-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
green1
Active Member
Actually, this sort of "vulnerability" is something we should ALL hope that Tesla never "patches."
It is completely useless for any nefarious purpose as, if you have that level of access to the car, you can already do a whole lot worse to it without doing this.
Meanwhile it allows people to actually have some modicum of control over their own property.
There is lots of upside to this, and absolutely zero downside.
Unfortunately I know Tesla's stance on this, they are extremely customer hostile in this regard.
Depends on what you mean by control. If it breaks something that Tesla supports, or impacts the safety of the vehicle then there is significant downside.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
green1
Active Member
If it breaks something that Tesla supports, they do not have to provide warranty coverage for the thing that was broken. That's understood, and legally explicit.
As for safety of the vehicle, I don't get your argument, I could pull the brakes off the car and Tesla couldn't stop me, that DEFINITELY affects the safety, but you think they should lock me out of the software? If I have physical access to the vehicle, which is kind of a given being that I'm driving it, I can do LOTS of things that "affect the safety" and not only can Tesla not stop me, as a society we have decided that they shouldn't stop me, this is the basis of right to repair laws, and warranty laws that prohibit voiding warranty if I modify things. Yet as soon as it's software people get all panicky and think we should do everything the opposite way? There's no difference between software and hardware for what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do. I own the car, Tesla doesn't. In the world of physical objects everyone is ok with that, we need people to be ok with that in the world of software too or we are in for a very distopian future.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Reminds me of this article, where it also mentioned Tesla had patched a Ubuntu vulnerability:
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/researchers-hacked-model-s-teslas-already/
I suspect that the vulnerability mentioned here has been patched or if not and it's reported, it will be patched shortly. There is no advantage to Tesla to leave it unpatched. Any vulnerability is bad in the media and public eye and people may not bother to look at the details.
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/researchers-hacked-model-s-teslas-already/
I suspect that the vulnerability mentioned here has been patched or if not and it's reported, it will be patched shortly. There is no advantage to Tesla to leave it unpatched. Any vulnerability is bad in the media and public eye and people may not bother to look at the details.
I really don't see this as a "freedom" issue like that. Some of these changes that you may want to make could have unintended consequences that result in damage to someone else's property or worse someone gets hurt. Let's say you install a browser that has vulnerabilities that, unbeknownst to you, gets hacked remotely and disables your brakes. Warranty laws don't help anyone in that instance. They certainly don't help me if I'm impacted by your decisions. I'm not saying Tesla controls everything just some things.
green1
Active Member
Let's say you install some new brakes, but you do it improperly and they don't work right, someone manages to get hurt of killed. This is explicitly legal, and as a society we have decided that people should have the right to replace their own brakes, several laws have been written to support this right. How is this any different? it is exactly the same thing.
Worse yet, imagine you get your way and Tesla is allowed to lock us all out of working on our software, now imagine someone finds a flaw in their existing browser that allows them to remotely disable the brakes (the same situation you're talking about), now imagine Tesla acts like the big automakers and refuses to fix it. Now imagine that someone had the know how to fix the issue, but wasn't allowed to because Tesla said so. This is every bit as likely as your scenario, and worries me a lot more.
- - - Updated - - -
Except that there is no advantage to us for Tesla to patch it, and only disadvantages. As a user it is extremely beneficial to have control over the things I own.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Companies in general have taken a different view on this, sadly. The cat and mouse game with rooting iPhones, Android phones, TiVos, all kinds of other devices. The brief attempt to prevent you from running your own software build on your WiFi router... companies are always afraid that someone is going to sue them. And the way things are set up where you can pretty much sue anyone for any reason, the lawyers are pushing companies were strongly to avoid even perceived risk.
So yes, I'm pretty sure that they would aim to patch any entry vector the wk057 may have found. Which may be part of why he's hesitant to disclose it
green1
Active Member
This isn't new. companies previously tried exactly the same things with hardware, it took laws to get them to stop. As a society we need to get past this idea that software is somehow "different". Adding "on a computer" to an existing process doesn't make it a new and novel concept.Companies in general have taken a different view on this, sadly. The cat and mouse game with rooting iPhones, Android phones, TiVos, all kinds of other devices. The brief attempt to prevent you from running your own software build on your WiFi router... companies are always afraid that someone is going to sue them. And the way things are set up where you can pretty much sue anyone for any reason, the lawyers are pushing companies were strongly to avoid even perceived risk.
So yes, I'm pretty sure that they would aim to patch any entry vector the wk057 may have found. Which may be part of why he's hesitant to disclose it
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Software and hardware is different however. With software you get into the issues of copyright, licensing, and DMCA, while you don't with hardware.
And let's make it clear, patching vulnerabilities is expected and there are no laws to "stop" it. Nothing in the law is preventing Apple from patching holes that make jailbreaking possible nor Tesla from doing the same here.
What has happened is the Library of Congress grants temporary exemptions to the DMCA in terms of copyright violations (as relevant here for jailbreaking and for reversing engineering car software). Keep in mind that these are temporary and must be renewed every few years.
green1
Active Member
Yes, many evil companies have used these laws as ways to bypass the existing laws that protect consumers from this sort of tyranny. That is why they wrote those laws, and bought enough politicians to pass them. It is also why we, as a society, must fix this.
Tedkidd
Member
So, for those unfamiliar with Jack Rickard, he's a curmudgeonly old guy who loves everything EV. His videos can be a bit tedious but I think he's brilliant and hilarious. He's been discussing this right to repair stuff and his argument is really well stated and compelling:
Right to Repair - Why it Matters... - EVTV Motor Verks
Starting below the video - excerpt:
"I’m in full enraged rant and rail over the temerity of the existing automobile manufacturers as they come out of the closet and actually publicly proclaim that THEY own the software and information you need to repair or modify your vehicle, and YOU not only do not, but are patently and by blanket endorsement NOT QUALIFIED to work on your own car and should in a right world be BARRED FROM ATTEMPTING it as a matter of law and good public policy. Only THEY are actually competent to make any repair to your vehicle, no matter how minor. It’s hard to speak on camera in between bouts of PROJECTILE VOMIT. But I’ve had a week of reading through smarmingly greasy legalese couched in unctious appeals to the public good and the safety of poor innocents everywhere greasily coating abject unabashed demands for greed and money perpetuating the victim status of the American consumer. That it is obviously badly written by the grossly incompetent is small consolation. I suppose I am relieved to see that it is so unapologetically self serving that I can rely on the native intelligence of government bureaucrats to readily see through it and rule against them."
Discussed in this video at around minute 19:
https://youtu.be/YL55yIQhHnA?t=19m28s
Entertaining bit about "The right to be from Massachusetts:"
https://youtu.be/HfRAwLpeH2w?t=1h17m37s
And if you want to check old episodes for stuff: EVtv The "Friday Show" Index
I suspect we'll be seeing episodes of some guy named "Jason Hughes" YouTube videos referenced by Jack in upcoming episodes....
Right to Repair - Why it Matters... - EVTV Motor Verks
Starting below the video - excerpt:
"I’m in full enraged rant and rail over the temerity of the existing automobile manufacturers as they come out of the closet and actually publicly proclaim that THEY own the software and information you need to repair or modify your vehicle, and YOU not only do not, but are patently and by blanket endorsement NOT QUALIFIED to work on your own car and should in a right world be BARRED FROM ATTEMPTING it as a matter of law and good public policy. Only THEY are actually competent to make any repair to your vehicle, no matter how minor. It’s hard to speak on camera in between bouts of PROJECTILE VOMIT. But I’ve had a week of reading through smarmingly greasy legalese couched in unctious appeals to the public good and the safety of poor innocents everywhere greasily coating abject unabashed demands for greed and money perpetuating the victim status of the American consumer. That it is obviously badly written by the grossly incompetent is small consolation. I suppose I am relieved to see that it is so unapologetically self serving that I can rely on the native intelligence of government bureaucrats to readily see through it and rule against them."
Discussed in this video at around minute 19:
https://youtu.be/YL55yIQhHnA?t=19m28s
Entertaining bit about "The right to be from Massachusetts:"
https://youtu.be/HfRAwLpeH2w?t=1h17m37s
And if you want to check old episodes for stuff: EVtv The "Friday Show" Index
I suspect we'll be seeing episodes of some guy named "Jason Hughes" YouTube videos referenced by Jack in upcoming episodes....
Last edited:
As someone who spent countless hours on the phone with my parents over the years trying to remotely fix their computers, I don't agree with your statement.
Or VLC Player if the car is in park
(Everyone asks why you can't watch video content on the screen, it seems a valid assumption )I like the idea of using the pedal/wheel position sensors for gaming though. Maybe an aux HDMI input with Gran Turismo hooked up to an on board Playstation, you could race your virtual Tesla whilst Supercharging your real one
Tedkidd
Member
OH S#!T - EVTV Friday Show - December 18, 2015 - YouTube
EVTV just published, and minute 38 there's a familiar video with a yellow Tesla in the background!
EVTV just published, and minute 38 there's a familiar video with a yellow Tesla in the background!
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
I'm having flashbacks of the middle school computer lab. A buddy and I did all the setup and then we had LAN parties! I tip my hat to you Jason!
