5 ms·

They sent known commands to a known vehicle, they weren't live-fuzzing an unknown system. The experiment seems less dangerous than not following decent tire-ro

by fineman 11y ago

They sent known commands to a known vehicle, they weren't live-fuzzing an unknown system. The experiment seems less dangerous than not following decent tire-rotation policy, etc. It's not that there's finite extra risk, it's what it is in relation to the baseline risk. Without that these comments are just useless scaremongering.

MBCook 11y ago
The problem isn't what they did to the vehicle. The problem is there were other drivers around who may not have been expecting the situation. Further, since they weren't in the vehicle, if something happened ahead of it and the Wired journalist NEEDED to make a sudden maneuver to avoid an accident he might not have been able to. Asking them over the radio to turn X back on could have taken too long causing a serious accident when without their intervention one could have been easily avoided. It's not scaremongering. There is a reason you don't interfere with a driver on a public road at high speed. It was extremely irresponsible. There were plenty of ways they could have done the test in controlled circumstances (ask the cops for help, race track, auto test facility, large empty parking lot, etc.). They took unnecessary risks with possibly fatal consequences. It was irresponsible.
- fineman 11y ago
  But the unnecessary risk is so close to 0 that it's obviously just manufactured outrage. If you read about this and came here to comment and that's all you can talk about you might as well be trolling. It's harmful. You're going to make some politician think that's where they should spend their time instead of figuring out why the car company sat on this for so long. Our whole society will lose.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Could you please stop referring to people who disagree with you as "anti-vaxxers" and "trolls"?
    - fineman 11y ago
      I didn't. I was quite distinct.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        So look, it is not obvious to me that this is all "manufactured outrage", and I (a) know one of these researchers, (b) have spent my career mostly in vuln research, and (c) have wasted some brain cycles thinking about this issue. I think I mostly agree with Robert Graham's take on this: http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/07/infosecs-inability-to-quantify-risk.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/07/infosecs-inability-to-quan... Robert Graham thinks mostly the same thing you think, but because he doesn't evoke "anti-vaxx" and "trolling" and say things like "obviously manufactured", he's (1) persuasive and (2) not setting fire to a comment thread by picking fights with people. You can write whatever you'd like to write. But if you keep writing like this, most people here won't care what you have to say, and in short order they won't be able to see it either, because you're going to get flagged off HN. It would be helpful to have more people arguing the other side of the conventional wisdom on Miller and Valesek's demo --- more people, that is, arguing the thing you're trying to argue, that the risk was minimal and the upside significant. Please make that argument carefully, and don't caricature it. Thanks for listening.
jessaustin 11y ago
'fineman, you have my sympathies. I wonder if some people commenting on this issue have ever driven a vehicle. If they have, they must be the same yokels I see who never change lanes or even deviate from their lane ever, even on multilane roads: not to pass a cyclist, not because the car in front of them is stopping to turn right into a narrow drive, not to give the flag dude a little more room, never!!!

by fineman 11y ago

MBCook 11y ago

The problem isn't what they did to the vehicle. The problem is there were other drivers around who may not have been expecting the situation. Further, since they weren't in the vehicle, if something happened ahead of it and the Wired journalist NEEDED to make a sudden maneuver to avoid an accident he might not have been able to. Asking them over the radio to turn X back on could have taken too long causing a serious accident when without their intervention one could have been easily avoided. It's not scaremongering. There is a reason you don't interfere with a driver on a public road at high speed. It was extremely irresponsible. There were plenty of ways they could have done the test in controlled circumstances (ask the cops for help, race track, auto test facility, large empty parking lot, etc.). They took unnecessary risks with possibly fatal consequences. It was irresponsible.

fineman 11y ago
But the unnecessary risk is so close to 0 that it's obviously just manufactured outrage. If you read about this and came here to comment and that's all you can talk about you might as well be trolling. It's harmful. You're going to make some politician think that's where they should spend their time instead of figuring out why the car company sat on this for so long. Our whole society will lose.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Could you please stop referring to people who disagree with you as "anti-vaxxers" and "trolls"?
  - fineman 11y ago
    I didn't. I was quite distinct.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      So look, it is not obvious to me that this is all "manufactured outrage", and I (a) know one of these researchers, (b) have spent my career mostly in vuln research, and (c) have wasted some brain cycles thinking about this issue. I think I mostly agree with Robert Graham's take on this: http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/07/infosecs-inability-to-quantify-risk.html http://blog.erratasec.com/2015/07/infosecs-inability-to-quan... Robert Graham thinks mostly the same thing you think, but because he doesn't evoke "anti-vaxx" and "trolling" and say things like "obviously manufactured", he's (1) persuasive and (2) not setting fire to a comment thread by picking fights with people. You can write whatever you'd like to write. But if you keep writing like this, most people here won't care what you have to say, and in short order they won't be able to see it either, because you're going to get flagged off HN. It would be helpful to have more people arguing the other side of the conventional wisdom on Miller and Valesek's demo --- more people, that is, arguing the thing you're trying to argue, that the risk was minimal and the upside significant. Please make that argument carefully, and don't caricature it. Thanks for listening.

jessaustin 11y ago

'fineman, you have my sympathies. I wonder if some people commenting on this issue have ever driven a vehicle. If they have, they must be the same yokels I see who never change lanes or even deviate from their lane ever, even on multilane roads: not to pass a cyclist, not because the car in front of them is stopping to turn right into a narrow drive, not to give the flag dude a little more room, never!!!