6 ms·
Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!
by ImprovedSilence 14y ago
Nice, I like the forward thinking by ford on this. I only wish next they open up the engine controller, and let the real hackers in!
- untog 14y agoI can't imagine the amount of penetration testing they'd need to do before opening up core components of a car. I would not want to be in charge of that project.
- ceejayoz 14y agoI can't imagine any halfway competent legal department ever endorsing such a thing.
- ImprovedSilence 14y agoOf course they'd never open that up, that was just me dreaming.
- sukuriant 14y agoIsn't that what stage 2 systems for cars already does? Updates the car's internal computer, as well as changing out physical components?
- dsl 14y agoThe real hackers are already in. ;) The Nissan Pathfinder for example has a pin on the ECM that when grounded loads the engine profile from the upper 256K of RAM vs the normal lower 256K of RAM. If you modify an engine profile to set limits of 5 MPH and 1000 RPM and load it into the upper 256K and wire that pin to the dome light switch, you have an amazing anti-theft system.
- sjwright 14y agoSecurity through obscurity. Works well until it becomes a popular tactic. Anyway, haven't immobilizers all but stopped drive-away car theft?
- dsl 14y agoI'd label it more as "heterogenous security." If everyone modded their own car, a thief is forced to develop novel attacks for each car. Immobilisers have two major issues. The first is code weakness. Many of the early ones used static keys. In '98 when Germany mandated them for new cars, BMW and others switched to using the odometer reading as a shared secret. Newer ones often use weak 40-bit keys. The second issue is that most immobilizers simply cut the ignition circuit and the fuel pump circuit. If you know where the relays are on a model of car you can short circuit them.
- sjwright 14y agoYou're seriously proposing BYO security? Immobilisers have dramatically reduced rates of drive-away car theft in Australia where they became mandatory a while ago. They might not be completely foolproof, but they certainly do stop the vast, vast majority of criminals.
- starik36 14y agoFord has offered this type of functionality (read-only, of course) for the last 15 years at least. They had at that time a parallel cable (remember those printers) interface to their engine that would let you get all kinds of information. I coded to it - it was quite fun.
- sliverstorm 14y agoThis doesn't seem like the sort of thing you'd want to expose to the general public. With computers, you are generally pretty safe from breaking anything permanently. Engines, on the other hand, are not only subject to a host of regulations but also very easy to destroy with a few errors. Serious hackers would of course be very interested, but allowing the general public to cause thousands of dollars in damage to their engine with a few keystrokes seems like a setup for a PR nightmare. Also, I mentioned the regulations- I doubt the EPA and CARB would be happy.
- drcube 14y agoI don't like this reasoning. We already give people physical access to their cars' engines. They can do as much damage just as easily, but they don't because they'd rather have a functional car. Open up access to the computer and it would be the same thing. Most people would leave it alone and those who didn't would know ahead of time what they're getting into.
- joezydeco 14y agoThey're getting a bit closer with OpenXC. Doubtful they'll ever let anyone all the way in, but you never know... http://openxcplatform.com/ http://openxcplatform.com/