[flagged]
Nixon never went to jail.
Seven others did go to prison though.
Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
11–20 of 309 posts
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#12But was this sabotage by an insider at the manufacturer, or something deliberate by the manufacturer?
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#13But was this sabotage by an insider at the manufacturer, or something deliberate by the manufacturer?
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
>The train manufacturer, Newag, also competed in the tender to carry out the maintenance, but the manufacturer’s bid was about 750k USD higher and the tender was eventually won by SPS, which offered to carry out the maintenance of 11 trains for around 5.5 mln USD.
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
They wanted to prevent third party repair services from being able to repair their trains, so that they could keep those maintenance contracts for themselves.
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
It seems like the trains were programmed to cease functioning if they spent more than 10 days at the GPS coordinates of maintenance shops not owned by the original manufacturer.
This would force the government to rely exclusively on that manufacturer to then fix these trains and perform all future maintenance.
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#17But was this sabotage by an insider at the manufacturer, or something deliberate by the manufacturer?
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
The manufacturer lost the bidding process, so quite reasonably (if you look at it in a limited fashion) said "Fine, let SLS do the work, you're on your own".
Arsehole-ish, but not illegal. All the hidden lockouts on the other hand....
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#18Dieselgate isn't a good comparison because in Dieselgate the equipment functioned normally from the user's point of view.
I think it is because the equipment changed dependent on context. In Dieselgate the cars changed their engine management when they got into a test cycle...
Re: Dieselgate, but for trains – some heavyweight hardware hacking
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
There wasn't just one manufactured failure, but multiple different ones. Refusing to help would also point towards intentional malice. Why would you sell a product, then refuse to assist, unless you've intentionally designed the product to fail so only you would know how to make it work again?
To what end? So they can sell more trains? That makes no sense.
How does that make no sense ? That's the whole point of a business.