401–410 of 640 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was it life threatening? Hardly. Danger Checklist: ✔ 70mph ✔ Public highway ✔ Driver not in control
This is also the checklist for most of the traffic that's currently driving on US interstate highways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what are we going to do for self-driving cars? These are almost certainly going to rely heavily on internet access to perform basic driving functions. Figuring out how to make complex systems like these be secure in a trustworthy way is going to be a huge challenge as more and more critical devices are connected to the Internet.
"And what are we going to do for self-driving cars? These are almost certainly going to rely heavily on internet access to perform basic driving functions." Actually, no. Google's Urmson has spoken at "connected vehicle" conferences and indicated they don't need car to car communication.
Thinking that "basic driving functions" will need to rely _heavily_ on internet access is thinking wrongly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I really can't stop thinking about my wife and kids What about all those wives and kids that would have been endangered if the flaw had continued to go unfixed and exploited in a more malicious manner? Can we please not make "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN" arguments? Appealing to emotion makes arguments, well, emotional.
This comment is shockingly naive. Can you really not think of any other way to demonstrate the vulnerability they found without taking the whole thing onto open public roadways? Safety researchers who work for auto manufacturers don't go out on the highway to do crash test exams and we trust their outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with the fact that what they did was dangerous, the fact they did it that way will garner much more attention to the root cause of this problem - connected cars allow remote control of car's most basic mechanical features, which they shouldn't. Hopefully, this will result in better safety measures in car systems in the long run. Edit: They could've done it on the parking lot and the article would be put…
Murdering a family of 4 using the hack would garner even more attention. The ends don't justify the means.
I don't entirely agree with the methodology, but nobody was hurt, unlike what would would likely be the case should even less ethically-grounded "researchers" demonstrate similar capability - probably on a larger and more dangerous scale, mind you.
Some questions for the researchers, or anyone else who thinks this was okay: 1) Were public roadways and speeds of 70mph absolutely necessary to demo this? 2) What was the plan if the trucker approaching at 70mph hadn't seen the Jeep stalled early and had to swerve or panic stop, possibly crashing and injuring themselves or others? 3) Anyone notify the Missouri State Highway Patrol about this? They may be contacting…
I would like to give some other perspective. FCA (parent co. of Jeep) have been slow about a number of safety recalls and are under increased scrutiny by NHTSA: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/201... Here is a choice quote about the culture relating to safety at Fiat - Sergio Marchionne is CEO: >> Marchionne said in January that the auto industry may have “overreacted” to some safety issues,…
There should be an "unflag" where "flag" used to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the police on security researchers...I honestly cannot believe this is considered acceptable behavior. A much less aggressive (and thoughtful) move would be to contact the researchers directly. Wow. Back to the article, I think that this type of exploit will become more and more common as vehicles become more connected and automated. We need to know that we can trust the software and firmware running on the d…
> Calling the police on security researchers...I honestly cannot believe this is considered acceptable behavior. But putting many lives in danger is considered acceptable behavior by security researchers? Does it actually matter that it was security researchers? Do security researchers working on banking software need to steal a million dollars in order to prove that they've found an issue? Would calling the police b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also the checklist for most of the traffic that's currently driving on US interstate highways.
It'll also be the checklist for even more of the traffic that drives on US interstate highways once self-driving cars become all the rage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the police on security researchers...I honestly cannot believe this is considered acceptable behavior. A much less aggressive (and thoughtful) move would be to contact the researchers directly. Wow. Back to the article, I think that this type of exploit will become more and more common as vehicles become more connected and automated. We need to know that we can trust the software and firmware running on the d…
Too late to edit my original comment again so I'll post a reply here as a general reply to those who reacted negatively to my decision to phone the police. While I strongly support free speech and believe security researchers should be given some extra latitude when appropriate, what I saw was not at all appropriate. I saw two well respected security researchers sitting in a room like Beavis and Butthead laughing and…
It's a shame because this is an incredible story and the work they did was great, but what a completely reckless stunt they pulled. Totally unnecessary too, the story would have been just as effective if the demo happened on a test track or empty parking lot.
To recap the facts: - Man drives car on public highway @ speeds of up to 70mph - Hackers turn on windshield wipers and fluid to blur view - Hackers Blare music and obscure any comms link to driver - Hackers disable vehicle on Highway at location with no shoulder And there are people who are not only ok with type of experiment but think there should be more of it. I understand that these exploits need to get attention…
I don't agree with the methodology, either, but based on the information in the article, it sounded like the researchers didn't have much of a choice, seeing as how prior demonstrations were casually dismissed by the automakers. The auto manufacturers and the public both need a wakeup call, and this is a much more sane wakeup call than the even worse alternative of outright-malicious crackers breaking into vehicles en masse and reducing highway traffic to shrapnel in ridiculously-large pileups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, when people's lives are at stake, I extremely disagree about calling that "bikeshedding".
Please make an effort to read and understand my point. Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened. The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000…
Please don't assume disagreement implies I didn't make an effort. I understand your point, I just vehemently disagree with it. Bringing up the word "bikeshedding" when discussing putting people in danger of death is just something I can not agree with.
> Yeah, maybe there was a case when a couple peoples' lives were at stake but nothing happened.
This is exactly why I so vehemently disagree. If we found all the people who were in traffic with them at the time, do you think they'd agree that doing experiments in public traffic next to them is a purely aesthetical issue? Recklessness isn't defined by the outcome, but by the possible outcome.
> The real issue is that tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of peoples' lives are at stake RIGHT NOW, under conditions that are much less controlled than what people are deriding as uncontrolled conditions. But people are griping about the 1-2 instead of the 10,000-400,000.
Yes, and I'm saying both are very important issues. Experiments on public roads in actual traffic are something that should not ever happen. I'm also not sure I'd put the amount of people they endangered in the 1-2 range, since there was at least one other person in the car, one in the truck behind, and others in the cars that passed them.
I also wouldn't go so far as calling this controlled, since that usually means a controlled setting, safety precautions and such.
> How is this not dead simple to understand? I don't get it.
As said, I do understand, I just disagree. It would also make it much easier to talk about this if you weren't trying to insult me and others.
I agree that the flaw itself is a very big issue. I disagree that the way the experiment was done isn't. And nobody here is arguing that it's good that the cars have that fault, so it's quite natural for the discussion here to be around topics people disagree on.
You know what the perfect location and media would have been for such an experiment? A television car show with a dedicated track and a big audience of people driving cars.