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

Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 225 posts

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#151

Post by discordance »

ponector wrote: post #125
mirzap wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. If a customer buys faulty hardware, it's the seller's responsibility to replace it with working hardware. If the breaks had a manufacturing defect, you wouldn't expect the customer to pay for the replacement.

There is nothing faulty in the hardware, why they should replace it? Following the same logic: old phones, even iphones can be hacked. Should manufacturers replace the hardware?

The line between software and hardware is hard to distinguish when we talk about ASICs and FPGAs, but they still should be responsible for core functionality (i.e. locks) as they shipped insecure software.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#152

Post by cmcaleer »

GlacierFox wrote: post #73
jader201 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree the title is a bit misleading, but addressing what sounds like an exploit still feels like a patch of sorts. But yeah, “patch” usually implies software vs. hardware. Either way, agree with other comments that Hyundai should just eat the costs if it prevents theft due to an exploit. Having said that, given what the car costs, the fee doesn’t seem completely unreasonable.

Given what the car costs, you'd think they'd do this out of courtesy.

It seems short-sighted to not do this as a courtesy, given the reputational hit from the Kia/Hyundai Boyz saga just a few years ago. Who wants to be a manufacturer with a reputation for making easy-to-steal cars? Who wants to (for a reasonable price) insure cars made by said manufacturer?

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#153

Post by grishka »

baq wrote: post #92
birdfood wrote: post #75

I want a dumb EV. No infotainment system. Just speakers and a way to plug my device into them. Anything critical to the car should be completely air gapped and require an absolute minimum amount of software, preferably zero.

Nobody will sell you one for cheaper than a whole package. See also ‘smart’ tvs vs digital signage displays aka dumb tvs.

While this is partially true, digital signage displays are also designed to run 24/7, which also makes them more expensive than regular TVs.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#154

Post by gambiting »

WayToDoor wrote: post #101
gambiting wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a Volkswagen e-Up, it's basically that. Analog cluster, a very small radio screen that also displays the world's smallest reverse camera view, and a dashboard mount for your phone. It's a fantastic little car, I honestly like it more than our 400bhp Volvo XC60.

The e-Up is great, but there is still the remote control modem installed by default that lets Volkswagen « Cloud » and the app control the car remotely, and get data such as the GPS location of the car.

Except the modem doesn't work anymore because it's 3G-only and 3G networks have been switched off in a lot of places, and VW said they won't offer upgraded hardware for it.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#155

Post by bjackman »

TheDong wrote: post #134
mirzap wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. If a customer buys faulty hardware, it's the seller's responsibility to replace it with working hardware. If the breaks had a manufacturing defect, you wouldn't expect the customer to pay for the replacement.

I've been holding my breath ever since spectre/meltdown for a free cpu upgrade to make up for the slower performance that the mitigations cause. It's intel's bug, they promised a certain processor speed, shouldn't it be their responsibility to replace it since their own security oversight resulted in the hardware not working as advertised? Did you expect the same from intel/amd when those bugs came out? Is it differe…

We don't actually know how to build the CPU that would replace your vulnerable one.

New CPUs are largely immune to the specific attacks that were published before they were designed. But we aren't gonna get a fast CPU without sidechannels and IMO it's not possible in theory to build a branch predictor that never makes potentially exploitable mispredictions.

In a sense this doesn't change your point but I wanted to take the opportunity to point this out. "This CPU is vulnerable to attack X" just means researchers have found an exploit in practice, which we already knew in theory was there.

This wasn't the expectation before Spectre/Meltdown but now we live in a world where you need to assume a degradation in your CPU's effective performance as we learn about its vulnerabilities and need to apply software workarounds.

I am building "one mitigation to rule them all" called Address Space Isolation but this doesn't fundamentally remove that fact, it just means that when we learn about a CPU's vulns we don't have to build a new mitigation we just have to change the settings on the existing one (and it should be more efficient than the bespoke one would be).

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#156

Post by netsharc »

reactordev wrote: post #146
jpc0 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you just a mean person on general that you think bringing a problem to the attention of wait staff would cause them to become malicious? Be a nice human being and you won’t receive that treatment. If your McDonalds wait staff are generally malicious without any provocation, well vote with your feet, nobody is making you eat McDonalds, the sales numbers will correct he problem.

While as noble as that sounds, there’s only so much nice in the tank in a day. Wait staff and fast food workers are treated terribly and so you end up with folks about to snap. There’s a lot of evidence of this happening in the USA if you just do a search. It’s uncommon, but it happens. At those prices, I’d just rather purchase the item to be made again. But yes, be a good human.

You read some stuff on search and you think it somethings that happens more than it really does.

In general they don't care, it's not coming out of their paychecks, they'll give you another burger, go away now.

When I worked at McDonald's we'd have the favorite burgers pre-made and they'd be left at the warming tray, so orders can be taken care of in maybe 30 seconds, but I guess nowadays that's too wasteful so the burgers are made on demand. There was a day like "Big Macs for $1" day, so we had a line of maybe 50 Big Macs queued, wrapped and ready to eat, that the foreman said "Slow it down with the Big Macs!".

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#157

Post by ponector »

birdfood wrote: post #75

I want a dumb EV. No infotainment system. Just speakers and a way to plug my device into them. Anything critical to the car should be completely air gapped and require an absolute minimum amount of software, preferably zero.

Such car will not comply with legislation. Or are you talking about car with all sort of tracking systems and driver's assists but no infotainment?

Anyway, that is not what majority want to buy. Even more, a car is not what majority want to buy in the USA. SUV/trucks are desirable.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#158

Post by ponector »

discordance wrote: post #151
ponector wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing faulty in the hardware, why they should replace it? Following the same logic: old phones, even iphones can be hacked. Should manufacturers replace the hardware?

The line between software and hardware is hard to distinguish when we talk about ASICs and FPGAs, but they still should be responsible for core functionality (i.e. locks) as they shipped insecure software.

But why? Locks are working. They perfectly fulfill requirements for the lock. Open/close with a key, stay closed if tried to be opened without a key.

There is no such thing as secure lock. Any lock could be open without original key. The difference is in the amount of effort.

Still baffles me that KIA sold cars which can be driven away using screwdriver and USB cable.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#159

Post by karlgkk »

mft_ wrote: post #117
baq wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody will sell you one for cheaper than a whole package. See also ‘smart’ tvs vs digital signage displays aka dumb tvs.

Slate [0] say differently... [0] https://www.slate.auto/en

Slate has not shipped yet.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#160

Post by throwaway290 »

robinsonb5 wrote: post #123
throwaway290 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the price of the car compared to other electric SUVs. This is a mcdonalds type of situation. not a restaurant where you can request to cook a rare steak a bit more and not get charged extra

Even in McDonalds if what they give you is defective they will replace it without question once you bring it to their attention. If it turned out the door locks on the car were defective you'd expect them to be replaced under warranty. If the warranty had expired the situation would, admittedly, be a bit murkier - but you could still make a case that since the locks had always been faulty they'd be the manufacturer's…

> if what they give you is defective they will replace it without question once you bring it to their attention

Go there and request a rare steak or idk steak with kimchi, let is know how it goes!

This is a Korean car and probably secure enough in korea where you usually don't lock your bike and/or house. If it not secure if you park it on the street in SF/London/Magadan/Capetown/Kabul are you sure they owe you a free "fix" for everything that may occur

Post reply on HN