Within 6 Years, Most Vehicles Will Allow OTA Software Updates (computerworld.com)

Lucas123 writes: By 2022, using a thumb drive or taking your vehicle to the location you bought it for a software update will seem as strange as it would be for a smartphone or laptop today. By 2022, there will be 203 million vehicles on the road that can receive software over-the-air (SOTA) upgrades; among those vehicles, at least 22 million will also be able to get firmware upgrades, according to a new report by ABI Research. Today, there are about 253 million cars and trucks on the road, according to IHS Automotive. The main reasons automakers are moving quickly to enable OTA upgrades: recall costs, autonomous driving and security risks based on software complexities, according to Susan Beardslee, a senior analyst at ABI Research. "It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said.

Comments

So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're telling me you'll be selling defective cars that need repaired so often their need OTA updates? And not just a regular maintenance at the dealership?

And where are the regulatory authorities then? Are they sitting on their asses while you sell us these defective cars?

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Indeed. When I see this,

"It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said.

my first thought is that maybe cars being so connected before we have the robustness to go with it isn't such a great idea.

Re: So defective cars

[Z00L00K]

It's the legal bodies that will like this most since now they can cripple our cars remotely.

Re: So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

My exact thought... and monitor/track location, travel patterns. No autonomy at all. It's the biggest of big brother monitoring. Combined with our cell phones there's not one thing you will do that some government or corporate entity won't have access to.

In the context of the election going on right now, image the power of the sitting party that can get access to this information and use it against anyone they do NOT want to reach elected office. If it's not going on now (highly doubtful it's not) it will be soon and the fidelity and detail of the information has got to be growing by leaps and bounds. Obama probably knows when Trump takes a dump and what color it is when he does....

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

The cars are that defective now. People are too lazy or it's too hard on them to get their cars in for these updates. It costs more....

If you're at all interested in information instead of making snippy comments on slashdot, you can scan through this:

http://www.redbend.com/data/upl/whitepapers/red_bend_update_car_ecu.pdf

Something I found when I was doing some research on the subject.

Re:So defective cars

[cayenne8]

I"m thinking even more drastically.....I want to have a car that has "phone home" or any type of connectivity to outside parties FULLY DISABLED....but that seems to be getting tough to find.

I was toying with the idea of getting a Dodge Hellcat Challenger. But it comes with what they call UConnect installed...and so far, I can find no option to disable the mechanism it uses (cell phone basically) to communicate with Dodge or whomever.

This bothers me. I don't want my car to be spewing out God knows what information (GPS, speed, other telemetry) to any one in the outside world. But some mild Google searching provides surprisingly little information how to fully disable this little "feature".

I"m kinda pissed.

I'd looked at a new corvette a couple years back..and saw the same shit with OnStar...where it wasn't an option anymore, but always there. I've not looked at it in awhile, I wonder if you can more easily disable it these days?

Anyway...I find it troubling to have my car talking to the outside world. Not something I want to be available to law enforcement, insurance, or any advertisers in the area potentially.

I'm staring to think more and more about buying instead, and older late 70's muscle car..spending the cash to restore it, modernize the suspension, etc......and have a fun gas burner that way that is simpler, and much less connected.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I was toying with the idea of getting a Dodge Hellcat Challenger. But it comes with what they call UConnect installed...and so far, I can find no option to disable the mechanism it uses (cell phone basically) to communicate with Dodge or whomever.

I remember having the same exact conversation a few months back with someone here. It may have been you.

I decided to look for a '70 Challenger and hell catting that. No UConnect, and it will be 1000 pounds lighter.

Re: So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Or have them rev out of control, like Michael Hastings.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

GM cars are something I'd never buy, from rebranding Chinese models (hello Buick Envision) to OnStar and having remote disabling present on all vehicles, no matter what, with multiple antennas. I am waiting for some hacker to compromise OnStar, then disable all GM vehicles during a hurricane or other evacuation, turning a disaster into a catastrophe, either as a way of extortion, terrorism, or just for the lulz.

If one wants a newer vehicle, I'd almost consider a fleet vehicle (Ford Transit, Freightliner Sprinter) that doesn't have a telemetry system unless it was added as an option. Fleet vehicles are sold since businesses want low cost per mile, and as few doodads that might break as possible.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

The regulatory authorities are busy demanding killswitches and additional tracking so your defective car *also* breaks down whenever they damn well please.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these cars somehow disable features / not start if they cannot phone home for say 30 days or something? If they don't, jut put a Faraday cage bag around the transmitter / receiver. Problem solved. But, if it does disable stuff you probably won't want to bother owning the silly thing as it may be pretty difficult to put non-defective by design firmware onto the damn thing.

Re: So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do that now with any vehicle using OnStar.

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

I'm staring to think more and more about buying instead, and older late 70's muscle car..spending the cash to restore it, modernize the suspension, etc......and have a fun gas burner that way that is simpler, and much less connected.

A cool idea, but you give up a lot of safety doing that. As much as I agree with you about not wanting my car talking to outside agencies without my permission, driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.

I guess I'm hoping that people will figure out which wire to pull to disable the cellular connection so I can disable that and still have all the modern safety and convenience without my car ratting me out to the powers that be.

Re:So defective cars

[bev_tech_rob]

I started to flame you for your tinfoil hat type comment, but I got to thinking about what if the emissions controls broke down, you couldn't afford to fix it, and the authorities disable your car until you can have it TOWED into a dealership and repaired?

States like Georgia have something similar to this already but don't use remote kill switches. If the authorities pull you over and can visually confirm your vehicle is non-compliant, they can have the vehicle impounded and force you to pay money into an escrow account that a car dealer can access to bring the vehicle back up to specs (at least they do that for diesel trucks that might have the EGR, DPF, etc removed).

Re:So defective cars

[fahrbot-bot]

So you're telling me you'll be selling defective cars that need repaired so often their need OTA updates?

No. This is so when one of these new-fangled cars does something bad or wrong, the vendor can secretly download a back-dated patch before authorities can investigate to make it look like the driver was to blame and not the car. /tinfoil-hat

Re:So defective cars

[PPH]

driving an older car seriously compromises your safety.

But it's my safety. I'll compromise it if I want. If I'm not permitted to, I'll just ride my motorcycle.

Re:So defective cars

[PPH]

I'm guessing that the less honest manufacturers will start pushing out engine parameters to de-tune older model cars. So you bought that high performance sports sedan and now it's gutless? Time to trade it in on a new model.

Re:So defective cars

[internerdj]

I can't help but think there are many, many cars on the road that haven't seen a dealership in a long time. No maintenance, self-maintenance, non-dealer maintenance. Eventually, we will get to the point where a significant amount of cars that need software updates will be in that pool.

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

Yeah, I didn't mean to say you shouldn't be allowed to do it... just saying probably not a very good tradeoff if you're just worried about software safety issues. As bad as we all know software bugs can be, I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s (when we didn't even have seatbelts in lots of the cars!).

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

Oh, and I meant to respond to the motorcycle part... not sure if that was trolling or not on your part! But as a motorcyclist, I'd like to point out the obvious that those of us who ride motorcycles just.... must not care that much about safety otherwise we would never ride them! (but they sure are fun!)

Re:So defective cars

[KGIII]

I am understanding that you can actually (they're pretty sure) just get rid of the OEM radio (whole infotainment?) and that kills it by itself. I don't know if the Challenger comes with steering wheel controls but you'd have to go after-market with those too, which is possible. Supposedly... That's the only way to kill it AND supposedly it works. I know some of the Dodge Ram guys were working on it, specifically going for antenna modifications, but I think that even when they applied filters that they still found data leaking.

As I'm sure you know, replacing the infotainment by itself is a bit of work and expense. I understand that it works - or that the folks who have done so claim that it works. That's more specific to the Ram but I'd expect them to be fundamentally similar.

Also, doesn't the Hellcat still have four seats? You're not going soft, are you? ;-) That much bhp will be brutal but so much fun. I've yet to stumble into one. I'll see if I can find a good exhaust note recording on YouTube. Someone's bound to have recorded it near the point were it's bouncing off the rev limiter.

At any rate, I can't guarantee that it's successful. I just know that the Ram guys were looking into it and claimed some success a while back by simply swapping out either the radio or whole infotainment center. They're probably very similar so I'd check with them.

Re:So defective cars

[KGIII]

If you're at all interested in information instead of making snippy comments on slashdot ...

You've got to be new here...

Re:So defective cars

[vtcodger]

"my first thought is that maybe cars being so connected before we have the robustness to go with it isn't such a great idea."

Not disagreeing, but I'd omit the 'before we have ...' part. It'll take a decade or three, but I expect after a lot of (unnecessary) pain, it will become obvious that arbitrary OTA updates for any device are a bad idea. Upside benefits are real, but minimal. Downside risks are also real and potentially serious.

That's especially true for cars. Cars are mobile. And Expensive. How long do you think it'll be before you can go over to that shady bar on the bad side of town with all the motorcycles parked outside, plunk down a few Benjiis and get a nifty little box that'll deliver the vehicle of your choice to your front door with the gas tank full (courtesy of the former owner) and the engine running?

Re:So defective cars

[bondsbw]

I'm concerned that this will turn out like software updates today: more alpha-quality releases with the world as your test bed, and a promise to fix things over time.

That sucks a little with games and apps. That could kill with automobiles.

Re:So defective cars

[cayenne8]

If they don't, jut put a Faraday cage bag around the transmitter / receiver. Problem solved.

That's one of the problems...hard it seems, to find documentation to help you locate and actually find the transmitter(s).....it seems there might be multiple ones from some posts I've read so far...

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, I ride a motorcycle and care about my safety, which is why I always wear gear meant to protect me if I ever crash or wipe out. Which is why I am also very careful of my surroundings, and don't act stupid while riding. Also, since I have started riding, I also am more careful while I am in my car or SUV, so I can argue, motorcycle riders are more safe and more aware than non motorcycle riders..

Re: So defective cars

[cyberchondriac]

Or worse, paired with the inevitable autonomous driving cars, if you're wanted for questioning, or late to court, your doors and windows will suddenly lock, and you'll find your car driving you directly to the nearest LEO facility, with you trapped inside to be delivered.
The hacking potential is also very scary. In the history of bad ideas, this one ranks pretty high.

Re:So defective cars

[cayenne8]

I am understanding that you can actually (they're pretty sure) just get rid of the OEM radio (whole infotainment?) and that kills it by itself. I don't know if the Challenger comes with steering wheel controls but you'd have to go after-market with those too, which is possible. Supposedly... That's the only way to kill it AND supposedly it works. I know some of the Dodge Ram guys were working on it, specifically going for antenna modifications, but I think that even when they applied filters that they still found data leaking.

As I'm sure you know, replacing the infotainment by itself is a bit of work and expense. I understand that it works - or that the folks who have done so claim that it works. That's more specific to the Ram but I'd expect them to be fundamentally similar.

Also, doesn't the Hellcat still have four seats? You're not going soft, are you? ;-) That much bhp will be brutal but so much fun. I've yet to stumble into one. I'll see if I can find a good exhaust note recording on YouTube. Someone's bound to have recorded it near the point were it's bouncing off the rev limiter.

At any rate, I can't guarantee that it's successful. I just know that the Ram guys were looking into it and claimed some success a while back by simply swapping out either the radio or whole infotainment center. They're probably very similar so I'd check with them.

LOL..you must have read some of my posts before. Yeah....if I bought the Hellcat, it would indeed be the first car I've ever owned with more than 2 functional seats (technically my 1986 911 Turbo had 4 seats, but you couldn't fit a human back there, so I don't count that).. I'm not sure what I'd do with that much room, or potentially having more than one passenger in the car with me at a time. In the past, that always served me well, as that if going out with friends, I never have to drive with a 2-seater.

But more to the point, I did see some posts that did posit that you could solve the UConnect "problem" by removing the entertainment center. I usually wait till my cars are closer to being out of warranty before I replace stock head units and all...but I might consider it for the Hellcat if I got it.

I'd get a pro with car audio systems to do the removal and replace....I'd not touch that.

But yes....I've been watching YouTube videos and reviews on the Hellcat Challenger and over 700 HP looks like a fucking hoot! They actually have a great engine note....nice to see that Dodge didn't pussy out and make it purr too quietly. That thing gets loud when you open it up!!

I wish I could get a Viper, but just a bit too $$$, and I think this is the last year of production for them. The Hellcat seems to give the muscle bang for the buck.

I just don't like what they'e done to the Vette on this last model...the boxy, angular rear end on that thing just looks ass-ugly to me...

I've found about 3 hellcats at car lots online in the surrounding areas of town locally. I'm toying with the idea of going to one for a test drive....but I"m trying to hold off, in that if I get in that thing and it acts like it appears it does....I'll be forking over money.

Re:So defective cars

[KGIII]

I owned a Viper quite a few years ago but then my kids (that's how long ago this was) decided to move in with me 'cause I had the cooler toys. *sighs* So, there went the Viper. The car I have with me is a BMW 6 series, it's actually a nice intonation. It's nearly ~450 horses and that's enough for my daily driver - I've alternatives, too many alternatives. I do not have another Viper though - I do miss mine. I'd buy the same exact one back if I could find it and was for sale.

I'll keep my eyes out for one of the Hellcats. The exhaust note seems like it'd be likely to be divine. Believe it or not, the 6 is actually quite nice - it's a low, throaty, growl until you give it some throttle and then it belies what is under the hood. I may be a grown adult, even an old and retired adult, but that's still actually an important aspect to me - as I'm sure you understand the value of being able to clearly hear an engine while driving a stick.

I've got a few friends with some Dodge experience. It doesn't look good for my getting to head south today so I'll see if any of them have any information about disabling it. One of them does have a Challenger but it is *not* the Hellcat. (I'm really not overly fond of it. The Hellcat, however, piques my interests.)

Re:So defective cars

[PPH]

I seriously doubt we'll see bugs that take safety levels back to those of the 1970s

Yes we will. Because when the ABS, stability control, automatic braking fails and drivers have come to depend on it, thing will get ugly fast.

Re:So defective cars

[cayenne8]

States like Georgia have something similar to this already but don't use remote kill switches. If the authorities pull you over and can visually confirm your vehicle is non-compliant, they can have the vehicle impounded and force you to pay money into an escrow account that a car dealer can access to bring the vehicle back up to specs (at least they do that for diesel trucks that might have the EGR, DPF, etc removed).

Ahh...its nice to live in a state where they don't do *sniff* tests or really care what exhaust you have on your car...

Re: So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

... your doors and windows will suddenly lock, and you'll find your car driving you directly to the nearest LEO facility, with you trapped inside to be delivered.

I'd hate to find myself in low earth orbit, unexpectedly.

Re:So defective cars

[nytes]

I am waiting for some hacker to compromise OnStar, then disable all GM vehicles during a hurricane or other evacuation, turning a disaster into a catastrophe, either as a way of extortion, terrorism, or just for the lulz.

Didn't someone demonstrate that capability last year? I recall a reporter writing about how some security researchers were able to remotely control his air conditioner, radio, and windshield wipers. I think they said they could have done some more malicious stuff.

I think they did get in through the car's OnStar system.

Re:So defective cars

[davester666]

So, you are delusional then.

While GM with OnStar may be the first or one of the earlier systems, every manufacturer is doing this for all their 'mainstream' vehicles.

You [the vehicle purchaser] are a cheapskate, and the car company deserves more money, just for permitting you the privilege of driving their vehicle, so they must be able to monetize whatever data they can get from your vehicle, for as long it is in service.

And if anything, fleet vehicles would be more likely to have tracking, simply so the head office can keep track of all their worker bee's. And even if it still is just an option now, costs are dropping so it'll be a default feature sooner than later.

Your best bet is to try to figure out where all the antennae are and cut them all.

Re:So defective cars

[nytes]

Wasn't there a bug in some car's software (I think it was Toyota), just a couple of years ago, that caused the throttle to go wide open? That sounds like a safety problem that rivals those of the 1970's.

Re:So defective cars

[The Grim Reefer]

If you've owned a Porsche of any kind and have been driving two seaters all of your life, I can't imagine you'd be very happy with the handling of a Hellcat. I have an early 2000's Vette and I found the Hellcat a little disappointing. It has twice the horsepower, but with the extra 1000 lbs., it felt marginally better at best. It also doesn't have anywhere near the same handling feel. Granted, the numbers show that a stock C5 is about .5 to 1 second slower 0-60, and stopping and skid pad numbers are about equal. But there's a big difference between skid pad performance and slalom. That extra 1000 lbs. doesn't like to change directions.

It's not difficult to disable OnStar on the C5. I don't remember if it was 2 or 3 connectors. But it was pretty simple. Ligenfelter will drop in an engine with 500 HP for $14K. Or if you really need more, they have a 725 HP twin turbo 427 for $40K.

I thought the same thing regarding the rear on the C7, but it's grown on me. Actually my daughter was 11 when she first saw the C7 and the first thing she asked me was why it didn't have round tail lights.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's been like that for 25+ years. There's been millions, maybe billions, of cars made since 1990 or so with those features. The only thing that has happened since is fatalities per driver have fallen drastically!

Re:So defective cars

[nytes]

Imagine an update going out with a programmer's little cut-and-paste "oopsie" that now causes your self driving car to deliberately target people pushing strollers.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

They did do more serious stuff as well, and it triggered quite a storm about the professional ethics of the experiment, "white hat" or not.

Re:So defective cars

[Hylandr]

You're taking a lot for granted by citing safety.

I believe an older 70's car, be it a gas guzzling charger or a 45mpg Fiat mg, Is safer with seat belts than cars that:
- Are packed with explosives ( airbags breaking arms and necks )
- Have 'Anti-lock brakes', ( If you're spinning this will slam slam you into pretty much everything )
- Boast 'Safety features' such as ESP, BAS, ABS. ( There should only be ONE driver )

I could go on but I don't think I need to. I have a 2009 and it's almost killed me trying to 'steer' for me with differential braking in slush. I will take my 89s, 97's or 72s over anything new hands down and I will gladly pay more for them.

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

So, one article I found said 68 people died because of Toyota unintended acceleration.

On the other hand, from here we see estimates that Standards 203&204 saved 21,600 people from death or injury in 1978 alone. From the article:

"In 1978, when nearly 90 percent of the passenger car fleet had complied with Standards 203 and 204, 41,400 drivers of passenger cars were killed or hospitalized as a result of contact with the steering assembly during the crash. This number would have increased to 63,000 if the steering assembly improvements required by Standards 203 and 204 had not been made"

Later it says "if all passenger cars had complied with Standards 203 and 204 in 1978, there would have been 1300 fewer driver fatalities than if none of the cars had complied".

Wow. In fairness, the study says that these were implemented by 1968, so if we had been discussing 1960s cars this would be relevant, but since we're discussing 1970s cars, it isn't really. I just thought you would find it very interesting. These standards concern collapsing steering wheels and not having the steering wheel displace into the driver's space (crushing him). Surprisingly, it said that in about 50% of the accidents the steering column energy absorbing devices didn't work.... so I'm left wondering how many more lives would have been saved if a 100% effective design had been implemented! By the way, it mentions that the estimated cost per vehicle of implementing these changes were $10.46 (in 1978 dollars).

Turns out seat belts were also required to be fitted, but it wasn't until much later that most states required them to be used (I remember as a kid we always used them because my Dad worked for the phone company and they stressed the use of seat belts, but many many people back then didn't use them).

It wasn't until 1979 that NHTSA started crash testing cars.

Besides seat belts, steering columns, and air bags, the biggest "modern" safety feature I usually think of is the crumple zone. When I was a kid in the 60's & 70's most cars were built rigidly. You could crash into stuff and the car would look fine (but the people inside would be dead). The development of the side crumple zone didn't happen until the early 1990s...

Here's a graph of annual deaths per billion miles traveled: here (chart by Dennis Bratland found in Wikipedia).

Re:So defective cars

[houstonbofh]

Older cars (or at least pre-1996) get more attractive every year!

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

In a previous reply I referred to a graph here that has some interesting info, and would suggest that the average driver is safer in a modern car.

On the subject of airbags, I'm not a huge fan. One 1997 article I read shows only a 5% decrease in fatalities versus just a lap+shoulder belt. I religiously use my seatbelt, but recognize that a lot of people don't (the same article claimed a 13% fatality reduction if you had airbags but no seatbelt but why wouldn't you wear your seatbelt and enjoy a 45-50% reduction in risk?). I had a 4 point seatbelt in one of my cars and I would order that again in a heartbeat if it was an option on cars (and if I get the Lotus I want I'll probably make sure it has a 4 point system). Seat belts have saved my life at least a couple times I believe.

ABS I am a fan of, having driven for decades with both I think that in panic situations ABS is much more likely to result in the driver retaining control of the car. The only thing I hate is that (at least my Subaru STi) sucks in snow with ABS - I think there should at least be a defeat switch (this is legal, but I don't think any shop will install it for fear of being sued). Very experienced drivers can lock up the wheels in a non-ABS car to slide straight while spinning, but I think the number of drivers who actually have that skill set is extremely small. Again, I think all cars should have an ABS defeat switch, but I would probably only use it in snowy conditions myself). An article in Wikipedia on ABS reinforced my feeling that on pavement it's a net gain, but in snow/gravel/sand it may actually hurt.

Another thing to mention is that brake systems are much better today than the 70's when most passenger cars used drum brakes. They were very prone to fade and in my opinion did not typically give you the kind of braking force that you have in a modern car with disk brakes.

Electronic stability control gets high points... NHTSA says ESC reduces crashes by 35% and as much as 67% in SUVs. US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said (according to Wikipedia) that ESC can prevent up to 10,000 fatal USA crashes annually. This sounds believable to me.

In any case, I tend to think you're safer in a newer car, and you don't so we can agree to disagree. Luckily we can both purchase the cars we want!

Re:So defective cars

[BostonPilot]

Oh, I have no doubt that you are a more careful rider than the average person is a careful driver. Being on a motorcycle tends to force you to focus on what you are doing, and as you said, be aware of your surroundings.

That said, this article claims motorcycles experienced 26 TIMES the number of deaths per mile in 2013 (i.e. 2600% the fatal accident rate). Another Wikipedia article claims 30 times the fatal accident rate.

So, you might be a more careful rider, more aware of your surroundings, paying more attention to the road, but you're not safer. Also, wearing gear other than a helmet almost certainly does not reduce your risk of death (but probably makes for a prettier corpse). You can wear the nicest pair of leathers, but when that Volvo driving soccer mom blows through the intersection and t-bones you none of that stuff is going to help (even the helmet isn't going to save you in a head on collision). Quiz: where is the crumple zone on a motorcycle? Answer: You're it.

And seriously, my experience is that most bad motorcycle accidents are caused by cager drivers doing something unexpected (half the time because they just didn't see you). So, it's good that you're aware of your surroundings because you can avoid a lot of accidents by having your head on swivel. But... don't think that you are safe. Just enjoy riding and realize

I'm not trying to say don't ride. I've been riding since I was 14 (and I'm 59 now). I raced when I was a kid, and I've owned 1 liter crotch rockets since the 80s... Still riding a 1000RR Fireblade. I'm also a commercial helicopter pilot... and, there's no doubt in my mind, riding motorcycles is the most dangerous thing I do.

Ride safe, and keep your life insurance paid up! Cheers! Check out this fun page.

Re:So defective cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's cars get OTA updates. That is how they pushed out limited self-driving features. They have, also, fixed bugs. Just saying it can be a useful for them to do this.

Re:So defective cars

[Trogre]

Increasingly defective by design, I'm afraid.

Re:So defective cars

[jtgd]

Wirecutters.

better

[phantomfive]

Better buy a car before then.

Re:better

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. This is probably a good thing overall. There are plenty of car recalls (and others that should have been recalled) because of safety issues. If those issues happen to be due to software issues, it's definitely a good thing to make bug fixes easy. Furthermore, there generally isn't adequate protection of critical systems from those that are provided for the convenience of the passengers. Those systems generally aren't very secure, so there's the potential for a security breach in something that's non-essential to present a safety issue. An example would be connecting phones with Bluetooth allowing other systems like the drive-by-wire systems to be compromised. It's probably a good thing for the safety of the driver and passengers if security updates are available as quickly as possible. While these issues could be prevented in today's cars by simply designing them better and fully isolating critical systems, that won't be so easy in autonomous vehicles.

Re:better

[phantomfive]

The problem is that the quality of software being put into cars has been decreasing. That isn't something you want to mess with, you want to make sure it has close to zero bugs.

Being able to push OTA updates will only encourage managers to declare projects done then fix things later. The threat of a recall like an invisible hand encourages car companies to try extra hard to get it right.

Furthermore, there generally isn't adequate protection of critical systems from those that are provided for the convenience of the passengers. Those systems generally aren't very secure

Exactly.

Re:better

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. This is probably a good thing overall. There are plenty of car recalls (and others that should have been recalled) because of safety issues. If those issues happen to be due to software issues, it's definitely a good thing to make bug fixes easy.

It's a double edge sword. At least if the development we have seen in video games is anything to go by.
Yes, it is great that bugfixes are easy to roll out. There are old games out there that have bugs that weren't encountered in testing and since distribution fixes was problematic they never got fixed.
The problem is that since it is so easy to roll out bugfixes now we have seen game companies not test as heavily. They roll out buggy games and fix it when the end user encounters the bug, that is if the bug is discovered before the next big title is released and they no longer expect more sales of the old title.

What we want is the same amount of testing that used to be done but with the extra possibility to roll out fixes for the rarely encountered and few bugs that gets past testing. What we don't want is the video game situation where it is expected that fixes will be made after release and where bugs found in old models are left unfixed since old models compete with sales of new models.

Re:better

[Mitreya]

Being able to push OTA updates will only encourage managers to declare projects done then fix things later.

Oh, yes. I can see it now.
Pay only $2.99 per month, to customize your ABS brake response... or to overclock the car's CPU processor... or to prevent it from reporting your movements to nearby police cars.

Re:better

[AmiMoJo]

We can encourage manufacturers not to push updates by declining the EULA when the update comes and then demanding a refund. The law on this varies from place to place - it might require the EULA to have changed, the refund you get might vary, but in general declining the EULA is a great way to stop companies behaving badly.

Re:better

[Anonymous Coward]

There'll be no EULA. There will be a software update clause in the sales contract.

Re: better

[Anonymous Coward]

Car software and game software work in very different regulatory environments as one is safety critical and one us not. There is no reason to suppose they would use the same development model for automobile software as it would close them to large financial and legal risks.

Re: better

[Anonymous Coward]

Expose not close.

Silly autocorrect.

Let's hope that the programmers don't rely on autocorrect!

Re: better

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, how about a system update during an emergency braking operation? Or being able to program the car to go 35 in a 30 zone, just as the cop sets on his radar. Would you be able to fight the ticket? Or how about, the proverbial bad update, would your car start and run? When you were driving to the appointment? Interesting!

Re:better

[castionsosa]

My issue is that there are good ways to push updates, and there are bad ways. My experience is that companies will use the least expensive and most insecure ways possible in general, unless held to task by someone that matters (VISA and PCI-DSS, or the government.)

Want to do the upgrade proper? It just doesn't need to be signed, but signed by a computer that is air-gapped. The update process should be atomic (i.e. either the update completely succeeded, or it is rolled back.) There has to be no middle ground, no matter what. Even if the battery gets yanked during the updating process, the vehicle still must be able to load its ECM firmware and run.

I just fear a vehicle deciding to upgrade while on the road, then the next time the engine is shut off... it never turns back on, meaning a tow to the dealership and a multi-thousand ECM replacement because of some edge/corner case that never was looked into (such as a cellular handoff when downloading the flash, or a hard block error on a flash storage cell.)

Re:better

[kenai_alpenglow]

The EULA will be when you purchase the car: "You agree to all updates being pushed to your vehicle w/o option to decline them". Or some other legalize meaning the same. Don't sign the EULA, can't purchase the car.

Re:better

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a shame for your pandora to permanently stop working because of an API change. All of the updates I've seen for my car have been improvements to the touchscreen audio system. I am sure that those will make up 90%+ of the OTA updates. I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Would you want to drive to Microsoft to get new features for office? Would you want to drive to google every time a security vulnerability is found in chrome?

The ability to transfer data remotely instantly with no loss to the original data is one of the best things that has ever happened to humanity.

Re:better

[phantomfive]

It would be a shame for your pandora to permanently stop working because of an API change.

That's opening a box of problems, man.

Re:better

[Beerdood]

If you have any doubts to the validity of this statement, see video game releases over the last decade (Arkham Knight, Assassin's Creed Unity, etc..). Except now instead of just not being able to play a game, your primary method of transportation might be disabled now. Or maybe the likeliness of an accident has been increased substantially.

Re:better

[ebvwfbw]

Already too late. I think it's the GMs after 2012 don't even have a power steering pump anymore. All handled electrically, drive by wire. What could go wrong.
Scary.

Re:better

[phantomfive]

I might get modded down for this, but GMs were really never that great anyway.

Re:better

[ebvwfbw]

I hope nobody will mod you down for that. Disagree doesn't mean mod down. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We should allow people to express it as long as their being respectful.

They used to be the best. Nobody else in the world could compete and the auto industry will tell you that. That's because nobody else in the world had an auto industry in the 1940s and 1950s to speak of. In fact the best cars of the past 100 years, there are more GM products in that list than any other, even by individual decades I think for every decade. Today they're right up there again. Maybe not the best, certainly among the best. Whatever you do, don't buy a new European car. They closed their stuff off so only they can fix it. The Japanese and Americans are still open to consumers knowing how to fix stuff.

That's not the point anyhow. If GM is doing it, so are the rest of them. If not right now, very soon. Just makes me nervous, not having a physical way to steer a car in an electrical failure. Used to make me nervous that there was no physical cable from the gas peddle to the throttle. Yet not one of the cars I've owned with them have failed me in the past 15 years.

Re:better

[phantomfive]

oh, you're right, of course GM used to make great cars, so I was imprecise. I can't speak for all their cars, but the GMC cars I've driven in the last few years have been unsatisfactory. So that's mainly what I'm basing my opinion on.

Re:better

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because GM has put all their eggs back into the truck and SUV basket. Their bread and butter are their trucks and the gazillion utterly generic crossover SUVs they sell. They don't really care about cars, except perhaps what they can sell in bulk to fleets, where quality isn't really a priority.

If gas hits $5 a gallon, they are done. And by done, I mean we're going to bailing them out, again.

Good o' days.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when a virus only crashed your computer?

Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

BY DEFINITION the car can DRIVE ITSELF to the dealership.

It can do this at night, when I am sleeping.

It will wait in line with the other cars, the techs will plug in their devices, and they will fix the car.

The car will then DRIVE ITSELF home, park itself in the driveway, and finish its recharge cycle.

Why in the world would anybody need OTA?

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world would anybody need OTA?

So hackers have something to strive for.

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the world would anybody need OTA?

Because the dealership moved across the street.

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be serious.

Because it's much less wasteful to download a file than it is to move tonnes of plastic, metal, rubber etc. across town.

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be serious.

Because it's much less wasteful to download a file than it is to move tonnes of plastic, metal, rubber etc. across town.

I see what you mean, because there are no scenarios where a car would already need to go to a dealership for other maintenance...

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Casualposter]

I have NEVER had a software update on any of the vehicles that I have driven. NEVER. I have had regular maintenance that I have done myself for decades. There is no reason to have a software update for a car unless that car was defective to begin with. The information that we have so far indicates that these cars are unsecured and open to tampering from afar. The spying done by government and auto companies is bad enough, but foreign script kiddies wrecking cars for fun and profit is not a path we should go down.

Re:Autonomous Driving

[bondsbw]

If the manufacturer can deliver OTA updates, so can hackers.

I'd prefer a secured physical update device at the dealership any day, even if it costs extra to get my car there. (And this should somewhat discourage using the masses as their beta testing platform... they'll get tired of constant updates costing them money.)

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how many times I've downloaded a fake windows update from Microsoft's utility?

There is a potential for a hacker to push out a fake windows update. Therefore microsoft should be fined and it's employees jailed and all it's products boycotted because they should have never even considered something that could theoretically be hacked! It's time for me to go back to before operating systems could update remotely. I AM JUST SO SCARED!!!

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Your.Master]

If a manufacturer can deliver updates remotely without you present, then so can an attacker. In both cases, the car is compromised.

Re:Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cellphone gets OTA updates. In principle, hackers could take that out too, and it even happens. In practice, everybody still uses cellphones with OTA updates. What does that tell you?

Re: Autonomous Driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely, if the car is preprogrammed to know that an update is only acceptable at a particular location. The attacker would have to compromise the dealership in a way that should be much harder to pull off than an OTA that can be downloaded at any moment, 24/7.

The real resaon for this

[jmd]

Once the government has a suspected terrorist in their sights, they can have the auto manufacturer perform an OTA software upgrade to the suspected terrorists car then when turned on will lock the doors, roll up the windows and autonomously suspected terrorist to the nearest police station.

Re:The real resaon for this

[mwvdlee]

It's only one time for that one particular car and they promise to delete the code afterwards.

Re:The real resaon for this

[Anonymous Coward]

"Daddy, tell us how it all began."
"Well, one day at the height of rush hour everybody's car drove out into the desert and stopped--"
"Daddy, what's a car?" she interrupted. He had forgotten how much the world changed since his daughter was born. She was just six months old that fateful day...

Re:The real resaon for this

[Anne Thwacks]

However, not until after the terrorists have performed an OTA update, and caused all the cars to drive through the gates to the White House, Pentagon, Trump Tower, etc

Re:The real resaon for this

[jouassou]

By 2022, there will be 203 million vehicles on the road that can receive spyware over-the-air (SOTA) upgrades.

Re:The real resaon for this

[AmiMoJo]

Early computers could actually catch fire under certain circumstances. Printers were the worst, and video monitors. Fortunately back then there wasn't much malware to abuse these weaknesses.

Seems like we are going back in time, except that now malware is common and script kiddies on 4chan take great delight in remotely setting cars on fire or making the engine destroy itself. The first manufacturer to fall victim to this will be looking at a *lot* of warranty claims.

Re:The real resaon for this

[hey!]

Or vice versa.

Re:The real resaon for this

[Anonymous Coward]

There is actually a printer on fire error code.

Re:The real resaon for this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only one time for that one particular car and they promise to delete the code afterwards.

Cars have critical and non critical systems. Anything that affects the cars functional performance is basically critical. No OTA updates ever for that. Plug in a USB drive if you must, but then the firmware must be of course appropriately signed. The non critical systems can interface with ideally a read only monitoring of the critical, or if you must, a very hardened interface. The non critical systems can get OTA updates all you want.

Re:The real resaon for this

[sigmabody]

Common... that would take far too long. You need to issue the NSL right away, and compel the backdoor RAT to be deployed immediately. That way as soon as you identify a dissonant... uh, "terrorist", you can immediately take any and all actions through the vehicle's systems to help protect the children. Who knows, the terrorist might be in his car, driving by a school, and you had to accelerate it into that tree to protect the kids. It's national security, so you can't do anything about it.

Re:The real resaon for this

[randallman]

Let's not be Luddites.

There is a simple solution and it's the same one we use on every other computer that gets updates. Configure the system to notify you updates are pending and describe what those updates do. That's what Tesla does now. The car's owner can still be in control of their car while reaping the benefits of OTA updates. Any new problems that arise can be addressed and are minor compared to the advantages brought by OTA updates. Cars have had computers and bugs for more than 20 years and most of them go unfixed. To prevent the nefarious situations you're imaging, we need to be vocal about our privacy and liberty and vote with our wallets.

Re:The real resaon for this

[mspohr]

The reality is that your car has been running on software for the past 20 to 30 years. Most of this software has never been patched. Unless you believe that all software is perfect when it is first installed, you need a mechanism for updates. All of my other electronic devices have the option for regular updates to fix bugs and add features... why not cars?
Tesla has a full time cell data modem plus WiFi. This provides streaming music, navigation, and software updates. It also sends back diagnostic information to Tesla so they can look for problems. I get a software update every few weeks. In addition to fixing bugs, I get new features. The first update after I bought the car improved the motor control software to give me an extra 30 hp and improved the 0-60 time from 5.2 seconds to 4.4 seconds. Other updates have added "autopilot" which allows the car to drive itself and avoid obstacles. Self parking and "summon" is surprisingly useful. They've also updated the UI of the screens. I can't imagine having a car without updates. I do have the option of not installing an update but I can't imagine why I would refuse.

Re:The real resaon for this

[Anonymous Coward]

The other six thousand crashes in the state all involving that exact vehicle model that day are entirely unrelated, of course.
Well, they were, as we'll be forced to eventually admit, but it turns out they were all terrorists as well, which is why the update affected them.
Proof? Of course. We've exactly as much evidence for them as we do the original vi~suspect!

Little sonofabitch thought he could get in good with my ex? Try it with no legs you prius-driving asshole!

Re:The real resaon for this

[nytes]

Why bother with the police station?

The car just starts dumping it's fuel tank, lowers the suspension so low that the car is dragging on the ground, and then grinds along the ground until the whole thing bursts into flames. It also turbo charges the vent system so as much smoke and fuel as possible is sucked into the car quickly.

Re:The real resaon for this

[houstonbofh]

Like the Windows 10 "Upgrade..." Oh... That may be a bad example.

oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

what could possibly go wrong?

ota update mechanisms will be hacked.

ota updates of car software will be abused by certain agencies.. think feds, local enforcement agencies, etc.

ota updates puts a cellular modem in every car, also will be abused by above for tracking.

these modems will each use a phone number. our phone number pool (nanp) is finite-sized, and depleting fast enough the way it is.

Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[cfalcon]

So the FBI will demand a kill switch. After all, if someone is running from cops we know they are guilty of something, because running from cops is illegal. If they can demand your phone have a backdoor, your car is obviously MUCH more important- a car can commit way more crimes than a phone!

The fact that these will be hackable is also just so amazing.

What a terrible fucking idea. I hope that people don't fall for this shit, but I'm afraid that they will.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Anonymous Coward]

They already demand Onstar turn on the microphones when they want to spy on the passengers of a car.
http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/onstar.htm

The head of Google, Eric Schmidt, uses an iPhone not an Android phone, if you've never noticed, Google Play Services can do everything OnStar can do and far more. It can video, turn on the mic, listen in on calls, send fake SMSs, read emails, etc. and if FBI has used warrants to require OnStar to spy on its customers, you can be sure they've done that many times with Google.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/eric-schmidt-iphone-use/

Create something that can be abused and it will be abused, and usually by the supposed 'good guys'. But at least they don't kill Americans with drones yet... whatsthatusaid?

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[fnj]

Time to get a 1970s Mercedes diesel, 1980 VW diesel, or 1982 Audi diesel. You know, the kind with zero electronics of any kind in it, outside of the radio.

Once my 1983 Audi 5000TD was started, the only reason it needed an alternator or battery at all to keep running as long as the fuel held out was to keep the fuel cutoff solenoid energized and open. You could have done that function with a single jumper and some D cells. EMP? Ha! In a nuclear war it would have remained in perfect running condition when only cockroaches were left alive.

I cried after a guy in a Ford hit me from behind at 40 mph while I was stationary with my brake lights blazing, and blinking for a left turn. Everything behind the rear seat ceased to exist in an instant. The car was 16 years old, the leather interior still looked and smelled like brand new, and all the original paper stickers were still in perfect shape in the engine compartment, on the drive shafts, etc.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Anonymous Coward]

What demand? OTA upgrades are being introduced for kill switch and other remote control/surveillance features and not the other way around. IOW, Kill switch is the requirement and OTA upgrades are part of the implementation.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[thegarbz]

The fact that these will be hackable is also just so amazing.

This doesn't actually worry me.
If I'm being targeted I'm likely screwed one way or another.
If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Gavagai80]

When I was a kid, the teenage hoodlum who lived next door shot out all the back windows of cars on the street. But that takes nerve, risks being caught, and only appeals to the more active violent type. Now, the maladjusted nerdy kid next door will be able to hack your car for a laugh from the comfort of his bedroom.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Albanach]

I tend to agree. Car recalls are nothing new. I can only imagine the reaction here if Apple announced that you'd have to take your iPhone back to the Apple Store for OS upgrades or security patches.

Cars have a lot more computer than in the past. It makes them more efficient and it makes them safer. The entertainment system is massively more complex than an old fashioned tape deck, and that lets us have a more enjoyable drive. With all that code, there are going to be things that can be improved or which need fixed, and therefore software updates are inevitable. Given many cars now have 10,000 mile service windows, I for one would rather not wait a year until the dealer installs it at the next oil change.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[drinkypoo]

Time to get a 1970s Mercedes diesel, 1980 VW diesel, or 1982 Audi diesel. You know, the kind with zero electronics of any kind in it, outside of the radio.

Want to buy my 1982 Mercedes 300SD? Mercedes actually kept to mechanically regulated diesels in the S-Class all the way until 1991, when they introduced the "Starship Enterprise" W140 300SD with an electronically-regulated engine. But 1980-1985 models have the legendary OM617.951 5-cylinder turbo diesel, which is broadly considered to be not only one of the most reliable engines Mercedes ever made, but one of the most reliable engines of all time.

the only reason it needed an alternator or battery at all to keep running as long as the fuel held out was to keep the fuel cutoff solenoid energized and open.

Yeah, that's amateur hour. The Mercedes uses a vacuum switch. You can emulate it with a rubber cap if it fails, and it will keep your vehicle rolling in the event of complete failure of the electrical system.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[sanf780]

Phones are probably used for distribution and creation of paedofilia content. Cars do not have memory like a phone does - OK, depend on what you do. So having a back door on the phones is more important. Imagine all of the things that can be traced back in time. All of the inmoral things that could be uncovered, including sexting that can be categorized as paedofilia even if that happened years ago.
Or is that you are not thinking of the children?

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[BostonPilot]

If I'm not being targeted then it would make no sense to indiscriminately mess with cars. You're not going to make much money attacking cars directly when instead targets exist that have personal / banking information or high bandwidth which can be used to stage further attacks.

Uh, ransom the manufacturers? I'll kill one of your customers per day every day until you fork over 10 million?

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Casualposter]

I would rather you were driving than being entertained in the car. Besides, books, kindles, ipads etc can keep your passengers entertained with out compromising the security of the automobile. Furthermore, any software controlling the driving functions of a few thousand pounds of moving metal and plastic had better tested far better than today's Windows or IOS. This is mission critical stuff, like if it fails people die. That can't be held to the same "not guaranteed to even work" level to which most PC and console software is held. An over the air patch that accidentally kills a few thousand people is not going to be the same level of fuck up as a windows update that eats the data off a few thousand hard drives.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[thegarbz]

And as I drive around I'm always at risk of having a brick thrown through my window for the lulz (something that happens all too frequently apparently). The end result is that all the bridges and overpasses in my city have cages around the pedestrian section. This hasn't changed anything though, except for the view from the bridge and the amount of money left in the budget for road maintenance.

I can't bubble wrap myself against idiots, but the point is that every time technology security is talked about it is likened to computer security where the internet is a cesspool of endless attempts to exploit software en mass automatically (as anyone with a wordpress site or a linux server with ssh on port 22 will know).

Cars are unlikely to be a target of such a thing.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[thegarbz]

OTA update done and patched. Next question? The problem with randsomware is that it needs to fly under the radar to be successful. Encrypting a few files and releasing them in return for a few hundred or thousand of dollars is the standard modus operandi. Randsomware for millions in exchange for not committing murder is the working of a truly sick mind, not your mass market hacker, which will also limit the number of such attacks and therefore the risk to the general public.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[KGIII]

Want to buy my 1982 Mercedes 300SD?

If you're serious, well... You know how to get my attention. I'd need pics, of course, and I can go from there. Given my schedule, I may have to have someone else retrieve it - probably a transport company. I've read enough of your posts to know what you've done for work on it - I'm presuming that you've done it well. I have a moderate interest, with the right car and price then I might be enticed. I've turned a couple of similar models down but I probably should own one, at least for a while. Bare minimum, it'd be going to a good home.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[drinkypoo]

Well, it's a fully reliable and performant car, but it's also a project. Here is one recent pic, it's a good angle though :) If it looks like the rear bumper is slightly askew, it is; the prior one was warped somehow, this is a replacement pull from the local yard, and I haven't adjusted it yet. paint is quite dead but mostly intact with one burn-through on the D/S door, body is straight, down to one oil leak at the turbo. interior is rough but functional,

AC needs H-valve replacement (part included) and probably compressor seals, sunroof needs regreasing but it works. also needs new cruise switch and turn signal combo switch. new rear springs, new engine dampers, control arms rebushed, brakes good, engine awesome, trans great and has been serviced. New ignition lock. P/S door lock bad, D/S windows F and R don't roll down probably door wiring. Fresh rubber and good spare. Some spare parts, some tools including valve adjustment wrenches. Turbo (from a 1985 300TD or something like that) leaks oil from diaphragm and return, but I rebuilt it with a new impeller+shaft and 360 degree stainless thrust collar. All other oil leaks appear to be fixed, all fuel leaks solved (the return lines are a PITA). Needs PS pump replaced for noise, I have one apart on my bench right now with the rebuild kit but my Audi has taken precedence :) New trunk seal, replaced some interior parts with darker pieces, arm rests not yet replaced but I pulled them. Replaced obliterated factory tan windlaces with some pretty good black ones. VDO boost and volt gauges added tastefully. Crappy JVC bluetooth stereo correctly installed, new speakers with fader bypass. New window switches. Needs seat switches, they function but are funky. New Bosch blower motor. One rear caliper was funky, replaced. Factory Bilsteins still working great. Only upholstery damage is a little bit to D/S shoulder area (cracking started last year.) Tan MB-TEX. Zero rust. Undercoating good (even patched a couple holes in it with a rust-oleum product, heh.) Good battery. ISTR replacing the alternator, too. Original reproduction owner's manual, year-correct, 1 corner missing :) SEL headlights with new doors. Front wheel bearings done. Clear corners by Magneti-Marelli, same as the factory orange ones, with orange lamps in. All interior and exterior lights working. Antenna works correctly, highly unusual...

I should have most of the receipts for this stuff.

If that's too much project-nature to deal with, I am not surprised. There's a lot of merit to buying a nicer car. If you're still interested, I'll let it go quite reasonably. I'm not expecting to get my money out of it. My plan was to recover all the wood pieces with leather and foam, pretty much all of them are shot. I need to make a trip to the yard here shortly to see if they want to put a 6.9 block into my '92 F250 (also pictured) so I'll see if they have a climate control trim while I'm there :) Clearly I'm not looking to bullshit anyone, either. I just want to sell it for approximately what it's worth, and move on. It's a solid car, though. I wouldn't hesitate to drive it across the country at full highway speeds without doing more than checking the tire pressure and the oil level. The turbo spools up FAST and makes a solid 12.5 psi (stock 11, this is about the limit without adjusting the fuel system... best to have a pyrometer before doing that) under full load. It jumps right up to 11.5 any time you're on the throttle, though. Steering feel is better than my A8, and it soaks up the smallest bumps even better, though the bigger bumps come through more. Cooling system is absolutely 100%.

I could yak about this car all day :) But yes, as you surmise, I have steadily improved it since getting it, and everything I've done has been done by the book, correctly torqued, etc etc

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that people don't fall for this shit, but I'm afraid that they will.

The problem is that they won't have a choice.

Re:Can't wait for the FBI to demand a kill switch

[KGIII]

> I could yak about this car all day

I believe that it's safe to say, "I understand." As an aside, lots of people seem to say that - even when they don't. When my mother died, that was one of the stupidest things people said to me. "Oh, I am so sorry. I understand." Like fuck they do, they still had a mother. Another one, seeing as I'm here, "How are you doing?" Err... That's the absolute stupidest question, morons. I'm doing pretty damned shitty - my mother just died, stupid shits, how the fuck did they think I was doing? Dumb bastards.

Anyhow... On that note... ;-) I think this is one of those situations where I do understand. This might be a bit long. (You have been warned.)

The Benz you have is not a dime a dozen but not really entirely rare. I've got a buddy and he's going to network with a few of his. I might be able to do something with it. It's embarrassing but I'll take some pics when I get home in the spring. Err... I've a rather extensive collection of cars - I had a special barn built and it is fast approaching space constraints. It doesn't even hold all of them - I have a six bay garage*, only four can be used for storage for cars. One has two motorcycles in it as it's on the side that has a hydraulic lift. Yes, yes I have my own lift. I did mention that it's mildly embarrassing, right? The total is 33 if you don't count a tractor, a couple of ATVs, and two snowmobiles. It is counting an RV and several vehicles that are not actually road-worthy, they get used to haul wood, plow, and things like that. Yes, yes it is a bit embarrassing. However, they all (except for a few) are in excellent condition and run. I don't have any rusted hulks or anything.

That said...

How sad will you be to let it go? If you're not going to get back out of it what you put into it, and you're not hurting for money, why let it go? Are you absolutely certain that you want to sell it? Only once, just one time, have I allowed someone to buy back a car that I'd purchased from them. In that case, it was a regretful seller and I'd already put the car into the shop and had some work done. I sold it back to her and her son at cost, including the work* that went into it. If you're curious, it was a 1971 (or '72?) Plymouth Road Runner. They really *did* want the car back and didn't want it back just to turn around and sell it for more. I paid them a fair market value. As I recall, it was quite a bit. I want to say that I paid ~$85k for it. I had it tuned, rubber put under it, and was getting ready to do the interior when I got a call asking to buy it back. They actually offered me *more* than it was worth to buy it back - I did not charge them that.

That is the ONLY time I've sold an automobile back to the person who sold it to me. I did not charge them extra. They wanted it back so that her son could have it and work on it and keep it in the family with his son. I've had a couple of others that wanted me to sell the car back to them - including one who thought I should just give it back to them. (Not kidding but that's an even longer bunch of typing than this already is.) So, chances are really low that you'll be able to buy it back - they get even lower for every bit of time I spend driving it or having it fixed or doing the work on it myself.

The car will be taken down to the frame and rebuilt. It will start with making sure the frame is completely straight and in good shape. The parts will be cleaned and blasted. If the part looks like it will be breaking in the near future, it gets tossed and replaced. The goal is OEM but to-spec after-market would be the goal. There would be no engine swap or anything - though there are some nice turbo-diesels that will drop into it just nicely. It doesn't need extra power - keeping it original would be the goal. Even the transmission will be overhauled, turbo will be rebuilt (I should have all the tools necessary), and then it will be reassembled. At that point, it goes out and gets partially assembled and everything

err.. no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that most failures leading to recalls are of mechanical nature.
Until Toyota finds a way to download accelerator pedals over the internet, saving recall costs will be an illusion.
(Not to mention the huge backdoor they're about to open.)

Re:err.. no.

[Plus1Entropy]

Each car gets installed with a 3D printer, and it can now download and fabricate it's own replacement parts!

Re: err.. no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Von Neumann's dream finally achieved! Self replicating, self driving cars!

I, for one, welcome our future vehicular overlords

Nice future

[nospam007]

Within 7 years then, the FBI will want General Motors to write a special update for them to get at some terrorist's encrypted car camera pictures and a couple of months later Russian teen hackers will crash our cars.

Re:Nice future

[thegarbz]

Hardly. The occasional script kiddy may find it funny, but for the most part hackers aren't that. They are after things they can sell or extort. Unless you have your mobile phone banking app in your car I imagine you will be an unlikely target for hackers.

Re:Nice future

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars are things that can be sold. The hackers most likely target for these things at first will be the door locks.

Re:Nice future

[Casualposter]

Send you payment information to XXX.XXX.XXX or the car won't start.

Hi! Nice to see your kids driving now. Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if the steering went out on the free way? Act NOW to prevent this tragedy by sending a secure payment to us.

Good morning Police Mayor! Please ensure that proper payment to us is made or all the cars in your city will stop working correctly.

Just a few things that can be done with complete connected cars and their automatic updates.

Re:Nice future

[thegarbz]

Send you payment information to XXX.XXX.XXX or the car won't start.

This one I can get behind but ultimately is not that severe.

Hi! Nice to see your kids driving now. Boy, wouldn't it be horrible if the steering went out on the free way? Act NOW to prevent this tragedy by sending a secure payment to us.

Good morning Police Mayor! Please ensure that proper payment to us is made or all the cars in your city will stop working correctly.

Just a few things that can be done with complete connected cars and their automatic updates.

These two on the other hand are the plots of bad action movies staring Bruce Willis, not reality. Hackers survive on turning their activities into a continuously profitable business. This becomes very different when you threaten murder on a continuous basis or shutdown a city. Hackers thrive on small fry not acts of war, and quite frankly given the state of our infrastructure if its acts of war they want they could already quite easily achieve that. But in this case I'm far more worried about disgruntled ex-employees.

Re:Nice future

[AmiMoJo]

The door refused to open. It said, âoeFive cents, please.â

He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. âoeIâ(TM)ll pay you tomorrow,â he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. âoeWhat I pay you,â he informed it, âoeis in the nature of a gratuity; I donâ(TM)t have to pay you.â

âoeI think otherwise,â the door said. âoeLook in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.â

In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip.

âoeYou discover Iâ(TM)m right,â the door said. It sounded smug.

From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his aptâ(TM)s money-gulping door.

âoeIâ(TM)ll sue you,â the door said as the first screw fell out.

Joe Chip said, âoeIâ(TM)ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.â

Baby you can hack my car

[Anonymous Coward]

Baby you can hack my car ...doo doo do do do..

The attackers will always be ahead

[jan_koch]

Is it just me, or should cars just not come with (much) wireless connectivity?

Granted, a key that opens doors remotely is useful. And it is nice to have a Bluetooth connection to the car radio. But apart from that?

Having the car online most of the time (which is what OTA updates would necessitate) has more downside than upside. In such a life-critical system, the additional convenience of an Internet connection does not justify the reduced safety. I personally never want to see a "Transfer x bitcoins to address y now, and you will get your steering back" message on my dashboard.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[ledow]

As someone who is driving a fancy "new" car (for which the primary criteria was "no extras, no gadgets, no fancy stuff, cheapest thing they have", and which ended up with touchscreen displays, in-car wifi, electronic parking brake, etc. because - well, that is considered "no extras" nowadays):

The problem is that people (and some manufacturers!) confuse two things:

The electronic systems that control the life-critical elements of the vehicle (brakes, airbags, even driver seat position).

The electronic systems that play your music, your in-dash sat-nav, the software that does voice recognition, etc.

There is no need for the two to be joined. That's the danger.

It's not a problem that your sat-nav might use an Internet connection to pull down traffic and map updates, or even read out your emails. There's also no problem with the entertainment system going online to suck down album covers, or to update its playback software, or to pull in that new feature to support Apple CarPlay streaming or whatever.

The problem is things like your ECU that controls the ABS and brakes being a) anywhere near or connected to the other system, b) being over-the-air updateable.

And steering? Short of REALLY STUPID semi-automated cars (Tesla, etc), your steering shouldn't be able to be computer controlled. There's no need for that unless you want to mollycoddle STUPID AND DANGEROUS drivers who fall asleep at the wheel, to make them even more stupid and dangerous.

Some manufacturer's get this right. Some don't. Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do. Yet we've taken that for granted, even on huge trucks, for decades.

But OTA updates of the airbags, steering, brakes, etc. just shouldn't be happening. There is no safe point at which to switch control mid-flow to a different piece of software. Even static and with the engine off, you could open up the brakes if it fails at switchover, and end up rolling down hills.

The trick is to ensure that you get a sensible manufacturer here, not to deny OTA updates of things like sat-navs, entertainment systems, etc. A lot of cars isolate the two systems. Some cars actually have an "entertainment board" separate to the dashboard display, even, and it's not possible to show entertainment data on the dashboard display or car data on the touchscreen entertainment display.

And I would hope that any sensible manufacturer signs their updates and is legally responsible for ANYTHING that happens as a result of hacking and/or bad software updates.

The car I drive has a lever to adjust the driver's seat. There was an option for automatic, electronics, "remember who's driving" adjustment. That's dangerous. I said no.

The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.

The car I drive has a manual gearbox. In an emergency, I can just neutral it. There was an automatic option. I don't like the fact that in automatic cars, the car can creep forward without the driver doing anything. In a manual, that's much harder to do and much more likely to just stall the car. Even knocking a manual INTO gear is much harder to do.

The car I drive had an option for automatic lane control. NO. Not a chance in hell. Able to fight my steering, even slightly, is not going to happen. But people obviously still buy that option.

The car I drive had all kinds of options and there are even a handful of "standard" features that I consider could be potentially dangerous. And those I don't use. That doesn't mean they couldn't be activated, but it can't go on the Internet. And with the separation between the USB ports, OBD, the entertainment system, the dashboard display, and the control systems, it's so difficult - if not impossible - to cross the gap that I know it's p

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[jan_koch]

You are spot on, though I consider (offline) assistance systems to be less critical than you do. After all, few seemingly mechanical functions of cars are now purely mechanical. With the weight of current cars, it would be very tiresome e.g. to live without servo steering.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Granted, a key that opens doors remotely is useful.

As an aside, is that really true? I find that for a car door to be useful, something has to pass through it. It's a reasonable bet that that thing won't be far from the car at that time. We take a lot of modern gizmos on cars for granted, and maybe sometimes we should stop and ask how useful or necessary they really are.

In any case, the solution to this whole issue "should be obvious": critical systems should be completely isolated from anything remotely accessible. Of course, that isn't as easy as it sounds with the amount of basic functionality like steering and braking that uses software in modern vehicles, often to implement genuinely useful safety features and driver aids. But we could do much better than a lot of vehicles do at the moment, where the internal software architecture basically trusts everything on the same bus, even if some of those components can be subject to external influences.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The flaw with your generally reasonable arguments is that as you mentioned yourself, these systems do make driving safer under normal conditions. Modern vehicle safety systems save lives, without any doubt. Sure, you can say the driver shouldn't have been driving, and you'd be right, but that isn't going to bring your kid back to life, and it wasn't your kid's fault that the idiot had a pint at lunchtime before driving half a mile back to the office they never reached.

The legal aspect is another interesting one. If you want to couple permanent monitoring and phoning home for evidentiary purposes with a zero tolerance law that says anyone who breaks any motoring law automatically gets punished, then we can talk. At that point, the complete impracticality and inappropriateness of many technical motoring offences will become obvious, with numerous normal people with good safety records starting to lose their licences within hours of the switchover. Then the whole system will have to change, because like any other zero tolerance system, it doesn't deal well with with human beings who generally try to do the right thing but aren't perfect. However, as long as we have those technical laws, which many normal drivers wouldn't always consider reasonable, and we have selective enforcement, which means everyone does break the law from time to time but the intermittent enforcement limits the consequences, Big Brother in your car is going to be a bad idea.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Dog-Cow]

I find remote locking is more useful than remote entry.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[BostonPilot]

I agree with the sentiment of much of what you say but:

The car I driver has a manual key-start. In an emergency, I just turn it off. There was an option for remote-start, touch-start, etc. That's dangerous. I said no.

So, just guessing, but knowing how engineers think, if the car has an option for touch-start, don't you think the key is probably just an input into the computer system? What makes you think the key will actually kill the engine if the computer malfunctions? Even if that's how it works in your car, don't you think it's unlikely to be true in most new cars?

Manual transmission is a different story. Nothing like having a manual clutch... I don't care if the engine goes full throttle, I can disconnect it from the drivetrain without the computer being able to override me. Unfortunately, electric cars don't have clutches, so as we switch over to them there's a question in my mind of how I can possibly override the computer system in the case of unintended acceleration.

The car I drive had an option for automatic lane control. NO. Not a chance in hell. Able to fight my steering, even slightly, is not going to happen. But people obviously still buy that option.

Again, like the key, just because you ordered it without that option, do you think the manufacturer removed the bits that can turn the steering wheel? They may have... it might save them some money. But my guess is that as electric power steering (as opposed to hydraulic) becomes more common, and as more and more people want lane assist, you simply won't have the option to order a new car where the computer can't muck with the steering on you. Sure, you might have the OPTION turned off. So, that's just a little flag someplace in the computer memory... Nothing a little hacking can't fix! And I'm not happy about that, but I don't see it going another direction. Increasingly everything is run by software and other than buy an old car, I'm not sure what to do about it.

As for the larger issue this article is about (hacking/malware in cars) at a minimum I think three things:

1) The National Highway Safety Board should have certification standards and review for automobile software at least as rigorous as FAA has for airplanes.
2) By law, the software shouldn't update unless I okay it first. Otherwise I don't really own the car.
3) There should be a way to disable any cellular connection to the car, i.e. a switch I can throw or a fuse I can pull that absolutely prevents the car from talking to the outside world unless I allow it to.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[drinkypoo]

And steering? Short of REALLY STUPID semi-automated cars (Tesla, etc), your steering shouldn't be able to be computer controlled. There's no need for that unless you want to mollycoddle STUPID AND DANGEROUS drivers who fall asleep at the wheel, to make them even more stupid and dangerous.

In short, you are wrong. First, the average driver is stupid and dangerous; I want the average driver to have help. Second, letting the vehicle steer itself is a necessity for self-driving. Cars should be able to drive themselves. It's going to happen. Complaining about it won't change that. Third, bad things sometimes happen to good people, I want the car to be under control if someone has a stroke or a heart attack. Fourth, it's already being used by active yaw control, a technology mandated on all new cars sold in the USA since 2010.

What we need is not cars that aren't allowed to go on the Internet, it's to get dangerous drivers off the road ASAP rather than mollycoddle them.

And how do you propose we do that? Our country was deliberately redesigned around the car for the purpose of improving auto industry profit. Without a car, one is now a second-class citizen. Since the nation was deliberately reshaped to make it look like this with the assistance of the federal government, I argue that driving is a right. Don't like it? Make it possible for people who cannot drive to function as full members of our society. If our society doesn't serve the masses (most of whom "shouldn't" be driving) then what good is it?

But suggest that someone doing 30 in a 20 zone should lose their licence and everyone is up in arms defending them

Well, absent other information, it's probably a stupid idea.

When that happens, either you were in control of the vehicle, knew the speed limit and were aware of your speed (and thus you deliberating broke the law),

Legality has never been equal to morality. Many speed limits are set specifically for the purpose of generating revenue, and many speed limit signs are obscured for the same reason. I came around a corner in Texas on a highway posted 55, and on the other side of a bush was a sign that said 35. I slowed down as fast as I could and still got a ticket for doing 10 over, because they deliberately designed that situation into the road signage for the purpose of generating revenue. On another occasion I was passing a school bus which did NOT have red lights flashing until I was DIRECTLY alongside, and it was far too late to stop. I got a ticket for that too, because Fuck Texas, and Fuck Austin in particular. Should I have lost my license for that little piece of police malfeasance? You're a brown-shirted bootlicker.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[drinkypoo]

The flaw with your generally reasonable arguments is that as you mentioned yourself, these systems do make driving safer under normal conditions.

No, that's the flaw with his seemingly reasonable arguments. They are not reasonable arguments, and you found the primary problem with them right away so you should know better than to encourage him.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed limits should be abolished. They're the only road rule that isn't about right-of-way control and entirely about mitigating the effects of allowing stupid and incompetent drivers on the road.

If you run a red light, you've violated someone else's right-of-way and are likely to cause an accident.

If you go 30 in a 25 zone, you've... gone 30 in a 25 zone. You are not likely to cause an accident. You are not likely to even lose control of your vehicle until much higher speeds. You aren't harming yourself or anyone else. But you're engaging in an easily quantifiable "violation" that can be used to extract police funding from you. That's it.

Abolish speed limits. Anything else is an admission of corrupt law.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about arguing that these systems introduce new risks, nor that if everyone were driving properly then many of these systems would not be necessary. They do introduce new risks, including the risk that compensating for driver errors will just make drivers more willing to accept those errors in the first place. Most of these safety systems should not ever be activated, because a skilled and properly aware driver wouldn't have put their vehicle in a position where the safety system would be needed. (There are some notable exceptions, particularly new technologies based on cameras or sensors that can see more, or more at once, than any human sitting in the driver's seat.)

The regrettably unreasonable part is just the initial assumption that most people do drive properly, because empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[GuB-42]

Planes pretty much fly themselves nowadays, and they are safer than ever.
In Airbus jets, the stick is just a glorified game controller that sends commands to be interpreted by the autopilot according to a set of "laws". Should the pilot do something that the plane doesn't like, it will just ignore it. There are overrides of course but the idea is that the computer controls everything.
No OTA yet, but one must consider that things are different in the aviation world. That's a world where in case the manufacturer screws up, the defective part has to be repaired at the customers expense or the plane is grounded.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

Losing your license for going 10 MPH over the speed limit is absurd, of course people will defend against such absurdity.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[randallman]

Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do.

You haven't used adaptive cruise control, I'm guessing.

get dangerous drivers off the road ASAP

Agree, but not as a reason to hold back technical advances. You could make similar arguments against ABS and stability control (if they were to malfunction), yet I think you'll agree any potential liabilities of those systems has proven negligible.

Did you know that the Tesla you deride will come to a stop and turn on the flashers if you don't respond to prompts? The risks you're laying out are well understood by the engineers working on these systems. Not to say there aren't some idiots on the job (JEEP), but by and large it is insulting to the professionals working on this to pretend these are revelations of some kind. Every step of progress weighs risk and reward.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[mspohr]

My Tesla with Autopilot is a much better driver. It always stays exactly centered in the lane. It's constantly adjusting the speed to keep a safe distance behind the car ahead and will automatically brake when traffic stops or someone pulls in front of me. It won't change lanes unless there is a clear space in the adjacent lane.
People are bad, distracted drivers. The automated systems do a much better job of driving.

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

In Airbus jets, the stick is just a glorified game controller that sends commands to be interpreted by the autopilot according to a set of "laws". Should the pilot do something that the plane doesn't like, it will just ignore it. There are overrides of course but the idea is that the computer controls everything.

How did that infallible flight stick work out for Air France Flight 447?

Re:The attackers will always be ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

I find remote locking is more useful than remote entry.

True.

I've never managed to enter a car remotely. By the time I start to enter I'm just too close for that.

GM will love this

[Anonymous Coward]

GM will probably be one of the first manufacturers to employ this. It will allow them to remove illegal software without getting caught.

Stupidest idea ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

... unless it's only used for maps and entertainment only, but everybody knows it won't be, so there's no unless. (yes i use the word stupidest intentionally)

Re:Stupidest idea ever...

[Anonymous Coward]

'Stupidest' is actually a word.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Bruce66423]

Whilst I am a strong fan of self driving cars, this is nuts. Next you'll tell me that the software on ICBMs can be changed over the air...

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely if the standard for Industrial Safety Instrumented Systems was used in automobiles the costs would unaffordable
Wikipedia on Safety Instrumented Systems
An automotive functional safety standard has been published ISO 26262 Road vehicles -- Functional safety. Is this enough? This issue is at least on the radar at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Automotive Electronic Control Systems Safety and Security

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[BostonPilot]

The FAA has a pretty good system for certification of flight software, why not use that as a starting point? Systems such as steering, braking, acceleration should be as foolproof as a Level-A system on an airliner. While a failure in one of those systems probably won't kill hundreds of people like it would in an airliner, if it's me, I want the same level of safety. I want the chance of my steering, braking, and acceleration systems to fail because of a software or hardware bug to be extremely remote.

The FAA approach is to classify systems by the effects of a failure: (from Wikipedia:)

Catastrophic – Failure may cause a crash. Error or loss of critical function required to safely fly and land aircraft.
Hazardous – Failure has a large negative impact on safety or performance, or reduces the ability of the crew to operate the aircraft due to physical distress or a higher workload, or causes serious or fatal injuries among the passengers. (Safety-significant)
Major – Failure is significant, but has a lesser impact than a Hazardous failure (for example, leads to passenger discomfort rather than injuries) or significantly increases crew workload (safety related)
Minor – Failure is noticeable, but has a lesser impact than a Major failure (for example, causing passenger inconvenience or a routine flight plan change)
No Effect – Failure has no impact on safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload.

Software Level A (Catastrophic) is intensely reviewed and tested to make it extremely unlikely that a software bug can cause loss of life. I don't think it needs to be that expensive: most likely a few vendors would produce software and adapt it to vehicle manufacturers platforms so that it doesn't need to be recreated for each new model.

In any case, I'd like to see a very formal approach to automotive software & hardware for these type systems.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Software Level A (Catastrophic) is intensely reviewed and tested to make it extremely unlikely that a software bug can cause loss of life"

Car makers don't do that now - think about Toyota's buggy management software.

They're even less likely to do so in future unless there are unlimited liabilities attached to their cockups.

What are they phoning home during the update?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people are inspecting and writing articles about the network traffic contents?

Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[Laxator2]

How will be possible to have car chases in this case ?
The cops will simply shut down the car remotely.
All the movie scripts will have to be modified to exclude car chases.

Then again, spying on people while driving is a source of additional income for the car makers, so the possibility of buying a car without this "feature" will be removed from customers.

Re: Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[Z00L00K]

Rethink?

See "Demolition Man".

Re: Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[Anonymous Coward]

I did see the movie, but it was made about 10 years before the 9-11 events, at a time when not everyone was a suspect and therefore under surveillance.
Not very relevant in today's world.

Re:Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[pla]

How will be possible to have car chases in this case?

Hollywood already has two "new" tropes for this - Either every criminal drives classic hot-rods, or evil, evil "modders" who dare to think they own their cars exist as a distinct criminal segment right up there with slavers and pedos. Or both, of course.

Re: Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[Anonymous Coward]

Even ISIS have problems with key members not being able to use social media. Even if they try to stay off the grid.

What we are seeing is law enforcement getting lazier and lazier. They now "need" to be able to snoop the net large scale to be able to find and catch criminals.
Eventually this will lead to a situation where someone capable of staying away from the net will be an uncatchable supercriminal.

Re:Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[Anonymous Coward]

or... modding your car makes you a criminal, then only criminals drive modded cars :-)

Re: Hollywood will have to rethink its cliches

[david_thornley]

That was rethought. The main characters had authority to take over manual driving, and all the other cars around reacted appropriately, smoothly, and without colliding.

Scary new days

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I also remember when terrorists only crashed one vehicle at once.

I'm not generally a fear-the-terrorists hawk. I think in most cases the risk is exaggerated and we have more important things to worry about. Ironically, one of those things is improving road safety, where we know that many people are killed or seriously injured every year.

However, making something as ubiquitous and dangerous as cars susceptible to remote control actually does have the potential to create a new type of weapon of mass destruction, not by causing one huge event with mass casualties but by causing many small ones. We should be extremely careful about the safeguards implemented to prevent that kind of outcome, and I don't have much faith in the auto industry to emphasize that aspect of their product given their track record.

Re:Scary new days

[vtcodger]

I agree on all counts and would add that foreign governments are likely to have far greater resources than individual terrorists wrt to hacking vehicles. I do suspect that China or the US for example are unlikely ever to cripple the other's transportation system because their own will be equally vulnerable. But how about North Korea? Or Cuba (which probably has about six computer controlled cars in its entire fleet).? Given that US foreign policy is often dictated by guys whose approach to the world hasn't changed much since they were in grammar school extorting lunch money from third graders, is deploying vulnerable systems open to the internet really a great idea?

Re:Scary new days

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not generally a fear-the-terrorists hawk.

I don't think that's the correct bird! You must have meant that other bird, whose name is synonymous with being afraid of everything.

Ownership?

[jenningsthecat]

...OTA is the only way to accomplish secure centralized remote control over the car you are renting from the manufacturer in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner.

FTFY, Mr. Beardslee!

In related news, the automotive sector officially announces that it has joined smartphone manufacturers, cellular service providers, appliance manufacturers, and producers of desktop operating systems and software, in the last push for complete corporate hegemony. Industry representatives say that very soon now, full-time monitoring and control of the population will be realized, and both true individual ownership, and personal autonomy, will be things of the past.

Re:Ownership?

[Casualposter]

NOPE! You will own the car. The software you will license and the data generated from your use of the software will be used to monitor your behavior and adjust your costs accordingly. Data on operations and locations of the vehicle will be shared with business partners to ensure that the car is operated in agreement with the terms and conditions of the license, insurance policies, and law enforcement. Should you breech the license agreement at any time, you can and will be stranded with out the use of the software. The hunk of metal and plastic, however, is yours to have towed to an appropriate recycling center. Should anything bad happen, you will agree as a part of the license, to indemnify the maker of the car and all associated partners in perpetuity. Should any breech in the UTRASSECURECAR(TM) software security occur, you agree to pay all damages and fees associated with the breech and hold the car maker and software maker harmless. The car may only be serviced by authorized technicians any breech of this license will terminate immediately your rights to use the software. The software is licensed to you AS IS and is not guaranteed to be suitable to operate a motor vehicle. Operations of a motor vehicle with this software is done strictly at the risk of the vehicle operator.

It's a bleak future

It's Stupid....

[Lumpy]

First just give me a USB slot so I can download the update and apply it myself OUT OF BAND. no I will not pay a monthly fee for my car to have internet access, they can go fuck themselves if they think I will be paying for that.

The problem is Car software engineers really really suck at programming and usability. The Engine guys that got the math down for the engine, steering, and suspension systems? they are decent mathematicians.. But the drooling morons that write the rest......

USB slot next to the ODB connector, let users do it themselves out of band.

Re:It's Stupid....

[phantomfive]

First just give me a USB slot so I can download the update and apply it myself OUT OF BAND. no I will not pay a monthly fee for my car to have internet access, they can go fuck themselves if they think I will be paying for that.

Companies like Qualcomm have been willing to provide this kind of service for over a decade now. Since it is low-traffic, it will be cheap enough that it won't cost anything to the end-user, and since it will probably be cheaper than doing the updates manually, it will probably save money to the manufacturers too. (As another example, see the Kindle, where books are downloaded automatically and free when you buy them).

Re:It's Stupid....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say it's low bandwidth. The update for my Prius's touchscreen audio system is 400MB. That's a reasonable load for a satellite based system.

Originally toyota required going to the dealer to get these updates. They were supposed to be free, but the stealerships would try to charge for them.

Finally, after many years they allow you to download a file to a usb stick and plug it in the car to do an update! Incredible! If only I could have done it OTA with a "check for updates" button. I can't believe people are against this!

Re:It's Stupid....

[phantomfive]

We're not against OTA updates, we're against low quality software. Needing updates is a symptom (ie, not 100% certain) of low quality software.

Shut up Butthead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh huh huh, he said "secure" uhhh huh huh.

This could get scary

[evolutionary]

Great, Between the FBI law enforcement hackers, the CIA hackers and the home grown hackers, we'll all be in crossfire between people looking lock cars down, people looking to have cars spy (cameras, microphones used for voice commands, etc) and people trying to protect themselves (or even us) from all these invasive "features" I'd rather ride a bicycle.Oh, crud..India just created a computer controlled bicycle didn't they. Can I even trust my footware anymore...

Most people are stupid

[Bruce66423]

Well - that's the optimistic interpretation of the present fiasco that is the US primary season. Or at least a lot of people. In that context, it's wiser to accept they are going to do stupid things and try and reduce their impact. Driving while tired? It's going to happen. So it's better to have a system that keeps you on the road than one that lets you drift off and kill yourself - or others. We need to ensure that fail-safe is the philosophy underlying all these designs.

great for volkswagen

[Chrisq]

they can send out that special update to any car in the vicinity of a government testing centre

Re: OTA updates should include this haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

He dreams of penis
I am not homophobic!
He blathers in vain

What can possibly go wr

[ThatsNotPudding]

Ctrl-Alt-Tree

BS Bingo

[jimbrooking]

"OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner,"

I win Bullshit Bingo! More meaningless buzzwords per sentence than I've seen in a while.

And clearly anyone who confuses "secure" and "OTA" doesn't understand either concept.

Updates will end after 1 year of the car comeing o

[Joe_Dragon]

Updates will end after 1 year of the car comeing out so if there is a big fix needed it may be. Due to lack of update X your car will not be able to use auto drive mode any more to get auto drive mode back buy a new car.

What he actually meant to say was....

[Harold Halloway]

""It is a welcome transformation, as OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner," Beardslee said."

What he actually meant to say was, "OTA is the cheapest way to update software and if it goes wrong we can (a) blame the customer and (b) charge the customer to put it right.

Data roaming will they pay the data fee for a push

[Joe_Dragon]

Data roaming will they pay the data fee for a pushed update as to day with some system that 1GB update may cost you $10.24/MB = $10K

Re: OTA updates should include this haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

Penis sucking thoughts
Autohomophobia
Is the word for it

Coming soon

[Dunbal]

Boss: Why are you late for work?

You: Ford bricked my car.

Cool!

[PPH]

Unless you bought your car from Sony

no forced reboots, please

[Tomahawk]

I just hope they don't to the MS thing with forced reboots - wouldn't be good driving down the motorway at 120km/h and your car telling you that it will reboot itself in 10 minutes and not give a cancel option

#annoying

FUCK. THAT.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way I am leaving my car's firmware openly accessible over the airwaves. That is security insanity.

Disable the wireless

[kheldan]

They need to have a switch somewhere in the vehicle that completely disables the wireless transceiver, then. No way I want anyone having any chance of wirelessly hacking any vehicle I'm driving. I'll find and disconnect/short the antenna(s) myself if I have to.

Blue Screen of Death

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought the BSOD was a euphemism...

Automatic updates in the field

[CanadianMacFan]

What could go wrong? So your car gets an update in the middle of the night and when you go to leave in the morning the car won't start. If we've learned anything from Microsoft forcing updates out then there will things will go wrong in some cases. Of course cars are more uniform so there shouldn't be as many problems. However iPhones are standard too and sometimes there's a new iOS version you get a number of people with problems upgrading.

Re:Automatic updates in the field

[Anonymous Coward]

For 6 or so hours the newest patch was causing the cars to transform their neighborhoods into veritable firestorms, but thanks to the rollback also including some new sensor data for the black box logs, all of it was your fault the whole time you horrible criminal bad driver.

In other news, police no longer feel the need to shoot dogs in cars which have all their windows all rolled up, or black people in vehicles either, but the number of fires caused by "a bad dog" and "making smoke of drugs" is absurd in the extreme.

Re: OTA updates should include this haiku

[Anonymous Coward]

The homophobe shrieks
I am totally normal!
He cums in her ass

Do not turn off your engine...

[rnturn]

"...software updates in progress. Installing update 3 of 47..."

Bosses of the world: Please prepare for the "Sorry I'm late. GM decided to roll out critical updates during my commute."

Tesla vs Volt

[Desert Leap]

Why does it take until 2022? By then we will have self-driving cars. The Chevy Volt needed a software upgrade and had to be returned to the dealership with all the associated hassles. http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/1... Tesla has been upgrading their software OTA for more than a year. You go to bed and in the morning you have a car that works better and is more capable (for example, adding autopilot). I'll take that any day of the week.

Time for Coachbuilding to make a comeback

[Anonymous Coward]

No seriously, I plan on building my own vehicles in the near future. I am going to start out making them just for my self, but if others want them i will get into coach building.

That or kit cars! Seriously the more control of our lives we hand over to corporations the more enslaved we are. you would have thought that as a society we would have learned with the clipper chip... Once you take full control from the end user, its enslavement no mater how much its wrapped up in convenience.

Cars like Video Games

[Anonymous Coward]

So now cars can be like video games, push it out now, we'll fix it later... Can I take the car for a test drive, uh no I know its a new model but since we are launching a new fleet of cars our engineers didn't develop enough capacity on the back end so we can't start it quite yet...

Cost

[Tony Isaac]

If they do it anything like in-car GPS systems, you'll have to pay $500 for each OTA update.

Completely unsupported assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

OTA is the only way to accomplish secure management of all of a connected car's software in a seamless, comprehensive, and fully integrated manner

Geez, by definition OTA management is less secure than management requiring physical access. The fact that anyone can suggest otherwise is unbelievable. Or very sadly believable...

I got an idea. What about removing all onboard software that offers no or questionable value to the essential operation of the vehicle? I bet only a few percent of the software in the modern car is essential to its safe operation. Less code, less defects, ... more reliable, lower cost.

We seem to have this social belief that computer control is inherently more reliable. This isn't rational systems thinking. Software, hardware, sensors and actuators will have failures. You have to do the math to see if one system is actually better than another. With our blind thinking that "duh! computers are better, especially with the latest goodies!" I see the usable lifespan, long term reliability and ownership costs of the automobile moving in a marked upward trend over the next decade.

I can hear the phone calls now...

[geminidomino]

"Sorry boss, I'm not going to be able to make it in today. Yeah, the goddamn Hyundai bricked itself again..."

No, not on my car

[Anonymous Coward]

Look people, you can install a $5 chunk of steel and copper on or near the 'antenna' and not one signal will get in or out.
Its 1960's technology that thwarts just about all 2010 technology that uses radios.

YLYL

[Hylandr]

>software over-the-air (SOTA) upgrades;
>secure management

Is this a You Laugh You Lose thread?

Worked so well for televisions

[Anonymous Coward]

OTA updates for televisions happens maybe once in their lifetime, if you're lucky, before manufacturers stop supporting them. Do you think it'll be any different for cars?

Ship It Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

The mantra will or could become, Ship It Now and patch the bugs OTA later. That's what happened to the computer games industry at least.

It doesn't have to be that way but this opens the door.

Correct posting

[GeekWithAKnife]

It appears that I posted this previously in an article about encrypted radar Waveform. Expectedly it got modded into oblivion...obviously it should have been here. So for posterity here it is.

Here's an idea

Allow OTA updates only through a program (app) on a smartphone.

This achieves three important things;

1. The car has no remote communication capabilities (update via cable or at worst NFC that can be turned off in hardware!)

2. You can choose if you want to upgrade because you can choose to connect or not.

3. Be a much safer option for updates etc.

Let's not forget other motives manufacturers have...your data. Manufacturers can still get at their precious data for customers willing to share it.

Moving quickly huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto makers are moving quickly to get cars setup for it??? Great lets rush this and forget important features like preventing people to hack your doeor open using a smartphone

BSOD

[ebvwfbw]

New meaning to the blue screen of death.