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

Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 640 posts

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#531

Post by kbenson »

monocasa wrote: post #501
kbenson wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you view the video[1] that bengali3 linked. 1: http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005...

The journalist is lying. Carefully look at the tachometer when he says that he can't accelerate, it's running at normal speed.

That doesn't really mean anything. They "cut the transmission", which could mean they forced the vehicle into neutral. The accelerator may be supplying gas to the engine, but if the engine is not supplying power to the wheels, the accelerator will have now bearing on whether you accelerate.

Making factual statements contrary to how a situation was reported by those involved is fraught with pitfalls you can't anticipate, from things you don't know about. Until there's careful investigation, or the people involved recant or make factually impossible statements, you should be careful about making assumptions.

In any case, their reported actions are what people are upset about. If someone makes false statements about illegal activity and it results in the police showing up, they have only themselves to blame.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#532

Post by waterlesscloud »

krackers wrote: post #528
yellowapple wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, using a private road, a large empty parking lot, an abandoned airforce base, the salt flats, etc. The researchers did many of these things, according to the article. They were ignored by auto makers.

Did they publicize it on Wired like they did with this post? I'm reasonably sure that if they had tested in a private track and made a public article it would have the same effect as what they did in their post. In essence, the publicity factor is the most important, not where they tested it.

Different hackers, over a year ago, in a semi-controlled environment, on Vice. Didn't have much of an effect.

http://www.vice.com/video/how-to-hack-a-car

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#533

Post by monocasa »

kbenson wrote: post #531
monocasa wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalist is lying. Carefully look at the tachometer when he says that he can't accelerate, it's running at normal speed.

That doesn't really mean anything. They "cut the transmission", which could mean they forced the vehicle into neutral. The accelerator may be supplying gas to the engine, but if the engine is not supplying power to the wheels, the accelerator will have now bearing on whether you accelerate . Making factual statements contrary to how a situation was reported by those involved is fraught with pitfalls you can't anticip…

The part before that showed the tach dropping to zero. The cut away to the journalist talking about how he didn't have control then shows the tach at normal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that it's staged.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#534

Post by Phlarp »

kbhn wrote: post #388
Phlarp wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify exactly where the line is between what you've done here today, and an outright swatting? I'm not trying to equivocate the two, but it would seem they both exist somewhere on the same continuum of personal information and police involvement. How much do you think your decision to make this call was influenced by your perception of what law enforcement does in Europe vs. what law enforcement does here i…

Outright swatting: "911, my name is , I live at , and I'm currently holding my girlfriend hostage with a shotgun and plan on killing us both in 30 minutes." What tombrossman did: "911, I saw a video of researchers shutting down a car on a freeway in the middle of the day with little concern to public safety, can you guys investigate and make sure that nobody's life was in danger for this experiment?" I don't think th…

Are the police not capable of reading wired on their own? The article is quite public. I can't imagine this could be published without the relevant law enforcement agencies being aware of it on their own.

In general, I would feel uncomfortable alerting a local law enforcement agency in _another country_ about something I saw on the internet, both because the premise is silly, and because not all cops are loyal public servants dedicated to protecting people. Many just like the power trip they get from having a badge and a gun to wave at us plebs.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#535

Post by CamperBob2 »

yellowapple wrote: post #426
SonicSoul wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's borderline like saying using crash test dummies is useless because it's not realistic enough for car manufacturers to take it seriously

The actions - according to the article - of auto manufacturers in response to prior more-controlled tests is exactly equivalent to that. The manufacturers basically said "hey, thanks for showing us this crash-test footage that shows our vehicles are literal fucking coffins on wheels; we don't really care", leaving the researchers with no results after taking more "sane" measures. Researchers perform controlled experi…

What they should have done was involve the police from step #1. If the video had been conducted on a closed section of roadway with ambulances standing by, police escorts, and lots of badges and sirens, it would have been even harder for the automakers to blow off.

It wouldn't have been difficult to do this right. Cops love drama and publicity. It wouldn't have taken much convincing to get them on board, and the video would gained a lot of credibility.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#536

Post by [deleted] »

monocasa wrote: post #501
kbenson wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you view the video[1] that bengali3 linked. 1: http://dp8hsntg6do36.cloudfront.net/55ad80d461646d4db7000005...

The journalist is lying. Carefully look at the tachometer when he says that he can't accelerate, it's running at normal speed.

[deleted]

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#537

Post by kbenson »

monocasa wrote: post #533
kbenson wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really mean anything. They "cut the transmission", which could mean they forced the vehicle into neutral. The accelerator may be supplying gas to the engine, but if the engine is not supplying power to the wheels, the accelerator will have now bearing on whether you accelerate . Making factual statements contrary to how a situation was reported by those involved is fraught with pitfalls you can't anticip…

The part before that showed the tach dropping to zero. The cut away to the journalist talking about how he didn't have control then shows the tach at normal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that it's staged.

That's easily explained. If the car is indeed in neutral, taking your foot off the accelerator would result in a zero (well, idling, say 600-900) tach reading. Pressing the accelerator would result in a higher reading. This of course has no affect on the power to the wheels, exactly the same as if you are stopped and put your car into neutral and do the same.

I understand it's tempting to see a single bit of evidence and want to use it to invalidate an entire narrative, but is it so hard to accept that while editing could have made a situation less dangerous seem more dangerous, the inverse could be true as well? We really have no authoritative source of what happened other than the story put forth. The story may indeed be fabricated or subject to hyperbole in parts, but unless you have a source beyond what's here, you are not qualified to make that assessment from the little evidence presented.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#538

Post by marssaxman »

kbenson wrote: post #521
marssaxman wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that bad actors ruin it for everyone, and that's why it does not make sense to interact with cops if you have any way of avoiding them. You have no way of knowing which ones are the bad actors until it's too late to do anything about it, and you have no recourse once they have decided to mess with you. Furthermore, they have effectively unlimited resources when it comes to making your life difficult. You s…

If you don't want to interact with the police, you shouldn't do illegal things, or present your actions as possibly illegal. If you distrust the police to the degree that you think even if your actions weren't illegal you will still have negative consequences from interacting with them, definitely don't do the above. When someone's actions extend to endangering the public to the degree we see here (which I think is o…

Dude, have you not been paying any attention to the War on Drugs, or the Ferguson thing or really any of the Black Lives Matter stuff? The cops will fuck with you if they want to fuck with you, and they will write up whatever paperwork they need to write up to justify it afterward. The courts will believe their testimony by default. The only way to get around this is to release video afterward showing that the cop lied on the stand, and even then the best you can hope for is an overturned conviction; the officer is extremely unlikely to face any consequences. This is the system we have.

It does not matter that we theoretically have democratic oversight. In practice, what we have is a system where cops can do whatever they think fit and expect to get away with it. They are armed and dangerous; it is not safe to interact with them. It is not a good idea to call them, or to talk with them if someone else calls them, because they - the cops - have a clear disregard for public safety when it is counter to their own interests.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#539

Post by freehunter »

marssaxman wrote: post #527
freehunter wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the damage being caused by "hackers" lately? I don't trust the police, but I don't trust my fellow hackers any more, especially when you consider their clueless, ham-handed interaction with the general public over the last 30 years.

Hackers can steal your money. You may be able to get reimbursed, depending on how they did it. The novel thing about this Jeep story is precisely the fact that hackers are demonstrating an ability to do something worse than stealing money. The cops can wreck your house, break your stuff, take your money, shoot your dog, deprive you of your liberty, and - if they think they can get away with describing you as a threat…

It's not really novel because hackers are having a physical presence, it's novel because hackers are attacking cars. Even then, it's novel because hackers are remotely controlling cars. They've been able to unlock your car and drive away with nothing but their Android phone for years.

Meanwhile hackers can break into the control systems for the power grid and shut down electricity, causing major damage. They can open or close hydroelectric dams, causing flooding and death. They can control hospital systems and kill or injure patients. They can control the airplane you're riding on while sitting in their seat. And all of these have been demoed at security conferences I've been to. I've seen these all in person.

There's a lot of physical harm that hackers can do. Sure, with a cop it's more personal since they're standing there in front of you pulling the trigger and a hacker doesn't even have to see your face.

Love them or hate them, both hackers and cops exist for a reason and are not going anywhere any time soon. One of the reason hackers exist is to point out dangerous security flaws like this. One of the reasons cops exist is because sometimes hackers are just as dangerous as the actions they're trying to draw attention to.

Re: Hackers Remotely Attack a Jeep on the Highway

#540

Post by pavel_lishin »

dchichkov wrote: post #415
JabavuAdams wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So demo it at a race track. The essential point here is that the uninvolved public were placed at real risk of maiming or death. Your argument is ludicrous, because you're attempting to cast the actors as either good or bad. IMHO they are guys with a good idea and motivation who did a bad thing.

We are a very visual culture, unfortunately. Unless there's a video of your average Joe driving on a regular highway and a regular car going wild, everyone would just dismiss the problem as limited to "race track" and would not connect the vulnerability to his/her own car. edit : as per the article "researchers already did test these exploits in controlled environments and presented these tests to auto manufacturers.…

You don't get to say that it's fine to put me and my family in danger because hey, in the end it'll make someone somewhere pay attention.
Post reply on HN