Hacking an Audi: performing a man-in-the-middle attack on FlexRay • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacking an Audi: performing a man-in-the-middle attack on FlexRay

#31

Post by carlmr » Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 8:05 AM UTC

UweSchmidt wrote: post #17

kfarr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's just me, but the regulatory oversight around these automated features seems insufficient. I'm trying to imagine equivalents from older passive safety technology like seatbelts that don't always work, airbags that pop out prematurely, or cruise control that accelerates without warning. Doesn't seem like those would pass muster "back in the day"? (Not to mention Uber autonomous vehicle flat out killing a ped…

Regulating technology is difficult. You can easily set up a mechanical seatbelt test that tests a mechanism 1000 times, but how would you test an algorithm? Also, many people died before seatbelts became mandatory; so much for "back in the day".

>how would you test an algorithm?

You can send out drivers that test if it works well. And then you can record that data, and check what is causing the issues and add these frames as test data?

But the testing IMHO is a bit too late. You need UX designers and psychologists giving inputs from the start. You need SW quality by design, not by process. You need to rid yourself of any management layers that don't understand software.

Re: Hacking an Audi: performing a man-in-the-middle attack on FlexRay

#32

Post by harywilke » Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 9:03 AM UTC

I really wanted the company to be called ",,," when i read: "This medium post is about a project by three comma employees"

Re: Hacking an Audi: performing a man-in-the-middle attack on FlexRay

#33

Post by coribuci » Tue, Mar 10, 2020, 10:09 AM UTC

Smoosh wrote: post #10

alphabettsy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does your vehicle actually have lane centering or just lane keep? Lane keep, which is more common, does not attempt to keep the vehicle in the middle of the lane. It just prevents departing the lane without signaling.

Part of the problem with these new technologies is that every car company gives each capability a unique name. It takes considerable effort to untangle the meaning of all the manufacturer-specific names to determine whether Audi Active Lane Assist is the same as Lexus Lane Keeping Assist but not Mercedes Distronic Plus unless it's Mercedes Distronic Plus with Steering Assist.

> Part of the problem with these new technologies is that every car company gives each capability a unique name.

It's because of Mickey Mouse (copyright/patent law). Same like with "4x4" and "all wheel drive". They don't want to get sued by competitors. They also want to sound like clickbait.