Live data from Hacker News

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

saveflipper.ca

641–650 of 916 posts

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

#641
post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

> If I left a million dollars out on my front porch, and someone stole it, that would not be my fault in any sort of way

It's possible for multiple people to share the blame for something. You _are_ the victim. The person who stole it _is_ the bad guy / criminal. But you _both_ share the blame, because you did something to put yourself at risk when you had better options.

If I'm out late at night, wearing expensive jewelry and have 2 ways home; one longer but down a well lit road, the other shorter but through a dark alley in a crime ridden neighborhood; and I chose the dark alley and got mugged... I would be the victim AND be partially to blame for making a stupid choice.

Making choices that put yourself at risk by ignoring the realities of the world, when you don't need to, mean you share the blame.

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

#642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Then don't punish. Reform, correct, fix. A lot of people will still see that as punishment (like they would see army bootcamp as punishment), but then we would just start disagreeing.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It can be difficult to sync on terminology and philosophy though because in theory for most people the justice system is supposed to be about rehabilitation. The idea that you should serve your time and return to society is almost universally agreed saving the most extreme cases. Yet our system doesn't achieve that because a lot of the structures are based on "punishment" and "deterrence." Simply raising awareness and following the trail of logic is usually enough to find a lot of common ground. But it being a systemic problem, there isn't really anything an individual can do (that isn't IMHO counterproductive, see earlier thread about the unintended consequences of well-meaning DAs and LEOs letting people go to avoid the pitfalls of the system). It's a tremendously challening problem.

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

#643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Your unstated assumption is that universal agreement is required for universal morals to exist

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

#644
post #617

> Security tools like Flipper Zero are essentially programmable radios, known as Software Defined Radios (SDRs) The Flipper Zero is not a SDR, it is less capable than that. That's the ironic part, the Flipper Zero is a rather weak hacking tool. It can open car doors, but it is so impractical that it is not much more than a party trick. You have to record the code by pressing the button on the keyfob out of range of t…

> but real thieves already have better tools for their job.

there you go, letting logic get in the way of a politician looking to score points

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

#645
post #598
post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If I left a million dollars out on my front porch, and someone stole it, that would not be my fault in any sort of way

Pretty much all of human history to this point says that this is a practical impossibility. If there is such a database/secret, it will get out.

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

#646
post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Allow me to offer a different opinion. There is little sense in applying logical security when physical security is lacking. CANBUS should not be accessible by taking apart headlights. Communication buses must be protected from physical access, i.e., trip the alarm system or disable the car upon unauthorized access. There can be no logical security without physical security.

It would be very hard to make CANBUS inaccessible from headlights, since that what controls it. However, the headlight shouldn't be able to tell the rest of the system that the key is in the car.

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

#647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Owning cars should be something that corporations and the rich and hobbyists do. If you dont want your car broken into maybe dont leave it lying around unattended in public?

I wouldn't go that far, but we should certainly stop subsidizing them so heavily that we forget there are any other options, or that humans were capable of happy, prosperous lives for millennia before they existed.

Yeah maybe I shouldnt put both those statements together when really I think they are seperate opinions. I dont think society should be so car heavy. I also dont think its realistic for people to leave something lying around in public and expect it not to get broken into or stolen. Would you leave a backpack lying around on the public street in a big city and expect it to not get stolen/broken into?

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

#648
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…

Let's say a hardware exploit for iPhones becomes obvious and is spread through social media. Something absurd like "attaching a shorted iphone cable". Are you going to be the first to buy an add-on lock or immobilizer? And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on?

I'd expect Apple to refund the cost of the phone and mail a box to send the faulty device in for recycling.

Making a defective product should not be free.

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

#649
post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We aren’t very serious about enforcing our laws, especially when kids are involved. In the US we lock more of our citizens behind bars than any other nation on Earth. Conviction for even a minor offense can make it extremely difficult to get employment or housing. People rarely get a clean slate after serving their time and even an arrest record without a conviction can haunt you. Nearly all other developed countri…

this is an absolutely insane position to take in 2024. all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity. you are replying to a post about 12-13 year-olds stealing cars and carrying guns, ffs. this should involve at least several years in jail. maybe a 2nd chance at 18. the pendulum has definitely swung too far, but the direction it's swinging is not what…

> all around we have junkies in the streets, squatters, shoplifters, car thieves, burglars operating with impunity.

This is the insane take. Maybe that's your personal bubble talking, but there are millions of people who go about their daily lives without seeing a single junkie in the street. America has always had "bad" neighborhoods filled with junkies/squatters/shoplifters/car thieves/burglars but they have not and do not operate with impunity. You can easily find examples of all of those things resulting in someone being arrested/convicted/shot by police.

Record numbers of Americans can't afford rent. Household debit is at all time highs as well. There are also historic numbers of Deaths of Despair. Is it any wonder that drug use, homelessness, squatting, and crimes like shoplifting/theft are rising? It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain much of it. Give Americans zero help for mental illness, don't act surprised when you get a bunch of crazy people around you. Punish addicts instead of helping them? Enjoy your junkies I guess! Allow massive numbers of people to live in desperation and you can't act shocked when they act out of desperation.

"Tough-on-crime" laws will not fix those issues because they do nothing but making the underlying causes even worse. "Tough-on-crime" laws are exactly what have been failing us, and why people have started looking for alternatives.

> you are replying to a post about 12-13 year-olds stealing cars and carrying guns, ffs. this should involve at least several years in jail. maybe a 2nd chance at 18.

A 12 year does not benefit from a prison sentence. Do you honestly think that's going to keep them from committing crimes later on in life? We should expect children to do stupid things. Their undeveloped brains are wired for risk taking, and failing to see/consider the consequences of their actions. (https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Fam...). That doesn't mean they are incapable of making good choices, but it does make it much more likely (and natural) for them to fail to make good choices from time to time. Not all acts of teenage impulsivity will lead to stealing cars, but those 12-13 year olds mentioned would be far from the first kids to do it. Perhaps you could argue that it's the parents who should be punished for not raising their child properly or for failing to keep them away from guns, but I'm skeptical that it would prevent other families from having the same problems. Children need to be allowed to grow and learn from their mistakes. There need to be consequences for when they screw up, but is sending a child off to get tortured and raped for years the best solution you can come up with?

> mass-incarceration is not a "problem" to be solved

Hard disagree. There is plenty of research into the problems it causes and enables to continue. It's hugely wasteful and expensive. Not only do tough on crime laws and mass incarceration fail to prevent crime (see https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crime-and-punishment...), it actually makes things worse! It rips families apart. It hurts communities. It hurts the economy, It hurts the people who are abused in prisons. It prevents people from being contributing members of society. No good comes from mass incarceration.

It's also not about how much crime there is. Look at this: https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/NATO_US_2021.webp

Do you honestly think America has so much more crime than the rest of the planet? It's not as if our incarceration problem only got that bad recently either. It's been insane for a very very very long time.

"how much crime is happening" isn't really the issue anyway. It's "what crimes are committed, should they be crimes in the first place, and do we need people behind bars because of them".

A massive percentage of the people who are locked up have never even been convicted of a crime (https://static.prisonpolicy.org/images/pie2023.webp) and many who have been are there for non-violent and drug related offenses, often with no victim at all!

> others will simply take massive advantage of it. the later need to be locked up, not for rehabilitation, but to prevent crime.

Everyone should be free to take advantage of compassion, but compassion doesn't mean that people can just get away with whatever they want either. I agree, that prison is no way to rehabilitate someone. That said, a night or two in jail can be a nice "time out"/wake up call. There will always be some people who need to be kept locked up to protect the rest of society. It should be a last resort though and those people shouldn't be subjected to torture or substandard conditions. They should be allowed to live a safe, healthy, good life - just one kept apart from the rest of the us and without their freedom.

> a great way to differentiate it is repeat offenders. there's basically no excuse for this.

You can't imagine why someone who gets out of jail, is suddenly saddled with massive debt, fees, and fines from the experience, but whose record means they cannot get a job or an apartment might turn to crime again? Why someone who has spent years being beaten, raped, tortured behind bars might come out of prison with problems that lead them to drugs and the problems that causes? Why people who are locked up for mental illness and released without treatment or the means to get treatment might reoffend?

Again, it doesn't justify the crimes, but it does help to explain them. If we don't give people who get out of prison a chance to get their life back together what else do we expect? Our current system makes it extremely unlikely for someone to have a normal decent life once they are out of prison. Especially if that person had very little money/support, or had mental illness or an addiction, or very little education (maybe they were only 12-13) when they went in. The vast majority of the people who enter the justice system have a mental illness/impairment, an addiction, or both. That has to be dealt with or it's just going to cause more issues. Many leave prison with mental problems due to the trauma of their experiences. That has to be dealt with.

This isn't an unsolvable problem. Other countries do so much better than we do, so we can draw from their examples. Suggesting that we should ignore all those examples and be even more draconian and oppressive is a very weird take.

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

#650

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?

Put the powertrain lockout system on a signed and physically protected network segment. Let the headlights, mirrors, etc live on a less secure segment. This will impose higher costs when replacing these systems, because it will require key management of some kind. Either central cert management (with 20 year expiry?) or local key management. So only impose this on a tiny subnet for the starter/immobilizer.

Sadly, this involves costs, so it'll never happen.

Good take, though.

Post reply on HN