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

Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

neowin.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#61

Post by moepstar »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #58
lokar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I considered an ionic the last time I was getting a car. Now I’ll never again consider them.

The Kia Boys stuff, child labor, and ICCU failures weren't enough? The Ioniq 5 absolutely looks like a compelling car but from my POV Hyundai seems hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd add dealerships to the list.

I've had to "experience" those once for our testdrive of said Ioniq 5. Well, never again. "Dubious" is the most friendly word i have for the one that is next to us.

And: the car itself is priced at least 10-15k€ too high for what it is.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#62

Post by thfuran »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #56
thfuran wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the scrappage rate is about 4.5%. A 40 year old car is not the norm.

At 4.5% loss per year, you'd still have 16% of cars running at 40 years. That's pretty normal.

By that logic, shouldn’t about 25% of US persons be 150, given the annual death rate of 9.28 per thousand?

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#65

Post by lukan »

serf wrote: post #29
indemnity wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other manufacturers treat defects in their products by doing a recall and wearing the costs of their mistake. Asking customers to pay for the actually-secure retrofit is certainly a choice. I hope the small amount of money recovered was worth it, Hyundai/Kia just disappeared from my consideration for any future vehicle.

>Other manufacturers treat defects in their products by doing a recall and wearing the costs of their mistake. No. Other manufacturers treat defects with recalls after analyzing the fiscal prospect of doing so, and determining whether or not state/regional laws require them to do it. Here's one of the "not that wrong" scenes from Fight Club to better explain[0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiB8GVMNJkE

Do you have any other sources than a hollywood movie made for entertainment?

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#67

Post by inferiorhuman »

moepstar wrote: post #61
inferiorhuman wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Kia Boys stuff, child labor, and ICCU failures weren't enough? The Ioniq 5 absolutely looks like a compelling car but from my POV Hyundai seems hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'd add dealerships to the list. I've had to "experience" those once for our testdrive of said Ioniq 5. Well, never again. "Dubious" is the most friendly word i have for the one that is next to us. And: the car itself is priced at least 10-15k€ too high for what it is.

I watched the Rich Rebuilds review of the Ioniq 5N recently and while I'm underwhelmed by Hyundai as a company I'll disagree with you and Rich about Hyundai pricing these $10-15k too high. Pretty much the only competition is the Model 3 (Performance), and by that metric Ioniq pricing is spot on. Sure the iD.4 exists but VW really flubbed the software on that. And if you're eyeing the 5N over the regular 5, it did the Pike's Peak climb faster than the Tesla (and on a single charge IIRC).

Compared to the Tesla, the Hyundai has an actual interior with physical controls, an 800V charging system, panels that actually line up, and a far bigger dealer/support network. These are things that cost money and even without those things Tesla isn't making a ton of money.

Of course I'm in California so EVs are more expensive to run than ICE cars so it's all moot.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#68

Post by asymmetric »

petronic wrote: post #42

“Gameboy-like device” - are they referring to Flipper Zeros with the firmware to exploit RF rolling codes? https://www.rtl-sdr.com/flipperzero-darkweb-firmware-bypasse...

They’re talking about something like this https://www.thedrive.com/tech/34817/this-25000-game-boy-is-m...

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#69

Post by wjnc »

whirlwin wrote: post #64

Would be interesting to see insurance companies stand on this. Are you expected to pay for the security upgrade or not. Will it be deemed missing as "unpatched - that's your fault".

This is a great question. Have been in insurance for 20 yrs now. Cannot phantom why f.e. insurers don’t hold manufacturers responsible for losses due to cloned car keys with inadequate protection. I do know that insurers are generally very hesitant to start legal procedures, especially those that end up in the news. Say, Volkswagen and Stellantis are formidable adversaries as well as national champions, so there is some presumption that getting your right might be difficult. And the bar as I understand it is not technical SOTA, but more something like acceptable practice, so the manufacturer could argue “hey everyone has shitty protection, so suck up the loss”. Perhaps the newest European legislation will help raise the bar / even the playing field.

Re: Hyundai wants loniq 5 customers to pay for cybersecurity patch in baffling move

#70

Post by 4ndrewl »

akamaka wrote: post #14

This seems like a clickbait title because I’ve never hear of a hardware upgrade being called a “patch”.

"The term "patch" came from early use in telephony and radio studios, where extra equipment kept on standby could be temporarily substituted for failed devices." - from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patch_cable

But yeah, the term patch just seems weird in this article. Why not just "upgrade" or "fix"?

Post reply on HN