Canuck
Well-Known Member
Yes, I predict the "Speculation on Firmware 7.0" thread will be posted in about a week's time.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 6.0 (beta version discussion)
- Thread starter VHS-or-Beta
- Start date
Yes, I predict the "Speculation on Firmware 7.0" thread will be posted in about a week's time.
True, but is it worth the security risk of knowing that somebody could grab your phone, perhaps duplicate the biometric pattern of your fingerprint, or guess your unlock pattern and then get to your app all before you noticed it?
You don't want to give up the ability to drive home, if you drove away without a fob, which isn't a security risk. There's no risk of theft when you step out of the car with the fob in your pocket, somebody distracts you to ask you a question, while somebody else gets in and drives away. That's because once that person gets out of the car, he won't have the app to restart it.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Or someone could just take your fob (instead of your phone) and drive away without guessing your unlock pattern or duplicating the biometric patern of your fingerprint. Right now that is probably the highest risk every driver faces. Someone can forcibly take your fob during a mugging and drive your car away. But no one talks about that.
Point is, you don't know how they implemented it.
Not really. Features should be prioritized based on a balance of utility and ease of implementation. Each car already needs to have an identifier, whether it's displayed or conveyed to the owner or not. Adding a pointer to an address that stores a string of text is no big deal. Adding something to the display that lets somebody see it or change it is relatively simple. The app already needs to be associated with a specific car. It's one more tiny piece of information. All in all, a good programmer could implement the whole thing in a matter of hours or less if he's working on that section of code anyway.
yea I guess I'm just a little annoyed that the feature list wasn't more comprehensive so I'm moody. lol.
well, they didn't get the REST authentication security right, and even when many people pointed it out a VERY long time ago (what , like 1-2 yrs ago now?), they still haven't corrected it to date. that's a pretty big flaw. plus their website is still subject to brute force authentication attacks....soooo yea it seems like they don't have any knowledge about various software security best practices. who knows, maybe they actually took it a bit further and are using some sort of sync'd RSA key bound to a phone or figured out how to bind a specific tesla app install to phone for identity purposes and if they can identify that requests coming only from that phone then the car be started (such that it wouldn't work from anyone else's phone and also not subject to spoofing of any sort). I have my doubts. I think my concerns are warranted.
But I do know what's typical. That's for a sensor inside the vehicle to make sure that the fob is inside the vehicle itself, and sensors outside assure that it's within two feet of a door or trunk for them to unlock. That way, nobody can drive away without a fob, lock the door with the fob inside by mistake, or have somebody drive away because they are standing near the car. It's also typical for the engine to die if somebody drives away without the fob.
Or break into your house and steal your key, and then the car. That absolutely is the most popular way 'modern' cars are stolen.
At this stage, all we really know is that the feature is likely there, and Tesla has the smarts to make sure it's not a risk. I'm sure it'll be an option as well, for those that are really cautious. The balance of convenience and security is always a challenge. This is a much-requested feature on other threads, and now we're complaining about it, based on some screenshots (as opposed to actual experience) of a 6.0 release of unknown vintage. Let's give it a chance in the wild before shooting it down. Or go buy practically any other car on the market that will never change or improve from the day you buy it.
My wife's phone was doing that, we had apple test the battery and it failed the diagnostic. Go get it checked.
Umm not really. Mercedes and BMW will allow you to keep driving, but with a display that will warn you that no fob is detected inside the car. It will continue to run until the car is turned off, that it will not restart until there is a fob inside the car.
Not on Audi's or Mercedes it's not. You'll get a warning, and will not be able to restart the car, but it doesn't just die.
- - - Updated - - -
Jinx
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I think you missed my point. You were saying a phone could be stolen & hacked into with some effort. I was only pointing out that a fob could be stolen & no hacking required. And no one seemed concerned about that issue.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Couldn't resist posting this...
Oh and I believe Tesla tests different versions of beta FW and what we see in those release notes may, or may not, be the final version. I'd also guess there's not more than one or two beta testers in HI so someone is probably getting kicked off the program.
I find this thread unsatisfying. The most important feature for 6.0 for me remains "unclog the update pipeline" by releasing it (when the quality is ready). As this appears to be a beta set of notes, that feature is missing from this thread.
That's how the Prius (and presumably all Toyotas) work as well. Actually, it would be a safety problem to have it work any other way. If the fob suddenly loses connectivity because it's battery got low or it's been jostled behind a phone, having the car stop would be a big problem. I don't know of any car that works that way, does anyone?
Similar threads
