Jaguar recalls 18,000 cars over major software fault
computerworlduk.com
computerworlduk.com
Still, I don't want to inadvertantly miss a 500-hr magneto IRAN, a wing spar or bolt NDT inspection interval, run my dry vacuum pump twice as long as I planned, or several other possible faults that aren't easily testable by other than maintenance technicians.
In my company, the management puts a higher priority on putting all available hands on rolling out new functionality than fixing bugs, in order to try and win new contracts from potential customers. Or at least that's their excuse, in my opinion there is no such thing as a low priority bug, no matter what industry you're in.
Security-by-obscurity is still a - supposedly - valid claim nowadays.
In any case this seems more like competitive advantage through obscurity than security through obscurity, for the same reason that manufacturers don't include blueprints and engine schematics.
Engine tuners already do this.
Of course, should something happen, there's a number to call to get towed away quickly.
But if somebody could rewrite the firmware so that the car stereo controls all of a sudden are the only way to actuate the brakes, that could create very dangerous situations. Which I why I hope that there will remain strong regulations on what firmware people can load onto their cars, at least in as far as they use that car on public roads.
You have to be in fake-manual mode, set to 1st gear, with the brakes depressed, and the box enabled. Then you pull back on the cruise control stalk to engage the brakes. There's really no way to accidentally engage the mode, but yeah, that sounds exactly like the sort of thing you're worried about. Using the cruise control stalk to trick the car into thinking it hit a patch of ice, so it selectively engages the brakes.
I should note that a) I don't do burnouts and would never use this option, and b) I believe you can enable/disable it via USB and the programming utility.
Happy driving ;)
Aside from some minor pulsing of the ABS module, it's a purely mechanical/hydraulic system. You push the pedal in, the master cylinder creates pressure in the line, and the brake caliper pistons get pushed out onto your brake rotors.
On the other hand, as seen in the Pruis nonsense last year, an increasing number of cars do use a electronic throttle which can lead to some interesting failure conditions.
The 'firmware' your discussing in your hypothetical situation is hacking the CANbus system - not the ECU firmware. One could, in todays systems, remap any CANbus device (even as odd as a headlight switch) to manipulate another CANbus device (such as the electronic throttle). Doing such nepharious things are possible today, but would take days worth of hacking and proprietary diagnostic hardware.
ECU controls, on the other hand, have been reverse engineered in nearly all cars being actively tracked/raced today. Bosch (BMW/Porsche), GM PCMs, Honda/Acura, Mistubishi, etc can be modified to control timing/fuel...add additional I/O and features (such as traction control, launch control, antilag, etc ...even when not equipped by the OEM).
Of my vehicles still running an OEM ECU, all have been running 'hacked' firmware without incident for nearly a decade. Even my ABS controller has been upgraded for better threshold braking performance.
If you're intersted in such things, please check out EFIuniversity [0], Ostrich, and persuse Motec's manuals for an idea of what's possible.
[0] www.efi101.com
[1] http://www.moates.net/documentation.php?documentation_id=24
[2] www.motec.com%2Ffiledownload.php%2FM4_M48_M8_Manual_A5.pdf
Some sort of public bugtracker/remote update mechanism (again, given suitably authenticated binaries) would also be nice.
Actually, it occurs to me from watching far too much Top-Gear, that a fair number of high-end cars have a "Sport" button that does all sorts of things to your ECU, brakes/suspension/steering controls, and (afaik) is strictly speaking only legal for off-public-road/private racetrack usage. Having something similar (and with a log of entry/exit times into each mode for use in crash investigation)[1] might make it possible to experiment.
Still strikes me as pretty scary though.
[1] And a flashing bright yellow tail-light. To make sure everyone else knows it as well :)
Having 'read-only' access to source code - maybe, although I'm not sure it would actually make a difference. But anyone being able to upload anything to something that controls 1500 kg of steel at lethal speeds in the vicinity of others, and that the vast majority of people are simply incapable of of understanding, no thanks. This is one situation where I'd rather give up my 'freedom' (for certain contrived definitions thereof) for a modicum of 'safety' (queue the 'deserves neither' quotes).
While if anybody could just modify the firmware in their car, there would be no way to check if that version is safe. The only option would be to allow only (a) certain, manufacturer-approved version(s), which is the exact point I was making. And by making it difficult to upload custom firmware, we (as in, regular citizens who have no interest whatsoever in changing the software in our cars, but who are put in jeopardy by morons who think they are capable of making something better but really can't) can protect ourselves (to a certain degree) against the hackery of said morons.
In terms of chassis repair or mods, it's pretty much a free-for-all. Lifted trucks are regulated in some states, but most other modifications are owner and mechanic discretion. I'm completely changing the geometry of my '66 convertible's front suspension, converting to disk brakes all around and changing to a dual-circuit master cylinder. The number of other people who will be required to check my work prior to it being to legal to drive on the public highways: zero. (And IMO, that's as it should be, but I have a pretty strong libertarian streak.) It will have to pass the state safety inspection, but unless I have a light out, there's no realistic chance that the car will fail the safety inspection and they sure won't notice that the suspension and brakes have been completely re-engineered.
Cruise control malfunctions can be relatively benign or they can be the equivalent of someone stomping on the accelerator.
The real hackers are screwing around with (hopefully their own) ECUs: http://ecuhacking.activeboard.com/
If I were writing something like this, there'd be a very clear demarcation of "safety critical throttle/brakes/steering stuff" | "blinky lights and radio"
I suspect that it starts out that way when the engineers are arguing about the liability issues of going full-throttle at random, but then it becomes standard, everyone gets a bit blasé, and before you know it the assistant vice-chairhorse of marketing is talking about how cool it'd be if your radio gets louder as you speed up.
Even then, I'd be arguing in favour of something like a data diode[1]. I can't think of any non-critical system that should have input to the cruise control[2]
[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unidirectiona...
[2] Of course, if it did, I'd claim it was by definition now a critical system. :)
As an ex-blinky-lights-and-radio tech, I can assure you that they are clearly separated.
Admittedly, my experience is limited to BMWs, but there's enough shared knowledge across the industry about the Right Way to do this stuff that I'd be surprised if Jaguar had made that mistake.
(Obviously though it's an issue that needs fixing!)
A friend and I attempted to do a "neutral bomb" in my XF but as it's impossible to transition without hitting the brakes, the attempt was a total failure.