Bluetooth relay attacks allow Tesla Model 3 / Y to be unlocked and driven away
research.nccgroup.com
research.nccgroup.com
Something for people who sympathise with [0]
> Tech enthusiasts: My entire house is smart.
> Tech workers: The only piece of technology in my house is a printer and I keep a gun next to it so I can shoot it if it makes a noise I don't recognize
[0] https://twitter.com/ppathole/status/1116670170980859905?lang...
No touch screen, only key ignition, no OTA. Spartan electric city car.
According to here anyway,
https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-plans-restart-sale...
VW only offers the ID.4 here, which is a ridiculously huge car.
1/ extremely light on software and
2/ not controlled by a centralized corporation which will expose your whereabouts to the whole world in case of problems.
Even actual brand name e-bikes regularly catch on fire, to a point where fire departments warn against them [1]. I would not even dare to build myself an e-bike from Aliexpress components - you have no idea at all how solid the battery protection systems are, how well-made the cells are or if they are outright forgeries, or how well the cells are matched to the battery protection system.
[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/electric-bikes/how-to-preven...
Does the motor work if you're not actively pedaling ?
Does it make more than 250w ?
If you answered yes to any of these you need a valid driver's license, an insurance, a plate and mandatory helmet.
If someone's wallmart bike with a 1200w aliexpress "push button" motor end up injuring/killing someone (due to undersized brakes, snapping chain, &c.) I'm sure a great deal of people will care about them
If i understand bike law correctly, for offroad biking you can use anything, but ofcourae if you rig together something stupidly dangerous and cause an accident, a court will take dim view of it.
And you're also over-estimating the number of people who will care when that conversion happens. Because odds are when someone does have a mechanical failure and mow down an elderly lady it will be preceded by a bunch of stupid decisions not having anything to do with that mechanical failure and contrary to what you may believe based on HN/Reddit/Twitter commentary, the general populace is well aware that you can't legislate away stupid.
And as others have said, there's a mechanical aptitude bar to entry for using those kits that make them less common than you're implying they are.
Then don't. Nobody's forcing you. I built several, have ridden 12000+ km, am still alive and could not be happier or feel more free.
The main risk is burning down you house, if the bike is kept in a separate shed or bike storage, then it is minimised
Dont forget that sone people store petrol in their House , and its legal.
This is not an Apple thing... For ages CPUs and I think GPUs, too, are basically the same thing between many different models.
Then more expensive versions just get more cores unlocked, higher frequency allowed, etc.
But the thing now with "pay to unlock more cores" is... interesting.
They'd probably love to turn that into a subscription, too.
I think Intel abused this at least once, back in the days when they had ridiculously good yields across the board, but let's not generalize in absence of evidence.
That's called binning, the unit goes through some testing and components that don't pass get shunted away (hardware or firmware) because they're known to behave incorrectly. Better that than throwing it into a trash.
Blow the fuse/hack the firmware and you can unlock these because the hardware is there, but it's likely that it doesn't operate entirely correctly (especially under duress), even though it may appear to work at first blush.
https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918
A solid mechanism to enable/disable these features on demand would make the situation a lot better. You could pay just for the upgrade instead of the whole chip, either permanently or only when you need it and pay per use.
But the reality is that in practice this mechanism will probably not work to the advantage of the end user. It will focus entirely on the company's bottom line and open up new avenues for abuse. If your hardware is linked to a license and to the manufacturer forever, you'll never own it. Unless the legal framework enforces the rights of the consumer under threat of drastic fines for the manufacturer, we're just forgoing real ownership.
Huh? it's not like you pay more for hardware that's always been present. You get exactly the same CPU from entry level M1 to fully specc'd M1. It's not like you could turn a M1 into a M1 Pro or a M1 Max by flicking a switch or blowing a fuse, because the hardware is just not there.
Compare that with BMW who builds and sells cars with heater seats that you software unlock, but the hardware is already there, which is ridiculous. At that point all cars could have it enabled and it would barely make a dent in the price as the uniform assembly line that produces economies of scale is already in place. This is what Mazda is doing, basically you have two, maybe three trim levels, sometimes only one, fully specc'd, and that's it.
At that point you can spread the cost over 1000 instead of keep selling 800 at a higher price to cover for the 200. I also guess Pareto goes the other way (200 heated + 800 non-heated), which only makes it worse.
Person from Minnesota drives their car down to Florida and sells it. Buyer has no need for the car's heated seats & steering wheel, so it goes unused. Are you saying this is a problem?
https://lwn.net/Articles/884876/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394918
I don't think the big players have the same intentions though.
I hope people don't buy these subscriptions and auto manufacturers give up on them.
edit: words...
Unlikely. 20+ years ago I was working for a manufacturer of high end office machines and they were doing the same thing. It's been popular for a long time, just now trickling down to consumer hardware.
I shudder self driving cars and the prospect that companies would pay to nudge driver routes past their shops is perhaps another future concern, one in which would be a bit evil. Just as well some companies say they will do no evil, though non spring to mind thesedays.
Still, in tech the earliest type of paying to unlock a feature goes back to the 60's iirc and some storage drive that you would pay to upgrade and entailed an engineer comming out and flipping a dip switch to enable the extra capacity. Think it was some ICL kit, though was such a long time ago and never personaly experienced that beyond past down anicdotes.
Look at HP. They used to be the go-to "reputable, always reliable" brand for printers. Heck, if you can still find the old Laserjet 4xxx series printers they're still good.
But HP in the last decade or so are on most people's shit list.
When people are shopping for an appliance, price is often the largest deciding factor. HP prices their inkjet printers low to lock in that sale. But in order to still earn a profit, they try to make money from the ink, so they lock down the firmware to block 3rd party ink.
People hate how expensive ink is, so they created Instant Ink, a subscription model. If you do a decent amount of printing, especially color printing, you'll actually save money. But it's widely misunderstood. You're not subscribing to ink, you're subscribing to printed pages. And so there are people writing nasty articles about HP because they'll pay $3 for their first month of Instant Ink, HP will send them an ink cartridge, they'll cancel their subscription, then have a Surprised Pikachu face when their printer then refuses to print with the Instant Ink cartridge, because for some reason they thought they owned the ink cartridge that they paid $3 for.
And of course, someone will take a picture of their printer refusing to print with the Instant Ink cartridge that they're no longer subscribed to and post it to /r/AssholeDesign.
And yet, HP still sell printers in the EU.
In America, corporations run the government and the propaganda machine. They've convinced half the country that any restrictions on corporations are attacks on the Free Market™ (and your freedom!) and are a slippery slope to SOCIALISM!!.
Unfortunately, several of the other printer manufacturers seem to have copied HP's approach. With similar results.
The Epson EcoTank range (eg specifically refillable ink tanks) seems like a good idea, not that I've used them yet. :)
Moreover, I seem to recall reading here on HN a fair bit about smart refrigerators and Samsung smart TVs with ads, and I can't see those revenue models going away anytime soon.
They even went to the point of modifying their Amazon listing for their old label printer, so it has all the good reviews for the old product, but selling the new crap DRM-locked garbage product.
So all the newer reviews are people complaining, but the star average is still high for the moment.
Perhaps the confusion comes from the different mix of performance and efficiency cores on different Macs, but those are physically different. So for instance my M1 MBA has four performance and four efficiency cores, a compromise intended to give very long battery life.
The only difference in UX is going to be what's on a touch menu and what's on a hard control.
Has anybody tried disabling the LTE antenna (or whatever it uses) on a Tesla for privacy/security reasons? I'm sure hoping the car still drives fine without it, but can it be done without utterly voiding the warranty etc.?
Since about 2000 modern cars have integrated further technologies beginning with LIN to replace simple IO wires in the doors and alike.
At the higher end side we hade Byteflight, Flexray, TTP/C and now Automotive Ethernet based on BroadReach.
Granted, they have a touchscreen, but it's just to control the navigation if you use it.
According to the dashboard, it's range should be about 500km. It is quite small however.
The car I have has all analog gauges etc. It does have a touch screen, but only for controlling the infotainment system. No OTA.
>Tech Enthusiasts: Everything in my house is wired to the Internet of Things! I control it all from my smartphone! My smart-house is bluetooth enabled and I can give it voice commands via alexa! I love the future!
Programmers/Engineers: The most recent piece of technology I own is a printer from 2004 and I keep a loaded gun ready to shoot it if it ever makes an unexpected noise.[0]
[Security technicians: (takes a deep swig of whiskey) I wish I had been born in the Neolithic.]
[0]https://biggaybunny.tumblr.com/post/166787080920/tech-enthus...
Someday the finger will be pointed at us once enough attack vectors are introduced and exploited at once. And in general I distance myself from tech I can live without.
All modern cars have far too much tech in them. I don't know how people are happy having sim cards installed in their cars tracking their every movement. Tesla is even worse it has a camera inside the car collecting data..
Out of curiosity, do you plan to document this process online? Either while you're doing it or afterwards?
Which model?
[0] - https://www.associatedelectrics.com/teamassociated/cars_and_...
> "lighter on software" AND "no OTA"
the so called "RED directive" in the EU mandates OTA for any consumer IoT device as of 2024. After that it'll be illegal to sell a connected coffee-maker without also shipping upgrades for any security vulns. While this is specific for IoT the connected vehicle regulation (anything non-consumer or even safety critical) would require even stricter legislation & defenses in place.
- Relay attacks are nothing new, and not unique to Tesla.
- Every contactless unlock technique is vulnerable to relay attacks.
- No amount of encryption prevents relay attacks.
- Short range/near field wireless standards (such as NFC) are also vulnerable, though requires close proximity of the attacker to the NFC token (phone/card/keyfob).
Even HN often falls victim to these kind of sensational headlines. No, we can't solve this. No, car manufacturers won't go back to physical keys. Yes, 99.9% of consumers really like keyless entry and don't care too much about the potential of theft. For most, that is what insurance is for.
This isn't true, and I have the patent(s) to show it.
I developed (along with some truly talented security professionals and cryptographers) the active RFID security system for KIWI, a residential access control system here in Germany. One of the requirements, aside from not keeping a central log of access, was that the system should not work if you were further than 10 meters from the door you were trying to open. Things like measuring signal strength, etc. were not an option, as you might imagine repeaters render that moot.
Ultimately, it comes down to fairly tight timings, the speed of light and the rules of physics, but we could restrict things such that the cryptographic handshake would fail if you were more than about 30 meters away, corresponding to a timing window of about 0.0000001 seconds.
We offered to license the technology to car companies, but they weren't interested.
Well, I'm sorry for your tech, but you're kind of making OP's point:
> Yes, 99.9% of consumers really like keyless entry and don't care too much about the potential of theft. For most, that is what insurance is for.
> I developed
> Ultimately, it comes down to fairly tight timings, the speed of light and the rules of physics, but we could restrict things such that the cryptographic handshake would fail if you were more than about 30 meters away, corresponding to a timing window of about 0.0000001 seconds.
Prior art! ;)
There are actually a lot of patented ways to prevent relay attacks, mine is only one of them. And most of them are patented by NXP :)
Ultimately, this is a failure of prioritization on behalf of the car companies, or a sacrifice of security for usability, or both.
I don't have any links and found only [1] this one quickly.
[1] https://teamtalk.jaguarlandrover.com/news/jaguar-land-rover-...
Encryption + timestamp + message that expires after MAX_DISTANCE/c seems like it would be pretty foolproof. There are of course some challenges in having enough precision in the clocks, though.
Imagine your engine shutting off on the highway, and your steering wheel locks, just because the car briefly looses response from the keyfob...
Also, just about every keyless entry systems have a physical backup key, to start and drive the car in case the battery in the keyfob is empty. A periodical re-authentication would make this impossible.
Stuck in the middle of the desert with a perfectly good car, but an empty keyfob battery? Well, sucks to be you, you'll likely die, but at least your car won't be vulnerable to relay attacks!
Additionally, the highway scenario could also be mitigated with a warning and a grace period. The desert scenario can be mitigated with having a fallback such as having the contactless system double as a smartcard you can put into a reader or by wireless power transfer. Plus, if your contactless system fails in the desert you're screwed anyway as soon as you turn off the engine once.
Right, stop once for a traffic jam, car loses sync with keyfob, and you'll become a stationary target on a highway.
Better swap out those batteries in your keyfob real quick before that 18-wheeler smashes into your car with kids in the backseat!
But hey, at least your car won't be stolen!
> Problem solved.
I guess this proves my point I was trying to make in my original post. Every xx months a sensation article like this comes out, and suddenly everyone, even on HN, becomes an expert that will 'just' solve the issue with a naive solution.
Car manufacturers, hire smart engineers. If the solution was simple, they would have fixed it already. Cars are always a trade-off between safety, security, reliability, affordability and practicality.
Great that your solution makes car theft resistant, but if also kills people, it's not such a great sell...
- Relay attacks can theoretically be solved with high precision clocks, but will affect price and reliability in a negative way
This obviously depends a bit on the situation, but most relay attacks happen within reasonable proximity. Most attacks happen to a car parked in front of a house, since the attacker knows that the keyfob is likely to be within the house. The distance here is often less than 20m. To get reasonably reliable relay detection on these kinds of distances, you'll need very precise clocks, which will make the keyfobs expensive and still increases the risk of false positives on relay detection.
What's the point (to the customer) if the expensive ULTRA SECURE (tm) keyless entry system is 10x the price, and still less reliable than the keyless entry system om their 20 year old Toyota?
I doubt Tesla would want to include a motion sensor on the dumb card that fits in a wallet.
https://www.righto.com/2022/04/the-digital-ranging-system-th...
https://networkingnerd.net/2016/09/21/apple-watch-unlock-802...
In an open plan office it works around 2 meters away at maximum.
There seems to be some kind of heuristic when it allows it too, the first login for the day requires a password or TouchID to be used, but the ones after that work via the Watch.
stealing internet connected smart car is incredibly dumb
Its not like a normal IT security problem where attackers can be anywhere on earth.
I dont know the numbers for the US, but in my country it seems 0,9% of cars gets reported stolen a year, which includes stupid stuff like leaving the car idling outside your view. Thats a risk I can live with and don't want to have bothersome security to avoid.
Identity verification and public/private keys are a solved problem, how is it at all impossible to prevent relay attacks?
Key: I want to unlock the door.
Car: Here's a random number encrypted with my key, which only the real fob should have the pair key to.
Fob: Here's the number encrypted with another key, which only the car should have the pair key for.
Car: This matches, opening the door.
Blindly repeating these bits won't work and it should be impossible to eavesdrop without an NSA cluster of supercomputers. What am I missing?
They used a relay attack which means that they tunneled the actual keyfob signal over the internet (or a direct connection).
Tesla and others try to mitigate that by making sure that the latency of the signal is not too high.
<Everything you described> Car: your encrypted authentication looks right but you took 200ms to send it. You are probably not within BLE range.
The researchers contribution was to show that despite that a relay attack is still possible.
I believe they have an option where you need a pin to start the engine at least however I'm not an owner
What a world!
The attack is defeated by keeping your fob in something that blocks radio frequencies I guess. Same idea as those metal wallets but this time for an actual threat.
Every keyless/wireless car key already uses a challenge-response scheme, just like you described, to prevent replay attacks. However, that will not work against relay attacks. Cryptography does not prevent relaying.
Fun fact: Even most physical car keys produced >1990 have a small RFID based transponder in the key head (the plastic part that you hold). This transponder responds to a challenge transmitted by the ignition barrel. Without a correct response, the ECU will refuse to start the engine. This is mainly done to prevent 'Hollywood' style theft where you connect 2 wires from the ignition barrel together to start a car.
Using latency seems intrinsically expensive because there's no lower limit to how fast a network switch or relay can operate, meaning speed of light is the only real limit. And then the latency bounds get extremely tight, which probably means expensive components. Probably too expensive for a dedicated key fob, but maybe possible with a phone.
But position is actually the thing we care about. If the key knows its position, say with GPS, then we could do it. The key could securely sign its location (plus timestamp or nonce to avoid replay attacks) and then the car could explicitly verify the signature and that the key is within range. AFAICT this is totally secure and reasonable, if a bit expensive, to implement. In fact it seems like it would almost just work today for phone-based keys.
Putting GPS into a dedicated key fob is probably not even too expensive - car key fobs regularly cost hundreds of dollars to replace, even if their BOM is trivial, and a cheap GPS watch is approaching $100. The biggest barrier I see here is battery life on the key - neither phones nor watches like to be constantly tracking GPS because of the power draw.
I wonder what else could work. Quantum communication protocols can detect or resist relays. These are WAAY out of reach though - mostly theoretical, but IIRC the Chinese actually built a satellite to do relay-resistant quantum key distribution.
I'm not arguing that these options are things car companies are going to do any time soon. But it's fun to think about. And I don't think it's impossibly far off.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-10591-4_...
How is this different from a man in the middle attack?
If your car can hear the key fob, it assumes the authorized operator is close enough to interact with the car. A relay attack bridges the physical gap between the transmitter and receiver so that the receiver is tricked into thinking the transmitter is nearby.
For example, a thief can scan for key fobs in a fancy restaurant, beam the signals to an accomplice near the valet lot, unlock your BMW, and drive away.
IIRC this is mostly a problem with always-on key fobs.
Here’s an explainer:
https://leasing.com/guides/relay-car-theft-what-is-it-and-ho...
It would take a serious criminal organization to get away with the theft and sell it for profit, and at that point you're gonna lose regardless of the type of exploit invoked.
Imagine stealing a smart phone today What's the incentive when the technical overhead of getting away with it is so high?
If someone moved my car 200 m away, i would then be forced to go get it. If someone moved my car and parked it where parking wasn't allowed, i pay a fine.
They did not. This attack relies on 2 devices: one next to the car and one next to the phone. It is tunneling the bluetooth link, but you still need an authorized phone at the other end of the tunnel (to respond to the crypto challenge).
EDIT: it had me confused because I saw "Relay Attacks" and parsed it as "Replay Attacks". Now getting more coffee ...
These automatically unlocking keys should really be stored in a Faraday cage while not in use. When it comes to phones, well, disable Bluetooth when you're not near your car if you've set up this functionality, I guess…
Those things aren't bullshit? I thought these attacks could only be used while your key was in use.
[0] https://www.ford.co.uk/support/how-tos/keys-and-locks/door-l...
It is rather hilarious how basic threat modeling can basically shore this up as way more impossible to do fool proof than you'd think. You may think "put biometrics/camera" on car so that it can see who is trying to open it. Suddenly valets and kids can't open cars for you. Turn off when key is lost? See plenty of takes on that in this conversation.
Both Apple and Google significantly limit access and enforce limitations on what Android Auto/CarPlay can and can't do. You're effectively picking and choosing your walled gardens when you use these products.
The problem is that people love proximity unlock, i.e car unlocks before you reach it and you don't need to place any device directly on/very close to the surface of the car. To do this requires Bluetooth and usually multiple BT radios such that you can perform ranging (can be augmented with UWB etc) to determine if the owner is approaching or moving away from the car etc.
Because of the timings involved it's easy to perform relay attacks as described in the article and it's a non-trivial problem to solve without impeding on the core user experience (which is to be able to simply walk up to the car).
I think the only viable solution is probably to add some sort of gait/build/facial detection into the Sentry system that needs to obtain confirmation before BT unlock is processed but that seems pretty damn hard and I don't even know if it could reach the accuracy required to thwart attacks.
1) This is optional behaviour. By default when you get the car it’s setup with key cards you need to touch to the drivers side door pillar. You have to manually setup phone proximity if you want
2) you can (and probably should) set up a pin code inside the car too. Proximity unlock, which is very useful, gets you in the car but car can’t be driven away until pin is entered
Its utility isn't as bad as the one in the bug report, but I have heard that it can open a lot of other doors on a Tesla (like the charger port).
However I do trust the 'pin to drive' (which randomly changes location on screen to foil fingerprints). And sentry mode is a new bonus, not that it has any real utility beyond a small scare for anyone getting too close.
There is only so far I'm willing to go for security before securing the item becomes worse than the joy of owning the item. Wheel locks, physical keys, barbed wire perimeter? No thanks.
If someone wants to load the car up on a flat bed truck inside of a faraday cage, they've put in the effort, enjoy the car.
Let's put it this way: I use biometrics for my phone as convenience, but I have it time out in an hour, and require a pattern. (Or, if I put the phone in lockdown.) The security biometrics offer is too weak to trust.
But imagine if the only option you had was face id, and all other options were removed.
Operations like unlocking the door must be explicit, not implicit. I'd accept configurability, but it would be permanently disabled if I could.
Bluetooth has always sucked, but even if Bluetooth is improved, proximity unlock is brain dead for security.
But imagine working for a company that is very excited about their AI firewall, that intelligently OPENS ports based on a machine learning algorithm.
"No! That's a terrible idea!" You exclaim, pulling out tufts of hair. "That has more security holes than a slice of swiss cheese!"
"Yeah, but all our focus groups really liked the feature, and when customers hear AI and algorithms they're more likely to buy... Come on, you'd have to basically have a PhD to exploit an algorithm...."
Presumably because the feature is well liked. I rarely every use the buttons on my keyfob but always use proximity lock/unlock because it's just much more convenient in practice.
> I've never understood car makers obsession with proximity unlock.
And in Tesla's case, it saves money. There is no cylinder on the steering column, no cylinder in the door, no steel key to manufacture, no rod going to a physical unlock switch, and no physical unlock switch. So we've saved 500 grams in the car and probably a good $20 too, no to mention the room in the door for the rod and the physical switch, which add engineering work.
There is a long tail of removing grams and dollars from the car manufacturing process, and 500 grams and $20 is significant. This long tail is why e.g. the Model 3 uses a touch screen for most controls, why the rear glass extends far into the roof, and many other seemingly-"premium" features of the Model 3. It's actually cheaper to manufacture them this way.
You may just as well require a click on the key fob or phone, the cost savings would be exactly the same.
This is precisely what I mean by "brain dead". You'll forgive the hostility, but this is exactly what I'm talking about!
Nothing about this list of things REQUIRES proximity unlock. You can still require the user to push a button on their key fob to explicitly unlock the door.
I get the convenience factor, I do. If that's a feature you enjoy, then great! All the happiness for you. But give me the chance to opt out of something that is deeply broken from a security perspective.
Let me press a fscking button to unlock my car, instead of my car deciding I probably want it to unlock.
Customers "pushing for convenience" are unaware of the possible security implications of it (to put it in a polite way). And it is absolutely the duty of manufacturers to shut them away from stupid crap like that.
Ask any consumer if they want a Pony and they will say yes.
I live in a safe region and don't mind having my car unlocked when I'm near it. If it was manual I wouldn't lock it anyway.
I agree that it should be configurable, which on Teslas I believe it is.
Also teslas dont force proximity unlock, its up to you to set it up.
Last time I checked, sniffing the full spectrum of BT required three SDRs, meaning six in total; making this attack rather expensive to pull off (no problem for professional thieves though, I guess). OTOH if they can use any BT stack (or manipulate it with e.g. InternalBlue[1]), potential carjackers just need two Android Phones and good WiFi :(
[1] InternalBlue: https://github.com/seemoo-lab/internalblue
//edit: I think letting the phone do some sanity checking is already a good idea. There are some indicators that can be used to make this much harder (though not impossible), and which are generally available right now (that is, without additional hardware). The two most obvious: Do the GPS locations match up (prevent theft while at other end of a mall)? Did the acceleration sensors indicate that the phone might have been moved closer to the car (prevent theft while sleeping with phone on the nightstand)?
> However, NCC Group has not attempted any long distance relay attacks against Tesla vehicles.
Hmm...so this is a theoretical possibility and never actually performed successfully
It would make sense that if it receives a cryptographic challenge from the car, it would only respond if it was inside of the geofenced boundary for the vehicle, provided by the phone's location services.
Bluetooth plus UWB (Apple Wallet implementation for some Mercedes models) or Bluetooth plus [ad-hoc] Wi-Fi are reasonable solutions.
They just don't have quality in their soul.
We should trust these people with... how did Elon Musk put it...
"Two ton death machines"
Electric vehicle battery fires can take up to 25,000 gallons of water to extinguish. Combustion engine vehicle fires typically take up to 300 gallons to extinguish.
Tesla actually recommmends that firefighters let the battery burnt out rather than try to extinguish the fire.
Perhaps someday we will see some researchers perform a remotely-triggered "halt and catch fire" exploit on a "Tesla Energy Product".
In the meantime your last paragraph is FUD.
The problem with Tesla is basically everything except the car part. Self-driving is overpromised and underdelivered. UI and UX is designed by madmen who think touch controls are acceptable for important driving related functionality. Their steering wheel is not even always a wheel. The fit and finish of their cars is basically a lottery; your body panels may or may not all fit well together.
I think this is why Tesla is doomed to eventually fail. Competitors are catching up quickly and they don't have the terrible Tesla factor when it comes to product finish. The only thing that sets Tesla apart from other luxury brands is their weird proprietary charger, their promises of self driving and their brand image. It's a shame, really, because the engineering on what makes the car move seems to be outstanding.
Everyone else seems to have B players on the drive train, but ramping up to A- players, and at least B players if not A players on everything else.
Given this limitation however, they should highly encourage a passcode to actually drive.
I bought my Model 3 in 2019 and PIN to drive was certainly not enabled by default.
relay is when the attacker takes the bluetooth signal of the owner in gym and relays it to the car in the parking lot.