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

Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

saveflipper.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 916 posts

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#591

Post by WWLink »

jack_h wrote: post #530
nulbyte wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior, the discussion is about preventing some thing from being sold or existing, whether that be insecure vehicles or Flipper Zeroes. There are already laws against theft. They apply to vehicles, secure and insecure alike. A law mandating a minimum level of security, as GP suggests, seems to me to fit the suggestion, that auto manufacturers have…

This seems really bizarre to me and kind of dismisses the entire premise of this subthread. So we have a particular activity - theft - which we as a society have deemed to be inappropriate and codified the punishment of such behavior into law. The law doesn't prevent such behavior, it merely lays out the punishment if one is caught and convicted which can be seen as a deterrent. However, vehicle theft still happens w…

I get where you're going with this. At the same time, I am reminded of the Kia Boyz incidents - where the immobilizer was pretty much expected on every new car, and Kia had decided to maximize profits on their low end models by just omitting that feature.

It would be like if you built a new house and decided not to install smoke alarms. (Except, of course, this is regulated.)

And yea, regulations right? Why should we regulate stuff like that anyway? :P

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#592

Post by vkou »

happiness_idx wrote: post #376
nulbyte wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Instead of discussing how car theft is fundamentally an unethical behavior, the discussion is about preventing some thing from being sold or existing, whether that be insecure vehicles or Flipper Zeroes. There are already laws against theft. They apply to vehicles, secure and insecure alike. A law mandating a minimum level of security, as GP suggests, seems to me to fit the suggestion, that auto manufacturers have…

Every car on the market now has a flaw where I can put a air wedge on your door and a coat hanger on the lock button.

Given those two tools, can you steal the car, or does that require a lot more effort for some models?

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#593

Post by WWLink »

nostromo wrote: post #532
keiferski wrote: post #98

Philosophy warning: I don't know if there is a term for it, or if a philosopher/etc. has written about this phenomenon, but: a noticeable trend to me is what I'll call "the replacement of ethical expectations with specific, written down laws." Rather than expecting a human being to behave in certain ways intrinsically (i.e., normative ethics ) we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible, and then pas…

This is related to high-trust and low-trust societies. In a high-trust society, norms prevail and in general you can expect a certain level of treatment from everyone: your government, your employer, your neighbor, and the person next to you on the train. In a low-trust society there is no guarantee of norms being universal, so you rely on physical security, contracts, lawyers, and law enforcement to enforce standard…

I'd argue that it went higher trust? If you look back at labor law history, for example... or read a book like the grapes of wrath....

There are interesting localized extremes. Like you can find small family farms that have 'self service shops' on a shed next to the road they're on. They rely totally on the honor system and afaik theft is minimal enough that they don't worry about it. Then you have places where you can park a car and someone will immediately break into it to steal 50 cents out of the cupholder lol.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#594

Post by K0balt »

raizer88 wrote: post #47
markhahn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, we want owners to have full access to their car's CANBUS. So the question is: how should the OBD-2 plug (or wiring) be protected?

All CANBUS packages that are useful to drive a car should be encrypted using a public/private key that is in the owner key. Decryption chips are cheap and fast.

CANbus protocol makes this hard. Payloads are limited to 64 bits, to start with. But the payload for each message could be encrypted, even though secure key exchange would be difficult.

Even so, it would be possible, I think.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#595

Post by topspin »

anigbrowl wrote: post #576

The childishness of this headline is something else. People who like 'security tools' feel entitled to demand everyone else exhaust themselves in a never ending security arms race. Here's a compromise; things like Flipper Zero stay legal, but if you get caught with one, you're treated the same way as someone walking around with a crowbar.

I had exactly the opposite reaction. Tools like flipper zero are trivial. Banning these make as much sense as banning the next designer drug. Yet that's the idiocy we default to, and the logical conclusion is the "War On Electronics."

Manufacturers have been reckless, featurizing their products and ignoring basic expectations of their customers. It isn't unreasonable to expect that some low life knucklehead can't just toy with your car for a minute using a ~$5 transceiver and drive way without so much as an alarm going off.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#596

Post by grubbs »

fargle wrote: post #583

stupid on stupid. - it's incredibly stupid to ban the flipper zero because it's factually not even part of the problem - but it's equally stupid to "ban insecure vehicles". if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it (because maybe insurance) or add and aftermarket immobilizer or a steering wheel lock. if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you fo…

The last point is a hard one when the perpetrator is a 11 year old kid who watched a TikTok video online on how to steal a Kia/Hyundai.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#597

Post by WWLink »

nox101 wrote: post #237
aidenn0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather than expecting a human being to behave in certain ways intrinsically (i.e., normative ethics) we tend to assume they will behave in the worst way possible, and then pass laws to supposedly prevent that behavior from manifesting. This is a necessary consequence of civilization. If you have a city of 8 million people, then you have 80,000 people in the bottom percentile of behavior by normative ethics. If some…

The largest metro area on the planet, Tokyo, 34 million people, is also the one of the safest with the extremely low crime. Seoul, and Singapore are both around 10 million and are also safe with low crime.

I've learned not to trust those sorts of statistics. It's like the " commits way less crime than " argument you see on reddit sometimes by the ACKSHUALLY crowd. The problem with those statistics is they only count the people who were CAUGHT (and convicted and punished) breaking said laws.

People break laws and get away with it all the time - probably the majority of the time. My friend, when was the last time you saw a $100,000 Mercedes on the side of the road with 3 cop cars behind it, the driver sitting on the curb, and a K-9 sniffing the inside of the car? Yet I can count plenty of times I've seen such a car run red lights, roll stop signs, and flagrantly disobey posted speed limits. (Especially when a BMW badge is involved lol)

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#598

Post by Zak »

acdha wrote: post #549
2024throwaway wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP said the key is in the car key. You already give the car key to a mechanic, I don't see how this would make maintenance any harder.

Think about what happens when people lose their keys, which will reliably happen.

In the old days, most or all car companies had the ability to look up the bitting code to cut a replacement key (the mechanical kind) from the car's VIN. There's no reason they can't do the same with an encryption key.

Of course they'd need to do a good job securing that database since inappropriate access to it would make stealing cars very easy.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#599

Post by foxyv »

fargle wrote: post #583

stupid on stupid. - it's incredibly stupid to ban the flipper zero because it's factually not even part of the problem - but it's equally stupid to "ban insecure vehicles". if kia makes a cheap car with crappy locks either don't buy it (because maybe insurance) or add and aftermarket immobilizer or a steering wheel lock. if it was really negligent of kia to "save a couple bucks", then it's equally negligent on you fo…

The problem occurs when a vendor makes claims that are false or fails to disclose known issues. I don't think either insecure cars or security tools should be banned. However, I think disclosures should absolutely be made.

Re: Insecure vehicles should be banned, not security tools like the Flipper Zero

#600

Post by adolph »

ceejayoz wrote: post #28
rascul wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US military vehicles might have a cable that locks to the steering wheel. So if you try to drive it, you can't steer well. But if not setup properly, it can be steered just fine.

US military vehicles are protected by the "people with guns who will shoot you" industry standard.

> US military vehicles are protected by the "people with guns who will shoot you" industry standard.

Unless you are an MP, that stuff stays in the armory cage. And if you are headed to the range, ammunition is delivered separately to the range and systems are stringently checked for ammo before returning, afterwards they will do a lockdown inspection of the barracks and everyone's personal vehicles.

Post reply on HN