The fragility of car computers revealed.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 26 May 2010 06:02 "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:93qpv5d3f24aivg1h3pq1psv6oijjl22a9(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 May 2010 10:17:13 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >>> They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes >>> are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore >>> people. >> >>No, they are accidents. To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider >>deliberately crashed. > > I'm afraid anti car people often have a problem with English. They > wish to change the meaning of "accident" from "unintentional event" > because they wrongly think "accident" implies lack of blame. The ones that spam off topic posts in here seem to have a problem with English... logic... facts... etc etc.
From: Halmyre on 26 May 2010 15:23 In article <h2dqv59cbsn8fnh3krprc90jpmn8ctli71(a)4ax.com>, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot) uk> says... > Halmyre <no.spam(a)this.address> considered Tue, 25 May 2010 20:19:24 > +0100 the perfect time to write: > > >In article <862lg7Fdk4U1(a)mid.individual.net>, NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com says... > >> > >> > >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:BPKdnSUJc4qt-2bWnZ2dnUVZ8nSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >> > "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. > >> > >> Could happen... only today on the M5 someone pulled alongside me and tried > >> to hurl a comms cable though my closed window - lord only knows what could > >> have happened if he'd hit the port! > >> > > > >It might have spilled it. Do you serve it with Stilton? > > Don't be silly. > Stilton is on the A1(M). > It must be terribly slippery. (Noel Coward eat your heart out) -- Halmyre This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.
From: Doug on 27 May 2010 01:40 On 26 May, 10:17, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > news:573aeb9e-8eb6-45b2-964e-7b8d6b12d31a(a)o39g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 23 May, 09:49, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: > >> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message > > >>news:8add536f-2520-4b07-8034-97f341e2f969(a)z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > On 21 May, 09:59, boltar2...(a)boltar.world wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 09:54:07 +0100 > > >> >> Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> >>> "The computer systems used to control modern cars are very > >> >> >>> vulnerable > >> >> >>> to attack, say experts. > > >> >> >And just how do they get access to it, Doug? > > >> >> Doug seems to forget that his bicycle is vulnerable to a large stick > >> >> in > >> >> the wheel spokes. Beware of those nasty trees doug! > > >> > Unlike the defective car driver though the cyclist would be unlikely > >> > to inure anyone but himself. > > >> Most car accidents don't injure anyone - they are just minor bumps. > >> Unlike > >> most bicycle accidents where people tend to injure hands and knees. > > > They are not euphemistic 'accidents' they are 'crashes'. Car crashes > > are far more dangerous than bicycle crashes and kill very many mmore > > people. > > No, they are accidents. > You are asserting that they are NOT crashes? Explain. > > To say otherwise implies that the driver or rider > deliberately crashed. > Wrong. It implies that the driver either lost control or that their vehicle was in some way faulty. > > You are heading down the road of slander and will be > prosecuted if you start quoting particular cases and accusing drivers or > riders of deliberately crashing a vehicle. > See above. > > Most car *accidents* don't injure > anyone - they are just minor bumps. Unlike most bicycle accidents where > people tend to injure hands and knees. > As I said, the word 'accidents' is a euphemism used to minimise the accountability of those in sole charge of dangerous machines in public places who kill or injure someone else with those machines. If you check, several major sources now tend to avoid the use of the word 'accident' in connection with road crashes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision "...As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term "accident," as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.[4] That is why these organizations prefer the term "collision" rather than "accident"... -- UK Radical Campaigns. http://www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
From: Man at B&Q on 27 May 2010 03:35 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. Here's the full link for those who prefer not to have it filtered by BBC journos or Duhg. http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf MBQ
From: Man at B&Q on 27 May 2010 03:41
On May 27, 8:35 am, "Man at B&Q" <manatba...(a)hotmail.com> 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. > > Here's the full link for those who prefer not to have it filtered by > BBC journos or Duhg. > > http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf > > MBQ Just read this bit, quoted here especially for Duhg "In reflecting on our overall experiences, we observe that while automotive components are clearly and explicitly designed to safely tolerate *failures* responding appropriately when components are prevented from communicating it seems clear that tolerating *attacks* has not been part of the same design criteria." So there we have it. Vehicle system are fault tolerant *by design* as meny have pointed out. Malicious and determined attacks are a very different kettle of fish. MBQ |