Live data from Hacker News

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

saveflipper.ca

811–820 of 916 posts

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

#811
post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix. i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock. Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever.

the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

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

#812
post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fobs are very cheap. There is no reason to want cars without them.

none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you

Did I imply what you want is my business?

Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.

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

#813
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…

Nobody knows a vehicle is insecure when they buy it. It's simpler, more cost efficient, and more valuable to society just to require cars to have basic security features. Your idea of market correction doesn't work in this case, because it's never advertised as having shitty security, and the average (or even informed) consumer will have no idea this is a problem until after they've bought the car.

if people cared, they would know

i think this issue is overblown and is being used as a smokescreen for the rash of vehicle thefts caused, not by bad kia security, but large-scale organized crime.

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

#814
post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock. Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.

you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock. you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not. if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever. the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or…

> you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.

> you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.

This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum.

We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy.

But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise.

> (cliche)

Are you trying to imply something there?

> you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.

I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.

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

#815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is done by organized crime with engineers on staff. Sure it’s drug addicts stealing cars but the people shipping them are smart and have access to capital.

I agree, but that brings us back to my original question: why can't same smart organized crime people unlock my smartphone then? Because Apple/Google give a damn about security and car manufacturers do not.

a couple of years ago it wasn’t uncommon for victims of phone theft in the UK to end up flooded with iCloud phishing messages to try gain access to their iCloud account and unblock the device so it wasn’t totally worthless for resale.

I still see a lot of iCloud phishing messages, but also understand that Apple has made this vector harder.

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

#816
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…

All this will do is increase sales volume. Given that flipper is 95% just a marketing play, I wouldn't be surprised if they're already on this

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

#817
post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the issue here is that it’s actually a pretty nice area here in Baltimore, but our police force is currently understaffed and overworked. One big issue here regarding policing is that our city elected officials can’t tell the city police force what to do. You see, when the civil war broke out, the state took control of the police force so that the mayor couldn’t lead a confederate coup. Flash forward to today…

If you haven't traveled/lived in many major cities since covid, they are all the exact same now. None of the police are working. I'm in Denver now, previously Austin in 2019, Dallas 2020, Denver 2020+, and Denver banned qualified immunity so the police work even less. Seattle just did the same thing + IIRC king county is doing that "police cant lie on stand" or whatever law. I lived on 2nd and congress in Austin for…

This sounds like a serious symptom of something being deeply fucked with policing in America.

Qualified immunity doesn’t exist in other first world countries with effective policing, in fact, the police in America have a lot of latitude to do all kinds of insane shitfuckery that doesn’t fly elsewhere.

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

#818
post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

none of your business what i want, honestly whether or not it makes sense to you

Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.

> Did I imply what you want is my business?

yes. if that's not true, i retract.

what i want is:

- it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have.

- it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and "there's nor reason that..." and so on are invalid.

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

#819
post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I imply what you want is my business? Though your other comments make it sound like you don't want a car without an immobilizer, in which case it feels like you're manufacturing something to disagree with rather than making a real argument against what I said.

> Did I imply what you want is my business? yes. if that's not true, i retract. what i want is: - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have. - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and "there's nor…

> - it's not an act of "negligence" when neither the owner nor the manufacturer choose to not include an extra security feature, even one that a majority of other cars have.

I don't think this gets to count as "extra".

> - it's nobody's business what "people ought to want". so that means an arguments based on "nobody should..." or "no rational person..." and so on are invalid.

I'm making a general claim about value, nothing personal. Because of that, I don't think it should matter whether wanting it is "nobody's business".

But in particular, I'm saying there's no benefit to avoiding an electronic key. We can remove the word "want" entirely. The downsides are large and the implementation cost is a rounding error. This differs from power windows and "fancy alarms".

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

#820
post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might have a point if hammers or screwdrivers had no other purpose other than stealing cars And so is flipper zero.. have another analogy, flipper zero is like Swiss army pocket knife, you can use it open your package box and also kill someone, zipper can be used as a toy -literally- or an IR remote, and can also steal a car, except I don’t think it can steal a car in the first place, it’s too weak, you need an…

Swiss Army Knife does not provide any functionality that can't be provided by any other basic household object - neither can a hammer. The function of a hammer does not extend past 'hit thing' or 'pull nail', Obviously this kind of function can't be controlled in its application as people can swing their arms however they feel which makes any sort of restriction on hammers redundant given their utility. Flipper Zero…

Ok, you are making several assumptions here, so let me address them one by one:

> Swiss Army Knife does not provide any functionality that can't be provided by any other basic household object

That is true, but you don’t go around carrying all these individual tools in your pocket, do you? That’s the whole point of it, portability. The same goes for the flipper zero, you have a bunch of useful tools that you can buy off the shelf yourself, but they are not convenient to carry with you all the time.

> Flipper Zero on the other hand is a toy with no/little actual utility

Who says that? Anything can be a useful utility in the right time and in the right hands for a specific purpose. Maybe one tool is useless to you, while useful to another.

Some people might use it to store hundreds of keyfobs, so instead of carrying all the hardware for each, they can use one device instead. Others might use it to control their home devices, either the IR remotes, or other smart devices, and instead of having 15 remotes (I personally do), they can use one device. Some other person might use it to monitor their TPMS in the tires, others to monitor a serial GPIO port, and so on. All these are not only legal, but you can perform all the individual tasks with a “collection” of tools, like reading the serial GPIO, you can buy a dongle for $10, IR remote? You can use some android devices, etc. However, with flipper zero, it’s all-in-one.

> that enables users to perform illegal/dangerous tasks

Just like any other tool out there, any tool can be repurposed to do illegal tasks, either the tools I mentioned or any other ones, including your smartphone, you can load a custom OS (say Kali linux) and perform illegal tasks, do you ban smartphones? Do you ban Kali linux? No, but if someone is found guilty of performing these tasks, you prosecute them. The same goes for anything, your car, can be used for everyday tasks, or even illegal stuff.

> like steal cars that would not otherwise be possible except via less accessible/illegal means.

Flipper zero can’t steal a car, it’s too damn weak for that job. If you are too concerned about that, will you ban ALL SDR in the market too? Because if someone has a bad intention, and you banned flipper zero, they will go and buy BladeRF SDR for example (that’s very accessible and legal to buy), far more superior than flipper and proceed to commit whatever they want. How’s that flipper zero ban working to prevent the crime? Not at all.

Post reply on HN