Toyota's electronic throttle, and..
in [Technical]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 25 Mar 2010 23:39 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:51:38 -0500, cuhulin wrote: > .Do > most people when they buy a new car/truck/van really ''dig'' all of those > new fangled complex computerized things which are built into their > vehicles, I do a LOT of driving, and since I am in a phone based business, the phone rings whenever. I could handle having a clearly audible Bluetooth radio that mutes itself and puts the call through the car's speakers. Since I often have a good idea where I'm going, but not always exactly, I could use a GOOD built-in GPS (although my Tom Tom is decent, but the GPS navigation I had through the cell phone was better...and at $9.99 a month it damn well BETTER be!) Touch screen? I worked for a Toyota/Mercury/Lincoln dealer a few years ago and the van they had for errands and delivering customers had some bling touch screen radio and the thing was a PITA!!! My God, how complicated can you possibly make a radio?!?! Throttle by wire? Why? Throttle by cable was fine, but I guess they can control the engine better if throttle inputs are handled by the ECU. So what? I drive Toyotas. They get ~30MPG no matter what anyway! However, I do like good sound, and I spend so much time in the car that all my cars have CD/MP3 players and XM, and a couple have some really good amps and bass speakers (NOT Bump Boxes, but good solid bass). I have a home-rigged speakerphone with a head's up display and everything is located where I don't have to take my eyes off the road.
From: chuckcar on 26 Mar 2010 00:40 Ed White <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:bb31d261-4a17-4139-9db8-0d14c4b8d873(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com: > On Mar 25, 8:53�pm, Tegger <inva...(a)invalid.inv> wrote: >> ...just why Sudden Unintended Acceleration is virtually impossible. >> >> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4347704.html> >> >> The author does not mention it, but the NHTSA closely regulates the >> desig > n >> of the electronic throttle and its firmware. It is, by design, not >> possib > le >> to "hack" into the firmware in order to modify or disable it. >> >> -- >> Tegger > > The article was very good and I believe the conclusions are correct > (i.e., it is not the electronics). I do wonder about your statement. > Anything to back it up? Exactly how does NHTSA closely regulate the > design? The firmware is in the ECM, and people are constantly screwing > with that. My son has some sort of programer that allows him to screw > up the ECM in his Mustang (and I do mean screw it up). I looked at the > Toyota shop manual for the RAV4 and it appears to me all the throttle > control stuff is handled by the ECM, so I can't see how that is any > more secure than any of the other firmware. > What you're talking about here is talking about is on the auto shows fixup shows such as they have on SPEED TV. You're not actually erasing the EPROM and then putting new machine language into it replacing what was originally there. You're changing variables such as valve timing and so on. This difference may only be apparent to people who *have* written computer programs like myself. It can of course damage an vehicle just as removing a rev limiter or boosting the engine with too much nitrous will do. Nothing more. -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: chuckcar on 26 Mar 2010 00:41 Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in news:Xns9D46DE616F236tegger(a)208.90.168.18: > chuckcar <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in > news:Xns9D46D713F7AC1chuck(a)127.0.0.1: > >> Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in >> news:Xns9D46D48D312C4tegger(a)208.90.168.18: >> >>> ...just why Sudden Unintended Acceleration is virtually impossible. >>> >>> <http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4347704.html> >>> >>> The author does not mention it, but the NHTSA closely regulates the >>> design of the electronic throttle and its firmware. It is, by >>> design, not possible to "hack" into the firmware in order to modify >>> or disable it. >>> >> No. You'd have to have to have the pin that enables erasing/rewriting >> of the EEPROM/EAPROM IC used and the hardware (electric and >> electronic) to support it to be able to do it. One *could* however >> physically take the ROM out and completely rewrite it, if you could >> rebuild the module you destroy by doing this. That is entirely >> possible and anyone could do it with enough technical knowledge, >> ability and the right pieces. Anyone can buy a PROM programmer. > > Of course. And you could take a roll of sheet steel and turn it into a > car body; you could turn a steel billet into a fully-automatic > firearm; you could turn a bag of lawn fertilizer into a bomb. >> Yes, that was partially my point. The other part was that there simply is no way to flash the ROM like some trojan would do to some internet noobs router. >> That's all beyond the scope of such an article of course, but it >> shows what is involved in doing it sucessfully. > > Surely, but nobody's alleging tampering. Instead the allegations are > of defects from the factory, and that's where the silliness comes in. > Perhaps, I'll reserve my judgement on that until I see some real conclusions in this Toyota mess. It could easily be minor bugs in the actual ROMS however. Extremely doubtful, but always a possibility. -- (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
From: Tegger on 26 Mar 2010 07:45 chuckcar <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in news:Xns9D474BA4D988chuck(a)127.0.0.1: > Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in > news:Xns9D46DE616F236tegger(a)208.90.168.18: >> >> but nobody's alleging tampering. Instead the allegations are >> of defects from the factory, and that's where the silliness comes in. >> > Perhaps, I'll reserve my judgement on that until I see some real > conclusions in this Toyota mess. It could easily be minor bugs in the > actual ROMS however. Extremely doubtful, but always a possibility. > > Why do you keep setting a Followup to rec.autos.tech? I only crossposted to three groups, all of which have had extensive discussions regarding this matter, and all which I thought would benefit from a discussion of the article I originally referenced (and which only Ed White seems to have actually read). <http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4347704.html> -- Tegger
From: Cameo on 26 Mar 2010 15:25
"chuckcar" <chuck(a)nil.car> wrote in message news:Xns9D4758238493chuck(a)127.0.0.1... > Ed White <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in > What you're talking about here is talking about is on the auto shows > fixup shows such as they have on SPEED TV. You're not actually erasing > the EPROM and then putting new machine language into it replacing what > was > originally there. You're changing variables such as valve timing and > so > on. This difference may only be apparent to people who *have* written > computer programs like myself. It can of course damage an vehicle just > as removing a rev limiter or boosting the engine with too much nitrous > will do. Nothing more. You mean that such variables are in volatile memory and thus rewritable? |