The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Tony Dragon on 25 May 2010 02:10 Doug wrote: > 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. > > > To put it in simple terms, they have made claims, but not said how they archived these claims -- Tony Dragon
From: Adrian on 25 May 2010 02:11 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You >> > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box >> > it doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway. >> Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different >> standards of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a >> 10-20yr service life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of >> cheap consumer tat. >> >> Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on >> the hard shoulder. > Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy traffic > with no brakes and no engine? Yup. It's really not that complicated. >> >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled. >> >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient. >> > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not >> > a computer. >> Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics. > What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off? You don't have the first clue, do you?
From: Roger Merriman on 25 May 2010 02:44 Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: > On 24 May, 11:50, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > > saying: > > > > >> >> The other thing to consider is the major difference between > > >> >> dedicated embedded computers and generic PCs. PCs mostly crash due > > >> >> to user error, primarily in the installation (often unintentional) > > >> >> of poor-quality software. With embedded systems, that's not an > > >> >> option - when did your washing machine, fridge or freeview box last > > >> >> crash? > > >> > Freeview boxes quite often. > > >> Really? If so, then I suspect it's an aged one that's experiencing > > >> hardware issues. > > > Yes everything becomes aged with time, including car computers. You > > > never can tell when they might pack up. At least with a Freeview box it > > > doesn't happen when you are doing 70 or more on a motorway. > > > > Of course, that ignores (what a surprise...) the very different standards > > of hardware build quality for a controller intended for a 10-20yr service > > life in a hostile environment and a disposable bit of cheap consumer tat. > > > > Anyway, even if it does, you'll just glide gently to a halt safely on the > > hard shoulder. > > > Despite being in the fast lane and having to cross over in heavy > traffic with no brakes and no engine? Or, coast to a stop to remain in > the fast lane in heavy traffic? Glad it will never happen to me. > > brakes still work, many years back had a car cut out on the outside lane, we coasted over no worries, rest of traffic parted as fuel had gone into the hot exaust, so was plainly clear that *something* had happened. as luck would have it, was with my cousan who was legally a child, all 6 foot + of him so we got piority and where fixed up in no time by the AA. > > >> > and my little fridge is not computer controlled. > > >> Then it'll be ancient and hugely inefficient. > > > No its quite recent and efficient and only needs a thermostat and not a > > > computer. > > > > Then it will most certainly have embedded control electronics. > > > What for? It only needs the thermostat to switch the motor on and off? > becuase it's cheaper and more energy efficient to do so. dumb computors surround us. roger > -- > UK Radical Campaigns. > http://www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill. -- www.rogermerriman.com
From: Brimstone on 25 May 2010 03:11 "Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:583c4610-d64b-4f29-a2ad-b35a725e8e2f(a)c22g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > And those researchers found that if they plug a computer into the car's port and play around with things that the cars ceases to function as designed. Why is that such a surprise to you Doug?
From: Brimstone on 25 May 2010 03:17
"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message news:0fac0491-913a-439e-90e3-4726e85d066c(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com... > 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. What makes you think that the computer in a car is the same as the one on your desk Doug? > Thes researchers have proved conclusively that the car computer can > cause the engine and brakes to malfunction, thus putting road users at > risk. Only when interfered with by an external computer. > 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. > It also excludes you Doug, because if you had any understanding you would realise that there is no point in jumping up and down and getting excited. The only result from this research for the future is that car designers need to make sure that new designs cannot be interfered with by those with evil intent. |