3 ms·

I've done some CAN stuff (not on cars though), and that is the way that everyone I talked to advised to build your system, if suitable. However, we still pushed

I've done some CAN stuff (not on cars though), and that is the way that everyone I talked to advised to build your system, if suitable. However, we still pushed firmware from the master, so if the master were ever compromised, then all of the nodes would be potentially compromised as well. There is only sending and receiving data. All nodes receive any data from anything else on the bus. A node typically ignores data not addressed to itself but not always, that is up to the programmer. Any node can potentially impersonate the master, or another node. There is no way to prevent this, other than through the firmware.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
One thing I've not seen addressed in this context: If someone wants to create mayhem on a highway, why would they not go low-tech / low effort? There's a number of mechanical and electrical attacks that I can think of just off the top of my head. Analogy: is it worth the time making a pick-proof lock for the front door when someone can just break a window? (I'm not saying we should let car manufacturers off the hook, just offering a perspective on the realism of the threat.)
- romaniv 11y ago
  why would they not go low-tech / low effort? Attribution. Mechanical attacks are easier to attribute than something that can be done from across the world over the Internet.
- mattdeboard 11y ago
  There's also inhibitions to talk about. It's one thing to go lay a spike strip down in the middle of the road and it's another to do something over the internet.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  I'm sure there are some who might want to "create mayhem on a highway" and who would not choose this route. But when your potential attackers are [everyone with an internet connection] this kind of exploit has huge potential. Imagine if the vulnerability were bundled with a popular mobile website or if someone else cracked how to mass-distribute it. Countries that are at war could use it against their enemy. Al-Abu-ISIS-HAMAS-Nidal-Haram-Boko could use it against anyone/everyone. >Analogy: is it worth the time making a pick-proof lock for the front door when someone can just break a window? Yes, because not everyone can throw a rock from their house to yours, be nearly everyone can be connected to the internet.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

One thing I've not seen addressed in this context: If someone wants to create mayhem on a highway, why would they not go low-tech / low effort? There's a number of mechanical and electrical attacks that I can think of just off the top of my head. Analogy: is it worth the time making a pick-proof lock for the front door when someone can just break a window? (I'm not saying we should let car manufacturers off the hook, just offering a perspective on the realism of the threat.)

romaniv 11y ago
why would they not go low-tech / low effort? Attribution. Mechanical attacks are easier to attribute than something that can be done from across the world over the Internet.
mattdeboard 11y ago
There's also inhibitions to talk about. It's one thing to go lay a spike strip down in the middle of the road and it's another to do something over the internet.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I'm sure there are some who might want to "create mayhem on a highway" and who would not choose this route. But when your potential attackers are [everyone with an internet connection] this kind of exploit has huge potential. Imagine if the vulnerability were bundled with a popular mobile website or if someone else cracked how to mass-distribute it. Countries that are at war could use it against their enemy. Al-Abu-ISIS-HAMAS-Nidal-Haram-Boko could use it against anyone/everyone. >Analogy: is it worth the time making a pick-proof lock for the front door when someone can just break a window? Yes, because not everyone can throw a rock from their house to yours, be nearly everyone can be connected to the internet.