31–40 of 235 posts
All I can say is that shivers go down my spine what could happen if one of those OEM's that have remote updates possible would get their keys compromised. You could brick hundreds of thousands of vehicles. I would be scared shitless to store those things.
If these were esims they would be much harder to detect or remove? BYD electric busses have recently rolled out where I live in Sweden.
> If these were esims they would be much harder to detect or remove? It's not clear in the article how exactly they discovered it, but by the text that mentions it, I do get the impression they just came across the SIM ports/cards themselves: > internal tests at a secure facility found Romanian SIM cards inside the buses But it could also have been that they put the entire bus in a giant Faraday cage (or similar) and…
Press release (Norwegian): https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/ruter/pressreleases/ruter-tar-...
I do worry if they are adding this to buses what are they doing to MacBooks and your phone? Do people here think these devices are compromised or should we take Apple’s word for it!?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why we invented the fine print. Not putting this information in the fine print is fraudulent behaviour
It was most likely in the specs from the beginning. You can't have busses roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely.
Do you imagine some benevolent authority sits in your town with a finger on the kill switch for every vehicle in motion?
If it were in the specs from the beginning, there would be no issue. This isn't a "click here to accept" thing; multiple people scan the technical data in these projects.
I do worry if they are adding this to buses what are they doing to MacBooks and your phone? Do people here think these devices are compromised or should we take Apple’s word for it!?
Of course they're compromised, by Apple, to comply with UK law.
This is just stupid. All modern vehicles har been fully remote controllable for years.
100% false. For obvious reasons, non-CBTC trains are not remotely controllable (CBTC essentially means "remotely driven"). It's all or nothing; either a safety system that inherently accepts the risk, or no way to remotely control the speed, short of fully stopping the train. If modern cars have been fully remotely controllable for years, why can't police stop often-deadly car chases? Ditto on air traffic control and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% false. For obvious reasons, non-CBTC trains are not remotely controllable (CBTC essentially means "remotely driven"). It's all or nothing; either a safety system that inherently accepts the risk, or no way to remotely control the speed, short of fully stopping the train. If modern cars have been fully remotely controllable for years, why can't police stop often-deadly car chases? Ditto on air traffic control and…
[flagged]
If a state wants to hide strategic "war/espionage" control, they don't use eSims and open mobile communications, trivially discoverable and traceable. Sounds like some bs "IoT" / telemetry shit manufactures are shoving down our throats for over a decade.
The other side is feigning shock at common industry practices (don't all Tesla's require a net connection for example), to paint it as some unique issue, and kill their sales. In other words , just another episode in the trade war.
Not unlike the DJI drones, which added all kinds of shit because the regulators demanded it, and then they act surprised that it has that shit...
This is just stupid. All modern vehicles har been fully remote controllable for years.
100% false. For obvious reasons, non-CBTC trains are not remotely controllable (CBTC essentially means "remotely driven"). It's all or nothing; either a safety system that inherently accepts the risk, or no way to remotely control the speed, short of fully stopping the train. If modern cars have been fully remotely controllable for years, why can't police stop often-deadly car chases? Ditto on air traffic control and…
They want to retain the power of discretionary action. If the powers that be employed their 1984 stuff all the time over trivial things people wouldn't support them. Part of this means they don't give the beat cops those toys.
Also, there's a difference between "can be" and "are". Like there's god knows how many numbers of compatibility layers and intermediary systems I bet even if the capability exists it's broken more often than it's not. Diverse software systems take a ton of constant work to maintain.
During the "last years of XP" era you probably could have theoretically taken down half the world's industry on paper but if you tried to do so at scale without literal years of prep and testing you'd have been foiled by the 50% of machines where you payload just didn't work for some obscure reason.
I work in rail safety. Two major non-Chinese train companies attempted to merge a few years ago, explicitly to build a company that could compete with China's national company, and provide safer alternatives to state-sponsored cyberhacking of Western rail. It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal. Several attempts were made to streamline the merger, but…