Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Model 3 Modded To Run Ubuntu (cleantechnica.com)

140Mandak262Jamuna writes: CleanTechnica is reporting that someone hacked the infotainment system of a Tesla Model 3 and got root access and installed Linux distribution Ubuntu. Redditor trsohmers is able to show an Ubuntu command shell running alongside the Tesla OS. Since Tesla supports a browser that allows you to visit any site, could this be leveraged into remote hacks? It could also mean that if Tesla sells a long-range version of the Model 3, but limits it via software, people might try to remove the block. One could potentially get a 15-day trial of full self-driving for free and extend that 15-day window forever. At least he had some guts messing with $50,000 hardware that phones home all the time. Will Tesla brick his car to attempt to disprove the security issue?

87 comments

  1. snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    turns itself off if it runs out of liesense?

    1. Re:snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this what /. has become? Are we posting every single tesla hack no matter how small it is?

    2. Re:snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here, Slashdot has been the premium tesla shilling and musk salad tossing site on the interwebs since at least about 2010.

    3. Re: snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not funny. Having your license expire in the middle of something important is the worst thing ever. I see people posting this problem everywhere in social media quite common. Of course the software company would rather you paid by the minute for phone support even before they think they have a solution

    4. Re: snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you downs syndrome level retarded or did you reply to the wrong thread?

    5. Re: snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was Slashdot in the 90's: "... and it runs Linux!"

    6. Re: snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just very deep in social media and sees the world through facetwiddit glasses.

    7. Re: snap included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instachat, snapgram, whatever the kids are using these days.

  2. Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what. It's a computer. It can run linux.

    They managed to run bash, not "an Ubuntu command shell." There is no such thing anymore than there is "Ford gasoline."

    Get some damn editors that don't sound like that apple "What's a computer?" advertisement.

    1. Re: Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crashbuntu: #1 OS in da hood!

    2. Re:Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like it already runs linux and is running the kernel that tesla provides?

    3. Re: Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah please don't hire ex-BuzzFeed staff.....

    4. Re: Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poettering will claim it wasn't his fault, and you should've just used crashctl to avoid the problem.

    5. Re: Beauuuuuuu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or not

  3. Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla's run Ubuntu in their cars. It is put in there in the factory. If you peel away the UI on the screen you are supposed to find Ubuntu.

    This would be news if this guy found Windows 10 in there.

    Next headline:
    Bottle of Heineken contains beer, a guy says after opening it...

    1. Re:Feature not bug by DeBaas · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next headline:
      Bottle of Heineken contains beer, a guy says after opening it...

      now that would be news!

      --
      ---
    2. Re:Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we all know what "Ubuntu" means in African: "I failed to install Debian". Sadly, this also tells you a lot about the sysadmin, err, devops cadre who installed it.

    3. Re: Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be modern Ubuntu with systemd. No wonder they are having so many problems.

    4. Re:Feature not bug by kurkosdr · · Score: 1

      I think the actual news is that the UI is peel-able using methods accessible to the average buyer, which could lead to all kinds of interesting and "interesting" (aka malicious) hacks.

    5. Re:Feature not bug by hawk · · Score: 2

      >This would be news if this guy found Windows 10 in there.

      We would have noticed the crashes by now . . .

      hmm, gives new (and literal . . .) meaning to "blue screen of death"

      hawk

    6. Re:Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we all know what "Ubuntu" means in African: "I failed to install Debian". Sadly, this also tells you a lot about the sysadmin, err, devops cadre who installed it.

      African? Hum, tell us more about that language I have never heard about

    7. Re: Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It originated somewhere north of Mexico, in a secret government bunker codenamed "mom's basement".

    8. Re: Feature not bug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be from the US.

  4. Found the shorter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > Will Tesla brick his car to attempt to disprove the security issue?

    Tesla runs a bug bounty program. Recently there was an article where a guy accidentally social engineered his way to getting admin rights on the tesla forums, and instead of overreacting, they asked him to post on the bug bounty program to get it fixed.

    On top of the web presence shit, their hardware hacking scopes are pretty neat as well. They accept submissions on car/infotainment/hardware flaws, and if you are a bona fide security researcher and ask nicely, they might even take steps to help you unbrick your hardware if you get stuck.

    In my book, that's a decent way to run a bug bounty program.

  5. Doom ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run Doom ?

    1. Re:Doom ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, under dosemu.

    2. Re:Doom ? by MrMr · · Score: 2

      More to the point; it runs GTA under dosemu. Sure beats your standard navigation.

    3. Re:Doom ? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Just as long as it doesn't use the steering wheel and pedals for input

  6. Ransomware coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pay us 5 bitcoin or we will drive your car into oncoming traffic at 100mph.

    1. Re: Ransomware coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The three letter agencies are probably really annoyed that their secret assassination code has been lowered in value. Took literally years to plan the Trump in a Tesla plot and now it's all ruined lol.

  7. tesla's 'car' had no os by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just get in & fly.. pure/energy

  8. Too much tech is risky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its been proven enough times that and software can be hacked. Even encrypted which I don't know if it is enabled in Tesla's software but it should be. If your going to trust a car to drive you around, your going to have to do better about securing that software.

  9. limits with reasons by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason for limiting the range has been pointed out previously, it causes more damage to the battery per charge cycle which makes the the warranty more likely to be invoked due to battery death. If you are voiding your warranty then hey, do whatever you like to your car, just don't expect them to honor the warranty.

    I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) because if they didn't then there is a big security issue with that alone.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: limits with reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do it with gasoline cars as well. It's setup with safe tuning in the ECU regarding air fuel ratios and timings to make a car more reliable to cater for all environments the car will be used in... Thus why you can make extra power from an aftermarket car tuner without any mechanical mods

    2. Re: limits with reasons by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not about environments because modern cars are self tuning and they all have been ever since the addition of the O2 sensor, and mixture control. It's about emissions, MPG, and noise.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:limits with reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Tesla gets away with this because "reasons." Apple pulls reasonable load balancing when the battery degrades and there's hell to pay.

      Calling all Tesla fanbois to defend their beloved company in 3... 2... 1...

    4. Re:limits with reasons by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) because if they didn't then there is a big security issue with that alone.

      They most certainly isolate the infotainment system.

      While it's fairly stable, I've had episodes of unresponsiveness with the infotainment system.

      I've rebooted it (white driving!) by holding down the two scroll wheels on the steering wheel at the same time for ~5 seconds. The system takes about 15-20 seconds to reboot and it does not effect driving performance at all.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    5. Re:limits with reasons by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      That shows separation, not isolation. I can reboot my computer while the servers at /. continue to host the site. Once my computer reboots I can then contact the /. servers. Your experience shows that they are separate computers but there could be a communications path between the two.

    6. Re:limits with reasons by swillden · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) because if they didn't then there is a big security issue with that alone.

      They most certainly isolate the infotainment system.

      While it's fairly stable, I've had episodes of unresponsiveness with the infotainment system.

      I've rebooted it (white driving!) by holding down the two scroll wheels on the steering wheel at the same time for ~5 seconds. The system takes about 15-20 seconds to reboot and it does not effect driving performance at all.

      The fact that you can reboot the infotainment system while driving (I've done it, too), means that the driving systems are not dependent on the infotainment system for normal operation, it doesn't mean they're isolated from the infotainment system. I hope they are, but the one thing doesn't imply the other.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re: limits with reasons by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      They have a bounded range of operation for tuning. That is why if your O2 sensor dies, your car still runs quite well - it is bounded and stays within limits or default values. And open-bounded feedback/self-tuning system would simply destroy itself, or fail to run, if any sensor had a failure.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re: limits with reasons by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The last time I had a bad O2 sensor, the car practically disabled itself and wouldn't go above 2nd gear.

    9. Re:limits with reasons by omnichad · · Score: 1

      They have to leave limited interconnectivity. Most infotainment systems behave differently depending on whether the vehicle is in drive. And they usually need to know is the engine is running or if you're draining the battery.

    10. Re:limits with reasons by swillden · · Score: 1

      They have to leave limited interconnectivity. Most infotainment systems behave differently depending on whether the vehicle is in drive. And they usually need to know is the engine is running or if you're draining the battery.

      That can be done while still ensuring isolation of control signals. You can have a one-way data feed, or even bidirectional communication that is limited to exchanging specific data elements through a sort of mailbox. My guess is that it isn't done that way, though. We already know that the systems from other automakers are not isolated.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:limits with reasons by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope they engineered the car to isolate it's entertainment console from the controls (and computer control systems) ...

      Probably that was their intent. But things don't always get implemented according to the original vision.

      I'm ordinarily in favor of hacking and tinkering. But I'd suggest that messing with the software/firmware in a vehicle that weighs about 2 tonnes, can travel at 140mph and has a battery pack likely containing about 150megajoules. is something that ought to be approached with EXTREME caution. I think it can be done safely and sanely. But it looks like a multiyear project for someone who has a lot of experience with vehicle electronics and software. And it needs to be tested extensively in an isolated location, not a city street.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    12. Re: limits with reasons by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What brand was that? When the O2 in my 1999 Ford Ranger died, it ran fine but would not pass smog check.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re: limits with reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word is âoeaffectâ u dumb fuck. You could google it if you would just take Sundarâ(TM)s IndoDick out of your mouth for a minute.

  10. Separate computers by skoskav · · Score: 2

    It could also mean that if Tesla sells a long-range version of the Model 3, but limits it via software, people might try to remove the block. One could potentially get a 15-day trial of full self-driving for free and extend that 15-day window forever

    I'm pretty sure that all cars are using separate computers for infotainment and motor control - one some consumer-based OS, and another a locked-down real-time OS. It would seem foolhardy to place much more than infotainment in the infotainment system.

    1. Re: Separate computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it might seem efficient to put a sandboxed, walled garden infotainment system in the driving system. This is an American corporation. There's no way they're spending any extra money on a separate computer for security purposes when there's a strong case to be made that software can be made sufficiently secure.

      I think you're right, and separate, discrete computer systems are appropriate, but it's a corporation. Everything is priced to maximize profit, above safety, security, or value.

    2. Re: Separate computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      for security purposes when there's a vaguely plausible case to be made that software can be made sufficiently secure.

      FTFY

    3. Re: Separate computers by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      "There's no way they're spending any extra money on a separate computer for security purposes when there's a strong case to be made that software can be made sufficiently secure."

      You have that backwards, though. It would cost more to make one computer that could do all of those jobs, because integration isn't free. It's actually cheaper to break it up, not least because each piece can be built to different standards.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Separate computers by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I've got a real-time OS (QNX) running my Suburban but while I'd like to think that there's a separate chip running the engine management, I confess to being ignorant. The Megasqurt community would certainly know more...

    5. Re: Separate computers by laird · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly - it's cheaper and easier to build separate computers engineered for separate purposes. Making one computer that can support everything from realtime engine control to playing Atari games on the console, in a way that guarantees that nothing can interfere with the realtime operation of the car is a very hard (likely impossible) engineering problem, when everything is sharing one CPU and memory. For that pragmatic reason, there are many, many computers inside a Tesla, or any other modern car. There's one for running the infotainment system, which controls the UI and sound. There's a dedicated system that manages the batteries. There's the system running AutoPilot. There are dozens of little controllers for sensors and other devices. This allows each system to be engineered to its own needs, be powered on or off separately, replaced by systems from new suppliers, etc.

      In particular, in the Tesla the infotainment system is separate from the system that drives the car. You can even "reboot the car" while driving, and not lose control of the car, because it's only rebooting the infotainment system, but the steering, brakes, etc., keep working.

    6. Re: Separate computers by LostMyAccount · · Score: 1

      Given how cheap fairly powerful system on chip computers are these days, it seems like it wouldn't be very expensive to have discreet computers for car management, infotainment, etc.

      In fact there's probably a reasonable argument that it's actually cheaper to have separate computers from an engineering standpoint; each one can be optimized for its specific function and debugged/improved more easily without having to worry about overhead from other contexts/processes/functionality.

      That being said, I'm kind of surprised somebody like VMware hasn't gotten into this kind of computing application. I can see where it might be cheaper yet to have a car with a 2-3 node hypervisor cluster, giving each computing platform its own VM for isolation and the ability to power down nodes or gain fault tolerance. This might cut computing down without sacrificing some of the engineering advantages of distinct systems.

      My money, though, is on the idea that SoCs are so cheap that there's no real cost savings in eliminating a few of them if it makes the entire computing platform more complicated.

    7. Re: Separate computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can reboot infotainment while on autopilot too. Car carries on driving

    8. Re: Separate computers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In fact there's probably a reasonable argument that it's actually cheaper to have separate computers from an engineering standpoint; each one can be optimized for its specific function and debugged/improved more easily without having to worry about overhead from other contexts/processes/functionality.

      There are tons of reasons to move the intelligence around the vehicle. Take for example climate servos. These used to all be vacuum-driven, now they are mostly gear reduction brushed motors, just like the typical R/C servo. Initially they all used to be just a dumb four-wire device with a pot and a motor, and you'd reverse the motor power in order to reverse the motor. Unfortunately when a flap gets stuck this often results in the HVAC head being damaged because that's where the motor driver is. If you put the controller into the servo itself, then you only need three wires instead of four, so you actually save weight. If you make them all the same then moving the control out of the HVAC head and into the servos won't cost you much. I'm not sure how popular that approach has become at this point, though. My vehicle is old, and it has four-wire servos. But it's clear which approach produces a superior result, and automakers prefer to make a superior system as long as it doesn't cost them anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Separate computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In particular, in the Tesla the infotainment system is separate from the system that drives the car. You can even "reboot the car" while driving, and not lose control of the car, because it's only rebooting the infotainment system, but the steering, brakes, etc., keep working.

      This. There was an attempt to hack a Model S back in DEFCON 23. The hackers explain how they couldn't get into the CAN bus (which hosts the car's controls). It's very interesting and shows how they considered security and how they pretty much have mindshare with sister company SpaceX.

  11. Blatant click bait!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop being a tabloid /.

    The infotainment system is not the car.

  12. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went TFA (I know, I know).

    So he gained root in his infotainment system and changed some things in user space. It's not even clear from TFA whether "running multiple operating systems on his car" means he deployed a VM, a container or what.

    BTW: "multiple operating systems on the car": do any of that guy, TFA's editor or (gasp!) /. editors know *how many* processors are in that car? Just as a rough estimate? 10? 30? 100?

    This is what we get when someone who has barely a clue copy-pastes from someone who has barely a clue.

    Slashdot, you could do better.

  13. Tesla OS on my desktop. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Sweet gaming rig... autopilot those tough racing games. :)

    --
    [($)]
  14. Naaa Run KALI by wolfheart111 · · Score: 2

    Take war driving to a whole knew level. :)

    --
    [($)]
  15. Re:GAY NIGGER GNAA FUCK FELCH NIGGER ASS GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shut up apk

  16. LOL, musk open sores by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That oughta be a blast.

  17. Let me guess by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    "because we can"?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re: Let me guess by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      If you really have to ask, you must be a slashdot editor.

    2. Re: Let me guess by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I had "because we can" attitude 30 years ago. Then I got annoyed of doing things nobody else needed, because "I could". So I stopped being a scientist to become an engineer for real users. Paradoxically, eventually my h-index went up as well :-)

      Science is dead. It's over. What we see as advances in science: 90% is technology, 10% is very, very, very applied science.

      Nobel Prize for Graphene? Come on... We already had it for Fullerenes. Full 7A resolution structure of the ribosome? Impressive, but technical.

      Science is a frontier of human practice. We have limited existence as any material object, so inevitably the frontier is limited and we are getting exponentially close to our limit.

      There are zillion things in the world that could be done but are not done only because we do not have enough people to write a program for it. Another zillion things _are_ done, but we will never know about them because they are poorly marketed (and by poorly I mean "not in a really, really, really innovative way" needed to survive in the world of overproduction).

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  18. Find Him! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And bring him to me!

    His car. He can fuckin do whatever fuckin shit he wants to do with his fuckin car. Except fuck it. He can't do that. Maybe. Enough Musk doobies and booze he might think he could. But don't! Don't FUCK you car. Whatsamatter with these penquinistas that makes them want to FUCK cars? Weirdos!

  19. Finally, what every linux fanatic dreams of by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Funny

    The year of the Dashboard! /s

  20. Why arn't they seporate computers! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    This has always been bugging me. The Information and Entertainment computer for your car shouldn't be part of the same computer that deals with functions of the car primary purpose, to drive, steer, accelerate, break in the most efficient way possible. Most of the features on your entertainment screen in your car you could do with a $20 Raspberry Pi as a separate computer and you can have hard wired read only drive information sent over to it. That way you can have all the internet access and hacking you want without it affecting your actual car.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Why arn't they seporate computers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are separate computers. You can reboot the entire infotainment system while still driving. Oddly, the only thing that stops working is your turn signals while it's rebooting.

    2. Re:Why arn't they seporate computers! by Kelxin · · Score: 1

      They are separate computers. Only thing that doesn't work while it's rebooting is the turning signals.

    3. Re:Why arn't they seporate computers! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Why are those even computer controlled?
      Don't you just need a capacitor and a relay?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  21. News for nerds! [Re:snap included] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    /. is news for nerds! Hacking stuff that isn't designed to be hacked IS what nerds do.

    You must be new here.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  22. Simplification for the general public by tepples · · Score: 1

    They managed to run bash, not "an Ubuntu command shell." There is no such thing anymore than there is "Ford gasoline."

    In context, "an Ubuntu command shell" probably means "Bash as distributed by Ubuntu". It'd be a bit more of a stretch to expand "Ford gasoline" to "the gasoline that the Ford dealer's service department uses, which probably comes from the gas station on the lot next door to the dealer".

    1. Re:Simplification for the general public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could probably be Dash, not Bash.

  23. Windows Embedded Automotive exists by tepples · · Score: 1

    This would be news if this guy found Windows 10 in there.

    How would it be any more news than, say, older versions of Ford Sync based on Windows Embedded Automotive?

    1. Re:Windows Embedded Automotive exists by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It would be news because Tesla has openly stated that their OS is Ubuntu Linux. So if it is actually Windows, then they lied.

  24. full self-driving can't have any time out build in by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    full self-driving can't have any time out build in. Just think of it timing out and then just drop down to cruise control with no one manning the steering.

  25. They are, what made you think they weren't? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    nt

  26. Amazing! by Yosho · · Score: 1

    One could potentially get a 15-day trial of full self-driving for free

    One could potentially enable the car's rocket boosters and fly, or maybe print money out of the dashboard!

    But for now, let's limit ourselves to things that actually exist.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  27. Headline issues by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    For some reason I keep reading this headline as "Tesla 3 NEEDED to run Ubuntu". I'm like "That's not fully open source!".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Stupid by JediJorgie · · Score: 1

    What a stupid thing to do to an expensive car. Once Tesla detects this (and they will) they will lose all access to updates and support destroying any resale value and very likely causing the car to brick itself due to "safety concerns".

    1. Re:Stupid by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      What one person called stupid is another's genius risk-taking.

      For example, you have the autopilot hack here:

      https://www.teslarati.com/tesl...

      There's another guy selling a modification that enhances the newer Tesla's camera systems so you can effectively get a camera view 360 degrees around the vehicle, including a "bird's eye" top down view.

  29. Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run need for speed?

    1. Re:Yeah, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It runs turbo outrun, does it count?