Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwise0 | Hacker News Reader

The sentence -- "First, we have rolled out an over-the-air update to the air suspension that will result in greater ground clearance at highway speeds." -- for some reason deeply amuses me. I thought that it was scary to push out OTAs to phones (I hope everything works like it did in the dev environment); I can't imagine pushing an OTA to a $85,000 car!

A few sentences later, though -- "Another software update expected in January will give the driver direct control of the air suspension ride height transitions." -- concerns me. Tesla's car computer is becoming increasingly complex, and the fact that the infotainment system will have such complete control over the car -- and will still accept data from outside sources -- is very concerning. I hope that at some point soon Tesla will begin talking about the security methodology that they use for the firmware running on the car, and how they prevent unauthorized code from running.

View on HN

Increasing complexity is not what's concerning here. Being able to adjust the ride height of your car (air suspension) is not that uncommon. My current vehicle has adjustable air ride suspension for city/highway. It automatically drops an entire inch at speeds over 60mph to reduce drag and allow for a lower center of gravity. It's great.

The concerning issue here is someone hacking this vehicle's OTA software update and causing accidents. Or even tapping into the vehicle control system(s) and causing havoc.

Unlikely, but possible vs. current vehicle technology requiring a trip to a dealer by an authorized and authenticated trained tech to make these changes.

I imagine every critical system on the Model S is accessible wirelessly.

This actually bring me back to Michael Hastings accident where theories are floating around that steering, breaking and acceleration systems might have been compromised wirelessly causing the accident.

The bottom line is that there's simply way too much convenience technology in cars today and that might not be such great thing. It's a tough call as safety technology is important and the more the better. However, certain things such as OTA suspension and other critical system updates need to pushed and completed intelligently. I want to assume that any updates to these vehicles are done when they are off (overnight) and redundantly checked for integrity to ensure the update was successful.

Do you think Tesla has hired the best tiger/red teams in the world to break their systems? I would certainly hope so, but your comment does make me wonder.

I know they're two separate companies, but Elon likes to move technology from one company to another: I would hope that some of the same software QC procedures apply between Tesla and SpaceX.

Here's (some of?) the Tesla Model S API:

http://docs.timdorr.apiary.io/

I presume these APIs interact with Tesla's web servers and not a Tesla Model S directly.

So the protocol the car uses to receive commands and firmware is likely different.

Yes, that is correct. There are actually two APIs: A REST-ish car state and control API (a Rails app), and a streaming telemtry service (a Node.JS app). The car talks to Tesla's telemetry servers, which their API servers talk to as well.

Recent "conventional" gasoline-based cars are also full of embedded software, much of it of dubious quality. Consider, for instance, this audit of the software in recent Toyotas, which found bugs that could cause the car to go out of control: http://www.edn.com/design/automotive/4423428/Toyota-s-killer...

What may be unique about Tesla is the explicit provision for over-the-air software updates. But anyone with sufficient technical knowledge and physical access to a conventional car can do very nasty things to the electronics (i.e., deadly to the occupants).

Like kill a journalist investigating military officials.

Was there any further evidence of this? I remember a lot of speculation at the time of Hasting's death, but I never saw anything conclusive.

I've no idea about what actually happened to Mr. Hastings, however, the GP raises a valid point that such things definitely can be used to kill people like him.

I never saw anything plausible, let alone conclusive.

With all the recent revelations about the US government, I think it's very plausible.

Are we talking Bourne Ultimatum? Because that was 2007.

Fast & Furious 6 was 2013.

I do need to watch that.

Accroding to some HN readers you should look this incident in Wikipedia. If there is no mention of this being a 'murder' within Wikipedia, than you sir are a fringe 'conspiracy theorist' ...

Don't know when Wikipedia became the bearer of all truths ...

"Very concerning"? For you, maybe. To me, this smacks of concern trolling. You are aware that all modern cars have a lot of software and microcontrollers embedded in their designs, right?

BTW, there is no evidence, at least none you have cited or even referred to, that the Tesla computer is "becoming increasingly complex". All we see in this article is that they are changing one variable in their existing system. That's not increased complexity.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think many cars on the market are able to receive over-the-air updates to their systems. I think that's what the parent was talking about specifically.

All of the cars I've driven have been accessible by ODB2 or something similar, which is a physical connection under the hood and/or steering column.

In addition to OnStar already mentioned, some Audi can over wifi/cell. Also the OEMs that use Tegra have this capability though I know of none that have enabled any OTA updates over wifi. Hyundai/Kia had beta hardware that did it over BT a year ago.

Anything powered by OnStar can (GM's entire line).

Wanted to add (can't edit my post for some reason):

http://telematicsnews.info/2010/08/31/onstar-supports-over-t...

Since 2010, OnStar has offered OTA updates.

I work with major automotive manufacturers to develop software for their vehicles. Almost all of the major OEM's are planning to have OTA software updates for their vehicles within the next 2-3 years. Security is always considered and there are plenty of audits and limitations placed on it to keep it secure. Tesla is a bit ahead of the game here, but their software methodology will be the norm.

I too have worked with major automotive OEMs, and all the 'security' I've seen is nothing but lip service. The quality of embedded software in the automotive world is laughable. Forget anything advanced, they're just getting into the what-do-you-mean-bounds-checking stage of computer security.

There's just starting to be real external research into the current state of the automotive world: http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf

Even the proposed new standards are busted: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/143639....

I for one, am going to have a hard time buying any car made after 2006.

I imagine Tesla's firmware code is leaps and bounds ahead of what passes for code in the mobile world. I don't think we appreciate how well written code can be because in consumer electronics half-assed work for making deadlines are the norm. As much as I like Android, I certainly don't want an android powered car or pacemaker. Its a fast moving ugly project that moves fast enough to keep up with its competitors. Its not an example of carefully written code that typifies most embedded systems.

Note I wrote most. I am aware that some organizations like Toyota engage in poor practices, but there's more the exception than the rule.

I seem to remember SpaceX explaining that they used linux everywhere in their company from users desktops to rocket guidance systems and this symmetry help keep all their employees co-ordinate easier. So I don't think it's an outlandish assumption that Tesla might be run a similar way and you'll find a number of linux boxes controlling the car.

Obviously that doesn't mean it's inherently secure or anything but maybe hint that it might be using some more standard security practices than a crazy custom Tesla invented magic box.

I'd be surprised. Linux is great, but it's not the best choice for something like the control system for a self-adjusting automobile suspension. Much more likely they're using VXWorks or some other embedded RTOS.

From what I can tell it's active only in that it changes ride height, not actually adjusting the suspension through a corner so the timing is not critical at all.

You don't need anything approaching realtime for controlling an air-based suspension. If we were talking about the magneto-hydraulic suspensions that adjust constantly to road conditions like potholes and corners, then I would agree 100%. But the response rate of the pneumatic system will be far slower than the computer.

There are real-time variants of Linux, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_River_Linux#Wind_River_Lin...

I would not use Linux in something this pivotal. FreeRTOS or RTEMS would be my first candidates.

Called it =P

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6704338

So as there have been instances of an OTA update "bricking" phones, there will likely at some point be an OTA to cars which causes mass crashes and casualties. It's just a question of when...

Yet more movement of freedom and power from individuals to corporations.

Tesla is a very low run product compared to even the least successful phone.

Something that happens once in a million will happen on an iPhone, not on a Tesla.

If / When they produce a mainstream car that will be another story.

All cars in Tesla premium category have quirks that require trip to the dealer. I have had colleague with bricked Series 5 BMW that requires full rewiring, ... Except for Tesla being overhyped with people that will not buy it, the actual clients of that kind of car seems generally happy to go through the "pain". (see, not an opinion I share, but then I don't buy 85K car either)

How is that different from the cases where batches of faulty cars are sold and cause crashes and deaths?

With OTA updates you can at least fix it with a rollback, quickly, before more people die.

I fail to see this as a move of power from individuals to corporations.

I guess I just trust hardware far more than software in general.

I don't agree. There would be no OTA bricked phones if enough thought and cost were put into the verification and installation process. Critical components could e.g. be duplicated, such that critical software like the bootloader can be restored in case the new version cannot start up.

Newer vehicles often get software updates as part of the maintenance schedule; so all OTA does is avoid a trip to the dealer

I wonder if future tesla cars will eventually have some way automatically detecting a possible collision like this and adjusting the suspension accordingly without driver interaction?

That sounds.. extremely complicated.

Needs high resolution radars with good range (very expensive on its own) and good software in order to detect something and then find an evasive action.

As these events are already unlikely (i assume), doing something about it seem unnecessary. Even this OTA update seem like it is more for the press rather than protecting the driver.

No, it's not that difficult. Modern cars have been able to tighten safety belts before a probable collision since years.

And there have been a couple newer cars on the market that will automatically brake if it detects a possible collision, not to mention radar cruise control that adapts to the driver in front of you.

Toyota had adaptive cruise control back in the mid 90's

I thought that's more from acceleration rather than detecting objects, though.

No, they're using radars as well. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regu...

For smaller objects they would need higher resolution censors? Not sure.

All I remember while trying to do this is that high sensitivity is expensive..

Many cars also unlock the doors just before a probably collision.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com