Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

<script async src="//player.cnevids.com/embedjs/5176e89e68f9daff42000013/video/55ad80d461646d4db7000005.js"></script>

Amazing oversight by Chrysler to allow hackers access to some pretty important functions of the car.

I'd hate to know what other manufacturers also suffer from these massive security flaws.

Full post here.

  • Like 2

A load of $hit IMO.

It took them 12 months to write the code to be able to do it but I would bet my left nut that they had to make some modifications to the vehicle to make all of that stuff happen. I don't believe most of the stuff they were controlling in the car would be possible without making modifications.

The full story will come out once people are sick of talking about it and the story needs reinvigorating.

However, it is very interesting to see the potential dangers of having fully 'connected' cars, houses, etc.

  • Like 2

A load of $hit IMO.

It took them 12 months to write the code to be able to do it but I would bet my left nut that they had to make some modifications to the vehicle to make all of that stuff happen. I don't believe most of the stuff they were controlling in the car would be possible without making modifications.

The full story will come out once people are sick of talking about it and the story needs reinvigorating.

However, it is very interesting to see the potential dangers of having fully 'connected' cars, houses, etc.

The one thing that had me scratching my head was the steering wheel turning, but I guess with 'assisted' reverse parking, there'd be servos in there.

It seems extreme to be able to control that much with code, I agree, but then I know so little about new cars and their capabilities through internet connections.

Next comes the police have power to disable and pull any car over ending the need for high speed chases?

The problem is the hackers working against the system are always better than those working for. The "smarter" cars become the easier this will be. But who knows.

Next comes the police have power to disable and pull any car over ending the need for high speed chases?

The problem is the hackers working against the system are always better than those working for. The "smarter" cars become the easier this will be. But who knows.

Focused EMP, fry a cars electronics and it will stop.

This is possible. This is how exploits work. I am a software developer and what they explained is essentially an opening into the cars software via an outbound connection. If the vehicle can auto reverse park then they can control the steering and this may explain why they were only able to control steering in reverse.

This is very plausible. The same way a computer can be remotely hacked and controlled, if the electronics in the vehicle are linked via one ECU and you can open and close signals via an outside source then there is good basis to give this credibility. The first of anything connected to a network is very prone to being exploited. I remember when bluetooth became big, you had bluetooth viruses just by walking near someone with an infected mobile which could send you a virus if your phone was actively running bluetooth.

Nothing is impossible.

Edited by SargeRX8
  • Like 2

I'm also a software dev and have been casually following this for a few yrs... and I'm not surprised at all. Lots of juicy targets once you essentially turn a car into a mobile, internet-connected computer.

Any part of the car that receives data from the internet could have a security hole that would lead to system compromise, and from the sounds of it, everything in the car is connected via a CANbus network, where any subsystem can send commands to any other subsystem, so if you break into the entertainment system (via exploiting, say, a web browser), you can then directly access and disable brake-by-wire or whatever else.

From the sounds of it, the security researchers seem to have found a way to do it without user intervention, which is somewhat more disturbing. Makes me suspect that they've exploited an automatic software/firmware update process for the entertainment module. Which is not a trivial process to create but not really rocket science, esp not for a multi-billion $ car company

Edited by Skepticism

But hey it might mean the end of forking out for aftermarket ECU's if you can easily hack the stock one and tune it!

Also I'd like to think the aviation authorities have their shit together.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...