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

891–900 of 916 posts

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

#891

Post by Xelynega »

numpad0 wrote: post #834
strangattractor wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one time is was possible to open car doors with a coat hanger. Nobody suggested banning coat hangers. They fixed the doors.

Intentions sometimes matter. There is a South African shotgun aspirationally named Street Sweeper, and it's famously classified as a Destructive Device in the US, which is two levels more strictly controlled category, AIUI, IANAL, than a manually operated Gatling gun. FZ is intended to clone keys and bypass security, I suppose in significant part for users' lawful convenience, but is kind of intended to do what it sh…

> FZ is intended to clone keys and bypass security

I'd say it's more of an educational/'hacker' toy than it is a useful security bypasser/key cloner.

Purpose built(and better aot their job) those things cost significantly less. The flipper zero is a toy that the Canadian government are about to misclasify.

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

#892

Post by Xelynega »

arjvik wrote: post #704
aetherspawn wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well for one thing the OBD port shouldn’t be designed so that it has direct access to any useful CAN bus. It should go to a gateway that requires authentication to do anything except read OBD, and all of the IDs that you are allowed to send should be whitelisted. The issue people are mentioning with the headlights is easily solved by just moving the starter CAN to its own CAN bus between the immobiliser and the ECU (…

I agree fully with this, except for the fact that this then makes devices like the Comma (comma.ai) impossible. The hacker in me really wants to be able to send steering signals by plugging something into my car :)

If you own the car, why wouldn't you be able to attach something to both of the CAN busses from the interior?

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

#893

Post by iraqmtpizza »

petsfed wrote: post #877
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL none of that remotely explains the massive fertility gap between atheists and theists. You can talk about the general population until you're blue in the face. That doesn't change statistical facts.

I'm saying that atheism and lower birth rates are caused by increases in overall quality of life. I'm not addressing whether or not atheists in fact have fewer children. That seems self-evident. I'm saying that you're misidentifying cause and effect here. I will say that its a little weird to suggest that atheism will die out simply because atheists will have fewer children. Atheism is not, in general, spread via pro…

So you're saying that atheists have a vastly higher quality of life and that explains the fertilty gap? This is just a bare assertion, and absurd considering all data about well-being and having children.

Atheism won't die out, but atheists largely will. The atheists of the future will have had religious parents. In this way, atheism is a persistent freerider, gluing itself to the coattails of belief.

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

#894

Post by madmountaingoat »

RHSeeger wrote: post #883
madmountaingoat wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm pointing out that responsibility and blame are not the same things and that conflating the terms leads to positions that are hard to defend. A person may be responsible for their own actions but not to blame for someone else's.

> responsible for their own actions but not to blame for someone else's. You're changing the target of the actions mid sentence. Said person is responsible for their own actions _and_ to blame for their own actions. They are not responsible for someone else's actions nor to blame for someone else's actions. If a person knowingly takes actions that put them at greater risk, then they are to blame for putting themselve…

Correct, two people: the victim and the criminal. Going back to your example, a victim who gets mugged after choosing to walk down a dark alley is still the victim. They do not share responsibility or fault for the crime. They share responsibility for being in the same place at the same time. The victim making a choice that puts them in the wrong place at the wrong time is not at fault for that crime. I believe you are using the word blame in a broad sense that encompasses both the criminal action and the poor choice. But by using the word in the two senses and then equating them, you end up equating the actions, intentionally or not.

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

#895

Post by arjvik »

Xelynega wrote: post #892
arjvik wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree fully with this, except for the fact that this then makes devices like the Comma (comma.ai) impossible. The hacker in me really wants to be able to send steering signals by plugging something into my car :)

If you own the car, why wouldn't you be able to attach something to both of the CAN busses from the interior?

How easy is it to find a CAN wire in a car?

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

#896

Post by petsfed »

iraqmtpizza wrote: post #893
petsfed wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that atheism and lower birth rates are caused by increases in overall quality of life. I'm not addressing whether or not atheists in fact have fewer children. That seems self-evident. I'm saying that you're misidentifying cause and effect here. I will say that its a little weird to suggest that atheism will die out simply because atheists will have fewer children. Atheism is not, in general, spread via pro…

So you're saying that atheists have a vastly higher quality of life and that explains the fertilty gap? This is just a bare assertion, and absurd considering all data about well-being and having children. Atheism won't die out, but atheists largely will. The atheists of the future will have had religious parents. In this way, atheism is a persistent freerider, gluing itself to the coattails of belief.

If you're not going to respond to my posts in good faith, then don't respond.

From the fucking top: PEOPLE are experiencing greater quality of life than ever before. This has led to several things, including lower birth rate and lower religiosity.

Straw man that.

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

#897

Post by iraqmtpizza »

petsfed wrote: post #896
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying that atheists have a vastly higher quality of life and that explains the fertilty gap? This is just a bare assertion, and absurd considering all data about well-being and having children. Atheism won't die out, but atheists largely will. The atheists of the future will have had religious parents. In this way, atheism is a persistent freerider, gluing itself to the coattails of belief.

If you're not going to respond to my posts in good faith, then don't respond. From the fucking top: PEOPLE are experiencing greater quality of life than ever before. This has led to several things, including lower birth rate and lower religiosity. Straw man that.

LOL none of that remotely explains the massive fertility gap between atheists and theists.

You can talk about the general population until you're blue in the face. That doesn't change statistical facts.

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

#898

Post by K0balt »

0x457 wrote: post #653
K0balt wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's so hard that (almost) every European manufacturer figured it out. There is also FlexRay. There is nothing interesting you can do with CANbus on new mercs. Even unencrypted CANbus messages go through gateways that (could) prevent headlights from reporting key presence. There is a reason that some cars don't have reasonable attack vectors (excluding parachuting the driver out of the car) and some can be started wi…

Absolutely. Margins on cars are surprisingly thin at the manufacturer level.

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

#899

Post by robertlagrant »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #869
robertlagrant wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. But which "us"? That's my point. You aren't talking to all of society (assuming "us" was all of society), so you using it like that doesn't even theoretically do this. > Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes. This isn't the same as "society". My point is that the definition of "society" changes dramaticall…

I said our society is driven by greed. And it's led by greed. That's a failure of leadership.

> I said our society is driven by greed.

I agree you said that. I disagree that it's true. If I go to my kid's football kickabout, run mostly by volunteer parents, or I attend a local street party, or go for a pub quiz night, or any of many societal endeavours, I don't see greed.

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

#900

Post by timoxley »

jasonladuke0311 wrote: post #867
noduerme wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This came in handy for me once when I locked myself out of a u-haul in what used to be a rough neighborhood in New York. I was standing there fishing with a coat hanger trying to figure it out when a gangster looking dude came up and was like "here, let me help you with that," and 3 seconds later had the door open.

Haha similar story. I used to deliver pizzas and worked with a pretty rough crowd. Once I locked my car while it was running and had a bunch of deliveries. One of the cooks unlocked it in about five seconds.

I have a similar story! Locked out of my car. Bikers park next to me.

"You locked out? Hang on a moment"

Goes into a Subway, comes back with a coat hanger.

Less than a minute later the car is unlocked.

"Wow you're pretty good at that"

"I literally just got out of prison today... for car theft."

Laughter all around

Post reply on HN