251–260 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's boggles the mind that a car company would spend millions on styling and then do something like that to completely cheapen the experience. Of course, software companies do that sort of thing all the time. Just...ugh.
$$$, that's why. $X isn't good enough for them, when they can find a way to get $X+Y
Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally. Buried in the article is the claim that this will…
I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
Till this day it wasn't a problem since this was not really locked down, and despite the fact that is illegal, people did modify the car software to unlock more power quite easily.
But... that "locking" of feature kind of made sense, since a car with less kW pays less taxes (at least in my country you pay more if the car is more powerful) so selling a locked down model was also an advantage for the user that wasn't interested in having more.
Locking down heated seats... it's just a move against the user. Buying a car you payed for that seats, since they are there, why the manufacturer should ask you another fee to use for something you already payed? To me this shouldn't be possible.
Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly irresponsible to disclose this without going through proper channels first? They claim this hack unlocks a host of other features. Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not interested in having a whataboutism discussion. There is a clear distinction here of software vs hardware
Is there though? Even on game consoles, the “DLC” is often a couple meg download because the actual content is already built into the game. You could turn Windows NT 3.51 Workstation into Server by just changing a registry key! https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/ms/differences_nt.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymizing your location - until you put in route and your car asks for traffic information from teslas servers.
If the map can't talk to Tesla it'll use Google maps directly. I usually don't allow connections to Tesla on my rooted Model 3
I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter.
BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership.
Something like self-driving, where there might be an active internet connection and server costs - I'm ok with a recurring subscription.
Examples... BMW tried to charge a subscription to use Apple CarPlay. This should be a one-time fee (baked into model price, or a one-time software switch). Same for Toyota (I think) who tried to make remote-unlock a subscription (this was basic key fob unlock - no internet hosting/app maintenance involved). Also crappy move from them.
Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me. If you want the feature, pay for it. At minimum, I'd expect Tesla (or whoever) to void warranties on cars with these hacks applied (within the bounds of Magnuson-Moss Act in the US).
Rent-seeking is the true American way, it seems. Good on the hackers. Good on everyone who helps to liberate us from the overreach of big business.
Is it rent seeking/overreach? I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it. Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking? But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers…
Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly irresponsible to disclose this without going through proper channels first? They claim this hack unlocks a host of other features. Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences.
People have always been able to do this with a wrench since before the invention of cars.