Watch how hackers can take control of your car

[KeepItReal]

From Autoblog:

When meeting a duo of computer hackers for the very first time, we imagine hearing the words "We want to convince you that we can hurt you – without hurting you," is bound to release the hounds of anxiety upon your mental makeup. At least, it would ours. And it's those words, uttered by Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek to Forbes staff reporter Andy Greenberg, that introduce us to the reality that modern-day cars can indeed be hacked.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/07/24/watch-how-hackers-can-take-control-of-your-car/

[99th_Monkey]

1. One more reason that all I drive are 90s junkers.

I couldn't help being curious about these folks having "lots of money to play around with" because
they are somehow related to "DARPA/DoD".

A very chilling development. How very handy for assassins. Who needs guns anymore?
This is all so "nice and clean" .. rather like murdering people with drones.

[zeemike]

3. Me too.

A 91 is my new one.
And not because I am afraid I could be hacked, I just don't like all that crap on the new ones.

[99th_Monkey]

4. My dad refused to buy new cars with automatic-shift transmissions,

always purchased a "stick-drive" .. .saying "damn new-fangled shit ..
just has more things that can go wrong with it ... "

[zeemike]

6. Well my 91 does have an automatic trany

But my 86 PU has a manual 4 speed and I don't think it is all that hard to shift the gears...
But I understand how your dad feels.

[99th_Monkey]

8. My 92 "Olds-88" has an automatic trans. too

it also is crudely "computerized" .. I think it was the first year
they started computerizing stuff. it tells me "good morning" no
matter what time of day or night it is.

My last car was a 93 Honda 4-speed "stick", which I don't think
was computerized at all, but i could be wrong about that.

[zeemike]

12. My 91 Chevy has a computer

But the only thing it does is engine functions I think..if it tried to speak to me I would have shut it up for good.

[99th_Monkey]

14. LOL. nt

[ellenfl]

48. i drive a 95 camry. been saying for years that i want a fully manual car. don't like all the

computers. i have been considering a new car but really don't want all the new junk. to much to go bad. decisions, decisions.

[Progressive dog]

2. Nobody"ll notice the guy with the computer

in the back seat.

[99th_Monkey]

5. He could have been sitting ANY-fucking-where dude, and you know it.

why do you deliberately try to besmirch certain OPs, generally ones that
are taking the mask off the ongoing Corporate Coup d'état?

[Progressive dog]

28. No he couldn't, see he has to have his computer

connected to the car's computers.
I don't know what to say to something as funny as this.

that
are taking the mask off the ongoing Corporate Coup d'état?

Some people have much too little time to spend learning how stuff works.

Yes, a regular car could be converted to remote control, we even build DRONES, but connecting those car DRONES to the controllers requires lots of electronics inside the car. It's just flat amazing that if the NSA wanted to kill somebody, they wouldn't just do it the old fashioned way with a bomb or bullet. You guys would figure out how they did it anyway.

[Civilization2]

29. The computers they where using are already in the car,. the laptops are just interfacing.

The interface could just as easily be a wireless transmitter, they could be in a vehicle behind or miles away from the target car. Could be no wireless used at all, just another tiny device installed, and they put the "auto-park" on when the car is at high speed on a winding mountain road (using GPS info.).

The implementations of what they are showing here are limitless, the point is, as they said, there are around 30 small computers controlling all aspects of modern cars. Things like the acceleration and brakes have been "fly by wire" for some time. That is, the peddles only send a signal to the CPU, and it does the acceleration/braking, there is no physical connection! And as they showed here, there is not a need to wire up anything special to get control of steering now as "parking assist" is exactly this,. steering is now done through the computer so even this can be hacked.

This site shows simple hacks, but many involve tiny wireless and computer installations;

http://hackaday.com/

[Progressive dog]

30. Sure, little single use asics took control of the car without

needing the control computer in the backseat.

The implementations of what they are showing here are limitless,

Airplanes, cars, computers, and even drones have limitless possibilities. That doesn't mean that because toasters have computer chips, they can jump off the counter and burn you to death. When you find a video that actually shows the car computers being used to deliberately crash a car, let me know.

This site shows simple hacks, but many involve tiny wireless and computer installations;

How many computer installations have they found in crashed cars, oh I get it, magic disappearing computer installations.

[Civilization2]

31. The video in the original post shows the ability to crash a car. Watch it.

Without investigating for the computers how would they be found? People don't find what they are not looking for.

It would also be trivial to add a small fire starting charge to said device. Hastings car burst into flame BTW.

I have witnessed a car fire first hand, not much left in 5-10 minutes, as most of the car including the electronics is rather flame friendly. Charred metal and broken glass,. not much else.

[Progressive dog]

32. Remote control cars exist and videos of them exist

that doesn't mean that because cars have computers in them that they are remote control. It's a simple concept. Cars that are not built to be remotely controlled require the addition of the "remote control stuff" to be remote controlled.
It makes good science fiction, reality not so much.
Did you know that DARPA ran contests for robotic vehicle designs? Think about the uses the NSA/CIA would have for that.

[Civilization2]

34. You really have not watch the video in this original post have you?

The WHOLE point of the video is that modern cars are no longer controlled directly. There are intermediate computers in the path of control, i.e fly-by-wire. As I have stated, several times now, with the advent of "assisted parking" this includes the steering! No "remote control stuff" is needed,. only a tiny hack in the current control system.

They need not "control the car", only jerk the wheel, apply some acceleration, and disengage the braking,. or perhaps just deploy the airbags when the car is at high speed?

[Progressive dog]

35. The point is bull--the demo using a computer proves

it is bull. Stuff does not work by miracles, science fiction is fiction. They have to use a controller, attached to the computer bus in the car. Controllers are physical things, they require space. It'd be so much easier to cut the brake lines or plant a bomb, tried and true techniques that also send a message.
Of course if you have unlimited access to a car, you can turn it into a remote control car. You can't do it either easily or undetectably. We already build remote control cars, these guys used a computer in the back seat.

[blackspade]

37. If you watch the last bit of the clip....

you can see that the computer is not hardwired to the car.
They are doing it via wireless.
They never said that they were using an added controller, rather they were using the car's own systems controllers which was the whole point.

[Progressive dog]

40. So they hooked up wireless to the car's bus,

it didn't come with the car. I think they might use wireless on those drones too, I've never seen a tether in the videos.
They are not using the car's own systems to control it, the control is added-just like the wireless.
The only things that they control are things the car computer controls and obviously they must supply the same inputs to the controller that would have come from sensors in the car, like the ones that give steering wheel position, brake pedal pressure etc. Maybe they could get that Yuri (I bend spoons with my mind) guy to steer the car for them.

[blackspade]

41. And where are you getting this info?

No where do they say they hooked anything up to the car.
The point of the video is that they can hack the control systems of the car.

[Progressive dog]

42. If you want to believe that your car has a magic wireless

portal to override the sensor inputs, then continue to do so. I'll bet the NHTSA would love to know about it, it sounds pretty dangerous to me.
I'll even bet you could find someone to show statistically that there were more car crashes near wireless hubs.

[blackspade]

43. So in other words, you have no info to refute the OP.

So you use conjecture and distraction to support your point.

Most new cars come equipped with wireless these days, so there is no need to install a receiver in a car.

[Progressive dog]

44. I can't refute the science of miracles,

reality never trumps faith.
Bullshit

Most new cars come equipped with wireless these days, so there is no need to install a receiver in a car.

The wireless is not on "most cars", it uses bluetooth with very limited range, and it is connected to the media player not the computer bus. I have voice control on a navigation system and you can't crash my car by yelling at it.
Nice try.

[blackspade]

46. Your understanding of the newest models of cars is obviously lacking.

But whatever floats your boat. Enjoy your happy illusions about technology.

[Civilization2]

51. They are hacking into the computer already in the car,.

that computer HAS CONTROL of the brakes, the acceleration, and the steering (due to parking "assist&quot , and more,. They are not "installing" any devices merely hacking what is already in the car.

Yes in this demonstration they are using laptops to issue commands to the cars computers, and get info back, however this could be a tiny device the size of a thumb-drive installed in the car at any time,. (overnight,when the car in in a garage, say) How difficult that would be, is open to debate,. however your belief that they are adding new control hardware to the car is simply wrong. That is the WHOLE POINT of the video, these computers already function this way.

Yes, there could be "easier" ways to kill someone,. but doing it this way could provide the needed cover of plausible deniability,. i.e. comments like "well that would be too much effort", "probably he was drunk",. and help confound the ignorant with comments like "how could they install all the ""remote control gear"" into the car?" or any other disinformation you choose.

The point of the video is to show that car hacking is possible and dangerous.

[Progressive dog]

52. No they aren't, they need the added computer

the car has multiple computers, not one.

The point of the video is to show that car hacking is possible and dangerous.

The point of the video is to sensationalize car hacking. They have to have access to the car, they have to add electronics ( I know, you think the video with the computer somehow proves the computer wasn't necessary) and then they can only control the stuff that is under computer control. Then the added equipment will stil be there and be as obvious as a cut brake line.

[Civilization2]

53. computers are rather small these days,.

"Yes in this demonstration they are using laptops to issue commands to the cars computers, and get info back, however this could be a tiny device the size of a thumb-drive installed in the car at any time,. (overnight,when the car in in a garage, say) How difficult that would be, is open to debate,. however your belief that they are adding new control hardware to the car is simply wrong."

[Progressive dog]

55. They still have to connect which means

splicing it into the bus. Probably take hours to install and test and then the only control it will have will be over the functions already existing in the car. Without RF connection, there will be no remote control.

[intaglio]

39. One minor problem

They had to have access to the electronics beforehand. Note that all through this demo the fascia is off and that at the start they explained that it is difficult to get that access.

[DeSwiss]

17. They might miss the guy in the car behind them, though. :-| n/t

[phantom power]

7. They were laughing a lot. I laughed somewhat less.

[99th_Monkey]

10. Giggly like school children. <-- also got my attention. eom

[Civilization2]

9. Yea, Michael Hastings was drunk/suicidal,. right?

Clearly any "suspicious" car deaths should be considered VERY suspicious these days,. .

[99th_Monkey]

11. Did you catch the "DARPA/DoD" references?

more than a little suspicious if you ask me,
which you didn't, but still ...

[DeSwiss]

16. Bingo.

- Keyword: DARPA.

[PDJane]

13. I wasn't laughing at all. The business that they are still investigating with Michael Hastings

and the conspiracy theory doesn't, right now, seem so far fetched.

There were any number of people who might have wished him dead, some in the military....

[99th_Monkey]

15. Gen Petraeus comes to mind

"It's unclear what "big story" Hastings was working on prior to his death, but it might have to do with yet another military bigwig, this time retired general David Petraeus.

The LA Times reported that Hastings was researching a story about a privacy lawsuit brought by Jill Kelley, the Florida socialite who took center stage in the Petraeus cheating scandal, against the Department of Defense and the FBI. According to a person close to Kelley, the paper said, Hastings had plans to meet a representative of hers to discuss the case next week."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/22/michael-hastings-email_n_3484118.html

[2naSalit]

18. Indeed.

I suspected, back when that story was fresh, that there was some other reason than a sex scandal as the actual reason for the general's resignation. Had to be something more significant than what we were led to think. Hastings was probably on the right track and was taken out of the picture to keep it covered up. I suspect that Ms. Kelley wasn't happy about being one of the scapegoats in all that as it must have truncated her little gig that was paying for her pretend "status" she so enjoyed at the expense of others... she was probably ready to spill the beans but is more easily kept under the radar than an investigative reporter who isn't so easily cowed.

[99th_Monkey]

19. Hastings wasn't the first "unfortunate tragedy" associated with General P.

Meet Col. Ted Westhusing, who by all accounts was a passionately ethical advocate for transparency
and cleaning up corruption in Iraq. In fact, that was precisely Westhusing's job, until he turns up
mysteriously dead in his trailer one morning. He was working directly under General P.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/36661/general-petraeuss-link-troubling-suicide-iraq-ted-westhusing-story#axzz2a0xj6xST

[2naSalit]

21. Oh yeah...

I almost forgot about his unfortunate "suicide".... Thanks for the reminder. There's so much stink on this heap of poo that our governing group is slinging at us anymore that I am finding it hard to believe that I'm not existing on top of a feed lot that hasn't been bulldozed out for a decade or so.

[Historic NY]

27. Except you missed the key part of the whole story at your link.....

UPDATE: Hastings' wife, Elise Jordan, tweeted that her late husband was not working on a story about Kelley at the time of his death.

"Since I've seen it erroneously reported a few times: (at)mmhastings was not working on a story about Jill Kelley," Jordan wrote. She declined a request for further comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/michael-hastings-jill-kelley-reporting_n_3502003.html

[99th_Monkey]

50. I notice she "declined further comment"

i.e. she declined to say what Mr. Hastings WAS working on,
so who fucking knows?

[drynberg]

20. LAUGHING? NOT IN THE LEAST

My goodness, this was not fun and games, but a sample of how Michael was murdered. Serious as a tax audit, or a lethal prognosis at ole doc's office. Most cars are newer and therefore vulnerable...not funny at all.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. NOTHING TO SEE HERE, PEOPLE... KEEP MOVING...

[wandy]

23. Well, if you really need a Vincent Foster maybe you can come give me a hand and,,,,,

Ya, you remember Vincent Foster , da Clintons offed him. Remember?
So here it is. I have this 20 year old Do**g* in desperate need of an new initiation switch. No big deal, this is the second time around. I know what to do.
We're going to 'hack a car'. Even at 20 flippin years old it is 'puter' controlled.
So first we will remove the '23 screws' and take off the dash panel. 23 screws and it falls out in you're hands. Right! Better order beer and Pizza.
Now, were doing a hack here so we have to get to the ignition switch. You did remember to to bring along the wheel puller, didn't you?
Oh wait, we're going to screw up the anti lock braces. We need access the body control computer. That's hidden somewhere in the drivers side door post. Let's tear all that apart.
So now here we are. We have a 'puter' controlled car spread out over three of the neighbors lawns and we can now proceed to hook up our lap top and 'hack' into it such that it will run it's self into a tree at a high speed.
Fortunately, I have tolerant neighbors. They have putt up with this type of stuff before.

Then and again, if you really wanted to fug up someones ride would it not have been easier to do it the old fashion way.
Not to give anyone ideas but, hacksaw, break-line?

Wouldn't it be easier to check Obamas lower left hand desk drawer to see if you might not find a 'blew dress'?

[zebonaut]

24. Needed: One big Manual Disengage Button

Just add a manual control override

[midnight]

33. That's a very good suggestion.... I would think that this video is the proof that indicates that

an override is another important safety feature...

[struggle4progress]

25. "... The next frightening step down the rabbit hole, which is outlined in the video below, involves

entering into a Toyota Prius that looks like a science project gone wrong – missing dash, wires hanging down and a laptop computer hiding in the back seat ..."

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. Kick for exposure. n/t

[blackspade]

36. Holy shit.

That is terrifying. I like my old car more and more now!

[joanbarnes]

38. Planes too. Don't forget the mysterious plane crashes, Wellstone, Carnahan, Connell....

[Jesus Malverde]

45. Interesting Video...nt

[ellenfl]

47. michael hastings? eom

[MrMickeysMom]

49. accurate comparison on his strange crash

Of course, I'll been seen wearing one of these!

[ellenfl]

54. lol, me too! if these guys can do this . . . eom