Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
Better buy a car before then.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Bosses of the world: Please prepare for the "Sorry I'm late. GM decided to roll out critical updates during my commute."
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M