I will wonder what a hacker would get after breaking into ECUs of automobiles. In my opinion looking at the primary purpose of a car that's transport, the manufacturer would never let electronics take the upper hand in security and safety of the vehicle. People if using smartphone inside car may not always keep its network freely accessible.
But yes its great that the hackers researched the option. Precautions are always better than cure.
Just as an aside, my bet is that if the automakers are overly concerned about people hacking into their electronics, it's not mostly for the reasons assumed in these various car hacking threads. My bet is, the automakers are trying to defend aginst onwners of these vehicles "adjusting" their cars, e.g. to extract better performance. The few scary examples, like remotely incapacitating brakes, are most likely the exception to this, not the rule.
An obvious example is the speed limiter. Cars are often speed-limited on purpose, so the manufacturer can legally install lower grade tires as standard equipment. If the car goes too fast, a tire fails, and the owner sues, the manufacturer doesn't want to be dragged into court by the hacker-owner who was the actual culprit.
Ditto for any modifications that might cause premature failure or wear of any other component. That's my bet.
But once again, should I list the type of mischief that a mechanic could create, even in ancient cars that aren't full of ECUs? How many people check for these things?
Either intentionally, or just cluelessly. I already mentioned, for example, improperly bleeding the brake lines, after doing brake work. Does your average owner get under the car and re-bleed the brake lines, before driving the car? I doubt it. Or, pouring contaminated brake fluid into the reservoir (or pouring fluid into a reservoir that was left open and gathered dirt), after doing brake work. Does the average owner check for that? Countless examples like that.
So, what safeguards do we have against these threats? Any at all? Or does no one know that the above examples can both cause sudden and unexpected brake failure?
Who cares about hacking a car? Hacking an ATM is where the money is.
So whats the purpose? To somehow make the car crash or make it easy to steal, or to change the inflation readout of the tires ? Maybe to change the station on the radio? The next article should be people concerned with hacking their thermostats or their clock radio's at home. Millions of people could be late to work if hackers were succesful at changing others home alarm clocks.
Currently all securuty sytem with CAN Based, i.e Only Data Once you hack the encryption information then it is easy to hack the device.
in compuers the security is very high because no memory and processoring time, in case vehicel might run not more than 500Mhz. so incorporing huge algorthems to unsecur is verydifficult. even incorporate anybody can see on CAN. to avoid this hackins, 1st need to improve the Security system. like dynamic security system. data trasferon can also encryption data shoud be use.something like this.... i am not expert in security system.
I was wondering how some guy broke my 2011 model car and pilfered devices. I wanted to google how they did it. But this explains it all. But it is surprising, some teenage kid can do this. He broke quite few cars.
Much is being made of the fact that an attached device was used in the cited technical paper. Actually the device could easily have been hidden within the vehicle and be missed by the regular driver. Nobody (yet) checks for unexpected connections to the diagnostic computer port and the wires leading up to it. It is good this dialogue is beginning as automotive networks become ubiquitous. I hope that the insights gained will protect against the extremely unlikely hackers. More importantly, perhaps they will protect against the much more probable systemic failures that have not been anticipated but will inevitably unfold through time.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.