Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features • Hacker News Board

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#331

Post by eschneider » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

m463 wrote: post #188

johnl1479 wrote: post #7

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.

I can see two different ways of looking at this If you enabled a seat heater, enabling hardware that the car already has installed, or hot-rodding the engine, I don't think it is that big a deal. But if you downloaded and installed software from tesla that didn't come with the car, or did something like enabling free supercharging, that would be more like theft of services. I expect if this becomes a thing, features…

The flip side of that is when they disable features that were purchased when a car is purchased used.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#332

Post by littlestymaar » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

liber8 wrote: post #307

closewith wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dash cams are much more tightly regulated in the EU than elsewhere (you become a Data Processor and have all the responsibilities that comes with that). Private ANPR in public spaces is unlawful in I think every EU state?

Coming from an American perspective (where, when you are in public, you have basically no expectation of privacy), this seems insane. Does this mean that if I'm filming a vlog at Brandenburg Gate (which inevitably includes video of other people in the background enjoying the area), I'm in violation of privacy laws? Does that mean if I take a video selfie of me and my family members (which, again, includes images of o…

> Does this mean that if I'm filing a vlog at Brandenburg Gate (which inevitably includes video of other people in the background enjoying the area), I'm in violation of privacy laws?

No (at least not in France, which also has pretty stringent privacy policy so I think it's still a relevant answer) you can film people or cars in public streets but you cannot do any kind of data processing on the things you film (you can't keep a database with the license plates you have on your personal videos for instance).

In short the line is: pictures and films by themselves are OK [1], but doing anything with the personal info you get from those video is forbidden.

[1]: (under conditions, you must not cause harm in the process: for instance no “happy slapping” videos)

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#333

Post by GuB-42 » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

eschneider wrote: post #211

fluoridation wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line. If it's that cheap then it should just always be included, period. Otherwise it's just transparent greed. Why charge your customers extra for something that costs you literally nothing extra? Why not do the same for everything? The radio vol…

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 the entire point. They design a "luxury" car to be sold at a luxury price, with high margins. But by doing so, they go above budget for many potential customers.

So they make a cheaper version, with lower margins, but they deliberately cheapen the experience so that those who can afford the "luxury" version don't buy the "cheap" version instead.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#334

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:38 PM UTC

rebolek wrote: post #306

theluketaylor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t mind hardware shipping locked and being an optional fee to unlock. I have paid for the rear heated seats in my model 3. What I’m vehemently opposed to is ongoing fees for things that don’t have ongoing costs. BMW wants to charge monthly for seat heaters or carplay, but those things are not a service and don’t have ongoing costs for BMW to provide. If anything creating an ongoing software lock creates an avail…

I don't understand the mental gymnastic here. They built car with heated seats. You paid for car with heated seats that are technically fully functional but you can't use them until you pay even more. No, doesn't make sense to me.

it reminds me of those hardware hacks to unlock processors [0]

the upside is that by not having much difference between SKUs, and "locking" one SKU from becoming the other, the costs are lower, and manufacturers might turn those savings into lower prices

in both cases, as in cell phones, I believe like you still own the hardware, including everything in it, including software [1], so if you want to "unlock it", that's your right, as is smashing it, reflashing it, and having sex with it. If that makes for an unsustainable business model, nobody is entitled to their preferred business model being sustainable. Analogous examples here might be unofficial Keurig pods, or printer ink cartridges, which bypass manufacturer DRM intending to lock customers into an otherwise arguably unsustainable business model.

sometimes, though, you have to fight for your rights, e.g. build/buy/download and use unofficial tools

[0]: http://computer-communication.blogspot.com/2007/06/unlocking...

[1]: this inclusion stems from my belief that, where possible, you have an absolute right to view every bit of data that happens across hardware you own, whether gadgetry or eyeballs, in any format you desire, as well as the right to remember what you've viewed, as well as the right to modify or prevent modification of any arbitrary bit on said hardware

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#335

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #194

DistractionRect wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda get it. Rather than maintaining a supply of multiple parts which complicates your supply chain and install/repair procedures, Tesla is making cars nearly 100% identical physically and differentiating in software.

And getting the suckers who pay up to cover the cost for all vehicles having it.

Isn't that fully borne by the manufacturer? Suppose you're the manufacturer of a car that costs $30k to make and sells for $50k. You're posed with the question of whether to add a non-functional part that costs $5k. If you add the part and don't raise the price, then you're eating a $5k loss. If you add the part and raise the price by $5k, you don't eat the loss, but it also means you could have charged $55k for the car. No rational consumer is going to be like "I would have paid $50k for this car, but now that it contains $5k of non-functional component, I'm willing to pay $5k more for it now!".

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#336

Post by weebull » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:40 PM UTC

klysm wrote: post #206

vessenes wrote: post #47

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 don’t understand how you can defend against low voltage attacks like this.

Make sure all security critical state is initialised to known values at reset, then have very tight tolerances on your power watchdog to initiate reset.

However, that doesn't make for a stable system when powered from batteries.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#337

Post by waterheater » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

gcanyon wrote: post #197

Because what could possibly go wrong hacking a hunk of metal that transports you at lethal speeds...

Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative.

Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security.

To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things.

The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage.

[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#338

Post by littlestymaar » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

mgiampapa wrote: post #239

technothrasher wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This market already exists for things like enabling Navigation on VW/Audi cars. People were offering to enable the hidden Android Auto support on my Porsche Macan for $600, which I almost went for until I found the scripts and instructions to do it myself.

I did the same on a Mazda CX5 a few years back, but it was a software only hack to get root first. I suspect the actual physical hardware modification line is the one that most users are going to be unwilling to cross unless they are in the "Download a Car" crowd.

> I suspect the actual physical hardware modification line is the one that most users are going to be unwilling to cross unless they are in the "Download a Car" crowd.

Idk, hardware modification of the first Playstation that allowed to play ripped games became mainstream very quickly in my country (France) and you could even go to some shops that sold Playstations to get it done. It only stopped when it was made openly illegal.

“I paid for this shit, I do what I want with it” is a very powerful sentiment (and a legitimate one actually: corporation adding “Digital Right Management” system to deprive people from their property right is dystopian as hell).

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#339

Post by whatlol » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

Kirby64 wrote: post #161

marcosdumay wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner. We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.

This is identical to 5, in my view. Its not licensed. Is anyone upset that if you download a version of software that has a "basic" and a "premium" version, but the premium costs more money, that you don't get the premium functionality? Just like you "can't change" whether you get premium functions if you don't pay for it, the same could be said for fsd or seat heaters.

I disagree with the premise of locking someone out of something they physically own. You HAVE the seat heater in your car, the wiring works, you just aren't allowed to turn it on. I don't see this as the same as a basic vs premium version of a piece of software. The person owning the car owns the heater, the car, the wiring, they have to pay the miniscule extra cost of carrying that hardware around in their car. If Tesla offered to remove it at no cost if the car owner didn't want to pay the fee, I'd have no issue.

Where do you draw the line?

Next they'll be making you pay a fee to use low gears, or a power steering fee, a radio listening license, a Bluetooth permit, a reverse allowance, power window season pass, air condition authorization.

Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

#340

Post by gruez » Thu, Aug 03, 2023, 7:41 PM UTC

Night_Thastus wrote: post #217

DistractionRect wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda get it. Rather than maintaining a supply of multiple parts which complicates your supply chain and install/repair procedures, Tesla is making cars nearly 100% identical physically and differentiating in software.

The supply and install problem clearly isn't that hard, auto makers have been doing it for many decades at this point. Plus, it seems backwards from a business standpoint. You always have the cost of installing the hardware, but now you only get a % of users who agree to pay for the additional cost? The only way to "fix" that is to artificially raise the price of the product so effectively everyone is paying, which m…

>The only way to "fix" that is to artificially raise the price of the product so effectively everyone is paying

You know what's better than "artificially raising the price of the product" so you can pay for the heated car seats or whatever? Raising the price of the product, and not installing the car seat in the first place and keeping the extra money for yourself. The idea that carmakers can pass the cost of software locked (ie. non-functional) parts to consumers makes zero sense.