Tesla Model S Hacked Remotely, Just As U.S. Government Announces Self-Driving Car Policies

Status
Not open for further replies.

hdmark

Reputable
Feb 16, 2015
1,367
0
5,660
146


i'd be a lot of shops are pretty excited and seeing dollar signs. It was one thing when you could work on a car by yourself and do pretty much anything. With these new cars, youre going to have to pay a shop to put air in the tires!
 

targetdrone

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2012
301
0
18,780
0
Have these engineers not watch any movies in the last 30 years or are they just as arrogant as those scientists/military general in every zombie movie ever?

Why did Tom Cruse have to break into the CIA HQ to get the NOC list instead of doing a simple hack job? Oh yeah the Mainframe was an isolated, non networked system, which required physical access to "hack"

Why didn't the Galactica have internet of Things showers and toilets? To keep the Cylons from hacking Life Support and other computer system from "The Head". Every computer system on the bridge was isolated from each other for that very reason.
 

targetdrone

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2012
301
0
18,780
0


Stealership mechanics won't care because they'll have the tools necessary to "do the needfull" while charging stealership repair rates.
 


you're seriously comparing the security of a mainstream car over security of a major secret service agency using a movie analogy?

dude whatever you're on can i have some?


 

Joshua Burstyn

Reputable
Aug 1, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
Jake, did you not read the list of requirements for the hack to work? Do you normally associate with random APs? Do you normally browse the internet in your car using the carputer? I have a Model S and I can count the number of times I've used the in-car browser.... on a single hand. Only AP it knows about is the one at my house...

Besides which, Tesla did the right thing. They updated the software immediately. Better than nearly every other car can do today if there actually were a fatal flaw...
 

Joshua Burstyn

Reputable
Aug 1, 2014
2
0
4,510
0
Correct, Alex. For instance Chrysler had a much worse flaw which required little work to gain complete control of their vehicles and there was no immediate fix nor was there a way to conduct same OTA. Tesla's not perfect but between them and GM they're the only ones who are reportedly offering a bug bounty and are willing to listen to researchers.
 

charliewhiskey

Reputable
Jan 26, 2016
90
0
4,660
14
Evil James Bond villain: Mr. Bond, would you be so kind as to have a seat in my new remotely controlled robot killer?
Bond: Of course but, what do you call it?
Evil James Bond villain: Uber job.
Bond: Oh. How clever.
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
2,360
0
19,790
4


Computers in cars is actually helpful in fixing a vehicle. A vehicle no longer requires as many linkages. Things are localized and replaceable. It makes diagnosing problems much quicker when you can just look for fault codes.
It's also possible to secure these systems by limiting the access they have to the internet. Simply having 2 systems achieves this.
 

Christopher1

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2006
657
1
19,015
5
falchard, that is when the fault codes actually give you the proper information and are properly saved. We recently had a hell of time getting a very serious ignition system failure fixed in our youngest vehicle because the error codes were not properly being saved.
Took the mechanic plugging in his device, driving the car while the device was plugged in to FINALLY save the fault codes and find out that one part of the security system (the "Read the chip in the key" thing) had gone bad and needed replaced.

My father had our car just stop and refuse to restart with him having to pull off the road numerous times because of this issue. Very dangerous and why I personally do not WANT a vehicle that turns off the ignition if it detects that the car 'might' have been stolen.
 

anbello262

Honorable
Sep 27, 2013
1,171
0
11,660
117
I understand why some people are reluctant to accept self-driving cars, because every big innovation is like this. Some people reacted the same way to PCs and industry robots some decades ago.
I also understand that for something so important, it's usually a bad idea to be an 'early adopter'.
But I certainly can't agree or understand people who claim that they will 'never' buy a self driving car. In a decade they will be safer than normal cars (if not already).
 

J-Whit

Reputable
Oct 19, 2015
3
0
4,510
0
Anbello, there are also people, like myself, who actually enjoy driving. People get peppy cars for a reason.
 

grimfox

Distinguished
Jun 2, 2009
866
10
19,365
141
And those peppy cars will still exist. I'd dare say a Model S is pretty darn peppy and there is work on a new Tesla Roadster which I expect to have all the same autopilot features as a model S and be even more peppy than the old roadster. One does not mean the end of the other. It'll change for sure but I'm sure in 50 years I'll be able to find a little roadster that is fun to drive and still capable of driving itself if need be. And classic cars are not going away. A guy rolled up to my house and a very nice 1938 Cord (IIRC) the other day. I'm sure in 50 years I'll see someone driving around in a very nice er...2016 Prius...
 

J-Whit

Reputable
Oct 19, 2015
3
0
4,510
0


Tesla's are fast in a straight line. But, on a track with turns they don't do well because they are so gosh darn heavy. I'm sure they will improve the weight eventually with electric cars, but right now they are terribly heavy. What I am worried about with self driving cars is that it will be enforced on all cars (at least new cars). What I imagine is eventually self driving will be mandated for the roads and driving will be limited to a track you will have to rent time on.
 

alextheblue

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2001
3,012
70
20,870
2

Not necessarily. The various modules and their connected sensors, solenoids, actuators, etc in a vehicle perform miracles on one hand - for example they help engines achieve power, efficiency, and in some ways reliability never before possible. But they also add layers of complexity and additional failure points. You've got potential demons in terms of software issues (there's a reason modules get updates and new calibrations flashed when there's an issue with a new design, hopefully under warranty) and hardware module/sensor/solenoid/actuator failure. Also I've seen wiring/connection issues with connectors that on the surface look OK, due to increased 'pickiness' these systems have. Older PCMs etc weren't as picky but newer ones... well... any time you're fighting a late-model vehicle with electrical problems keep some SL5 Stabilant handy. It's expensive as hell but it works wonders when dealing with resistance in otherwise good looking megaconnectors.

So in general they're good, but when the engineers screw up, something bad happens during manufacturing, age and wear and tear take their toll, or you just plain get unlucky... they can be a nightmare to fix. Gone are the days of easily narrowing down the problem. Now you can fight with it, throw parts at it, or pay someone big bucks to diagnose it. Sure, sometimes you get a simple problem with a single code. Computer says fuel air ratio sensor (formerly simple O2 sensor) is scragged. Easy enough. But when you get 10 failure codes at once, or an intermittent problem, no codes, or nothing useful... have fun. Also keep in mind codes are really just a starting point in many cases. If it says you've got a misfire in cylinder X, there's a few possible causes and the module can't physically check them. If you've got something more complex like a random multiple cylinder misfire, or a stall issue with no codes, it can drive you nuts trying to figure things out. Before it was Air, Fuel, Spark. Now it's Air, Fuel, Spark, Module, Etc.

I will say that when the modules, sensors and so forth are working properly, it can often compensate for issues which might kill a less-intelligent setup. For example being able to dynamically control fuel flow with excellent granularity and to a greater degree. So what might stall an older vehicle will merely cause issues and/or a check engine light. There's a lot of positives to them. The ability to adjust valve timing, ignition timing, fuel/air is so much more advanced and they're more resilient to certain problems. But again they do add complexity and if you get a "gremlin" you need a great deal of knowledge, training, experience, and equipment to deal with some of these issues.

Regarding self-driving, I agree that the solution might be to isolate driving systems from internet-connected systems. But that would mean disabling features such as net-based unlimited-range remote start / HVAC controls / theft / remote diagnostics and updates and so forth. It could also pose a problem for navigation - the vehicle needs the latest map / traffic data to operate efficiently. Needing to manually update could be... interesting. I'd hate to see what happens when the guidance system is out of date and you hit a road that's new/modified/under construction. The whole thing is just problematic and I can't help but think of I, Robot (the movie, I've read the book too, the movie was good I just wish it had a different name). Switching to manual!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS