actually do this, since the car phones home all the time. Tesla could blacklist you from supercharging etc.
• slowmovintarget 3y ago
  The 21st century equivalent of yanking the governor chip out of the Grand National? Well, OK, not quite. https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/39941/what-is-a-buick-grand-national https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/39941/what-is-a-buick-gran...
• ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  This should be "hacked" by the regulator and not by the hackers. If they sold you a car with heated seats (so if the hardware is there), the heated seats should be available for the consumer to use.
  • abandonliberty 3y ago
    So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use? You make a common argument that's deceptively anti-consumer. Yes, this can be abused - but that's a different argument.
    • ajsnigrutin 3y ago
      If they sell you a car with heated seats, you should have heated seats. They already sold you the heated seats, you already have the heated seats, and they just want more money for something they already got money for, and you already have.
      • kevincox 3y ago
        But they didn't get money for it. They get money for it from the people who enable it. If they didn't get money from people paying for it the effective cost of manufacturing the car they sold you would go up (and they may need to raise the price they charged you to cover it). Imagine that 1/2 of the owners want heated seats. It is more cost effective to just install the hardware in every car rather than creating a new production line. These owners now need to pay 2x the raw cost of installing the seats (because they need to cover the cost of installing the hardware in the car that won't purchase it) in order to cover the cost (and of course there is some profit margin on top). But this can still be much cheaper than the extra overhead of setting up a second production line. But in this model the price of the car that didn't pay for the seats hasn't changed. The cost increase is covered by those who do pay for the seats. Making two separate production lines would raise the cost (of both models) for no benefit. Adding the feature to all cars would necessitate raising the price for the base (and only) model to cover the additional manufacturing cost. (Ok, money is fungible so it is a little hard to say anything for certain, but in theory it is rational and fair)
• sirsinsalot 3y ago
  There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks. Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine. Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple secondary markets: sorry, the BMW account you have isn't linked to this VIN. Heated seats and android auto are disabled. Let's stop the third.
  • hot_gril 3y ago
    What's the difference between the second and the third?
    • dr_orpheus 3y ago
      Second is "I pay $50 once to unlock heated seats in my car forever. This car now has heated seats and anyone that I sell it to also gets heated seats" Third is "I pay $5/month for heated seats for the entire time I own the car. Anyone that I sell the car to would also have to pay $5/month for heated seats." Edit: The other version of the third option (your BMW account is not tied to this vin) is something like "I pay $50 once for heated seats in my car. If I sell it to someone, they also have to pay $50 to unlock the heated seats"
      • hot_gril 3y ago
        Third seems slightly better, cause at least the secondary buyer clearly knows it's $5/mo instead of having to make sure the one-time payment sticks.
        • eganist 3y ago
          In fairness, the second method should probably be implemented with an e-fuse. That way once it's paid, there's no taking it away.
• robotnikman 3y ago
  Now lets do the the same for Mercedes and any other car manufacturer who starts to try this crap. Good to see stuff like this happening.
• ccosmin 3y ago
  At least in France if you have a serious accident there’s a technical examination of your car. If the insurance company finds out you tampered your car software (debridage) you’re left without any coverage.
• bigmofo 3y ago
  I would have thought that EFF and FSF would be more active in trying to promote open source in automobiles for privacy, security and being able to repair and modify the vehicle. I would think that it would be rather mind blowing how much information is gathered by the new vehicles about oneself. I have enough money to buy any model of Tesla, but will not due to privacy, security and safety reasons. (I consider drive by wire braking and acceleration a safety issue. With a stick shift I can insert the clutch and know that the drive system can be disabled. I also consider that the software can be modified over the air forcibly by Tesla a safety issue because it could be used for nefarious purposes.)
  • rossdavidh 3y ago
    Sooner or later, some city is going to be held for ransom by a group that has disabled (or hijacked) all of the Teslas in it. "Give us a king's ransom or your roads will be clogged with immovable cars, and thus unusable, for weeks". Right now, there are not enough software-hijackable cars on the road for this to work, but that is changing. Once you have a critical mass of perhaps even just 5% of the cars, you can bring all traffic to a halt until your demands are met.
    • balls187 3y ago
      Curious, why do that, and not say attack the power grid?
      • rossdavidh 3y ago
        Well, that may happen too, but you don't want to impair the victim city's ability to pay the ransom. But, I'm afraid, we'll just have to see which happens first.
    • Swenrekcah 3y ago
      I do agree with the sentiment, but in this particular example if I were the local government I’d endure the pain for the 24-36 hours it’d take to get the inflicted vehicles gathered up and then simply ban them from driving until the manufacturer fixes the issue. If I didn’t have the legal authority to do it I’d probably still do it and rather pay the damages than the ransom.
• WeylandYutani 3y ago
  You wouldn't download a car.
• AlbinoDrought 3y ago
  A mostly-software solution would be cool. I've heard of hardware solutions before, a la https://ingenext.ca/collections/bonus-module https://ingenext.ca/collections/bonus-module
• owlbite 3y ago
  My main worry is that by incentivizing customers to install dubious software on their own vehicles in a rent-seeking money grab, manufactures will make us all less safe.
• temptemptemp111 3y ago
  [dead]
• xbar 3y ago
  Sweet. Now I need to devise a patch to re-enable Low Regenerative braking. It's still in there and drivers in China had it restored earlier this year.
• stickler9834918 3y ago
  "Tesla has been known for their advanced and well-integrated car computers, from serving mundane entertainment purposes to fully autonomous driving capabilities." No, the word "autonomous" should not be used in conjunction with any Tesla vehicles. That means it can drive itself with no one inside. No Tesla vehicle is anywhere near autonomous.
• superhoops540 3y ago
  Injury Reserve said it best: Fuck it, jailbreak the Tesla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQL_XORalY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQL_XORalY
• spants 3y ago
  what happens if you paint road symbols on your car (speed, emergency, diversion, stop etc). Would a tesla behind you act on them?
• CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  I would have said I'm surprised that so many "hAcKeRz" are eager to prostrate themselves at the altar of eternal rent-seeking and powerlessness, but a lot of people here love simping for profit extractors, especially Lord Xoldermort. Another day, another rote disappointment.