6 ms·

> - You're basically at risk of your Jeep going limp (power loss, unable to safely make it to the shoulder) and being stranded on the highway, even as I write t

> - You're basically at risk of your Jeep going limp (power loss, unable to safely make it to the shoulder) and being stranded on the highway, even as I write this. This seems extraordinary. I was going to ask: Are you really saying they kill the vehicle's power system, effictively the engine, while the vehicle is being driven on the highway? But no need to ask, the article says yes, that's what is reported: > Instead, the failure appears to occur while driving—a far more serious problem. For some, this happened close to home and at low speed, but others claim to have experienced a powertrain failure at highway speeds. Wow.

pinkmuffinere 1y ago
Ya, that is shockingly scary. It makes me think we need some new standards about software updates to vehicles in general (or perhaps these already exist but were missed for some reason?). I can totally imagine that software used to be this ancillary selling point that didn't need such tight regulation, but as it becomes core infrastructure for the vehicle this is less of an IoT toy, and deserves stricter standards.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  How about: you get to say whether you want to update and when and manufacturers are required to very explicitly list all of the changes in an update? That would seem to be an acceptable minimum.
  - pavel_lishin 1y ago
    I don't think that Jeep would have sent out a message saying that one of the changes would brick your machine. It seems that the ability to trivially roll back any update would be a better choice, at least for this. (But I'm sure there are downstream effects I haven't thought about if that were implemented.)
    - conductr 1y ago
      How do you roll back a fatal car accident caused by the faulty update? Giving user’s control over when the update runs allows them to be in a safe and secure setting when that update happens. Allowing them time, gives them and Jeep the ability to slow roll the update so they can halt it if initial feedback is negative. I say this as a Mac user who does not allow auto updates for MacOS. I wait a week or so until the chatter validates it as non-breaking. They pushed an OS update several years ago that broke a few things I rely on. So I don’t trust them now, but these things just happen on OS’s with third party software. I expect it. But, I also don’t want to be forced to deal with the headaches immediately. I’d rather let the third parties run updates and advise how to deal, before I have to dive into fixing things. With car firmware, there’s really no excuse for this except poor engineering / processes.
      - tremon 1y ago
        Giving user’s control over when the update runs allows them to be in a safe and secure setting when that update happens FTFA: > The buggy update doesn't appear to brick the car immediately. Instead, the failure appears to occur while driving — a far more serious problem And from the GP upthread: > There is no way to tell if you received the bad update. > There is no way to tell if you received the 'fix' either.
        conductr 1y ago
        Good points, I did miss those. However, if I had this vehicle and I was reading this article today - and had the ability I'm asking for - I would just keep my current version running until they figure this mess out. It's the advantage of letting other people run the updates first, you get to hear about issues before you experience them.
      - deepsun 1y ago
        > user who does not allow auto updates for MacOS. Many security compliances require auto-updates to be on. It's thought of to be a lesser evil, because many (most) users never update their OS/browsers, which is worse.
  - ashanoko 1y ago
    [dead]
  - kube-system 1y ago
    Release notes won't help a user figure out whether the update is going to brick their car the day after they install the update. The solution here is that the manufacturer needs to test their damn update before any of their customers get them.
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > How about: you get to say whether you want to update and when and manufacturers are required to very explicitly list all of the changes in an update? Huh ? What a stoopid idea. Who would protect your security ? Who will protect the children ? /s
  - jwr 1y ago
    It has become convenient for manufacturers to treat software/firmware differently from hardware, and we should fight that. If you buy a car, phone, or a TV, you buy an appliance, not "hardware stored at your place with software/firmware controlled by us". OTA software updates should be a convenience, not a requirement, never be automatic, and be otherwise treated just like a visit to a car repair shop. Similarly, no manufacturer should be able to tell you "oh, but it's a software problem" if your thing doesn't work as expected (I had Apple tell me this, for example).
    - jcgrillo 1y ago
      Exactly. It has become accepted that manufacturers can sell us complicated systems before they're "done" and software is the excuse. It should not be acceptable, and if done well we could see incentives against this behavior causing manufacturers to sell radically simpler, safer, and more maintainable systems. In this case, it appears somehow that an infotainment system update impacted the drivetrain. In my fully "fly by wire" computerized vehicle from 1999 (M-B E300), even if it somehow could receive OTA updates, these systems are physically separate. The ABS system is a different module from the transmission controller, which is different from the engine controller. They all communicate over CAN, but the only way one could crash another is if somehow it responds poorly to incorrect CAN messages.. And even if these computers crash the mechanical components they control will probably keep working more or less.. What has happened in the intervening quarter century that made it possible for this failure to happen?
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > Similarly, no manufacturer should be able to tell you "oh, but it's a software problem" if your thing doesn't work as expected Well, they should if they provided you with the hardware and you got the software from someone else. But that's the other problem: They prevent you from doing that, and then if their software is crap or they decide to turn off the servers, what do you do? Watch for some carmaker to try to say that the car only had a 10 year warranty and then brick them by turning off some servers after they're over 10 years old, or just go out of business with the same result. It's a travesty that people even put up with that for electronics.
- throw74845858 1y ago
  There is no need to invent new regulations. We already have criminal liability, endangerement from gross negligence, and manslaughter! I do not see reason, why CEOs of big companies should be exempt from this! If bus driver makes mistake, or someone drives drunk.... They get punished. This is the same thing!
  - imglorp 1y ago
    Yes and we have the NHTSA (unless it's already been neutered by the chaos) who can accumulate statistics and issue recalls.
    - AlotOfReading 1y ago
      NHTSA's power is simultaneously very broad and narrow. They're empowered to investigate potential safety issues after the fact, but this may not be a safety issue in the very pedantic sense often used. NHTSA can proactively set standards, but the standards they've set (FMVSS) largely ignore modern electronics. So on and so forth.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        NHTSA has been involved in recalls of OTAs that involve safety issues in the past, sometimes for things more minor than this, as long as it is something that affects safety equipment. e.g. stereo recalls because the backup camera took too long to display when shifted into reverse.
  - dabockster 1y ago
    > There is no need to invent new regulations. The current regulations are written for a time where cars didn't have rolling computers in them. And even then, the regulations don't account for Tesla-style linked systems. So I say we do need new regulations.
    - thfuran 1y ago
      Haven't cars been substantially computer controlled for decades? Electronic fuel injection has been common since at least the'90s.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- hulitu 1y ago
  > It makes me think we need some new standards about software No way. Testing is expensive. /s
worik 1y ago
>> - You're basically at risk of your Jeep going limp This has happened to me twice with a Nissan Leaf. I paid money to get a read out from the computer system, and there were no timestamps on the screens of data. Modern cars "computers on wheels" are dreadful. Is it possible to disconnect the power from the radios used for "over the air" nonsense? Then at least they would be stable.
- reaperducer 1y ago
  Is it possible to disconnect the power from the radios used for "over the air" nonsense? Then at least they would be stable. I've read online that for some cars, you have to dig deep inside to disconnect the cellular antenna. I'm a little more lucky. On my car, you can pop out the SIM card from a slot in the ceiling, behind the rear-view mirror. This assumes you haven't given your car access to your home WiFi. (Some people do this so they don't have to pay for a data plan for their car, and it kinda sorta "syncs" when you get home.)
- iAMkenough 1y ago
  In the Leaf, you can disconnect the TCU from the CAN gateway controller located behind the infotainment system to disable its remote connections. It will throw a perpetual "check engine" light and disable the hands-free microphone, but OVMS users have made a "dummy TCU" that gets around that annoyance. I have the opposite problem. The specific infotainment system update I need requires a $200 visit to a dealership with a specific model of a USB 2.0 SanDisk Flash Drive (NI-52727-1). Not available OTA despite the Leaf's OTA capabilities.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    In my country that car would then fail inspection immediately. Of course you could reattach before the check up, but then there is no excuse for just shutting it off. Buying a modern car seems to come with too many strings attached these days.
casenmgreen 1y ago
Incredible that Jeep did not think to have updates only go out to cars which are stationary with engine off.
- mulmen 1y ago
  They did. > The buggy update doesn't appear to brick the car immediately. Instead, the failure appears to occur while driving—a far more serious problem.
  - casenmgreen 1y ago
    Top post in this thread says; > My 4xe died in my driveway on Saturday after the update. It seems not driving bricks as well.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - otterley 1y ago
      It’s a possibility that the engine was running and the transmission was in the R or D position when it happened. The OP can clarify.
trenchpilgrim 1y ago
Relevant: "Hackers Remotely Kill A Jeep On the Highway With Me In It" (2015) https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...
klooney 1y ago
You know, if Stellantis and other manufacturers can't behave responsibly, OTA updates will be illegal. They really should get their act together.
araes 1y ago
From a GPS software update... [1] "This is a telematics box module update" Telematics is primarily GPS and on-board diagnostics for location, speed, and fuel usage. A GPS update kills your entire powertrain. Appears to also engage parking for some users, super dangerous. Catbones, "Almost died on the thruway today ... with an 18-wheeler behind me. ... Jeep died, locked its hand brake and jolted so hard my face almost ended up in the steering wheel at 70mph." [1] [1] Wrangler 4xe forum, JeepCares and Catbones accounts: https://www.4xeforums.com/threads/wrangler-4xe-ota-update-10-10-2025.8078/ https://www.4xeforums.com/threads/wrangler-4xe-ota-update-10... Personal bet: Jeep accidentally enabled the remote kill switch for repossessing automobiles. [2] Possibly the "impaired driver" kill switch. [3] [2] Stateline, Late Payment Kill Switch: https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your-car/ https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-... [3] Trackhawk, Federal Kill Switch Law: https://trackhawkgps.com/blog/kill-switch-law https://trackhawkgps.com/blog/kill-switch-law

pinkmuffinere 1y ago

Ya, that is shockingly scary. It makes me think we need some new standards about software updates to vehicles in general (or perhaps these already exist but were missed for some reason?). I can totally imagine that software used to be this ancillary selling point that didn't need such tight regulation, but as it becomes core infrastructure for the vehicle this is less of an IoT toy, and deserves stricter standards.

jacquesm 1y ago
How about: you get to say whether you want to update and when and manufacturers are required to very explicitly list all of the changes in an update? That would seem to be an acceptable minimum.
- pavel_lishin 1y ago
  I don't think that Jeep would have sent out a message saying that one of the changes would brick your machine. It seems that the ability to trivially roll back any update would be a better choice, at least for this. (But I'm sure there are downstream effects I haven't thought about if that were implemented.)
  - conductr 1y ago
    How do you roll back a fatal car accident caused by the faulty update? Giving user’s control over when the update runs allows them to be in a safe and secure setting when that update happens. Allowing them time, gives them and Jeep the ability to slow roll the update so they can halt it if initial feedback is negative. I say this as a Mac user who does not allow auto updates for MacOS. I wait a week or so until the chatter validates it as non-breaking. They pushed an OS update several years ago that broke a few things I rely on. So I don’t trust them now, but these things just happen on OS’s with third party software. I expect it. But, I also don’t want to be forced to deal with the headaches immediately. I’d rather let the third parties run updates and advise how to deal, before I have to dive into fixing things. With car firmware, there’s really no excuse for this except poor engineering / processes.
    - tremon 1y ago
      Giving user’s control over when the update runs allows them to be in a safe and secure setting when that update happens FTFA: > The buggy update doesn't appear to brick the car immediately. Instead, the failure appears to occur while driving — a far more serious problem And from the GP upthread: > There is no way to tell if you received the bad update. > There is no way to tell if you received the 'fix' either.
      - conductr 1y ago
        Good points, I did miss those. However, if I had this vehicle and I was reading this article today - and had the ability I'm asking for - I would just keep my current version running until they figure this mess out. It's the advantage of letting other people run the updates first, you get to hear about issues before you experience them.
    - deepsun 1y ago
      > user who does not allow auto updates for MacOS. Many security compliances require auto-updates to be on. It's thought of to be a lesser evil, because many (most) users never update their OS/browsers, which is worse.
- ashanoko 1y ago
  [dead]
- kube-system 1y ago
  Release notes won't help a user figure out whether the update is going to brick their car the day after they install the update. The solution here is that the manufacturer needs to test their damn update before any of their customers get them.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > How about: you get to say whether you want to update and when and manufacturers are required to very explicitly list all of the changes in an update? Huh ? What a stoopid idea. Who would protect your security ? Who will protect the children ? /s
- jwr 1y ago
  It has become convenient for manufacturers to treat software/firmware differently from hardware, and we should fight that. If you buy a car, phone, or a TV, you buy an appliance, not "hardware stored at your place with software/firmware controlled by us". OTA software updates should be a convenience, not a requirement, never be automatic, and be otherwise treated just like a visit to a car repair shop. Similarly, no manufacturer should be able to tell you "oh, but it's a software problem" if your thing doesn't work as expected (I had Apple tell me this, for example).
  - jcgrillo 1y ago
    Exactly. It has become accepted that manufacturers can sell us complicated systems before they're "done" and software is the excuse. It should not be acceptable, and if done well we could see incentives against this behavior causing manufacturers to sell radically simpler, safer, and more maintainable systems. In this case, it appears somehow that an infotainment system update impacted the drivetrain. In my fully "fly by wire" computerized vehicle from 1999 (M-B E300), even if it somehow could receive OTA updates, these systems are physically separate. The ABS system is a different module from the transmission controller, which is different from the engine controller. They all communicate over CAN, but the only way one could crash another is if somehow it responds poorly to incorrect CAN messages.. And even if these computers crash the mechanical components they control will probably keep working more or less.. What has happened in the intervening quarter century that made it possible for this failure to happen?
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > Similarly, no manufacturer should be able to tell you "oh, but it's a software problem" if your thing doesn't work as expected Well, they should if they provided you with the hardware and you got the software from someone else. But that's the other problem: They prevent you from doing that, and then if their software is crap or they decide to turn off the servers, what do you do? Watch for some carmaker to try to say that the car only had a 10 year warranty and then brick them by turning off some servers after they're over 10 years old, or just go out of business with the same result. It's a travesty that people even put up with that for electronics.
throw74845858 1y ago
There is no need to invent new regulations. We already have criminal liability, endangerement from gross negligence, and manslaughter! I do not see reason, why CEOs of big companies should be exempt from this! If bus driver makes mistake, or someone drives drunk.... They get punished. This is the same thing!
- imglorp 1y ago
  Yes and we have the NHTSA (unless it's already been neutered by the chaos) who can accumulate statistics and issue recalls.
  - AlotOfReading 1y ago
    NHTSA's power is simultaneously very broad and narrow. They're empowered to investigate potential safety issues after the fact, but this may not be a safety issue in the very pedantic sense often used. NHTSA can proactively set standards, but the standards they've set (FMVSS) largely ignore modern electronics. So on and so forth.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      NHTSA has been involved in recalls of OTAs that involve safety issues in the past, sometimes for things more minor than this, as long as it is something that affects safety equipment. e.g. stereo recalls because the backup camera took too long to display when shifted into reverse.
- dabockster 1y ago
  > There is no need to invent new regulations. The current regulations are written for a time where cars didn't have rolling computers in them. And even then, the regulations don't account for Tesla-style linked systems. So I say we do need new regulations.
  - thfuran 1y ago
    Haven't cars been substantially computer controlled for decades? Electronic fuel injection has been common since at least the'90s.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hulitu 1y ago
> It makes me think we need some new standards about software No way. Testing is expensive. /s

worik 1y ago

>> - You're basically at risk of your Jeep going limp This has happened to me twice with a Nissan Leaf. I paid money to get a read out from the computer system, and there were no timestamps on the screens of data. Modern cars "computers on wheels" are dreadful. Is it possible to disconnect the power from the radios used for "over the air" nonsense? Then at least they would be stable.

reaperducer 1y ago
Is it possible to disconnect the power from the radios used for "over the air" nonsense? Then at least they would be stable. I've read online that for some cars, you have to dig deep inside to disconnect the cellular antenna. I'm a little more lucky. On my car, you can pop out the SIM card from a slot in the ceiling, behind the rear-view mirror. This assumes you haven't given your car access to your home WiFi. (Some people do this so they don't have to pay for a data plan for their car, and it kinda sorta "syncs" when you get home.)
iAMkenough 1y ago
In the Leaf, you can disconnect the TCU from the CAN gateway controller located behind the infotainment system to disable its remote connections. It will throw a perpetual "check engine" light and disable the hands-free microphone, but OVMS users have made a "dummy TCU" that gets around that annoyance. I have the opposite problem. The specific infotainment system update I need requires a $200 visit to a dealership with a specific model of a USB 2.0 SanDisk Flash Drive (NI-52727-1). Not available OTA despite the Leaf's OTA capabilities.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  In my country that car would then fail inspection immediately. Of course you could reattach before the check up, but then there is no excuse for just shutting it off. Buying a modern car seems to come with too many strings attached these days.

casenmgreen 1y ago

Incredible that Jeep did not think to have updates only go out to cars which are stationary with engine off.

mulmen 1y ago
They did. > The buggy update doesn't appear to brick the car immediately. Instead, the failure appears to occur while driving—a far more serious problem.
- casenmgreen 1y ago
  Top post in this thread says; > My 4xe died in my driveway on Saturday after the update. It seems not driving bricks as well.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - otterley 1y ago
    It’s a possibility that the engine was running and the transmission was in the R or D position when it happened. The OP can clarify.

trenchpilgrim 1y ago

Relevant: "Hackers Remotely Kill A Jeep On the Highway With Me In It" (2015) https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig...

klooney 1y ago

You know, if Stellantis and other manufacturers can't behave responsibly, OTA updates will be illegal. They really should get their act together.

araes 1y ago

From a GPS software update... [1] "This is a telematics box module update" Telematics is primarily GPS and on-board diagnostics for location, speed, and fuel usage. A GPS update kills your entire powertrain. Appears to also engage parking for some users, super dangerous. Catbones, "Almost died on the thruway today ... with an 18-wheeler behind me. ... Jeep died, locked its hand brake and jolted so hard my face almost ended up in the steering wheel at 70mph." [1] [1] Wrangler 4xe forum, JeepCares and Catbones accounts: https://www.4xeforums.com/threads/wrangler-4xe-ota-update-10-10-2025.8078/ https://www.4xeforums.com/threads/wrangler-4xe-ota-update-10... Personal bet: Jeep accidentally enabled the remote kill switch for repossessing automobiles. [2] Possibly the "impaired driver" kill switch. [3] [2] Stateline, Late Payment Kill Switch: https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-can-strand-you-and-your-car/ https://stateline.org/2018/11/27/late-payment-a-kill-switch-... [3] Trackhawk, Federal Kill Switch Law: https://trackhawkgps.com/blog/kill-switch-law https://trackhawkgps.com/blog/kill-switch-law