So, the Jeep Cherokee wasn't the first car with a remote exploit.

HiTempguy wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I do operations customer experience improvements...

The company needs your services, but do they WANT your services?

I actually don't care as long as they pay me...

In reply to GameboyRMH:

I heard Goatse had died... RIP.

T.J. wrote: I grew up in a family that owned largely GM cars, but have grown to loathe them as a company.

I grew up in a family that owned largely GM cars, and now drive them almost exclusively. I couldn't care less about the company.

novaderrik wrote: has anyone here ever tried to cut brake lines? they fight back..

Are you trying to murder mndsm?

So what is the penalty for "hacking"? A clean slate and an offer of a job with the NSA?

Up the penalty for malicious hacking to capital offense and watch the incidents of bored kids wanting to "watch the world burn" drop to nil in a hurry.

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

Yes, that is what I mean. There is no way to know whether or not car hacking is an actual thing that happens or not because how do you prove it happened?

A bear just scared my horse.

In reply to T.J.:

Develop/market a CANBUS firewall system and see how fast you get arrested?

Alternatively, we just accept that since it's possible and an appealing way to kill somebody, it's probably happened. Just like it's since been accepted by those who followed it that Toyota "unintended acceleration" was probably in many cases the computer going haywire due to horrifically bad firmware (like high stack usage, thousands of global variables, no fault checking, spaghetti code bad).

http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer-firmware--Bad-design-and-its-consequences

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

I'd prefer just to own vehicles that are not internet connected. Since the manufacturers are trying to claim that when we buy a car from them we don't really own it because they still own it like it is some iTunes song or something, I don't doubt that any legitimate way to tamper with their CANBUS connectivity would be met with lawsuits.

Keith Tanner wrote: I would have expected an air gap as well - but when you think about it, there are a number of parameters that need to be communicated from the vehicle systems to the infotainment/communication. For example, OnStar vehicles call for help if they've been in an accident. That could be triggered by the airbag or even massive acceleration spikes (which can be pretty funny). It can also disable the vehicle if it's stolen. These are considered good things for most people, but they do require that connection. I'm sure other onboard setups are similar.

There has to be a better way to get that data than just giving the OnStar box free access to the network that the critical driving systems are on. Maybe a device that sits between the OnStar box and the rest of the network, collects the data needed and makes it available to the OnStar box. That will be a tough barrier for anyone who breaks into the OnStar to get past before they can mess with anything important.

T.J. wrote: In reply to Kenny_McCormic: I'd prefer just to own vehicles that are not internet connected. Since the manufacturers are trying to claim that when we buy a car from them we don't really own it because they still own it like it is some iTunes song or something, I don't doubt that any legitimate way to tamper with their CANBUS connectivity would be met with lawsuits.

That is not a viable long term strategy, especially in rust prone areas.

Perhaps I should have worded that better, when I said "arrested" I meant "picked up by a black van/suv".

In reply to Kenny_McCormic:

Gotcha. Scary thought, but may not be far off the mark.