Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 163 posts

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#31

Post by swiley »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #16
voqv wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik you buy this thing as a dashcam and then flash the self driving software on your own at your own risk. This was done exactly when "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) demanded that Comma.ai provide proof to regulators that its proposed device for self-driving cars would be safe". [1] I wonder if there's anything new around this development with regards to Comma.ai as this is status of 201…

> on your own at your own risk It is not just your own risk but also that of other pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers that share the road with you.

Don't you just love cars. I'm glad they gave us so much independence.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#32

Post by jmiskovic »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #9

The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page? Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way? Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for…

I'm not sure where you looked, but https://github.com/commaai/openpilot states it very clearly: "openpilot observes ISO26262 guidelines, see SAFETY.md for more detail."

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#33

Post by DoingIsLearning »

jmiskovic wrote: post #32
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #9

The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page? Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way? Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for…

I'm not sure where you looked, but https://github.com/commaai/openpilot states it very clearly: "openpilot observes ISO26262 guidelines, see SAFETY.md for more detail."

Thanks jmiskovic, I stand corrected:

> openpilot is developed in good faith to be compliant with FMVSS requirements and to follow industry standards of safety for Level 2 Driver Assistance Systems. In particular, we observe ISO26262 guidelines, including those from pertinent documents released by NHTSA. In addition, we impose strict coding guidelines (like MISRA C : 2012) on parts of openpilot that are safety relevant. We also perform software-in-the-loop, hardware-in-the-loop and in-vehicle tests before each software release. [0]

I would be quite curious to see how they perform HIL tests and in-vehicle tests and if those results are also public?

[0] https://github.com/commaai/openpilot/blob/master/SAFETY.md

Edit: I cannot edit or remove the grandparent comment but I leave here this correction

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#34

Post by yardie »

ezconnect wrote: post #15
raziel2p wrote: post #3

The most surprising part about this to me is that there seems to be a somewhat standardized computer interface for controlling cars with an external device. I would never have guessed that, I thought for sure every maker would come up with their own unique design and require you to buy adapters or whatnot.

CAN bus is the standard physical interface. What is not standard is the message being passed, so each car will have it's own message for car information. What surprised me about OpenPilot is how some of the electric steering system can be tricked into turning using false sensor data. It's actually amazing that almost all cars now can be driven by software the only thing missing are more accurate and complicated senso…

This is actually quite common with aftermarket tuning for the past decade. Traditional ECU tuning you replace your car's ECU with one with a modified (chipped) ECU. Now, there are bolt-ons that connect through the OBDII port. They modify shift points, change timings, and air fuel mix ratios. And do this without voiding the warranty.

[0] https://www.racechip.us/

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#35

Post by matthewdgreen »

izacus wrote: post #25
bipson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is actually concerning that you can inject false sensor data this easily. I mean, sure, the messages on the CAN will not be encrypted or signed in any way, I know, but still...

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

The CAN bus is shared by a number of devices, each with its own microprocessor and thus (in principle) potentially subject to exploits that cause it to run malicious code. Some of the devices on the bus interact with the outside world via cellular, Wifi, Bluetooth and USB. The disturbing idea here is that your car is basically an internally-unfirewalled network of computers that can kill you if they malfunction.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#36

Post by viraptor »

CapricornNoble wrote: post #27

The article reads that OpenPilot uses facial recognition to detect a distracted driver.....Can that be fooled with an image, or perhaps a mannequin? I wonder if you could apply this autonomous car tech to vehicle-borne IEDs. The driver could dismount a few hundred meters short of the target and provide eyes-on ground-level surveillance (if for some reason you aren't using a UAV for the same) while the vehicle drives…

It's an open system. You don't have to fool it in that case. Just disable the distraction detection.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#37

Post by jinzo »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #35
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

The CAN bus is shared by a number of devices, each with its own microprocessor and thus (in principle) potentially subject to exploits that cause it to run malicious code. Some of the devices on the bus interact with the outside world via cellular, Wifi, Bluetooth and USB. The disturbing idea here is that your car is basically an internally-unfirewalled network of computers that can kill you if they malfunction.

But it is firewalled (between OBD port and the car, between internal buses,...). I won't say it's sufficiently locked down, but as we recently saw - not even Apple got that completely right - but there are several layers of protection(s) on the various communication bus-es and computers. At least on European Manufacturers.

I agree that this needs more hardening, but reading this comments one would get an idea that a 12 years old kid with a 10EUR dongle can hack any car. When in reality, stuff is a lot harder to do.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#38

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

joosters wrote: post #24
bipson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not what "at your own risk" means. "At your own risk" means you bear the risk (legally). If something happens, it is on you, and the manufacturer offloads any liability on you. That does not imply what the risks are. Life threatening? You are risking other people's lives.

No need to be pedantic. No-one's arguing about the meaning of 'at your own risk', it's just that your decision to use this software affects more than just yourself.

I think the response you are replying to was a reaction to the possible interpretation that OpenPilot puts pedestrians etc. at increased risk, or that it put the driver at increased risk.

While a reasonable interpretation includes putting the driver at increased /legal/ risk relative to a system where the manufacturer represents it as for sale for autonomous driving, it is unreasonable to infer that this puts the driver at greater risk of being sued, having to sue, or monetary loss. OpenPilot may be better / safer than the competition such that using it lowers your risk of accident, monetary loss, etc. even including any purported loss of the ability to pass the buck to the manufacturer.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#39

Post by jinzo »

bipson wrote: post #30
izacus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly would be concerning? You need to physically plug cables in the car you yourself own. If anything, every access to hardware you own SHOULD be this easy.

Because that means not only you (the owner) can do it. Also (caution, tangent): MCUs in cars is one of the systems where I want more encryption/signing and less hacking - especially for owners. Foremost to get rid of all the chip-tuned soot sources I am constanly driving behind. The manufacturer knows how to control the engine, the random idiot with a laptop in 95% of the cases does more harm then good. If the manufa…

I really wish to know where you live that the quality of chip-tunin is so bad.

In developed world (EU), the owners are accountable for their vehicles. Including emission controls. But the problem is on the enforcing side, from the people actually doing the enforcing to the (un)avability of appropriate measuring devices that are able to detect the prescribed levels.

EDIT: As I saw that you are from AT. You do know that your country has a reputition of 'hardcore' car modification checking at the inspection? :D But yeah, I noticed several problems with that and your system of 'we will just let every mechanic certify the cars'.

Re: We Tested Comma AI's OpenPilot

#40

Post by dukeme09 »

jmiskovic wrote: post #32
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #9

The project contains software that acts as functional safety software in a vehicle, so ISO 26262 should apply. I couldn't find any reference to this in the repository or landing page? Some sources mention it is for research only purposes (in closed roads?), others advertise this as a CES consumer product, has the project evolved along the way? Each car manufacturer has to provide a battery of tests to regulators for…

I'm not sure where you looked, but https://github.com/commaai/openpilot states it very clearly: "openpilot observes ISO26262 guidelines, see SAFETY.md for more detail."

Yes, but what does "observes" ISO26262 mean? The words I would want to hear before plugging this into my car are, "meets", "complies with with", or "certified to ISO26262."
Post reply on HN