Is Hacking Cars a Thing of the Past?

PhotoGuy asks: "I went to install a remote car starter in our Honda last week, which used to be kind of an elegant hack (like a controlled hot-wiring of your car), only to find out that additional expensive parts and modules were required, due to the anti-theft system on the vehicle, where the car's computer would not let it start, unless it received the right code from the magnetic encoding on the key! In order to install a car starter, you have to actually put a spare key to the vehicle *in* the add-on module to let the car starter do it's thing. Yeah, that makes me more comfortable, leaving a key installed the remote car starter. That sucker went back to the store pretty quickly, that's way too much work, when a dealership can do it for me. Is the slight reduction in risk of theft of your vehicle, worth that much loss of freedom of choice and control?"

"Ever since electronic ignitions, and especially ones controlled by computers, it seems the "hackability" and user-maintainability of cars has been declining. Your neighborhood grease monkey can't do much to a modern car without a bunch of electronic gear interfacing to the car's computer. It's almost a little anti-competitive.

Carbeurators, and the other mechanical systems which were fairly standard and visible and self-evident, really seem to be the equivalent of "open source", while the new computer-based systems seem to be more closed and proprietary. I know in the early days of cars with computers, there were third party ROM upgrades for performance tweaking; I'm guessing that's falling by the wayside more and more, as these systems get more and more complex.

It almost seems like a Microsoft-like statement, to tell you they're doing all of this to reduce theft, while really they're doing it to ensure you are forced into coming back to their dealerships..."

Comments

Audi Performance and Racing

[LordNimon]

APR has been able to do some amazing things with Audis and Volkswagens. I'd say car hacking is far from dead, you just need to be a lot smarter nowadays.

Besides, installing a remote car starter isn't my idea of a real hack. How is that any more of a "hack" than installing a new car radio? Obviously, you weren't able to bypass the security system, so you're not much of a hacker.

spare key

[TheSHAD0W]

The chip in the key is required to trigger the anti-theft system, but the key itself isn't needed. You could cut the metal tongue off the key, rendering it useless for actually turning the starter, while the chip would still work.

You would, of course, be essentially disabling that part of the anti-theft system, but thieves now have ways around it anyway. If the key profile is identical to pre-chipped versions, it would also mean you could run your car with a non-chipped key, which is a lot easier to fit on your keychain.

Step back and think about it.

[karmaflux]

I think that comparing fuel-injection to closed-source programming is a bit ridiculous. So it's not as easy to work on as a carburetor -- you can still buy a book and learn to work on your fuel injectors. Automobile engines have grown more complicated over time. All technology does. Honda's decision that fuel-injection is more efficient than carburetion does not indicate they are trying to force you out from under your hood.

As for third-party ROM upgrades, these things are falling by the wayside because, among other reasons, most onboard computers use EEPROMS now, and when most people monkey with their engines they just wind up wrecking the timing and trashing the performance anyway.

And there's not reason to compare everything you dislike to Microsoft. That radio keylock is a Honda option, nobody forced you to buy it, nobody is keeping you from removing that option from your car, and so on. A little time with a pair of diags and a soldering iron will remove the problem forever.

As for leaving a spare key installed, what makes you think that's less secure than installing a remote starter? I built a little gadget not six months ago. It's a lot of fun. I go into a mall parking lot and press a button. A couple of 555 timers start cranking... and a few seconds later so do all the tricked-out imports in the parking lot. Granted, I still can't get in the vehicles, but I sure can start 'em up.

In conclusion, if you want to play with your engine, or your ignition system, or whatever, buy a car you know how to work on. If you buy a 2002 model and can't figure out how to monkey with it, don't blame the auto manufacturer for knowing more about cars than you.

Re:Their goal...

[saider]

Not too paranoid. Dealerships make a lot of their money servicing cars. Granted, most of the money comes from the parent company for warranty work. But this practice will not be opposed because there is a lot of money to be made.

1) End user maintenance. Why can't the car tell you why the check engine light is on? Because the dealers want you to come down to the shop and pay them $40 just to do a diagnosis.

2) Mechanics will get the machines that they need to read the computer codes. The car companies make money indirectly by working with the folks who build these boxes. The mechanics make money because they can charge somebody $40 because a light came on.

#2 really burns me. The computers in the shop are typically PCs housed in a big console with several cables coming out. The cables are simply a black box to the parallel port. There is no reason that this black box cannot be made available in you local Discount Auto.

Once my car is paid for, I'm going to set out to develop a replacement computer of my own design - Just to spite those guys. If anyone is interested or knows where I can get info on the Ford 4.6L engine, please let me know. I've got the shop manuals, and they do a pretty good job of describing the signals coming from the equipment. The next step is to design the hardware. OpenCar anyone? No...wait...that's a lousy name. How about RagTop?

Re:Their goal...

[TwoStep]

That "black-box" is available. Check this out. The whole rant is sort of flawed, because there is actually a standard for car diagnostic interfaces, called ODB-2. I had a link to the documentation, but can't find it right now.

Twostep

OBD-3 and big brother

[NastyGnat]

You think ODB-II is screwing us, wait till OBD-III goes live. Here are some of the features as stated by the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
---
OBD-III TECHNOLOGIES

Three ways to send/receive data:
Roadside reader
Local station network
Satellite
---

That's right, a radio link to tell big brother where you are, and what your car is doing. Why??

---
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
Incorporate into biennial I/M program
Read fault code to screen for vehicles that need complete testing
Pass or short test for vehicles with no fault code
Does not speed up repair process
Out-of-cycle inspection
Compile and screen data
Mail notice to vehicle owner requiring out-of-cycle inspection within 10 days
Require Certificate of Compliance (C of C) on next registration/resale, or
Require C of C within 30-60 days, with citation for noncompliance
Enforce citation via court and/or DMV penalty at next registration
Roadside Pullover
CHP flags down vehicles with fault codes
Technician verifies problem by inspecting and/or testing vehicle
Issuance of notice requiring out-of-cycle inspection
Same enforcement (C of C /citation)
---

On the other hand they also realise that there are legal issues by this statement on their site.

---
OBD-III raises 4th Amendment search and seizure privacy issues:
''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated...''
---

But afterwards state that the OBD system should be leagal because it's a nondiscrimitory, mass population product. Whereas the 4th amendment only protects individual privacy and not a group of individuals.

Read more about this at
Sema web site