The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Doug on 25 May 2010 01:11 On 24 May, 22:12, Marie <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On May 21, 7:35 am, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On May 21, 7:17 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > > > Is it any wonder that so many cars crash because of faults and put > > > cyclists and pedestrian lives at risk? Isn't it time to go back to > > > mechanical control, which sensibly is still used on bicycles? > > > > "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable > > > to attack, say experts. > > > > An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be > > > "fragile" and easily subverted. > > > > The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the > > > brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false > > > readings. > > > > Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious > > > attackers to reproduce their work..." > > > > "...It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of > > > binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs..." > > > > Horrifying! So anything can happen when there is a glitch? > > > > More:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm > > > > -- > > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net > > > A driving licence is a licence to kill. > > > "The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as > > standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a > > vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work." > > > This team of experts has found that if you access the computors comms > > port, you can control the computor, now who would have thought that? > > > WSR > > Found these quotes athttp://www.physorg.com/wire-news/35299025/experimental-security-analy... > > "how much resilience a conventional automobile has against a digital > attack mounted against its internal components by an attacker with > access to the car's internal network. " > > "Should car owners be concerned? > > We believe that car owners today should not be overly concerned at > this time. It requires significant sophistication to develop the > capabilities described in our paper and we are unaware of any > attackers who are even targeting automobiles at this time." > Strange that you left out the paragraph that followed that one... "...However, we do believe that our work should be read as a wake-up call. While today's car owners should not be alarmed, we believe that it is time to focus squarely on addressing potential automotive security issues to ensure that future cars with ever more sophisticated computer control and broader wireless connectivity will be able to offer commensurately strong security guarantees as well..." A wake up call eh? Not overly concerned but a little concerned maybe? I know I would be very concerned if my life depended on a computer working 100% properly throughout its useful lifetime. Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at risk. Whether the computer will actually malfunction in this way remains a moot point but should be a matter of serious concern to anyone who cares about road safety, which apparently excludes most of the motorists who post here. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Doug on 25 May 2010 01:15 On 24 May, 22:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Marie <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > > > by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. " > > ^^^^ the important bit. > > An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to > cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just > slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance. > You are still missing the point then? This is not about people sabotaging cars it is about the fragility of car computers, as demonstrated by the researchers, and the potential danger it represents when it controls engine and brakes. -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Brimstone on 25 May 2010 01:54 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:cda489cc-8685-4ee5-8176-5441f49463b3(a)e28g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > So the engine can stop and the brakes fail if the computer > malfunctions. No Doug, only when it is interfered with by an external computer which has been plugged in to the car's system. > Why have you no source that says otherwise but you are still arguing > to the contrary? > Perhaps it would be better if you learnt to understand your own sources.
From: Tony Dragon on 25 May 2010 02:08 Doug wrote: > On 24 May, 22:14, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Marie <marie.law...(a)yahoo.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were saying: >> >>> by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. " >> ^^^^ the important bit. >> >> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to >> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. Just >> slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance. >> > You are still missing the point then? This is not about people > sabotaging cars it is about the fragility of car computers, as > demonstrated by the researchers, and the potential danger it > represents when it controls engine and brakes. > > -- > UK Radical Campaigns. > http://www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. No, the article was about hacking into the cars computer & altering various systems, you decided to ignore the fact that they had access to the admin port, & in the article there was no explanation of what they did, only results, e.g. how did the computer turn off the brakes? -- Tony Dragon
From: Adrian on 25 May 2010 02:10
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > by an attacker with access to the car's internal network. " >> ^^^^ the important bit. >> >> An "attacker" with access to the vehicle has always had the ability to >> cause more substantial problems than fiddling with the instruments. >> Just slacken off the brake pipes, f'rinstance. > You are still missing the point then? One of us is. It ain't me. > This is not about people sabotaging cars That's _precisely_ what the article you originally posted is about. > it is about the fragility of car computers, as demonstrated by the > researchers The fragility in what context? Oh, yes - in the context of receiving an attack from an attacker with a physical connection to the car's electronics. > and the potential danger it represents when it controls engine and > brakes. Despite the fact that you've been repeatedly told that that danger doesn't really exist. |