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

Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

techno-fandom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#261

Post by kube-system »

account42 wrote: post #259
kube-system wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nav apps on phones will use dead-reckoning if they don't have a GPS signal, so they don't really even need the wheel-speed sensor, but I'd guess they use it just to increase accuracy.. e.g. in a long tunnel.

Increasing accuracy is a wild understatement. Dead reckoning with mobile phone hardware won't give you a usable result for long. Maybe your experiences are from tunnels with dedicated beacons to tell the phone where you are.

Most vehicular tunnels aren't too terribly long, if you're stuck in one in traffic, yeah dead reckoning drifts quite a bit. But if you're driving through one for a minute or two, it's sufficient.

On a side note I've personally had bad experience with beacons in train tunnels telling me I'm miles away from where I'm actually at.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#262

Post by kube-system »

singleshot_ wrote: post #260
franga2000 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one in 2025 has a reasonable expectation they are not being surveilled by their new car. This is not even slightly true. People are barely aware of the fact their car has any connectivity in the first place, let alone that it tracks everything you do in a way that's tied to your real life identity. You're probably, talking mostly to us "techies". Anyone else probably wouldn't be too surprised if you told them, b…

They don’t have a reasonable expectation of buying a surveillance-safe new car because one does not exist. Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that ma…

> You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head

The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#263

Post by singleshot_ »

kube-system wrote: post #262
singleshot_ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t have a reasonable expectation of buying a surveillance-safe new car because one does not exist. Other than that I hear you. You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head but I’m talking about the possibility even existing in the marketplace. I guess you could argue maybe the reality of the market is trumped by the opinion of a person as to the reality of the market. I’m not sure that ma…

> You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.

That’s not correct: both the objective and subjective reasonable expectation are implicated. If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#264

Post by kube-system »

singleshot_ wrote: post #263
kube-system wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re talking about the reasonable expectation in someone’s head The legal concept of a person's "reasonable expectation" is literally this. But it doesn't really matter legally, because these systems are explicitly disclosed in the documentation that automakers provide.

That’s not correct: both the objective and subjective reasonable expectation are implicated. If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?

> If the objective standard was not relevant, why would it matter if the manufacturer made the disclosure you mentioned?

We’re talking about it because you brought it up, but it generally does not apply to data privacy in the US.

Courts recognize that peeping toms can’t look into your window, but ad tech absolutely can track data about you, in your car, or even your home.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#265

Post by msgodel »

kube-system wrote: post #251
msgodel wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I can put a disclaimer in remote shell malware I distribute on the internet and get out of a CFAA violation? I don't think that's quite right. A lot of this software is very clearly malware, that it's shipped by the manufacturer and includes documentation doesn't change that IMO.

Yes, a lot of software has remote access capability and it is legal when intended. The CFAA doesn’t care about how it works or why. It entirely hinges on whether the access was authorized. Your opinion about whether the software is good or bad is legally irrelevant.

Good to know, I guess I'll write an .ssh/id_rsa harvesting worm and chuck it in a pip package tonight with a license that includes a clause requiring surrender of any machine its installed on.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#266

Post by pabs3 »

M95D wrote: post #250
pabs3 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't RFID relay work against those?

Not likely, because they're extremely short range (one centimeter or so). The attacker would need to turn the duplicate key in the ignition exactly at the time the other attacker bumps into the owner, exactly on the correct side where the pocket with the key is, and precisely match the position of the key in the pocket with the antenna in the attacker's pocket/bag/whatever. And if the key is in a handbag, then good l…

Would a stronger signal from the attacker increase that distance? Or one of these:

https://blog.nuoplanet.com/en/long-range-rfid-readers

Since at least 2009 it has been possible to duplicate keys using photography, a hobbyist replicated the work in 2018. So take a photo when the keys are out somewhere; on a table, or when unlocking the car.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/10/reproducing_k... https://hackaday.com/2009/09/22/photographic-key-duplication... https://markhedleyjones.com/projects/duplicating-keys-from-p...

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#267

Post by velocity3230 »

dwattttt wrote: post #29
Terr_ wrote: post #5

On the less-technical side, Hyundai has a corporate-legal mechanism to request "Delete personal information" [0] that might be worth doing, just to round things out. > one step of which involved removing this "garnish" panel behind the screen. Easier said than done Different year/model, but same experience with the same task: I really hate situations where the secret is "a suspicious amount of force", especially if t…

Plus they're fun to say. Spudger!

Spudger? I hardly know her!

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#268

Post by kube-system »

msgodel wrote: post #265
kube-system wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a lot of software has remote access capability and it is legal when intended. The CFAA doesn’t care about how it works or why. It entirely hinges on whether the access was authorized. Your opinion about whether the software is good or bad is legally irrelevant.

Good to know, I guess I'll write an .ssh/id_rsa harvesting worm and chuck it in a pip package tonight with a license that includes a clause requiring surrender of any machine its installed on.

The intent and the totality of what you are doing matters. And worms, by definition, run on computers without authorization.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#269

Post by derwiki »

kube-system wrote: post #226
derwiki wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s always Faraday cage bags for cell phones

Yeah, they don't work though. They're about as effective as those signal-boosting stickers you could get at truck stops in the 00s.

Really? I used to have one and it always killed my battery looking for signal. It also prevented me from making calls to the phone.

Re: Vanishing from Hyundai’s data network

#270

Post by imp0cat »

codingminds wrote: post #112
imp0cat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[...] pulling this wouldn't let handsfree Bluetooth phone stuff work either, but I've never had much need for that [...] Sounds like a fun fellow indeed.

Why? I also don't have any need for that, because I never answer or even use my phone while driving.

Well I guess it depends.

While I appreciate your purist take on driving and aspire to be such a disciplined driver one day, there is still a myriad of reasons why one could want to have a functional mic.

I find even the single line: "Hey, I'm driving, call you back later." much better than just ignoring incoming calls.

Also the ecall thing might come in very handy if an accident happens, but that is a very big IF.

Post reply on HN