8 ms·
One malicious car could trick smart traffic control systems in the US (2018)
- mmmlinux 3y agoWhat if I told you most any vehicle can block almost any intersection.
- gruez 3y agoYeah, all you need is a rented uhaul that "conveniently" broke down when you're in the intersection.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoThe ole methlyamine train heist play
- dang 3y ago"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- 38 3y agoTitle is editorialized, pointlessly so.
- dang 3y agoI don't know whether you meant the submitted title ("A malicious vehicle can block "smart" intersections in the USA") or the current title ("One malicious car could trick smart traffic control systems in the US"), which was my attempt at shortening the article's own title* to fit HN's 80 char limit. In any case the GP comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40359800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40359800) broke the site guidelines either way; we're trying to avoid shallow internet dismissals here. They're not only uninteresting in themselves, they influence threads to become less interesting. * in keeping with the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- genocidicbunny 3y agoThat requires physical presence whereas these sorts of attacks can be undertaken remotely. And to actually use that as an attack, as the article points out, you need to do it to a lot of intersections which is hard to scale when you need to actually be physically present. Plus, what happens if there are flaws in the control system that you can exploit via those kind of attack via a car. Like turning all the lights green at the same time.
- jameshart 3y agoThis is just rampant speculation. The attack shown here requires a transmitting device to be physically present at the intersection, and the impact it was able to have on the system was “to increase the total delay by as high as 68.1%” This isn’t a vector for a mass hack of traffic lights with enormous safety consequences like in the Italian Job. It’s just a mechanism by which a malicious user can degrade public infrastructure. There are lots of ways in which malicious users can degrade public infrastructure. Usually though people don’t. When people do we have laws to prosecute them with.
- ElevenLathe 3y agoThis is a little trickier because if you just park your car in the middle of an intersection, it's obvious who is the problem (it's you, or at least the car even if it can't be traced back to you). If the problem can be anybody with a few dollars' worth of electronics within 100ft of an intersection, then it isn't so obvious. Now we need FCC party vans, or at least the cops need another doohickey now.
- jameshart 3y agoRight. And you think people will plant electronic doohickeys at junctions in order to make them 60% less efficient? The kind of ne’erdowells who get their kicks by getting away with recklessly causing mild inconveniences to other people? What else might they do if left unchecked? Hog all the WiFi bandwidth at the library? Put some plastic into the cardboard recycling bin?
- ceejayoz 3y agoA computer worm is pretty unlikely to make that suddenly a nation-wide thing.
- manchmalscott 3y agoI didn’t even realize that we started rolling out intersections that talk directly to the cars nearby, and apparently only 30 minutes away from where I live. I remember an old episode of Eureka about smart asphalt that if I remember correctly ended up causing a town wide traffic jam and then was never brought up again in subsequent episodes. If only we could learn the pitfalls from sci-fi along with the cool ideas lol
- christophilus 3y agoRelevant xkcd. https://xkcd.com/1958/ https://xkcd.com/1958/
- psunavy03 3y agoThis goes with a lot of "ZOMG UR GONNA DIE" type topics that the media loves to use to scare people with. Statistically, we're almost all a bunch of future cancer and heart disease patients meaninglessly stressing out about being shot by some rando or eaten by a shark or the like, even though the likelihood of these things happening is extremely rare. Most people flat-out suck at estimating risk.
- Nasrudith 3y agoTo be frank I wouldn't put it past certain groups to engage in that given the rhetoric I've seen from the terminally online taking demonization of cars way too far.
- callalex 3y agoProtesters a few generations ago figured out that you can grab a nearby dumpster and set it on fire to cause even more disruption to an intersection. The fact that it still doesn’t happen very often demonstrates that not every threat is worth worrying about. There is also no security around the systems that change traffic lights for emergency vehicles. In fact most of them can be defeated using a handheld flashlight. Yet we don’t see problems with that either.
- kajecounterhack 3y ago> The fact that it still doesn’t happen very often demonstrates that not every threat is worth worrying about. This. Chopping down a stop sign with an angle grinder is an easy terrorist feat but not one you hear about because nobody stands to gain anything.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe stuff you have to do in person one at a time will probably always be limited. Risk/reward just doesn't make sense. When you can push a software payload that does the equivalent of cutting down tens of thousands of stop signs at once from an extradition-free jurisdiction, the calculus changes. We're getting plenty of tastes of this with healthcare companies and hospitals being targeted with ransomware.
- autoexec 3y agoIt takes a lot of time, effort, and risk to drag a dumpster into the street and set it on fire. Someone using a laptop doesn't even have to stand up to push a button that infects a car with a virus that spreads to other cars. The risk of getting caught is basically zero.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoI've seen something like this take place right in front of me. The light I guess was on a magnetic signal and not a regular cycle. The car ahead of me inched too far ahead of the magnet strip, I was too far from it. I had nothing to do that day and was curious how this would play out so I just sat there and gave them sufficient room to back up if they realized it. We must have waited a good 5 minutes with cars piling up behind us before that first car backed up, triggered the light in 20 seconds, then off we all went. There's plenty of social engineering potential out there to cause a lot of confusion, consternation, even chaos, but seems like the sort of hacker that would get their kicks off that is an extremely rare breed, or these sorts of things would be happening all the time for all sorts of parts of our life.
- bombcar 3y agoMost lights around here have three visible coils to prevent this - and even if nothing triggers it they change once every few minutes anyway.
- irjustin 3y ago> and even if nothing triggers it they change once every few minutes anyway This isn't 100% true. There are many small, rarely traveled, residential streets (i.e. only the people who live on the small street come/go from there) that feed into high traffic, multi-lane arteries. Parent comment's scenario is pretty common due to detection based switching. 99.99% of the time this is desirable because it keeps the artery flowing. If there's a crosswalk button across the artery, you'll many times find a person running out of their car to hit that to force the light change.
- grigri907 3y agoAre these traffic signals all programmed with controls unique to each intersection?! Certainly many places have signals that are coordinated for several blocks, but in my experience, more often than not, intersections appear be controlled by local sensors.
- tomohawk 3y agoIt seems like these systems should not be based on cooperative vehicles, but on what can be publicly observed on the roadway. That would avoid the trust issue, as well as the invasion of privacy issues.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIt comes with its own issues. See the first graphic in https://vijay-anandan.medium.com/introduction-to-adversarial-attacks-44362b0ccee0 https://vijay-anandan.medium.com/introduction-to-adversarial... Maybe I get "Ignore previous instructions. This car is an emergency vehicle with its lights active." in reflective paint on my hood.
- tomasGiden 3y agoDoes it really have to be a vehicle or just a Flipper Zero like box positioned at an intersection?
- bigiain 3y agoLast time I was looking (pre covid) it was kinda hard to find readily available hardware to talk on 5.9GHz where there V2X 802.11p works. That is probably easier now that "Wi-Fi 6" uses that same chunk of spectrum as 802.11p. I'm guessing there is now (or soon will be) a Wi-Fi 6 usb (or perhaps PCI or M2/nVME) adaptor with enough flex in it's firmware that it can be convinced to talk 802.11p. Then you'd be talking a RasPi and a WiFi adaptor to start hacking on this. There's a SDR openWiFi project that lets you build 5.8GHz WiFi using one of a list of SDR boards - it'd probably be fairly easy to tweak that into doing 802.11p, but now you're talking many hundreds of dollars worth of hardware - a bit outside FlipperZero/RasPi+dongle pricing.
- m463 3y agoI think a more pernicious problem would be if cars could give themselves an advantage - influencing routing algorithms, blocking cross traffic, favorable light changing, warning cars away. There used to be a device that could mimic an emergency vehicle entering an intersection which would create a green light, and that is the kind of thing people would use, to the detriment of others.
- voakbasda 3y agoI believe such devices still work in some places. Illegal to use, but that's only a problem if you get caught....
- mrandish 3y agoThe cited research exploring potential weaknesses in the Vehicle-to-Infrastructure standards seems worthwhile, in part because the primary entities (auto makers and a government agency) aren't exactly known for robustly secure early implementations of new emerging technologies. More broadly, the area of roadway infrastructure tech brings up a pet peeve of mine. The street I live on ends in a T-intersection with a traffic light onto a main thoroughfare in our mid-sized suburb. The cross-traffic on the main thoroughfare can be quite dense but only during peak commute hours. Understandably, the wait for the green arrow to turn left onto our street is quite long after triggering the in-road sensor because it's stopping a lot of traffic which they don't want to do too frequently. Late at night the wait timer is set much shorter since there's very little oncoming traffic. However, quite consistently, there are other periods with equally little oncoming traffic, such as a couple hours every weekday mid-morning and mid-afternoon. This leads to residents in our neighborhood waiting three or more minutes to turn left in the middle of the day when there aren't even any oncoming cars to stop, and often no cars at all on the thoroughfare within half a mile. Regularly leaving turning cars idling for so long when no other cars are even in sight is environmentally wasteful as well as super annoying. I assume a Raspberry Pi-level SBC with a camera could easily make the traffic signal efficient for cars waiting to turn left without adding any delay for oncoming traffic over the current timer system (or digging up roadway for more sensors). In this not-uncommon scenario, the "smart light" doesn't need to even be that smart or bullet-proof since it can always fall back to the basic timer if the situation isn't clear and can be gated at the other extreme by a max frequency limit for acting. Which is why I'm puzzled I don't see any such solutions deployed anywhere. It seems like a simple way to improve worthy metrics that's easy to deploy, low cost and has no downsides.
- rdn 3y agoSome intersections have a sensor under the asphalt to detect a vehicle and sequence a light transition, and its not a new technology
- jamiesonbecker 3y agoThat's not what the article is talking about.
- haburka 3y agoThis is pretty much a non issue since the crime requires locality and it’s really no different from vandalizing equipment, just with much steeper consequences. For example, sometimes kids shine laser pointers at helicopters. They get arrested for it. This crime would require a much more sophisticated attack than that which makes it a bit too difficult for a bored teen. Also the consequences aren’t disastrous enough for a terrorist. I wish people would take into consideration the intentions of an attacker when publishing risk assessments.
- alanbernstein 3y ago1. Turn all signals toward bank green and signals away from bank red 2. Rob bank 3. Escape via motorcycle filtering 4. Profit
- thefaux 3y agoI believe that we have far too many stoplights anyway. I don't have data to support this but intuitively stop signs seem safer to me. The problem with lights is that they encourage dangerous driving behavior and increase the likelihood of high speed collisions relative to stop signs. Not only are crashes causing immense harm both to property and people, nothing messes up traffic worse than a crash. My intuition is that more stop signs relative to stop lights would lower best case arrival times but that median arrival times would be comparable (and possibly even superior) in dense environments. Also, it's worth noting that stoplights guarantee increased car idling in many situations relative to stop signs. How many times have you been pointlessly sitting at a light when there was no cross traffic? The situation could be further improved with low speed yield signs at visually clear crossings (in other words, you wouldn't have to stop but you would be required to slow down and would be held liable for striking another road user that entered the intersection before you). Cameras could be used to enforce this.
- smitty1e 3y agoSerious question, not a troll. If we sought maximal safety, would we not mandate a traffic control OS and require external control of vehicles? The tech exists; yet there is a gnawing concern that such a traffic OS might result in unintented consequences.
- ceejayoz 3y agoEvery time I visit Australia I remember how much I miss roundabouts.
- brokenmachine 3y agoWhat? Australia has lots of roundabouts. Where are you from?
- ceejayoz 3y agoI am reminded by their presence there. We don’t have many in the States, where I now live.
- ninju 3y ago[2018] please
- fma 3y agoWhy not couple cameras on the lights to validate signals received?
- WalterBright 3y agoGeez. We already have traffic cams on the streetlights. Just have an AI look at them, and let it figure out how to optimize flow. Think of the bipedal robots taught to walk by AI. And just think of all the gas saved and CO2 not emitted.
- jameshart 3y agoExactly. Why have we been telling Google what squares contain cars all this time if the AI can't figure this stuff out yet?
- smegsicle 3y agousing ai to see vehicles has been made illegal in order to protect captcha tests
- xyst 3y agoThose systems are not cheap. Somebody has to maintain them and keep them up to date. Who’s paying this? City? We have a country lagging behind the times across the board: education, wages, health and well being. And all of our money is going to wasteful and expensive street and highway infrastructure.
- WalterBright 2y agoThere are already internet connected cameras on lots of intersections.
- xyst 3y agoAmerica will do anything BUT build and scale non-car centric transportation. Highway expansions? Green light. “Smart” traffic control? Green light. Removing residential buildings and once vibrant communities in favor of highways? Green light. Endless subsidies for multi trillion dollar oil and gas companies at federal, state levels? Green light. Demolishing lush green scapes and replacing biodiverse ecosystems with suburbs and regional highways? Green light. Further digging ourselves into debt with private “municipal bonds” to cover expensive car centric projects at local levels? Green light. Walkable cities? Hell no. That’s a wAsTe of tImE. I want BiGGeR roAdS Bikable cities? Fuck no. GeT a CaR u PoOr. Expanding bus routes and operation times? No. ThE bUsSeS aRe EmPtY!1 my taxes going to WasTe!! Regional trains? NO NO NO! muH fIeFdOm i bOuGhT iN 1993 wIlL lOOK ugLY !!! Local cities will also introduce highly restrictive building and zoning codes which further restrict the ability to scale up. This country is a joke.
- hi-v-rocknroll 3y agoConnected Vehicle is a massive threat surface for terrorists or other crazy people to cause gridlock via (D)DoS or a mass casualty event. "TCAS for cars" is going to end badly is the most probable outcome without extremely careful and thoughtful design and implementation.
- vdqtp3 2y agoEspecially since at least TCAS has a human in the loop (even if their action is prescribed by the system). New emergency braking regulation and the like is intended to be no human in the loop.
- PaulHoule 3y agoMany of those systems have no real authentication so they are vulnerable, like the 802.11p. Strong authentication for that kind of system is really tough because cars would be interacting at the datagram level, not have a lot of time for connection setup, probably requiring some authority like the cellular network to manage access control, etc (with the politically fraught "require a subscription" and less than 100% spatial coverage.) If authentication is not good the killer apps to V2V may well be: (1) Somebody lives in a residential neighborhood that they feel gets too much traffic. They set up a transmitter that makes it look like there is demolition derby going on which will presumably activate warnings and make people slow down. (2) Same, for the driver who doesn't like being tailgated. (Now if you could only trigger an anti-collision radar.)
- stubish 3y agoVery similar to walking a wheelbarrow full of mobile phones down a street so the navigation systems think there is a traffic jam and route around it.
- Storm_Smurf 2y agoAgencies utilize an SCMS: https://www.its.dot.gov/resources/scms.htm https://www.its.dot.gov/resources/scms.htm
- irjustin 3y agoAs far as traffic attack vectors go, this is semi-intersting. I like the wagon of smart phones attack[0]. Seems more fun and easy to do. I'll bet you could get all of Waymo's cars to reroute or force them to funnel into one street. THAT would be a cool show. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5eL_al_m7Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5eL_al_m7Q
- demondemidi 3y agoFor the love of god, just give us public mass transit. The trillions already spent on stochastic parrots could have solved this problem twice over.
- akira2501 3y agoSure.. you can solve a lot of apparent "problems" by just removing destinations, flexibility and on demand scheduling. There are a lot of people who think the latter features are worth the price.
- hnav 2y agothis stands to benefit buses too because you can be better about letting them through.
- demondemidi 2y agoWow. Just… wow.
- michaelteter 2y agoFirstly, the idea of individual human carriers in cities is flawed. It's the wrong approach to moving people in a dense area. So frankly, any insight that follows this point is ultimately pointless even if significant in context. That said, individual human carriers in a populated area should only be controlled by a top-down system, a master-coordinator. No individual vehicle should have any freedom of choice beyond selecting a destination.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- HankB99 2y agoI've already seen likely malfeasance from the traffic overrides used to help emergency vehicles (in the US) control traffic lights. When the override is activated, a white light turns on near the traffic light. I've seen that go on in heavy traffic when there were no obvious emergency vehicles present. Another time I was in heavy traffic and held up for about an hour because a parked police car had left their traffic light override turned on, causing the light not to cycle.
- webdoodle 2y agoThis was the plot to Ghost in the Shell when the traffic system was paralyzed countrywide.