Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–497 of 497 posts

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#491

Post by theK »

lan321 wrote: post #427
anonymousiam wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that Google would not be liable. VW cannot evade liability from app misbehavior by using Google Play Protect, so why do they do it?

It will look better for the project lead if there's an issue though. You can say that you enabled everything recommended by Google or w/e, following best practices, and still got pwned instead of arguing that your own security model had a tiny little flaw that no one recognized. And it frees up project hours which can either be the difference between doing the project or not doing it and/or allow you to have other pr…

That's definitely a thing in the corporate world. It doesn't even have to be the project lead, sometimes it comes via stakeholders, some times its even well meaning devs. It is a difficult balance to strike if you want to "only be reasonably safe" whereas cargo culting all security features might take a bit of time but you now can say "hey we did everything"

[]: everything may very well not be a thing but people like to pretend it is

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#493

Post by userbinator »

Arainach wrote: post #402
userbinator wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather they continue to exist than the alternative of a horrifically authoritarian sterile controlled-society dystopia, which is what certain parts of the world are rapidly heading towards. We live in a country where freedom is predicated on allowing certain things that others don't like. Being loud and obnoxious is just a natural part of the culture of expressing that freedom. They're not doing it all the ti…

Your right to swing your fists ends where my face - or my lungs - begin.

A little smoke isn't going to do anything, hypochondriac.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#494

Post by nightpool »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #302
nightpool wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else would you build "security" into the app (in the sense of not allowing third-party modifications of it that would open them up to liability), except relying on hardware attestation that the app has not been modified? That attestation necessarily requires the platform provider to be involved.

You don't, the app runs on a user-supplied device. They should secure the part that runs on the car and consider the interface between the app and the api to be a user interface.

I don't disagree with this, but you're completely contradicting the user I'm replying to. I'm pointing out that the user who says "you should put security into the app" is completely misguided or at the very least perfectly explaining why VW is doing this.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#495

Post by nightpool »

steelframe wrote: post #331
nightpool wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else would you build "security" into the app (in the sense of not allowing third-party modifications of it that would open them up to liability), except relying on hardware attestation that the app has not been modified? That attestation necessarily requires the platform provider to be involved.

Volkswagon has no jurisdiction over how I manage my fob, which is the client for the vehicle's unlock and start API. Once you hand a bearer token to me that governs full access to the vehicle, including the accelerator and steering wheel, it's not your job to babysit whether I chose to use it while drunk or hand it over to someone else.

Okay, but how does that square with the person I'm replying to's claim that VW should "put security into the app"? You missed the point of my reply.

Re: Volkswagen started blocking GrapheneOS users

#496

Post by tonyedgecombe »

LtWorf wrote: post #490
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see them fixing it, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if they doubled down and restricted the cars speed according to the local limits.

Sometimes the camera will pick up speed limit signs that only apply for the exit lane or just an adjacent road. If cars were to suddenly break based on those it would be quite dangerous. There's a precise spot where the camera picks up a speed sign, every single time. There is no speed sign at all there. It must be some AI hallucination.

I always assumed it was GPS based rather than using cameras.
Post reply on HN