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

601–610 of 916 posts

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

#601

Post by sokoloff »

amluto wrote: post #119
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?

Perhaps the OBD port should only work when the car is validly unlocked and the engine immobilizer accepts a key? Maybe it could stay unlocked thereafter while a device is connected? Android (adb) and iOS (iTunes backup) have solved this issue years ago.

When I installed a remote starter on my old Jeep, I had to also install a CAN interface that would command a door unlock followed by a door lock command.

That was enough to tell the ECM that it was okay to start the car by simulating the key switch closure for “run” and a temporary closure for “start”. Prior to adding the CAN interface, jumping “start” would set off the alarm.

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

#602

Post by lotsofpulp »

carleton wrote: post #586
lotsofpulp wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote start is not to blame here. A manufacturer installed remote start system will shut the car off if a door opens. And the car should also shut off automatically after 5 to 10 minutes. Unfortunately, after market remote starter does not offer this capability, so with the new trend of monthly charges, if you like certain brands like Toyota, and you want that type of secure remote start, you have to pay $20 per mon…

2021 Honda here, OEM remote start system does not shut off the car if a door opens.

Interesting. I have had a Subaru, Lexus, and Volvo over the past 15 years or so that all shut off if a door is opened after remote starting. I assumed it’s a no brainer anti theft mechanism (but one that can only be implemented by manufacturers).

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

#603

Post by withinboredom »

Domenic_S wrote: post #588
withinboredom wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals. Ethics is a totally different beast but it’s something I’m not sure a young kid can wrap their heads around. But following “the rules” is something you can teach a kid and works until they are old enough to know when to break the rules. One thing we stressed to our son is: if you break the rules/laws, you will eventually get caught. So make sure whatever…

> The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals. That's a belief presented as fact. I'm not super excited about getting into a philosophical debate, but just something to consider: "The rules: help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property, were found in a survey of 60 cultures from all around the world." -- https:…

It’s a fact because I think we can agree there is at least one person on this planet who has counter-morals to any morals you present, for example. As long as one person on this planet has a difference of opinion on what morals they abide by, there can be no universal morals. That IS a fact, not an opinion.

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

#604

Post by sokoloff »

punnerud wrote: post #581
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?

Seems like the CANBUS is deactivated when the car is turned off on Volkswagen. Guess that is one way to fix it?

On some cars, hitting the door lock/unlock is enough to wake the CANBus.

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

#605

Post by sokoloff »

mysterydip wrote: post #316
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?

Instead of technical/computational solutions, maybe there's a low tech cage/shell that can be put around it so anyone can't just plug in?

The CAN+ and CAN- wires run around the car in, well, a bus and tapping into them anywhere is enough to inject CAN messages onto the bus.

It makes it less plug-n-play than the OBD2 connector, but thieves will still be able to do it.

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

#606

Post by freedomben »

immibis wrote: post #433
freedomben wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with you regarding situations where people get put into the system. Our justice system in practice, if not philosophy is very much based on punishment rather than rehabilitation. In my personal opinion this is medieval and really needs to change. However, what GP I suspect is seeing and what many others have seen as well, is a recognition that the system is broken, and thus a reluctance on a part of aut…

To reiterate what you just wrote in the second paragraph: Punishment ruins lives, so people vote against ruining each other's lives, so a group of people (who are but you did not refer to as fascists) who are disappointed with the amount of lives not being ruined will increase the level of punishment even further to maintain or exceed life-ruining equilibrium? It may be true or false, that I don't know, but the blame…

> the blame for it should lie squarely on the people who seek to increase life-ruining instead of the people who seek to decrease it.

I don't disagree, but assigning blame won't get us anywhere. In fact I think it actively works against us because:

1. It just further causes divisions. If people feel like they're being blamed, they will get defensive which usually also includes a double down and a shift to amygdala-based reasoning rather than PFC-based reasoning.

2. It shifts the conversation to a debate about "whose fault" or "who is to blame" rather than "is the system ethical, efficiacious, and what can we do about it?" That debate will then take all the energy, and even if it got resolved it's all wasted because simply assigning blame doesn't do anything toward solving the problem.

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

#607

Post by rmauge »

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…

Ignoring the strawman of an assailant deserving compassion or not, that’s a self serving and narrow definition of negligence. Any mechanism to protect from misuse has to weighed against the magnitude harm of the event occurring and the possibility of misuse. I would not expect my asset manager to have weak authentication systems to access my portfolio but don’t expect any at all from a free online game. I expect both of these to consider the threats and make reasonable choices. And they would be negligent if they did not do this exercise. Whether is an active threat or a passive act of god.

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

#608

Post by creaturemachine »

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…

Tik-Tok-inspired Kia thefts weren't a problem in Canada because they've required immobilizers since 2007, something Kia skimped on for the US market.

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

#609

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

slingnow wrote: post #514
madeofpalk wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think society finds stealing cars acceptable. That's why stealing illegal, that's why they're trying to outlaw a device that makes stealing cars easier, and why this article is trying to make it illegal to have easy-to-steal cars. Outliers stealing cars is not a demonstration that some part of society finds that ethetical.

Society largely finds marijuana use acceptable, and yet it remains a federal crime. When someone cuts me in line at the store, I don't see that as ethical or acceptable, but we don't have laws against it. So your argument that unacceptable == illegal isn't set in stone. We may have laws for things that we don't bother to enforce as a society. It's easy to see the possibility that society just views car theft as a nor…

> It's easy to see the possibility that society just views car theft as a normal occurrence ("insurance will cover it"), or perhaps too burdensome to enforce

Does society believe it's acceptable behavior though? I haven't seen any evidence to support the theory that we do. After all, if we did, we'd be out there stealing cars.

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

#610

Post by seanmcdirmid »

immibis wrote: post #442
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think there's anything more guaranteed to turn a 12 or 13 year old into a lifelong criminal than what I think you're implying by "real correction in behaviour"; aka a multi-year prison sentence. Society had better correct that problem quickly or those two 12/13 year old kids are going to have ruined their lives by the time they turn 18. Something drastic has to be done, a slap on the wrist and sending them…

The problem cannot be corrected by locking them in a room until they're 25, then releasing them.

The problem also cannot be corrected by letting them run wild until they are 18, and then locking them in a room until they are 50, and then releasing them.
Post reply on HN