Intel Team Takes On Car Hackers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Team Takes On Car Hackers

Posted by samzenpus on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:58AM from the who's-driving dept.

nk497 writes "Intel has set up a team of McAfee researchers to protect computer systems in cars, hiring Barnaby Jack — the researcher who forced ATMs to spit out cash and cause medical pumps to release lethal doses of insulin. Bruce Snell, a McAfee executive who oversees his company's research on car security, said the car industry was concerned about the potential for cyber attacks because of the frightening repercussions. 'If your laptop crashes you'll have a bad day, but if your car crashes that could be life threatening,' he said. 'I don't think people need to panic now. But the future is really scary.' The move comes as Ford and other car makers start to invest in ways to keep car code secure."

27 of 153 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Interesting readings by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 03:03 · Score: 4, Informative

http://www.autosec.org/publications.html
Boy, does this have the potential for bad by Scareduck · 2012-08-20 03:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't like the government-mandated shutdown of your vehicle in certain areas (i.e. your self-driving car will refuse certain destinations)? We'll make sure you can't hack the nav system.

--
Dog is my co-pilot.
1. Re:Boy, does this have the potential for bad by Trepidity · 2012-08-20 03:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A more likely short-term motivation is that they want exclusive ability to sell expensive repairs and required-for-maintenance devices.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
2. Re:Boy, does this have the potential for bad by Miamicanes · 2012-08-20 03:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not to mention the ability to charge for different levels of performance using the same underlying hardware, kind of like ATI & Nvidia do, and Intel was planning to do with their value-priced CPUs.
  Here's an easy way to tell whether they're doing it for "safety", or just to increase their own profits -- if they give copies of the security key to end users, their motives are probably good. If they won't even give the code to mechanics, and force field replacement of expensive parts that could be repaired if the mechanic had the code, then they're doing it for their own benefit. It's just like UEFI. If I have a copy of the key, it's awesome. If the only copy of my key is held by Microsoft or Sony, it's a shameless pwnage of my consumer rights whose physical and political defeat is a moral imperative.
3. Re:Boy, does this have the potential for bad by CanHasDIY · 2012-08-20 04:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Here's an easy way to tell whether they're doing it for "safety", or just to increase their own profits -- if they give copies of the security key to end users, their motives are probably good. If they won't even give the code to mechanics, and force field replacement of expensive parts that could be repaired if the mechanic had the code, then they're doing it for their own benefit.
  Oh, they'll give it to the mechanic's, alright - that is, the one's who work for their dealership.
  
  Cars have actually been going that way for years, in a shameless attempt to kill of independent shops and shadetree mechanics; the process goes like this:
  
  - new model of Car X comes out
  - new model requires a special tool for trivial adjustment, i.e. toe adjustment on the steering wheels
  - manufacturer patents the tool, so only they can make/sell it
  - manufacturer refuses to sell the tool to anyone other than one of their own branded shops
  - customers are forced to take Car X to the manufacturer branded dealership to have trivial repair made, at more than double what it would cost for an independent shop to make the same repair
  
  Source: One of my many trades (one, specifically, that I actually have an education in) is 'auto mechanic.')
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:Boy, does this have the potential for bad by orgelspieler · 2012-08-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think this is the first time I've seen anybody do a computer:car analogy in reverse on this forum.
5. Re:Boy, does this have the potential for bad by cultiv8 · 2012-08-20 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  Not to mention the ability to charge for different levels of performance using the same underlying hardware, kind of like ATI & Nvidia do, and Intel was planning to do with their value-priced CPUs.
  They already do this to an extent, it's called chip tuning, and it usually costs a couple hundred bucks for a high-performance shop to do it. Or you can buy a plug-in chip or your own programming device, but these are pricey too.
  
  How I miss the days of timing lights, carburetors, and cars that actually let you tinker with them on the weekend...
  
  --
  sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Uh huh... by Hartree · 2012-08-20 03:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sounds like the auto makers are getting tired of individuals being able to change their own cars engine/transmission settings, and or, do fixes that usually require paying the dealer.
Congress mandated an open set of engine/car diagnostic codes due to them not releasing service information some years back. Sounds like they're investigating the possibility of re-imposing something similar via "security" concerns.
"Think of the children that could be put at risk if $evil-auto-hacker isn't protected against!"
CAN is cool, but... by iamgnat · 2012-08-20 03:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I played with having a computer in my car for a few years and it is shocking what you can do once you have access to the CAN bus. I mean it's cool that I can plug a device in and program it so that it will catch the commands from my window switches and have them instead activate my blinkers, but that (theoretically as far as I know) a compromised update to your radio could let it do the same thing is a bad thing and that there is a growing trend for cars to be more connected (e.g. wifi hotspots, etc..) is outright scary.
Maybe they could start by separating networks for the critical functions and entertainment systems. The only possible access to the critical systems should be by a physical connection. They don't need (bad) software security experts to help solve this problem. They need good network architects. It shouldn't simply be a matter of the engine verifying that the "more gas" command came from the ECU and not the radio. The radio should simply never be able to get a message to the engine without wiring changes.
1. Re:CAN is cool, but... by vlm · 2012-08-20 03:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The radio should simply never be able to get a message to the engine without wiring changes.
  My father's decade old SUV talked to the transmission to control radio volume based on road speed.
  The hard part is making a single RW bus read only in the proper direction at all times.
  Thankfully it didn't run windows so there's no virus issue. But radios and engine/transmission computers have been talking for quite awhile.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:CAN is cool, but... by slim · 2012-08-20 03:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Not just theoretically -- University of Washington researchers crafted an MP3 that let them at the CAN via the MP3 player: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/03/how-an-mp3-can-be-used-to-hack.html
3. Re:CAN is cool, but... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-20 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  That's simply poor systems design. You are vastly better off making it distributed.
  
  There is no way a single processor should be involved in all these things. For example, a sound system could talk to your transmission more-or-less directly (or share input from the transmission, at any rate) without sharing any processor or code with the central control system.
  
  Similarly, there is no reason that other devices like Bluetooth, WiFi, cabin temperature, phone, and so on should be connected to the main control system. Instead they should be on separate subsystems of their own, probably with their own microcontrollers.
  
  Isolating those systems allows MUCH easier optimization of them, for one thing, without complicating (or introducing bugs or security issues into) the main control system.
  
  At most, control of those devices should be through a central processor that allows for voice control... again separately from the central system. The only thing the central system should be receiving is hard-wired feedback about system status. And I argue that it need not bother with most of those subsystems at all.
4. Re:CAN is cool, but... by enbody · 2012-08-20 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe they could start by separating networks for the critical functions and entertainment systems.
  Cars used to have multiple busses, but they unified them to save weight to improve fuel efficiency.
  That is, they chose fuel efficiency over security. Remember, right now fuel efficiency will sell more cars than a more nebulous "security" that few can appreciate (until something really bad happens).
I hope it's not band-aid by slim · 2012-08-20 03:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

McAfee makes me think of AV, and AV makes me think band-aid. Please, please let's not end up with a situation where cars are susceptible to viruses, therefore an AV application scans for viruses. Cars (or at least, the important bits of them) should be secure from the ground up.
The problem has been that the designers have given computer security no thought *whatsoever*, and applied techniques already well known to security people, too late for some victims.
For example, the first remote keys were susceptible to replay attacks. Anyone with half a clue about computer security already knew at that time that needed a challenge/response scheme. But keys with challenge/response came later. And keys with sufficiently secure crypto algorithms came later still.
For example, it's common to have the audio system, the ignition, the satnav, etc. all on the same data bus, with no authentication. From a security point of view, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Researchers have already demonstrated hacking the MP3 player to unlock the doors -- pointing out it's not much of a stretch to having hacked cars unlock themselves and email their GPS location to the attacker.
I died because of Farmville?!?!? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-08-20 03:14 · Score: 2

Worked on some of the first Microsoft-based car nav radios, a Windows-CE based auto-specific system. MS was in the mode of "Hey, 3rd party apps are a feature!" and the auto companies were like, "Not gonna happen."
Not in the land of Congressional hearings and $100 million recalls. You think Facebook dodging the class action suit in that other thread is a big deal, imagine a lawyer trotting broken or dead bodies before the camera because one of the Big Three didn't properly vette Angry Birds: Cruisin' Down the Highway.
Viruses and malware are just a matter of time.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Never connect the critical systems to the internet by rolfwind · 2012-08-20 03:14 · Score: 2

Needless to say, never connect the critical systems to the internet or to other computers connected to the net. Besides security concerns-- ever since consoles got internet connections/updates, what happened? It started a trend among publishers to have games were no longer tested as rigorously, pushed out the door, and depend on internet updates to fix any issues.
Stupid stuff again by Compaqt · 2012-08-20 03:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Why do car companies feel the need to hook their CD players or whatever into the critical systems of the car?
How about this: Just mount an iPad (or Galaxy) into the console.
Done.
But, no, they want to show you the oil level on a touchscreen instead of in front of the steering wheel. Meaning they have to hook it into the engine computer. Giving attackers an in.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
1. Re:Stupid stuff again by slim · 2012-08-20 03:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why do car companies feel the need to hook their CD players or whatever into the critical systems of the car?
  Because it's the cheapest way to provide features that customers want, and competitors will deliver.
2. Re:Stupid stuff again by tlhIngan · 2012-08-20 04:20 · Score: 2
  
  . I do, however, have a problem with my accelerator or brake system being controlled by some external device rather than my hard-wired foot pedal. For what it's worth, many military aircraft are triple-redundant, meaning that your flight stick is primarily fly-by-wire, but in the event of a failure your flight stick is also directly connected to hydraulic lines to control the flight surfaces, so if all else fails you can put some muscle into your flight stick and control the flight surfaces by wire like a WWI byplane.
  Incorrect. The brakes have always been hydraulic and barring loss of hydraulic fluid, will always work (and if applied sharply so they don't fade, will stop a car with a racing engine).
  Throttle though has been disconnected - you may have something called "cruise control" in which the car computer controls the speed - well, you're putting the throttle control in front of the computer. (Brakes are considered too safety-critical though).
  As for aircraft - a modern fighter is too unstable to control manually - if the computers die out, there is no choice BUT to eject because it's uncontrollable. And many of the larger planes cannot be controlled by hand - the flight surfaces are too hard to move without assistance, and often times, do not work as expected (most airliners don't use ailerons once cruising - to turn, they use spoilers instead as ailerons are too draggy and can stall).
  Plus, mechanical overrides are nice in theory, but there have been enough instances where hydraulic fuild is lost, or cables get pinched so mechanical control is locked up tight. Fly by wire (or really, fly by network as you need two-way connectivity) surprisingly increases reliability.
Re:A revolutionary idea by slim · 2012-08-20 03:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Don't make the car computer have a wi-fi antenna.

There are plenty of other vectors. The keyless ignition system. The remote central locking. The MP3 decoder. The digital radio. With physical access -- direct connection to the bus.
Grammar Nazi by ari_j · 2012-08-20 03:34 · Score: 2

I am very impressed with a person "who forced ATMs to ... cause medical pumps to release lethal doses of insulin." But why are ATMs and medical pumps connected to each other in the first place?
Re:A revolutionary idea by Baloroth · 2012-08-20 03:38 · Score: 2

If you have physical access to the bus, it's already game over. The rest should all be segregated from the car's central computer, either through a one-way filter (aka a firewall) or simply by not being on the same network. There is no reason the radio should be able to start the car or unlock the doors, and for its part the keyless entry shouldn't be able to disengage the brakes or start the radio (but should be able to start the engine or unlock the car). The keyless system presumably has security already, so it shouldn't be a problem anyways.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
McAfee researchers? Really? by guygo · 2012-08-20 04:41 · Score: 2

Really? McAfee researchers? This is the company that crashed millions of their business customers' systems with an untested update. As I write this there are 1000s of home McAfee customers who have lost Internet connectivity because of another untested update. These are the people you want to listen to when it comes to security? Oh Pulease!
Sorry Officer ... by moeinvt · 2012-08-20 05:27 · Score: 2

Bonus points to the first person that talks their way out of a traffic ticket with the excuse that their car has been hacked.
McAfee On Board by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-08-20 05:28 · Score: 2

Having McAfee running anything on your car will, at minimum, will add 3 seconds to your acceration times, and knock 5 mpg off your milage. You will also have to run the A/C more to offset the extra heat load on the CPU. Plus, about every fifth update, it will kill your car so dead, you will have to call AAA for a tow.
Re:Signed Code by ColdWetDog · 2012-08-20 05:32 · Score: 2

McAfee, hmm? I even remember the good ol' days on Win98, when after installing McAfee the darn thing simply refused to boot.
Now you won't be able to turn on your engine, or what?
Well, one could argue that with WIn98, that was the appropriate response.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Or you could.... by ColdWetDog · 2012-08-20 05:43 · Score: 2

Call it the "Ford Paranoia" or the "Chevy Technophobe".
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!