Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 133 posts

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#41
So the answer is yes, and no.

> https://illmatics.com/carhacking.html

is a good starting point. But there are a bunch of buses on a modern car, some of them are critical, some less so. Some are firewalled off, others are open.

As you know you can get access to a lot of the car's inner workings by plugging into the ODB2 port. Its perfectly possible to brick some cars by fuzzing the ODB2 port.

In principle, most things in cars _should_ fail safe. even if they are electric or talking over a bus of somesort.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#42
post #7

Your link of Sudden unintended acceleration contains a lot of entries related to this issue which don't involve computers at all. It lists pedal misapplication, entrapped pedals, stuck throttles, electrical shorts, and diesel engine runaway as other things which can cause such an issue. A lot of the reported incidents had nothing to do with software. Either way, if you've had a fuel injected car you were still expose…

Most EFI still has a mechanical throttle, so if there is a glitch in the EFI it can’t possibly cause unintended acceleration. Only fairly new cars now have electronic throttle that could potentially accelerate the engine due to a software glitch.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#43

A long time ago I attended a DEFCON where this was discussed. Long before it became a big deal in the industry to have all this tech in cars. CANBUS was broken reliably, and if my memory serves me they even had a car you could take a shot at hacking yourself. After playing with it the entire conference I came to the conclusion I would never own a modern car if I can avoid it. Any car running CANBUS is vulnerable to a…

That's not strictly fair. The problem is that the critical systems were moved to share transport on the main hub with infotainment (safe, I did modelling of the messages for Volvo way back). On that hub is wireless access. Cars have been using CANBUS way longer than that issue entering play and without physical access you wouldn't be able to hack them and with physical access you could easily tamper with brakes or ot…

Dealerships routinely violate CANbus isolation with junky "add-ons" full of security holes and wireless interfaces directly attached to important buses. Every single manufacturer that cares at all about bus integrity should be doing message signing and that's where CANBus simply doesn't work. The bandwidth is far too low for good schemes (leading to custom implementations) and there are no decent standards for hardware vendors to implement, which means more of the already-limited CPU budget has to be allocated to it.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#44
1. Cars have had computers in them for a very long time now.

2. The code, in many cases, is probably an unmaintainable mess. Embedded programming is not always modern programming, for good and bad.

3. Today, the computers in cars are doing more, and the systems are more complex. It's reasonable to expect more serious problems as a result.

4. Companies do safety testing, of course, but there's no such thing as as "100%" test coverage for complex physical machines running outside of a lab.

5. The best way to judge the safety of cars is the best way to judge safety for airplanes: let other people test them out for a while and then check whether or not they report problems.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#45

A long time ago I attended a DEFCON where this was discussed. Long before it became a big deal in the industry to have all this tech in cars. CANBUS was broken reliably, and if my memory serves me they even had a car you could take a shot at hacking yourself. After playing with it the entire conference I came to the conclusion I would never own a modern car if I can avoid it. Any car running CANBUS is vulnerable to a…

> Any car running CANBUS is vulnerable to a potentially fatal attack.

No, it isn't. CANBUS is a non-safe protocol ("black channel" in safety parlance) and if anything safety-relevant is sent over it, there is a safety protocol on top.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#46
post #32

Don't buy a Tesla and you'll be fine. I work in auto insurance and the other OEMs actually care about safety and testing of software. Tesla has the most bugs by far.

I don't know about tesla since I haven't had a chance to drive one yet, but the number of bugs especially in the interface but also in driver's "assistance" in other cars(VW, BMW) makes me doubt that it makes a noticeable difference - at least with tesla there is a chance they will fix it

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#47

ISO 26262 is the functional safety standard that automobile manufacturers adhere to. Furthermore, companies with a strong safety culture may also have other safety controls, including MISRA, AUTOSAR, and others. I think reputable car companies take this stuff very seriously, but your concern is also well placed.

Iso26262 is the safety standard (a slimmed down version of industrial standard by the way). misra are the coding rules recommended to apply for these standard. Autosar is an OS definition to make modular SW

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#48

If you're interested in this topic, you might want to check out ASRG[1]. It's a community of safety and security professionals in the industry working to improve standards. They share their research openly and have regular in-person and online events where you can reach out to people. [1] https://asrg.io/

"Safety" and "Security" are considered separate topics in the automotive world, even though there's some overlap between them. There are usually completely separate teams with different skillsets responsible for each at any given manufacturer. ASRG is pretty focused on the security side rather than the safety side.

Short version of the difference: Safety = This shouldn't cause harm. Security = This should be hard to hack.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#49
post #42
post #7

Your link of Sudden unintended acceleration contains a lot of entries related to this issue which don't involve computers at all. It lists pedal misapplication, entrapped pedals, stuck throttles, electrical shorts, and diesel engine runaway as other things which can cause such an issue. A lot of the reported incidents had nothing to do with software. Either way, if you've had a fuel injected car you were still expose…

Most EFI still has a mechanical throttle, so if there is a glitch in the EFI it can’t possibly cause unintended acceleration. Only fairly new cars now have electronic throttle that could potentially accelerate the engine due to a software glitch.

"Most" may vary by locale at this point. At least here in the US, automakers started migrating to throttle-by-wire in the 00s.

Re: Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My big complaint is with the transition of controls from dedicated, tactile knobs, switches, and levers to touch-screen buttons or menus which demand more visual attention (i.e. distraction from driving) to operate.

You may get your wish. Recent research has shown that real knobs and switches are much less of a driver distraction than trying to fiddle with screens or get voice commands correct. The two either mean you look away from the driving because you can't just feel your way across a screen like physical controls or you add cognitive load whilst thinking and talking. I'm with you and hope all the idiot touch screen crap is…

> I'm with you and hope all the idiot touch screen crap is ditched.

I agree many manufacturers have gone a bit overboard in making even things like vent positions and glove boxes behind touchscreens. But at the same time, I don't want touch screen to completely disappear. Punching in a destination and controlling the navigation interface is way better with a touchscreen than using a dial. As a passenger or while stopped, changing the media with a touchscreen interface is better than a dial. Changing a lot of the finer settings in the car (ones you wouldn't be doing while driving) with a touchscreen is better than scrolling through menus with a dial. For the most part, a lot of things you'd do with the system while not moving or while being the passenger can be better on the screen than with a bunch of physical controls, controls which would necessitate making the screen a lot smaller.

Also, then when wanting to quickly reference the navigation system, having a larger screen with larger items on it means it is easier to understand what it is telling the driver in a glance. Having a ton of physical controls means it is a much smaller map, meaning smaller items on the map, meaning harder to understand at a quick glance. It's nice having the next turn up in the driver's information cluster or on a heads-up display as well to reduce the needs for the driver to reference the larger navigation system.

There definitely needs to be a balance of physical controls versus software buttons, but I wouldn't buy a new car without a screen these days.

Post reply on HN