User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Linux and automotive computing security

Linux and automotive computing security

Posted Oct 15, 2012 14:14 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: Linux and automotive computing security by jimparis
Parent article: Linux and automotive computing security

> Idiotic?

Yes.

> But your entertainment system is the screen where the rear-view backup camera gets displayed.

Personally I have learned to turn my head.

> You need the computer controlling the transmission to be able to tell the computer controlling the entertainment system to start displaying the camera feed.

You can have data that goes one way.

For example it's very common in industrial applications dealing with potentially high voltage to use 'light connectors' to join disparate electrical systems. Basically you just have some infrared transmitters on one side and a infrared sensor on another and thus you can transfer information without a direct electrical connection.

So it's very possible to have a properly functioning gauges and other devices without the ability for any attacker, no matter how determined or skilled, to use your entertainment system to subvert your automobile remotely.

> And I think you'll find that by the time you hit every use case (safety interlocks that prevent changing GPS coordinates while the car is driving,

Idiotic safety controls. If I had something like that on my car I would just turn the GPS off and use my cell phone and google maps, or other equivalent. I don't need anti-features in my car. Driving is hard enough without having to fight my car for control.

> vehicular speed being to augment the GPS in tunnels, etc) you'll find that just about everything gets connected somehow.

Only if it is designed by moronic engineers.


(Log in to post comments)

Linux and automotive computing security

Posted Oct 15, 2012 14:18 UTC (Mon) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

"... optical isolation ..."
"So it's very possible [to do one-way communication]"

The second does not follow from the first. The need for two-way communication comes from application requirements, and can be implemented at the physical level with wires, wireless, two unidirectional optical isolators, whatever.

Linux and automotive computing security

Posted Oct 15, 2012 16:37 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

> Personally I have learned to turn my head.

Check out the new 2012/2013 models. Crash and fuel economy requirements have made deck heights very high and D-pillars very wide. Rearward visibility is suffering mightily.

Linux and automotive computing security

Posted Oct 16, 2012 8:54 UTC (Tue) by njwhite (guest, #51848) [Link]

>> And I think you'll find that by the time you hit every use case (safety interlocks that prevent changing GPS coordinates while the car is driving,
> Idiotic safety controls. If I had something like that on my car I would just turn the GPS off and use my cell phone and google maps, or other equivalent. I don't need anti-features in my car. Driving is hard enough without having to fight my car for control.

I quite agree. I don't know why people want this sort of thing in their cars. Indeed this article in general just made me not want to ever get a car built in the last 10 years. Of all activities, something as dangerous as driving is something I would be least comfortable reducing my control over. Is the only option for those of us who value control in driving now kit cars and antiques?

Linux and automotive computing security

Posted Oct 18, 2012 18:12 UTC (Thu) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link]

Dont worry so much, all these driving helpers are a transient state anyway. Soon you'll just enter your car and relax while it will do all the driving, and even if you would be tempted to drive yourself it would be a bad idea because most lanes on the highway will be closed to human drivers due to security reasons.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds