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

681–690 of 916 posts

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

#681

Post by nox101 »

Nursie wrote: post #259
nox101 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Japanese criminal procedure is … interesting from what I can tell. There is a very high conviction rate, suspiciously so. Singapore is questionably democratic, utilises corporal punishment and is described by some as a police state. I think it’s fair to say that while a strong sense of community ethics may be present in Singapore, it’s certainly not the only thing holding people in line. Seoul I know little about.

I've heard the claim the stats are not comparable.

USA, each suspect is registered, then suspect gets acquitted. Stats show 100 suspects, 50 acquitted = 50% convicted. Japan there is no suspect registered unless they're already sure it will stick. In other words they've already done the investigation. So 50 suspects = 100% convicted because the 50 that there wasn't enough evidence for were never even registered as suspects.

> Only about 8% of cases are actually prosecuted, and this low prosecution rate is the reason for Japan's high conviction rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice_system_of_Jap...

If true this makes sense some cultural sense. Japan is super privacy conscious. It's Japan that got google maps to remove people's faces from street view. It's also illegal to take pictures of people in public. Being labeled a suspect would mark someone unjustly if it turns out are not likely guilty. No actual idea of that plays into the difference. Just thinking out loud.

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

#683

Post by iraqmtpizza »

petsfed wrote: post #520
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> the same people who threw away roughly two thousand of years of the most successful philosophy have doomed themselves to a demographic death spiral I don't think this is true. Falling birth rate is positively correlated with key markers of quality of life (especially infant survival rate, education, overall lifespan, and productivity) irrespective of dominant religion or religiosity in general. edit: changed "infan…

Sorry, that doesn't explain the massive fertility gap between atheists and theists or the fact that atheists are nowhere remotely near replacement rate

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

#684

Post by withinboredom »

Domenic_S wrote: post #643
withinboredom wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’d love to hear an argument showing that a universal moral doesn’t need to be applied universally and still be considered universal.

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

#685

Post by eep_social »

filoleg wrote: post #669
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Failing to implement even the most basic security measure, which is considered industry standard, in a high-value product that is known to be very attractive to thieves and then selling that product to consumers with no warning that "unlike most other cars on the market, which have many layers of security features, this car can be stolen using a cheap toy" makes the inevitable thefts absolutely Kia's fault. I don't…

> If you buy a classic vehicle, they don't have these kinds of things either Not a good analogy, because buying a classic vehicle automatically waives a bunch of safety and other features that are not only expected in modern day, they are straight up legally required. A car manufacturer cannot remake a classic vehicle from the 80s and release it in the US in 2024. Or, probably, EU too, I cannot speak for that due to…

The standard dodge in the US is to sell “kit cars” which require the buyer to do a bunch of paperwork to get a VIN. I don’t think they can be sold ready-to-drive but I think there are dodges there too (owner tightens last bolt style). The details vary by state.

Looking for details, I found that there have also been recent changes to ease requirements for small-batch (< 325/year) turn-key replica manufacturers.

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

#686

Post by ngneer »

0x457 wrote: post #646
ngneer wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Logical compartmentalization like you suggest is a fine approach, but even better is to not allow physical access. Unless the car is in maintenance mode at the shop, the chassis should be sealed tight. Maybe the manufacturer decided to favor headlight maintainability over theft prevention, or was simply oblivious.

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

#687

Post by ddalex »

badgersnake wrote: post #671
sonicanatidae wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And everyone should also have to purchase an add-on? Yes! -Apple

When the iPhone 4 came out and antennagate happened, they gave everyone a plastic case for free.

I thought that they teached people to hold it right

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

#688

Post by ddalex »

aosmith wrote: post #334
hoofhearted wrote: post #21

Sooo they have been stealing Infiniti's from my area recently with relative ease allegedly by using a Bluetooth obd2 reader connected to an android tablet running a pirated copy of some Nissan service tech software. Nobody from any of the Infiniti groups is 100% certain how they are doing it, but the best theory out there is above. Just the other night, a crew of dudes stole 3 Q50’s from my neighborhood with relative…

See all that time the thief spends near the drivers side headlight? The headlights are on the can bus, if you can tap a couple wires in there the cars is yours.

I'm very surprised to see that the ignition control is on the slow speed can bus...

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

#689

Post by VoodooJuJu »

badRNG wrote: post #3

It seems like the most straightforward path here is to ban auto thefts all together.

I think you're being a little bigoted. Auto theft is an important part of some cultures and it's important for us to be more inclusive of them.

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

#690

Post by arjvik »

aosmith wrote: post #334
hoofhearted wrote: post #21

Sooo they have been stealing Infiniti's from my area recently with relative ease allegedly by using a Bluetooth obd2 reader connected to an android tablet running a pirated copy of some Nissan service tech software. Nobody from any of the Infiniti groups is 100% certain how they are doing it, but the best theory out there is above. Just the other night, a crew of dudes stole 3 Q50’s from my neighborhood with relative…

See all that time the thief spends near the drivers side headlight? The headlights are on the can bus, if you can tap a couple wires in there the cars is yours.

Genuine question - why do headlights need to be on the main CAN bus? Could they not be operated from somewhere closer to the ECU by wires that just carry power and maybe some very simple data lines?
Post reply on HN