BlackBerry Working With Automakers On Antivirus Tool For Your Car (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: BlackBerry is working with at least two automakers to develop a security service that would remotely scan vehicles for computer viruses and tell drivers to pull over if they were in critical danger, according to a financial analyst. The service, which would also be able to install security patches to an idle car, is being tested by luxury automakers Aston Martin and Range Rover. The service could be launched as early as next year, generating about $10 a month per vehicle for BlackBerry, according to Papageorgiou, who has followed BlackBerry for more than 15 years. Vehicles increasingly rely on dozens of computers that connect to each other as well as the internet, mobile networks and Bluetooth communications systems that make them vulnerable to remote hacks.

Comments

That's insane

[fustakrakich]

If your car needs an antivirus tool, it is not safe.

Re:That's insane

[taustin]

While you are undoubtedly correct, given how many times it has been demonstrated that cars are not currently secure, the fact is, cars do need this. The alterative is not between cars needing this and cars not needing this. The alternative is between cars need this and having it and cars needing this and not having it.

Re:That's insane

[Ol Olsoc]

While you are undoubtedly correct, given how many times it has been demonstrated that cars are not currently secure, the fact is, cars do need this.

You make automobiles safe by not making them accessible, not by turning them into cum dumpsters for every malware writer who want to send you over a cliff for the LuLz.

There is no such thing as an internet secure device, even try to mname one, and it will be cracked in no time. If software can be made, allowing others access to it means they can compromise it.

Now educate me how I am wrong, and we are not just introducing another Internet of things disaster, only with people ending up dead.

The alterative is not between cars needing this and cars not needing this. The alternative is between cars need this and having it and cars needing this and not having it.

Isn't it just freaking amazing that we have had road travelling vehicles for over a hundred years, and now it is mandatory that we open the gates for the visigoths to come in and play with them?

Technology can be awesome, But stupid technology is always stupid.

Re:That's insane

[WaffleMonster]

While you are undoubtedly correct, given how many times it has been demonstrated that cars are not currently secure, the fact is, cars do need this.

What makes software safety different from other considerations?

People wouldn't accept passenger cars filled with active fire suppression systems to work around defects that would otherwise cause a vehicle to spontaneously burst into flames.

They wouldn't accept a braking system that sometimes didn't work properly resulting in driver education campaigns to fill in safety gaps.

Why on earth should anyone accept a vehicle inherently unsafe to remote cyber attack? Because it's software?

The alterative is not between cars needing this and cars not needing this.

The alternative is between manufacturers making money and facing bankruptcy due to costs associated with bankrolling recalls and legal action.

Re:That's insane

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That depends, are we talking about those somberly dressed people with Visicalc?

Re:That's insane

[Waccoon]

They need this, huh?

I can only pray antivirus on a car works better than antivirus on... anything else.

NO

[ArylAkamov]

FUCK OFF WITH THIS "NETWORK ALL THE THINGS" BULLSHIT!

Until then, I'll gladly stay with my 90s funcar. Basic, lightweight, fairly quick with megasquirt III. Sure, it can't wipe my ass for me, but that also means I don't have to worry about hackers screwing with my ass. And nobody wants ass hackers.

A boon for car-jackers

[chrism238]

Car-Jackers currently report to your car that one of your tires is flat, encouraging you to pull over. Now car-jackers will be able to report that your car has a virus..... I guess that that's progress, all in the name of security.

"You are experiencing a car accident"

[WaffleMonster]

So you decided to connect cars and shit to the Internet and results have been gloomy and unpleasant? Facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, bad PR and expenditures related to massive recall campaigns?

Don't sweat choosing between dangerous and irresponsible use of technology and juicy perpetual cyber stalking related profits.

Path to success is paved by doubling down on "defense in depth" shell games in a bid to prevent sufficient number of critically injured whiners and crying babies from coming to the otherwise obvious conclusion.

Virus scanners in particular are a fabulous choice:

- Positive public perception
- Subscription fees (or else) show you care
- Stunning record against unknown and targeted threats
- Marvelous record of scanners leveraged as vectors to compromise otherwise secure systems.

Only a moron...

[squash_me_quickly]

...would allow any remote device to access a cars "control systems", especially when the car is running

...would allow any kind of connection between the "control systems", and other systems like entertainment

...would not have a "physical" off switch on the communication chips, so when you are not at a service center(with the proper equipment) there is absolutely no way to talk to the vital systems.

If the gps/navigation system of the entertainment system get hacked, one should be ably to just turn them off.