keyless car theft

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I guess this only works if you ticked the 'keyless entry' option.. Can't beat a button press!!
 
I guess I'm surprised that you're surprised. It's a computer system basically, it'll get hacked eventually. As a IT guy, I'm genuinely worried about the amount of software inside cars these days. It makes me very nervous.
 
morfa, you'll be looking forward to OTA updates then!! What could possibly go wrong ;)
 
Software has been in cars for years, its the dodgy linking of systems with a somewhat slack attitude to cyber security that is of concern.

By all means have systems that can report back, just sack off the OTA idea :lol:
 
Simple solution to 95% of vulnerable key fobs would be for the key fob to turn off on no-motion detection. If you've hung your key up there's no need for it to transmit its presence, therefore preventing the radio-proxy from being able to relay the signal.
 
defsdoor":1kk8biw9 said:
Simple solution to 95% of vulnerable key fobs would be for the key fob to turn off on no-motion detection. If you've hung your key up there's no need for it to transmit its presence, therefore preventing the radio-proxy from being able to relay the signal.
Just a micro switch in the key to turn it off would do the trick.
 
It's fun to be an early adopter for some stuff, perhaps not so great for new tech that does things in the real world !

The security in everything from new cars to network-enabled kids toys is pretty appalling - too often it's a design afterthought rather than built into the core of the thing, who needs security on a prototype, but there's never time/budget to put it in properly later unless you're forced to.

I do IT in real life, well, sometimes - we generally have penetration tests by external 'white hat' hackers before clients sign their new web application off and put anything real into it; there's always something for them to find first time around even when the security has been a major issue on everyone's mind since day 1.
 
There are some interesting things to consider with cars and computers.

Suppose the car detects a crash about to happen, cannot be avoided. It could hit the wall and kill only the driver, or plough into the bus queue and save the driver but kill several innocent bystanders. What should it do? Would there be a market for 'augmented' decision making (favouring the driver)? Who would be 'guilty'? The original programmer? The person who upgraded the software? The car owner?

"our basic model, sir, always tries to minimise harm to the third parties, the premium version costs a little more but weighs up the merits of the situation and looks for the least overall harm. The executive version does have a higher price tag sir, but values you life above all other considerations..... oh a very wise choice sir"

I can see the lawyers loving this.

It has already been mooted that failure to apply a 'safety-critical' software patch to an autonomous car could make the driver/owner liable instead of the car manufacturer. What happens if you are driving at the time the update is published? Do you suddenly become liable without knowing it? Do you have to stop and apply the update? What happens if you are not 'in signal' How could you prove it?

I want my car computer-free, please. I am not a luddite - I write software and own mobile phones and such. If a phone goes wrong and you cant see Ar$3B00k then its no big deal (even a benefit). But something going wrong with software controlling a ton or two of metal travelling at 70mphwith me in it? No thank you.

Thankfully I live in the back of beyond where a computer will be hard pressed to work out where the edges of the roads are (difficult enough for a human at times), so we will get the full effect of the technology last. I hope.
 
phil.p":1lf58d2c said:
I find the prospect of driverless cars amusing - the government should be thinking to replace all train drivers first - which would be easy (except for the unions).

Excellent idea.... If we cannot make driverless trains safe - an environment where most variables can be controlled - how can we hope to make driverless cars safe? So completely automated trains make a good stepping-stone to completely automated road vehicles.

How many people would feel comfortable as a passenger on a driverless train? It would be an interesting thing to study. I wonder if I am unusual in distrusting the capabilities of the software programmers. Maybe because I am one?
 
An interesting Q&A I've just read in Saturday's Telegraph -

Q/ A friend has had his BMW stolen. Do any cars have fingerprint recognition technology for the ignition? If so, is it theft proof?
A/ It's coming. However, there will always have to be a default that disengages the system for parking, servicing etc. - and as soon as criminals find their way around the default, they'll still steal cars. BMW's new key system/smartphone app gets closest, because the owner can switch off the engine via smartphone.

How long before a hacker switches the engine off on an innocent owner, or how long before an owner ends up in court for causing an accident when they've switched it off on a thief?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top