Slashdot Mirror
The World's Most Hackable Cars
ancientribe writes: If you're wondering whether the most tech-loaded vehicles are also the most vulnerable to hackers, there is now research that shows it. Charlie Miller, a security engineer with Twitter, and Chris Valasek, director of security intelligence at IOActive, studied modern auto models and concluded that the 2014 Jeep Cherokee, the 2014 Infiniti Q50, and the 2015 Escalade are the most likely to get hacked. The key is whether their networked features that can communicate outside the vehicle are on the same network as the car's automated physical functions. They also name the least-hackable cars, and will share the details of their new findings next week at Black Hat USA in Las Vegas.
I think your kind belongs on more pedestrian sites like offtopic or tumblr.
Given that this is something that can be tested, I'd like to see real-world results before jumping to too much conclusion. Auto theft is primarily driven by economics, the demand for parts, rather than a desire to have the vehicle intact. At the moment the Cherokee, Q50, and then new-model Escalade aren't in much demand for parts, and given that none of them are massively-high-volume sellers it's unlikely that theft-for-parts will ever be a big deal with these models.
The most stolen vehicles are the Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and the full-sized trucks from American manufacturers. All high-volume, all in-demand for stock parts.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Slashdot of all places should know the difference.
Hackable- I can install Debian on it and tweak the engine to play mp3s.
Insecure- Some asshat will ruin your day because the vendor doesn't provide timely patches, or the patches they provide make things worse so you cannot install them, or there is no way to patch things at all, or it's so tedious nobody does it.
--Coder
Yes. I was totally wondering if increasing the vulnerability landscape created more vulnerabilities!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Cyberboogeymen, now in your car!
Call me jaded, but anything with this sort of wording gets skipped without remorse.
The 2014 "SRT" Viper
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
By contrast, the 2014 Jeep Cherokee runs the "cyber physical" features and remote access functions on the same network, Valasek notes. "We can't say for sure we can hack the Jeep and not the Audi, but... the radio can always talk to the brakes," and in the Jeep Cherokee, those two are on the same network, he says.
This does tie in well with and extend their presentation last year where, given access to the car's network, they were able to manipulate its steering and braking systems. The trick will be to subvert one of the remotely accessible systems and then generate the necessary commands on the network in question using that subverted system. Maybe they are saving that presentation for 2015.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
This concept ought to make things interesting when combined with the trend towards self driving cars - a new meaning for the 'hot wiring' of a car (or truck, whatever) maybe.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The most hackable car would probably be the VW Beetle. So many cool addons and mods exist. I am talking about the original Beetle, of course, not the rounded-Rabbit.
Hacking is supposed to be good stuff here, right? Or did something change?
Doubt its very hackable though
The keyless entry system is on the body-can network which accepts RF signals.
The keyless start system is too, which accepts RFID.
The body-can is connected via a bridge to the fast-can, which carries all the ECU/Transmission/etc data.
The satnav has a microwave antenna and IR receiver for VICS and is attached to the fast can.
The important thing is, no diagnostics are done on the CAN bus. It's all done via a K-Line interface on the obd connector.
Diagnostics should be on a separate physical network.
That or a Jeep. There are arguably more mods for a Jeep Wrangler than any other vehicle.
I think the issue with this article is that it concentrates too much on networks. It assumes that separating features into different networks is less hackable. Then it states this;
"Each feature of the car is separated on a different network and connected by a gateway,"
Here are two scenarios;
1. All systems run on one network. The entry points to the network are very secure and almost impossible to crack. All entry points only allow specific commands to go through. For example the radio portal will not allow a brake command to pass.
2. All systems run on different networks connected by a gateway. The entry point security is poor and the gateway security is poor. There is no filtering of commands from subsystems.
Which one do you think is more hackable? If one can get in easily and talk between networks easily it is no different than a poorly secured single network.
Anything that uses a distributor with points? Hell, anything that has a distributor has a very limited ECM at best, and certainly not one you can access wirelessly, or via a simple port of some kind.
I own the most unhackable car in the world, err wait I mean bicycle.
If you have an OBD interface, you can have some fun with http://torqueloganalyzer.blogspot.com
but both other cars are utter heap of trash on four wheels. Go german.
... a new meaning for the 'hot wiring ...
We've already seen:
- In the wild: A contactless box that opens the doors on parked cars. (Not clear whether this is spoofing the remote-door-unlock keyring fob receiver or getting on to the car's bus to issue unlock commands.)
- Proof-of-concept demonstrations for getting on the bus by successful attacks on communication stack vulnerabilities in more than one of: Cellphone radio (remote help service), handsfree "car is the headset" bluetooth transceiver, door lock radio, security key-in-ignition detector, entertainment system, tire pressure sensors.
- Using access to the general bus to issue such commands as unlock doors, start the engine, adjust engine speed, and apply or fail to apply the antilock brakes.
- Getting a lane tracking / following distance near-autodrive to drive the car (in the same well-marked land) for miles by spoofing its "driver has his hands on the wheel" sensing.
and so on.
Seems to me that these could be combined with subverting the auto-park feature to build a full "car steels itself, untouched by human hands" system: Car starts, unparks, enters traffic, drives to a convenient place for the car thieves to take it over, and parks itself, drives into a chop-shop, or onto a carrier vehicle. Initially this might require a chase/lead car to give ongoing control in detail. If this becomes a lucrative criminal enterprise model, perhaps later a plugin to the bus or a malware download might orchestrate the process, even using the GPS navigation to let the car navigate itself from where the user parked it (or the crooks pulled it over and plugged in their device) to the crook's chosen destination.
It also seems to me that this might be the FIRST general use of autodrive functionality: Auto makers have to worry about laws and risks. Car thieves can simply abandon the car, running in traffic, if anything goes wrong with their system or their situation. This would let them become early adopters.
The ability to build an intrusion prevention system that plugs into the diagnostic port also hints at other possibilities: Could a similar device interfere with the use of Lojack/OnStar/Link/etc. to track or disable the car?
Could such a system also be used by the owner OR a thief to disable intrusive surveillance by auto makers, rental agencies, or governments? Could it modify the entries being stored into post-crash black boxes or distance-based road tax systems? Could it disable stored or remote tracking of where the vehicle is or has been? Could it interfere with remote shutdown commands?
Lots of possibilities here.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way