Ask HN: Risk of unsafe software in automobiles?

Generally speaking, most sportier cars have better handling and better weight distribution and are in fact regularly driven with DSC disabled (on racing track etc)

The reality is that this is the current state of affairs. Most of people doing software for cars have not the foggiest idea what software is really about.

All the software I read is just impossible to understand. And no standard help in many cases.

Some examples I've seen in code: - Use of kind of hungarian notation to the point that a loop variable was named something like "uibe32bb_i_lns" - Comments in other human languages that were not english - Use of recursion - Have seen a call like name1::name2::name3::name4::name5::name6::name7::name8::name9::name10::name11::name12::name13::name14. The names where some kind of hungarian notation, those calls where everywhere in the code. - Lines more than 1000 characters wide, as a rule - Files north of 100kB of code I can go on and on and on....

Some examples of exchanges with people:

1) Software architect, of a ECU: one programer asks for the memory and CPU budget for a function. The reply was "I'm the architect, I've no idea what you are talking about"

2) System chief architect, for a very important project of a big auto-maker: one engineer says something about software errors. The architect interrupts, and explains that the software never makes an error. Because a computer only does what it is told to make. -- that is terrible enough, for example ignoring the possibility or a SEU, but he goes further, to say that any kind of test is not necessary, because, SW, as stated, makes no errors.

Some general points: - 99% of people in "SW" do not know what gdb is. They debug by "cout I keep buying the most basic cars. I'm genuinely terrified to think in anything automatic in my car.

Now they are trying to write C++.

To answer your last question first, buy a car that hasn’t been launched within the last 12 to 18 months. That’s not software specific, that general vehicle safety across the board as they will be working through the initial warranty issues. So if you are looking at second hand and you know model ABC was launched 2016, don’t buy one made in the 2016/2017 period.

ISO 26262 rates every system on a critically rating, if they have a ASIL rating of C or D they have multiple back up systems in place. This falls under functional safety which is a newer (5 years or so) area targeting that cars are now highly complex interconnect systems linked with software - the idea being that you target specific subsystems to make sure their function isn’t totally taken out due to some failure or error in the wider system.

Cyber security wise there is an EU reg coming in from 2024 making sure that OTA updates are safe, reducing hacking attack vectors and the like. This is being introduced to new cars and designs as a result of the issues cited above.

As far as people hacking in via the infotainment to access the car control systems - there are firewalls between infotainment and primary car control to mitigate against that issue. There multiple networks in a single vehicle to isolate systems so that no one central unimportant system (infotainment for eg) can take out the whole vehicle.

Software in cars to this level is new, it’s evolving and it takes 7 or so years to create a new platform. This means there is a lag in the system, especially during this transitionary period.

However car makers take this stuff incredibly seriously and their software teams are absolutely not run in the same way as a lower consequence dev situation. Lives are on the line and the type of devs who work in this field know that.

Nothing is perfect but the safety downsides of an old car are widely considered to be far greater than the threat of hacking or bad code in a new car.