Live data from Hacker News

Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

insideevs.com

791–800 of 848 posts

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s interesting - what vehicles require you to do that? I know the usual suspect is the Tesla, which I have, but I never have to navigate through menus to change the temperature while driving. As an aside a lot of people like to levy criticism on the infotainment screens which I think is very well deserved, but then people text and drive, watch YouTube videos, and do all sorts of crazy things too. Instead of levyi…

Subaru require you navigating to second screen for climate modes. Simple temp adjustment has buttons, but the screen interactions for basic usage feels dangerous as a driver.

Even buttons can be distracting. Instead of just a hot/cold knob, some cars have ˚F up/down buttons you have to spam.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#792

Looking back at the last 10 years how my fellow developers write code, the last thing I want is software defined vehicles. No one is rewarded for writing good code or for handling all the edge cases. People are rewarded for getting things done. The problem is, that this approach works e.g. for non-critical web applications, but not for cars, which are dangerous, heavy object traveling at high speeds. Every car I've d…

The worst one is automatic brights. Some cars don't even have a button to disable it, and it's only like 75% reliable at detecting an oncoming car as to not blind the other driver.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#793
post #375

I want a 7-10” central display that spends 99% of its time showing CarPlay but also has a radio if I need it, the backup camera when I’m in reverse, and lets me change a couple of settings for convenience features like auto locking etc. Everything else can be dials, knobs, and buttons. My Mazda3 is perfect for this and I’m quite sad that I’m almost certainly not going to be able to find anything like it by the time I…

Most cars from the mid 90s until the mid 00s (sometimes later) have this: you replace the double-DIN factory head unit with an aftermarket CarPlay-compatible head unit. $200-$1000 (depending on how much you want to cheap out), easy DIY install or pay another couple hundred bucks to a stereo shop to install it for you. You now have a 7-10” central display that boots to CarPlay but can do radio/bluetooth/aux/satellite,…

I did this to my old car, but I skipped the CarPlay cause that's too glitchy. It's just aux or bluetooth.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#794
post #392

My ideal car: - No Internet connection - No touchscreens - No LCD dashboard; I like dials. - 100% user-repairable; there should be no need to go to a dealer if one can easily fix a problem themselves or one wants to go to an independent mechanic (often cheaper!) - Buttons and (analog, not digital) dials for the media center - Media center with ONLY Bluetooth, CD player, and radio media center - Analog locks (not soft…

Pretty much that exact list is why both of my cars are 94 Buick Roadmasters (admittedly, no factory Bluetooth, but yes on everything else). Incredibly reliable, very easy to work on, cheap high-quality parts, everything’s analog, you get a full suite of gauges (except oil pressure, but there is at least a light for low oil pressure and low oil level). 94-95 is OBD1, but GM’s OBD1 implementation is almost as detailed…

2010 Crown Vic is newest of that kind of car. I like it.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, that's incorrect. I have actually read the law and its relevant standards. The standard requires at least two pre-accident locations to increase accuracy and other fields with pre-crash data are encouraged. And come on. Car manufacturers, which are notorious producers of insecure software, are legally mandated to make an inexpensive device which includes an LTE radio and a connection to the vehicle buses, and…

The MSD (minimum set of data) is defined in: "CEN 15722 ESafety - ECall - Minimum Data Set". The original standard version defined only one location datapoint, the more recent version defines two additional _optional_ points ("recentVehicleLocationN1", "recentVehicleLocationN2"). It also allows specifying the number of passengers. The mandatory datapoints include the location and direction of the vehicle, but they ca…

Sorry, your comment is incorrect again. The most recent version of CEN 15722 requires the two most recent locations before the incident location.

The modem does not have to passively track the mobile networks; it can do what it wants. The common OEM implementation these days is that the physical device that does eCall does several things, including eCall, over the same cellular radio. There's nothing stopping the OEM from connecting to a random website and eval()ing the result.

You seem confident in the security of this unhackable system so I will point out some of its other security weaknesses. Several eCall device implementations include Bluetooth modules (both "unused" as part of hardware and implementations that use Bluetooth.) Bluetooth is as secure as a wet cardboard box, so you could take BlueBorne or one of the six million other Bluetooth exploits that work on a non-discoverable device just sitting on the shelf, get in that way and boom, you can transmit whatever you want over the cellular radios. Vehicle infotainment systems are pretty insecure on average and are frequently hacked, so you could take over the infotainment system, get into the CAN bus that way and then send bad data to the eCall system, which is in the business of processing and responding to CAN data.

But those are just a few of the million ways; you could write up attacks all day long and you wouldn't scratch the surface. The facts are: this is a system with cellular radio(s), a CAN bus connection, sensors that constantly listen and interpret data; this is a large attack surface, built by OEMs that write notoriously insecure software. It is, by any reasonable judgment of those facts, a pretty hackable system. And yet, the European Commission goes around telling people that it "cannot" be hacked.

Anyway, this will be my third comment in a row here telling people that their comment is plain incorrect, so I'm going to have to leave the discussion here. I hope that my words provide some food for thought - for the next time that a system that could track you becomes legally mandatory.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#797
post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Honda Civic 1999 fits you perfectly. No need to wait anymore.

No need to drive a shitbox. These points are easily covered by 90s/early 00s decent Italian/German cars.

Those are money-pits. Even if nothing goes wrong, everything is complicated and premium.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#798
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some features I've found useful: * giving me the current fuel and battery levels in the app * giving me an ETA on when charging is finished * locating my car * telling me if the car has been sitting there for a few minutes with ignition off but doors unlocked, giving me the option to lock them remotely * telling me about open windows, giving me the option to close them remotely None of them is really crucial, but for…

> giving me the current fuel and battery levels in the app When is this actually useful? In the ~12 years I’ve been driving, I’ve never needed to know the fuel level of a car when I’m not in it. I guess maybe if I’m planning a road trip and need to know if I’m going to have to stop for gas before I leave? But I’ll figure that out when I get in to leave and I’m probably not leaving with > locating my car Again, never…

The Lincoln thing reminds me, there was an article posted on HN about how a researcher found a vuln allowing him to track and unlock any LTE-equipped Subaru.

https://www.wired.com/story/subaru-location-tracking-vulnera...

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#799
post #686

I've long wondered why no car manufacturer has gone for an open source model. Certain things should absolutely be locked down (for example, the airbags and other critical safety features) but there is absolutely no reason the HVAC and Infotainment system need to be closed source. Open it up and let hackers go crazy, then just "borrow" the best options out there for next year's model and everyone wins!

Because there are regulations for the infotainment system as well. For example, you can't watch videos or read SMS/messages. Not to mention that the infotainment system likely has access to the CAN bus, through which you _could_ impact other safety systems.

Doesn't the OBD2 port give me the same CAN access? I just bought one of those generic adapters and was going to mess around with it.

Re: Car companies are in a billion-dollar software war

#800

We really need the right to modify our vehicle software, with zero 'safety' or 'environment' camel noses to shoe-horn in the total lockdowns we see prevalent today. 'FOSS' hardware should be exempted from a whole bunch of regulations to make it enticing and accessible to technicians, home builders, and boutique bespoke builders. What we don't want is Tesla's/Apple's model, we want the GNU/Linux on Talos II model with…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN