Apple Watch Mac unlock uses time of flight to prevent relay attacks. Wouldn't that prevent this kind of thefts?
Here's a description of the Apple Watch Mac unlock process https://networkingnerd.net/2016/09/21/apple-watch-unlock-802...
Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by “the start-stop nonsense” as opposed to using pedals? I don’t have a newer car.
Some will stop the engine while idling and the brake pedal is pressed. When it is released it will start the engine again. This is to avoid idle consumption and emissions at intersections, open bridges etc. (The stop/start is performed without you turning the key for ignition). Or the OP simply meant he didn't like the button with the label "start/stop" present on many "keyless" systems (wireless keys) :-) I put my m…
> it can be quite unnerving when the engine suddenly stops at an intersection.
Even more unnerving when it doesn't start right away, and you're already pushing the gas when it does, causing the car to lurch forward unexpectedly fast. All you can do is hope the person in front of you doesn't stop quickly, before you can get your foot back over to the brake.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some will stop the engine while idling and the brake pedal is pressed. When it is released it will start the engine again. This is to avoid idle consumption and emissions at intersections, open bridges etc. (The stop/start is performed without you turning the key for ignition). Or the OP simply meant he didn't like the button with the label "start/stop" present on many "keyless" systems (wireless keys) :-) I put my m…
> it can be quite unnerving when the engine suddenly stops at an intersection. Even more unnerving when it doesn't start right away, and you're already pushing the gas when it does, causing the car to lurch forward unexpectedly fast. All you can do is hope the person in front of you doesn't stop quickly, before you can get your foot back over to the brake.
I rented a Ford Ecosport for a road trip earlier this year and made good use of the unlimited miles package ;) It had the idle shutoff feature, which I didn't realize at first but figured out after a stoplight or two. Through a few weeks of city driving and highway driving, I never once felt it lurch. It was always absolutely responsive. Maybe they've gotten better? It worked great, and it was really nice to know I wasn't burning through gas idling at any stoplight or stop-and-go traffic on the highway.
This is a feature every car should have, and one that'd make much more sense to mandate over rear-view cameras.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why people are so opposed to it, I love it and I drive a Mercedes-AMG. Fantastic feature in traffic.
Audi driver here, and I hate it. Especially hate that I have to push a button every time I start the car to disable it. What an awful feature. Then again, I live in rural America and traffic isn’t a frequent thing I experience.
If you don't experience traffic frequently, then why would it bother you? It does nothing if you're just driving along. And I'm curious - what exactly makes you hate it?
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why people are so opposed to it, I love it and I drive a Mercedes-AMG. Fantastic feature in traffic.
I can't help but think that the extra wear and tear from start/stop cycles will end up exceeding the value of the fuel saved.
People always made that argument, but seeing as S/S systems have been in use for at least a decade now and we're not seeing catastrophic increase in rates of alternator/starter failures, I'd say that's not true. And it's not about fuel savings for me at all, it's just nice that the engine shuts off in traffic, it's quiet for a moment while you're standing still.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're going to give up. It's opportunistic, they're not going to risk robbery, or they'll think it's not working.
You would give up, as would most rational people. Once you’re committing felonies the primacy of rational thought could be called into question.
No. The typical person who is willing to steal a car is not willing to commit violent assault in order to take keys from you.
Someone whose logic is so flawed that they think “oh well, felony” is probably not just stealing cars. At that point they might as well break into your house, murder you for your stuff, and then do the same for every house on the block. “Because felony”, right?
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#57Back in the 80s my aunt and uncle each owned the same car, though different model years. It didn't take them long to realize that both keys worked in both cars.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a common attack that boosts the wireless signal of proximity fob to trick the vehicle into unlocking & starting. Fob wireless systems should ideally redesigned such that the round trip time is precisely measured of only valid encrypted challenge responses that only the fob can answer. Spending a bunch of money on a luxury vehicle is usually idiotic and most people who do so usually can't afford it in proporti…
Yeah I know the attack model, it was just amusing they took the cars that were worth less (at market value) over the newer car that was less cool but worth more. We put our car keys in a metal tin near the door now which stops all this anyway.
Your car probably wasn’t actually worth more to them. Even if your Kia was worth more according to the Blue Book, it’s quite likely that Audis and Jaguars fetch more on the parts market, and many (most?) stolen cars are torn down for parts.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it can be quite unnerving when the engine suddenly stops at an intersection. Even more unnerving when it doesn't start right away, and you're already pushing the gas when it does, causing the car to lurch forward unexpectedly fast. All you can do is hope the person in front of you doesn't stop quickly, before you can get your foot back over to the brake.
I rented a Ford Ecosport for a road trip earlier this year and made good use of the unlimited miles package ;) It had the idle shutoff feature, which I didn't realize at first but figured out after a stoplight or two. Through a few weeks of city driving and highway driving, I never once felt it lurch. It was always absolutely responsive. Maybe they've gotten better? It worked great, and it was really nice to know I w…
No. Rear-view cameras are safety. They're simply a switch. IF in R turn on CAMERA. If move to D, turn off Camera. If MT, IF in R, Camera, if not no Camera.
Gas mileage is simply an op-ex of a car, and does not make more "sense" over a rear view camera, because increased c pillars decrease overall glass and visibility.
I rather pay a few bucks more in gas then have a featureset unused in my car or have to go through disabling it every time I operate it.
Re: Some new cars at risk of theft by exploiting weaknesses in keyless entry systems
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would give up, as would most rational people. Once you’re committing felonies the primacy of rational thought could be called into question.
No. The typical person who is willing to steal a car is not willing to commit violent assault in order to take keys from you. Someone whose logic is so flawed that they think “oh well, felony” is probably not just stealing cars. At that point they might as well break into your house, murder you for your stuff, and then do the same for every house on the block. “Because felony”, right?
So ‘No.’ but then you go on to restate my point?