Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

https://electrek.co/2023/08/03/hackers-manage-unlock-tesla-software-locked-features/

by 1970-01-01 • 3 years ago

820 731 3 years ago

electrek.co

HWR_143• 3 years ago

Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.

carstenhag• 3 years ago

But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.

blacksmith_tb2• 3 years ago

Hmm, is the code already present? Would enabling it be putting unexpected load on Tesla's servers? If it's just a local feature (like the heated seats) that's shipped turned off, I'd say enabling it doesn't feel especially different to me (trusting it to drive you around of course is different).

babypuncher2• 3 years ago

Here's my attitude: The consumer should have complete control over any hardware and software in any product they buy.

If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.

MostlyStable2• 3 years ago

I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you put it on the car that the customer bought, and they figure out how to unlock it.....well good for them and sucks for you. This kind of thing _should_ 100% be legal (if it isn't already, and my understanding is that it is). If you want to _100% guarantee_ that they don't get a feature without paying for it, then I guess pony up for the more complicated manufacturing process where it isn't installed on some models.

As for "they didn't pay for the license"....no....you gave it to them without asking them to sign a license agreement. They paid you money, and you gave them a product. How they use it is up to them.

wredue• 3 years ago

Haven’t we already been through this type of shit with EA?

Back in, I think it was bad company 2, EA delivered content on disk, but locked it behind a paywall. Then they got their wrists slapped for locking already available content behind a paywall.

Softlocking hardware that exists in the car (heated seats) behind a paywall seems to be the exact same thing, and is not legal everywhere.

px432• 3 years ago

The entire concept of "intellectual property" is an attempted theft of our own physical property, and I for one don't appreciate it. I understand that my values on this don't align with much of the rest of the legal systems of the world, but the absurdity of intellectual property is never more clear than when some far away company attempts to assert ownership over something that you use every day.

semiquaver2• 3 years ago

The article claims this is not patchable but it also says that the hackers have not yet unlocked FSD with this technique. I strongly suspect that the “unpatchable” part would not apply to any potential FSD unlock because of the large amount of server-side functionality involved for FSD. Server side components aren’t going to be easily fooled by a car-local exploit.

Knowing Tesla, even if they can’t patch the vulnerability OTA I would be very concerned about their being able to detect the use of this bypass and remote-brick cars in response until the customer agrees to bring their car in for a hardware patch.

Edit: a now-dead reply says there is no server side functionality whatsoever for FSD. I don’t own a Tesla but find it very unlikely that FSD has not even usage telemetry in what are otherwise highly connected cars.

Zetice6• 3 years ago

Okay great, but now the lowest cost of the car is an extra $10k because the manufacturing just got a lot more complicated as a result of not being able to build every car the same way.

martin84126• 3 years ago

They can't even build two cars the same way everytime, I think we'll be okay.

tadfisher4• 3 years ago

Then customers have the choice to purchase a vehicle from a manufacturer with more scruples who is willing to sell those features without charging to "unlock" them.

TheLoafOfBread2• 3 years ago

That sounds like problem of a manufacturer not problem of a user.

kibwen4• 3 years ago

This is naive. Tesla isn't selling the base model below cost. If they did, then Tesla would be wiped out unless people shelled out for the extras, because they'd be losing money on every car sold.

Instead, what's happening is that the current price fully reflects the cost of production, and holding the extras hostage is pure gravy.

shagie2• 3 years ago

Does enabling FSD come with any liability / terms of service? If it is backdoor enabled and the vehicle crashes, what is Tesla's liability? If the OTA patches to the system are needed and the car is running the base, unupdated (buggy) build, what is Tesla's liability?

Alternatively, if a vehicle is running software that hasn't gone through Tesla's subscription how much of the liability for any software problems will Tesla be able to transfer to the vehicle owner?

Hypothetically, if Tesla were licensing 3rd party software and that license was based on installed uses and Tesla was reporting the subscriptions for FSD (rather than sales of the vehicle), what would enabling the software open up Tesla to? Would Tesla then be able to sue the person who unlocked it for the additional licensing costs they incurred?

eldaisfish2• 3 years ago

If something is opened or modified without manufacturer consent, there is no question of liability because there is none.

rvnx4• 3 years ago

It never has been Tesla’s responsibility if the FSD fails (whereas for Mercedes they take responsibility)

grecy• 3 years ago

I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately.

Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference.

At what point below are you ticked off ?

Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that.

(I think this is how cars have always been sold, so it's "normal" and "acceptable" and nobody would complain - they paid $1000 less and got less features.)

Level 2: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, but none of the wiring, plugs or software to make it function. (It was cheaper for them to just build the seats with the heater in there, so they did, but it will never "work")

Level 3: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat and some wiring, but the main loom doesn't have provision for the high current draw, so it can't work.

Level 4: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, but none of the plugs to actually connect it.

Level 5: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater inside the seat, all the wiring, all the plugs (so all the physical hardware is there), but the software to turn it on is not present / not licensed.

(Note: If you got ticked off at level 5, it's pretty much like buying a brand new MacBook and being ticked off that it can theoretically run Final Cut Pro, but you have to pay to make it work. Surely you gotta pay for software ? )

marcosdumay• 3 years ago

Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner.

We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.

matwood4• 3 years ago

Yeah, I don't get the outrage. People should be happy because it allows people to hack the software and get heated seats, assuming they are ok voiding any warranty.

HWR_143• 3 years ago

None of the levels you mention (until Level 5) operate any differently from this feature. In any of those cases, if I replace the missing parts, I get my heated seats. I would be ticked off if Level 2 had physically integrated seat warmers had some protection people could not work around so they had to cut out and replace the seat warmers.

Level 5, and this case, all I'm doing is adding the missing component. A flag or something.

whelp_243• 3 years ago

I mean honestly level 1 is frustrating when the cost is negligible or for safety. Plus it isn't like you can choose which features you get, and it is not like the seat costs 1000 dollars to heat. Somewhere between 3 and 4 should have legislation against it. (Also level 5 isn't like final cut pro not being installed, it's like Apple blocking port 22 unless you pay for a special developer license)

michael1999• 3 years ago

Level 5 is exactly where it bugs me. Levels 1-4 are all concrete (if marginal) cost savings as compared to the full version. But your level 5 means someone spent _extra_ money and engineering time to make something _less_ functional.

Boo. Hiss.

prussian• 3 years ago

I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.

shmatt2• 3 years ago

If you opt out of the heated seat package when you purchase the car, that doesn't mean the manufacturer can't add that hardware in a disabled state. That also doesn't mean you own the heating feature after you opted out

That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked

Tangurena24• 3 years ago

The doctrine of first sale says that companies cannot restrict the second (or later owner) of a thing. You may notice that some books printed in the UK have some wording on the copyright page about how you can't sell the book (nor give it away) without requiring the subsequent owner to follow the same "license". In the US, I can give away a book, or sell it, and no condition that the publisher makes me agree to will apply to the next person.

Physical goods should be required to follow the doctrine of first sale. There should never be any possible conditions on subsequent owners. If the first owner "unlocks" a feature, it should be unlocked for every subsequent owner.

hooverd4• 3 years ago

IP has gone too far. We're seeing more and more instances of computers forced into perfectly good physical products for the express purpose of degrading their functionality unless a ransom is paid. Now instead of toggling a relay, you have to go through an entire software stack and license check to heat your seats.

LesZedCB3• 3 years ago

which toggles a relay.

samstave3• 3 years ago

I won all my groceries, but once I consume them, they still turn to shit.

I think we need to hold all EV companies "responsible for their shit"

So, if you buy a tesla - only tesla should be responsible for recovery from every crash and and turn in.

Thus the environmental impact due to the heavy metals and all the plastics made are sole responsible from a closed, boring lopp to hyper the link to the fact that all these materials were made by stars. X.

samstave3• 3 years ago

(my point was I PAy/taxxed/etc) for my X-crement...

I think my logic is off WRT analogy, but I beleive you get the premise...

Can we find a complete model of the impact of the matters which are being affected by the musks?

(im not judging musk - I am judging actions... many of these actions suck. IIATAH?

sowbug• 3 years ago

I enthusiastically endorse this sentiment until I remember I'm a software engineer whose career depends pretty fundamentally on copyright law.

As an industry, we sell things that make hardware more useful. That's what software is. But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own. And we do all that for money. *Substitute whatever you think the right terms are for these words (licensor, licensee, borrower, tenant, serf...)

If we sold an app on a mobile-phone store, and a h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it, we'd take measures to stifle it (patching the code, increasing the obfuscation, sending a complaint upstream of whoever was distributing it, etc.), and I don't think any of us would think we're bad guys for doing so. We're just trying to feed our families. And I doubt any of us would feel compassion for someone who said they paid for that phone, own its hardware, and can do whatever they want with it including run your paid software for free.

Tesla's sin, if any, is that they sold us hardware that's designed to work only with their software. And "their" software could include software they licensed from your company, if you work in their software supply chain.

Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?

snypher• 3 years ago

This is probably not productive, but I think the response would be; I bought the software from you so it's mine now.

TremendousJudge• 3 years ago

As a software engineer, I don't sell software, I'm paid to make it. I don't even own it afterwards. I hear some people are paid to develop open source software. I don't think my career depends "pretty fundamentally" con copyright law, as if the software I produce is otherwise worthless. Most people on the planet can't do the work I do, which means that somebody pays me for this work. Changing copyright law wouldn't change this fact -- at most it could affect my pay grade.

kajecounterhack• 3 years ago

Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?

If someone roots their phone or car, which they own, despite the manufacturer's best efforts to prevent this, it should be legal because they are modifying a physical object they purchased. If they teach other people to root their devices, it should be legal the same way teaching lockpicking is legal if you're just lockpicking something you own.

Nobody is asking manufacturers to stop trying to get in the way of people hacking their devices. Most people won't have the skills or desire to jailbreak anyway.

But John Deere will sue farmers who try to fix their tractors themselves, Sony will sue you for jailbreaking your PS3, etc etc. That's wrong.

Additionally, DRM generates physical waste by making it hard for people to fix things they bought. The right to repair is important.

For software, illicit redistribution is covered by copyright law, no? But the same is true: if you own a copy of software and want to hack it (e.g. mod a game you bought) why should that be illegal, provided you were able to get around the game's built-in circumventions?

lamontcg• 3 years ago

That isn't the only way to sell software, it is a relatively recent invention, I honestly wouldn't care if that went away.

epups• 3 years ago

Where is the right line between "my hardware, my rules" and "my software, my rules"?

There's something obscene about unlocking existing physical features with more money, but there's also our mental model of what ownership means. Imagine you buy a new fridge, and it has an extra compartment that is installed, gets cooled but you have to pay to unlock. No one could ever verify that you didn't rip it open yourself. I don't think anyone would object either.

The current monetization strategies for software favor the corporations. They can withhold service in case of no payment, and they are trying to do the same to hardware. I personally feel we should regulate this as soon as possible, otherwise things like right to repair will simply disappear.

Ukv• 3 years ago

But the software we sell* comes with legal restrictions on what the buyer* can and can't do with it. Which means that we're restricting what our customers can do with the hardware that they own.

I'd say the software equivalent to right to repair would specifically be about restrictions against inspecting/decompiling/modifying the software running on your machine.

While I also think copyright is flawed in general, restrictions against redistribution of the software seem like a separate matter - in the same way hardware right to repair doesn't mean you can set up a manufacturing line for new John Deere tractors to sell to others.

h4ck0rz came out with a crack that unlocked the premium features on it

If someone grafts on useful features using only what you have already downloaded to my device, I think that's fair game.

kevincox16• 3 years ago

Arguably you didn't buy it. Sure you physically own the hardware but you didn't pay for it.

Depending on how you look at it the hardware was paid for by:

1. Tesla as a "marketing" expense. They expect that the $50 of hardware will make a significant number of people pay $500 for the feature. If 1/5 people upgrade that is an expected return of $100 for that $50 marketing cost.

2. The people who purchase the heated seat upgrade. It was more cost effective to install the hardware in all cars than to set up a second production line. So if 1/5 people buy this package their effective cost is $250 ($50 * 5 cars) and $250 is Tesla's buffer + profit margin. So the people who pay for this package effectively pay for the hardware in all cars.

If you enable this feature for all users both of these no longer exist. So the effective cost goes up which would likely raise the price. (Yes, I know that cost and price aren't directly related).

Bissness• 3 years ago

Ah yes, "full" self driving

oittaa• 3 years ago

It's getting pretty good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75A9g4HsQiU

redundantly• 3 years ago

The video being sped up makes it feel dishonest. Would have been nice to have a regular recording.

internetter• 3 years ago

This video seemed to have pretty good performance actually, but I've seen articles where the car just gets stuck, makes unsafe maneuvers or just violates laws and this guy (whole mars catalogue) defends it. Watching prior videos shows it fail to yield to stop lights, stop in the middle of intersections or just total incompetence about highway etiquette (such as the highly watched SF -> LA video (in this video the whole highway is dubious, also violations at 1:18, 1:24, 1:30, maybe 17:24, probably others I missed... 3 in the span of 15 seconds)). I'm not at the point where I trust this thing.

johnl14793• 3 years ago

I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.

Libcat992• 3 years ago

I'm somewhat torn too.

IBM and I'm sure others have shipped enterprise hardware for years that was partially locked. You might get a machine with 16 cpus but you only paid for 8, for example, but you could license the rest as you grew. It seems a little similar and it was in no way underhanded, everyone knew what the deal was.

However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad.

johnl14793• 3 years ago

However I'll echo what another poster said. I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad.

I think thats the stance I'm leaning towards as well. To quote another commenter[1]:

If a manufacturer wants to lock features behind a paywall, that is fine. However, they shouldn't be allowed to complain when consumers modify the thing they bought to get around that paywall. If Tesla really wants to make sure absolutely no one gets FSD or heated seats without paying, then they should make a point of only including the relevant hardware or software in the vehicle at the time of purchase.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36988514

NoMoreNicksLeft• 3 years ago

I'm of the opinion that these two things aren't comparable. True, IBM and others have locked extra capability through software... but they were only ever selling/renting to the corporate world, which presumably had enough in-house legal expertise to not be completely dicked over.

To take that business practice, and then try to foist it on consumers who don't have $500/hour lawyers on retainer looking out for them is more than just morally questionable, it crosses a line into some sort of fraud/extortion-adjacent realm.

If Tesla was really upset about this, it's a problem completely within their capacity to solve. Only send bugfixes OTA, require a service visit for new features. I'm betting that their software's such a trainwreck they wouldn't be able to compartmentalize it properly like that to save their own lives.

huhtenberg2• 3 years ago

I say Tesla should be free to sell whatever they want, but if the end user finds a way around it too bad.

The same should go for DVDs, BluRays and streaming media and yet here we are looking at jail time for bypassing the DRM.

theluketaylor2• 3 years ago

I don’t mind hardware shipping locked and being an optional fee to unlock. I have paid for the rear heated seats in my model 3.

What I’m vehemently opposed to is ongoing fees for things that don’t have ongoing costs. BMW wants to charge monthly for seat heaters or carplay, but those things are not a service and don’t have ongoing costs for BMW to provide. If anything creating an ongoing software lock creates an availability risk. If BMW’s authorization service is unavailable do you lose heated seats?

Several manufacturers are offering either monthly or one time costs for certain features. I’m less clear how I feel about that. Maybe quite valuable for someone who lives somewhere warm and only needs seat heat one month a year. It would take many years of paying for a single month to justify paying for the fully unlocked feature. I think I can live with optional monthly fees for things as long as you can always pay once and just have something that stays for her life of the car.

martin84126• 3 years ago

AMD shipped CPUs for quite some time where if you were lucky you could unlock additional cores that had been disabled for various reasons

y7• 3 years ago

I think the concept of "licensing" should not apply to something you own. If they want to rent you a CPU, fine, but then they should also bear the costs for when it breaks.

bartchamdo• 3 years ago

Sun Microsystems did this in the early 2000’s

kelnos16• 3 years ago

I think the problem becomes when you figure out a way to unlock those extra CPUs without paying IBM, and then IBM sues you or terminates your contract with them entirely.

People should not be constrained in doing whatever they want with the hardware they have bought.

wahnfrieden• 3 years ago

Does that mean all feature-gating iOS App Store IAP should be unlocked for iPhone owners?

johnl14793• 3 years ago

Not interested in having a whataboutism discussion. There is a clear distinction here of software vs hardware

ipaddr• 3 years ago

Of course.

Keirmot• 3 years ago

Your argument is not the same as the parent.

It would be the same if the volume rockers on the iPhone would only work if you have a paid subscription, or if you needed to pay extra to unlock 120fps while the device is capable but locked to 60fps because you’re not giving Tim Cook more money.

mensetmanusman3• 3 years ago

This analogy/mental model of what things are when you purchase them breaks down for software. It’s less environmentally wasteful to build a single sku and unlock paid software features requiring teams of devs.

RajT883• 3 years ago

paid software features requiring teams of devs.

This makes it easy for me to make up my mind about. FSD is about far more than just the hardware - there's many teams of devs working on it.

heated seats

There's little (no?) justification for software locking heated seats. Press the button, make the seats hot. This is just capitalist bullshit and we shouldn't put up with it.

rootusrootus4• 3 years ago

From the perspective of a customer, what is the difference between a heated seat that doesn't work because it doesn't exist, and one that is locked out by software? Assuming the customer isn't paying up front for that feature.

Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line. What's the big deal? The ability to change your mind and pay for the feature after purchase without getting an aftermarket seat heater seems like a nice bonus. Everyone wins.

_factor• 3 years ago

The wasted economy on lugging around the extra weight for a useless seat heater.

overnight53492• 3 years ago

In reality, you're still paying for the hardware. Don't think for a second that these 'optional' features don't figure into the price.

Sure, maybe they have a lower markup if you don't buy the license up front, but you still paid for it. These types of gimmicks are free money for the company pulling them.

chefandy2• 3 years ago

People are pushing back against the idea that you can't do whatever you want with a physical thing that you own. You own the heating mechanism in the seats, you own the hardware needed to turn them on, and you own the computer which activates it. If Toyota sold me a car with heated seat mechanisms installed and no switch, they couldn't stop me from installing my own switch. That you might not be able to do what you want with a physical object you own, in theory, makes this different.

fluoridation2• 3 years ago

Some people don't want to pay for heated seats. Turns out the manufacturer found it cheaper to just include the hardware anyway rather than differentiate on the production line.

If it's that cheap then it should just always be included, period. Otherwise it's just transparent greed. Why charge your customers extra for something that costs you literally nothing extra? Why not do the same for everything? The radio volume knob is software-locked and it's either at 100% or off, unless you pay extra to unlock it. The entertainment system will play ads continuously while the car is running unless you pay extra for the no-ads version. When you unlock the doors they will stay locked for five more minutes unless you pay extra for the Instant Unlock feature.

creata• 3 years ago

From the perspective of a customer, what is the difference between a heated seat that doesn't work because it doesn't exist, and one that is locked out by software?

In the former case, I didn't pay you money, so you didn't give me a good / service / whatever. That feels fair, because you need money to provide those things.

In the latter case, I didn't pay you money, so you didn't flip a switch. That seems like a dick move.

So I guess the difference is that in only one of these cases does it feel like the manufacturer is an asshole.

bastardoperator3• 3 years ago

  Some people don't want to pay for a 4th bedroom. Turns out the builder found it cheaper to just include the extra bedroom rather than differentiate on blueprints. What's the big deal? The ability to change your mind and increase your mortgage without having to deal with construction in the future seems like a nice bonus. Everyone wins.

Cars are property. It would be absurd to think portions of my property are off limits to me. The best part about all of this, is that none of these car manufacturers are going to win, it's a rat race and plenty of people are going to buy the cheapest car and mod the car software. I actually love it. I also love how the people doing this have physical access to their property and nobody can stop them.

paxys2• 3 years ago

I'm not torn at all. It's my car. I should be able to "hack" it as long as it doesn't involve illegal access to anyone's servers.

rvnx4• 3 years ago

The exact same way you should be able to install your own software on your iPhone

Denvercoder93• 3 years ago

I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc).

While I intuitively agree with you, I'm having a hard time arguing against the economic argument in favor it. Producing a single version of a product is generally cheaper than producing two different versions. Also offering a lower-margin, software-locked variant can (in certain conditions) make things cheaper for everyone, and it gives the consumer more choice: if you don't need or want the features of the premium model, you don't have to pay for it.

For example, imagine a manufacturer that sells two versions of its product, a basic model that makes up 20% of sales which costs $1000 to manufacture, and a premium model that makes up 80% of sales and costs $1250 to manufacture; this gives an average cost of $1200/unit. If they can save $100 per unit by only manufacturing the premium version and software-locking it, that reduces the average cost of goods sold to $1150/unit. They can pass on half of the savings to the customer, and still come out $50/unit ahead.

beiller4• 3 years ago

Producing the extra weight of the seat heater requires extra fuel to burn. Now multiply that by the number of cars on the road. Will cost the customer a (small) amount extra in fuel costs for a part that is not being used. So there is an economic argument that ya, we can subsidize manufactures by taxing people more. Seems like a bad deal to me.

Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight. Makes it worse.

MetaWhirledPeas2• 3 years ago

I wonder if you framed the question a different way if people would be more accepting of the arrangement.

Option A: Buy our car for $50,000

Option B: Buy our car for $40,000, but we'll software lock the "full self driving" feature

It sounds bad if you frame it as the company withholding functionality. It sounds better if you frame it as the company offering a discount, given some software stipulations.

This is really about paying for software. When you spend $400 for Ableton Live you are "unlocking" new capabilities for your PC. When you buy the latest PC game you are "unlocking" new capabilities for your GPU.

If you wanted to do all this yourself you are technically able to do so, at great difficulty and expense. You could develop your own software to operate your vehicle. (Not advisable.)

I prefer to look at it as a value proposition, rather than a battle of ideals. If a car with x, y, and z features disabled at a price of a is attractive to you, then buy it. If not, don't.

kelnos16• 3 years ago

It's not so simple, though.

First, they absolutely will not pass the savings on to the customer. Prices are governed by what people will pay, not by what it costs to make the car. If they can make the cars for $100 cheaper, they will pocket the $100, unless market forces (like cheaper cars from other manufacturers) signal that they should lower their prices.

Second, heated seats are heavier than non-heated seats. Customers who get software-locked heated seats and don't want the feature will get slightly worse gas mileage or EV range. So not only is the manufacturer potentially saving money building the car (savings they likely are not passing on to the customer), but they're pushing added operational costs onto the customer.

I think it's fine (though somewhat shady[0]) for a company to use these sorts of software interlocks. But the product sold to the customer belongs to the customer. If they want to hack or mod it to disable that software interlock, the company should just have to live with that, and shouldn't be allowed to punish the customer in other ways (like refusing to provide software updates, refusing to do maintenance, making that maintenance more expensive, etc.).

[0] Ultimately they can do whatever is legal. But customers don't like being nickel-and-dimed for things, and doing too much of this might cause customers to find alternatives. For example, I refuse to fly on super-low-cost airlines like Frontier and Spirit because I don't want a super-bare-bones experience where I have to pay extra for every little quality of life improvement. Flying is already not a particularly great experience, and I don't care to make it worse. It's Frontier & Spirit's prerogative to operate like that (and clearly enough customers are fine with it for these companies to be successful), but it's also my choice to spend my money elsewhere. But if the only option was airlines like these (or car manufacturers who software-lock everything), that would really suck.

_ea1k• 3 years ago

It gets a lot more ambiguous when the features being offered also come with increased risk of warrantly liability. I'm thinking of things like acceleration boost here rather than FSD and other driver assistance features.

For FSD, part of the payment is for ongoing maintenance. It is likely that the countermeasure would be subscriptions, and they already seem to be progressing in that direction.

yardie3• 3 years ago

FSD is a little trickier. FSD hardware is installed in your car and is used for ADAS. FSD is completely different firmware and has to be downloaded from Tesla servers which will check to see if you paid for that service.

It might be possible to subscribe to FSD, wait for it to download, then unsubscribe, and hack it to re-enable the firmware. But FSD is still beta and you'd be risking being exposed to get future updates.

m4636• 3 years ago

I can see two different ways of looking at this

If you enabled a seat heater, enabling hardware that the car already has installed, or hot-rodding the engine, I don't think it is that big a deal.

But if you downloaded and installed software from tesla that didn't come with the car, or did something like enabling free supercharging, that would be more like theft of services.

I expect if this becomes a thing, features will have to be downloaded after purchase.

eschneider10• 3 years ago

The flip side of that is when they disable features that were purchased when a car is purchased used.

asdff• 3 years ago

That's kind of just how cars work in general even outside of software. I put in the oem fog lights in my old car. All I had to do was basically screw through a plastic bracket in the grill that was installed at the factory specifically for the lights, plug in the lights into one end of the harness that was already in the car, pop out the preinstalled plastic cap in the dash and pop back in the fog light switch after connecting it with the other end of this harness that's already there near the button, routed through the firewall for me. The fuse was even already there in the fuse box for the fogs.

Basically everyone with this car is paying for 95% the actual hard work of what you need for the fog lights already. Very few owners end up going for the fog lights but everyone subsidizes their installation.

kevincox16• 3 years ago

You can also look at this the other way. Most people don't value the fog lights, so the very few owners pay the cost to install fog lights in every car because it is cheaper than creating a separate production line. So you are "cheating" the system by taking advantage of that hardware without sharing the cost of it.

alerighi• 3 years ago

In a sense it's something car manufacturers have made for years. Most of the time the difference from one model of a car and another with more power is the mapping on the engine control computer.

Till this day it wasn't a problem since this was not really locked down, and despite the fact that is illegal, people did modify the car software to unlock more power quite easily.

But... that "locking" of feature kind of made sense, since a car with less kW pays less taxes (at least in my country you pay more if the car is more powerful) so selling a locked down model was also an advantage for the user that wasn't interested in having more.

Locking down heated seats... it's just a move against the user. Buying a car you payed for that seats, since they are there, why the manufacturer should ask you another fee to use for something you already payed? To me this shouldn't be possible.

eschneider10• 3 years ago

I've done a fair bit of work with engine ECUs and remapping for more power is almost never "free". It's not like manufactures are offering different power outputs strictly via software, though sometimes they'll make different _tradeoffs_ between power/drivability/reliability.

I mean, it's easy to get 20% more power out of an engine if you don't care if it idles like a washing machine. And for some applications, that's just fine.

alistairSH4• 3 years ago

It's relatively clear to me...

Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter.

BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership.

Something like self-driving, where there might be an active internet connection and server costs - I'm ok with a recurring subscription.

Examples... BMW tried to charge a subscription to use Apple CarPlay. This should be a one-time fee (baked into model price, or a one-time software switch). Same for Toyota (I think) who tried to make remote-unlock a subscription (this was basic key fob unlock - no internet hosting/app maintenance involved). Also crappy move from them.

Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me. If you want the feature, pay for it. At minimum, I'd expect Tesla (or whoever) to void warranties on cars with these hacks applied (within the bounds of Magnuson-Moss Act in the US).

Cagrosso• 3 years ago

If the feature is built in to the car from the factory and disabled via software so they can charge more then you are already paying for the parts and lugging around the added weight in the vehicle thus costing you more in fuel. Software locking a hardware feature that is integrated is an awful practice.

Telsa chose to do this presumably to only have to buy a single seat configuration and streamline installs so they could hit production quotas.

kbos872• 3 years ago

Ongoing costs aside, it’s important to also recognize that there may have been massive up-front costs to develop something like self-driving before it generates revenue, which the manufacturer should have the right to recoup/monetize. If they choose to do that through a subscription, that feels like it’s within their right.

xkcd19632• 3 years ago

Heated seats is essentially a bool somewhere in the code implemented as artificial limitation.

Self-Driving is much more complex and abides much more as an argument to your view.

m4636• 3 years ago

Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me.

I disagree, pretty strongly. There is a line. They sold you something in its entirety, including the seats with wires.

I would agree with you if you had to download the control software from their servers.

I would agree with you if you if the upgrade provided you physical wires to install, even if you had to install them.

Related I think it would be fine to purchase the control software and/or heating wires from a third party that was not tesla and install it in your tesla car.

runeks• 3 years ago

BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership.

What if it's a sort of payment plan?

E.g. if we assume heated seats costs $1000 and the consumer wants to pay for this monthly over ten years then it'll be 1000/12/10=$8.33 plus interest per month.

Of course, this should mean that once repaid, it's the property of the owner and therefore transferred at resale.

chrisstanchak• 3 years ago

You can make the same argument that pirating software is ok

eimrine2• 3 years ago

In the world which disrespects FOSS for so much it is OK. Pirating books is 100% OK.

masterofmisc• 3 years ago

Cory Doctrow recently wrote a good piece about it here. Cars are going down the renting model, not the ownership model and it sucks.

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/

kelnos16• 3 years ago

I don't think there's any need to be "torn" on that; you can certainly hold different opinions for different nuances without conflict.

Hardware features that are actually present in the product when purchased should be available for use. If manufacturers want to put those features behind a software lockout, I guess that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't be allowed to complain or punish the customer if they find a way to circumvent it.

Charging for ongoing services that require the manufacturer to spend money to maintain infrastructure (like a remote engine start or remote lock/unlock) seems entirely fair, though.

But as a big fat asterisk to that last statement, it pisses me off that I can't run my own server infra for that myself. I bought a Mercedes E-class a little over a year ago, and it included a free year of their online services. Fortunately continuing the subscription is pretty cheap (something like $150/year). But it's an all-or-nothing deal. I want to be able to do remote lock/unlock and engine start, but I don't want Mercedes tracking my location wherever I go, and I don't care about map updates (since I use Google Maps via Android Auto for navigation).

I would much rather be able to spin up my own server to handle some of the remote capabilities, and not have the car talk to Mercedes' infra at all (except perhaps for software updates, which I would manually approve/accept).

I get why car makers won't do this. Even if they didn't want a stranglehold over providing services, I'm sure they still wouldn't do it: it would require extra "advanced" settings in the car and in the app to allow the customer to set an alternate server backend. And customers will inevitably make security mistakes with their own server backend, which could create liability for the carmaker, or at least cause bad press, even if it shouldn't.

Groxx2• 3 years ago

Let's start calling them what they are:

Freedom fighters.

"Hacking" carries quite a lot of negative connotations in most realms. These are people making sure you are able to make full use of your own stuff. There shouldn't be anything contentious about that.

px432• 3 years ago

"Freedom fighters" has a lot of negative connotations in many realms as well. It evokes images of rebels using violence to push some political agenda. Sometimes for worthy causes, sometimes less so.

No, we're keeping the word "hacker".

Groxx2• 3 years ago

While I agree with that image problem (I couldn't come up with any that didn't have it, and at least this one is descriptive)... I feel pretty confident claiming that "hackers" carries clearer and more consistent negative connotations to the general public (definitely not HN though).

zgluck• 3 years ago

I mean, we used to use the word "cracker" for this up until the late 90s. A hacker was someone who created something cool.

cobbal• 3 years ago

"A group of security researchers (aka hackers)" is an especially bad connection to be drawing for the general public.

vz8• 3 years ago

Cue the "You wouldn't download a car" memes.

mensetmanusman3• 3 years ago

https://youtu.be/52KR_eC8UFE

I wonder which schools had the children watch this after the pledge of allegiance.

pbhjpbhj4• 3 years ago

That can't have been a thing?

x86x87• 3 years ago

there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg I fixed it for you

nottorp2• 3 years ago

Can they fix the power steering too then?

Ref: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/steering-failures-are-t...

Apparently it's a software problem.

darknavi• 3 years ago

Hope all the other recalls get fixes by hackers too.

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/hyundai-kia-recall-fire-ris...

mrkeen2• 3 years ago

"Full Self-Driving ... will soon allow the car to steer on its own". April 6 2023 [1]

I think the hackers should have waited.

[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/is-tesla-full-self-drivin...

j_walter• 3 years ago

Will be interesting to see how they did it. Using low cost off the shelf parts means nothing if you have to dismantle the entire car and solder to the tiniest of points. I still remember the first Xbox mod...30+ wires attached to the smallest of points on the motherboard.

vessenes• 3 years ago

Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally.

Buried in the article is the claim that this will let them pull the RSA private key the car owns out for other uses -- while this is likely to remain a very niche attack vector, that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla. On the other hand, post jailbreak you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers, which would be nice.

judge20205• 3 years ago

Anonymizing your location - until you put in route and your car asks for traffic information from teslas servers.

d4l3k5• 3 years ago

If the map can't talk to Tesla it'll use Google maps directly. I usually don't allow connections to Tesla on my rooted Model 3

FirmwareBurner• 3 years ago

that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla.

It says in the article: "Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems."

So it's only a matter of time till Tesla patches it.

capableweb• 3 years ago

More relevant quotes from the article:

The group of hackers claims that their “Tesla Jailbreak” is “unpatchable” and allows to run “arbitrary software on the infotainment.”

And the full quote of what you put:

Electrek’s Take
Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems.
In this case, the hackers said that despite the exploit, they believe Tesla’s security is better than other automakers.

Doesn't seem like the security researchers actually shared the exploit with Tesla, at least as far as I understand.

denysvitali3• 3 years ago

Although this seems unpatchable without an HW upgrade

samstave3• 3 years ago

On the black-hat-flip-side ; This is exactly what a Black Hat would want to say - preventing from Tesla stating that they "aint got shit" from the hackers...

So hackers can claim they called tesla, and tesla can ignore it and we no wiser

striking2• 3 years ago

I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place.

For the Xbox 360, the "Reset Glitch Hack" (which worked similarly) would just try over and over again until it got it right. A computer is happy to try tens or hundreds of times on your behalf.

jsheard3• 3 years ago

However the next Xbox added active countermeasures against glitching attacks which force a reboot if the clocks, temperatures or voltages go outside of reasonable bounds, and that's never been defeated. Glitching attacks can be very powerful, but they have a limited shelf life if the hardware manufacturer cares to prevent them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo

mgiampapa3• 3 years ago

Just like we used to have cable box guys willing to sell you an unlocked box for premium channels, we are eventually going to have feature unlock guys that you go do and for a small fee perform some slightly more technical hack to enable features that are already there.

technothrasher• 3 years ago

This market already exists for things like enabling Navigation on VW/Audi cars. People were offering to enable the hidden Android Auto support on my Porsche Macan for $600, which I almost went for until I found the scripts and instructions to do it myself.

no_wizard• 3 years ago

The only hack on cable style TV I remember is you could buy modified satellite authentication cards for DirectTV for a time - usually on eBay or similar sites - and they worked. No idea how long, I had an uncle that had one though, got all the premium channels etc.

I doubt any of this works anymore though

rebolek2• 3 years ago

Let me tell you what's wrong with this:

Nothing.

bri3d2• 3 years ago

This has already been the case on European navigation systems (Audi and VW MMI/MIB) for many years now.

VW Audi Group developed an entire infrastructure called SWaP (Software as a Product) and FEC (Feature Enable Codes) many years ago, and ever since, there has been a cottage industry in bypassing the system to enable features like CarPlay, Navigation, and Performance Monitor which are usually locked by software trim levels.

mrguyorama4• 3 years ago

Internal employee controls have gotten way more sophisticated, and cared about since it's one of the things you need to do for business focused information security.

bonestamp27• 3 years ago

Be careful though, some automakers are tracking software mods and voiding warranties. Example: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/beware-dodge-challenger-mods-do...

awad• 3 years ago

Mod chips for consoles and mod chips for cars don't seem too dissimilar

sleepybrett• 3 years ago

I had a friend that made a tidy sum in college by selling replacement chips for high end cars that overrode some governors built into the firmware.

berniedurfee2• 3 years ago

And gray market chips you could swap into your US Robotics Sportster modem for dual standard 56k baud compatibility!

progman32• 3 years ago

I unlocked a whole extra gallon on my i3's fuel tank (just about doubling its capacity) just by poking it with a computer, there's definitely people around willing to pay for this service.

klysm• 3 years ago

I don’t understand how you can defend against low voltage attacks like this.

jsheard3• 3 years ago

The Xbox 360 was broken by voltage glitching, and Microsoft successfully prevented it from happening again with the Xbox One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo

In short, there's now a hardware watchdog which reboots the system if anything weird happens to the clocks/temps/voltages, and they carefully structured their boot ROM (the only code they can't patch later) to ensure that even if you somehow manage to sneak one glitch past the watchdog, no single branch condition being inverted will lead to a compromised state.

weebull• 3 years ago

Make sure all security critical state is initialised to known values at reset, then have very tight tolerances on your power watchdog to initiate reset.

However, that doesn't make for a stable system when powered from batteries.

ddalex2• 3 years ago

you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers

I already anonymise my location on Tesla's servers by simply not owning a Tesla

moffkalast• 3 years ago

Ah, but where's the challenge in that?

coolspot• 3 years ago

Your car is filmed and recognized by other teslas.

93po• 3 years ago

Cool

chaps2• 3 years ago

What kind of car do you have? Your car almost definitely shares its gps location to the manufacturer and downstream data brokers.

brewtide• 3 years ago

Semi related question I suppose. Do the Teslas simply use GPS for their location information? If so, couldn't one spoof the GPS using a hackRF or similar?

ballenf2• 3 years ago

Targeted by the FCC seems worse than violating a Tesla clickwrap agreement.

comboy• 3 years ago

I have no idea about Tesla specifically but normally you'd also you cell and wifi information (in their case probably also information from other teslas around) and additionally you have accelerometer and the whole "self-driving" computer to estimate where the car is and where it's going. It's also a known attack vector and likely covered because GPS signal is really weak so it's easy for somebody outside the car to try to make a mess.

bushbaba• 3 years ago

Isn’t this a huge risk to AMD’s confidential compute offering. It’s a major security flaw.

kccqzy• 3 years ago

I have reviewed the threat model carefully before. AMD never claims that their confidential compute offering is immune to attacks involving physical access. I assume what you mean by confidential compute is technology like AMD SEV SNP? Those are very different in that they allow you to run a trusted virtual machine on an untrusted hypervisor. This attack is completely different; it's akin to breaking Secure Boot on a PC.

closewith7• 3 years ago

Can you not turn off vehicle tracking?

speedgoose• 3 years ago

Since a few weeks you get a classic consent screen for various categories of tracking. At least in Norway. You can turn everything off but I think some data is still sent to your phone through the Tesla servers. And I assume it’s not end 2 end encrypted.

bastardoperator3• 3 years ago

Definitely sophisticated, but something console hackers have been doing for quite some time now including the boot flow. I'm wondering if a Tesla vehicle/computer is more sophisticated than say a PS5?

dhx• 3 years ago

This is the same attack (and same people who developed) faulTPM[1] that was previously discussed[2]. This article is the same people demonstrating that attack against Tesla vehicles. The paper[1] and previous discussion[2] address the underlying problems with AMD's Secure Processor (AMD-SP) that is embedded in their CPU SoCs and previously and more commonly known as Platform Security Processor (AMD-PSP).

Unlike a web browser where W3C AntiFraudCG folk propose that websites would blacklist all impacted AMD-SP hardware and create massive amounts of e-waste[3], Tesla likely can't do much about this attack because Tesla (not users) would be responsible for a very expensive change of vehicle hardware.

If it's not an easy-to-execute attack like faulTPM, there are more complex (but becoming more mainstream and cheaper) IC reverse engineering methods like polishing the die down to take photos of each metal layer and regenerating VHDL, FIB editing an operational IC to bypass tamper detection methods, etc[4].

A security architect of the Xbox One presented a talk[5] a few years ago which provides some good background too. Largely the Xbox One has managed to avoid piracy because they made it economically not worth anyone's time to attack due to competitive pricing models versus high cost of attack. Similar to use of Denuvo for a month or two after release of a PC game, attackers aren't going to bother if their work amounts to nothing a month later.

Hacking a Tesla to enable additional features is worth a lot of money, so the economics are quite different. It's also different economics for printer cartridges, "pay to enable more features or performance" network equipment, etc. The cost of IC reverse engineering / FIB editing attacks (or other future attack methods) will keep reducing. IC tamper detection features will get more complex. Perhaps attackers will even get an advantage once they can readily reverse engineer 3nm ICs and defenders can't do much other than implementing ever more complex and obfuscated IC tamper detection features and VHDL logic (kind of like a Denuvo situation in hardware).

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14717

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35787195

[3] https://github.com/antifraudcg/proposals/issues/19

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6390Zqca3Mg

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo

kotaKat• 3 years ago

They haven't managed to "unlock" the features yet. They've got root on the IC which "could" lead to unlocking them.[1]

https://www.blackhat.com/us-23/briefings/schedule/index.html...

mrkeen2• 3 years ago

Something which might work in the future, being announced as something that works now? How appropriate!

amelius• 3 years ago

For now. They will plug the hole, just like Apple will stop any undocumented use of their GPU when it suits them. Why waste your time on these companies?

filcuk2• 3 years ago

Possibly because it's their job, it's interesting, educational, maybe there's a monetary reward, maybe the reward was the journey all along. The article mentions it can't be fixed by software update.

dxxvi• 3 years ago

enable us to extract an otherwise vehicle-unique hardware-bound RSA key

not ed25519? I know very little about these encryption thingies. The Internet recommends ed25519 over rsa.

pbhjpbhj4• 3 years ago

They haven't broken the encryption technique, they've bypassed it by extracting the key using weaknesses in the hardware-software. You have to redo the process for each physical device to extract the particular key in use in that device.

Someone1234• 3 years ago

While the exploit that allows them to run arbitrary code is unfixable, that doesn't mean Tesla couldn't update the vehicle to make accessing these features more difficult. For example, simply not delivering chunks of FSD to unauthorized vehicles server-side.

I guess my point is: This will start an arms race. Eventually you'll need to pick between an on-network Tesla getting software updates from them, or an off-network Tesla with FSD and other things that unlocked can provide. Heated seats can likely be re-enabled electronically without software (i.e. splice in a switch).

Personally, purely from a utilitarian perspective, I wouldn't choose to use FSD that wasn't getting continuous updates because it may not include road changes, state law changes, and frankly still has a lot of room for safety/reliability improvement. Maybe "Enhanced Autopilot" ($6K) just for lane change.

PS - 9/10 of Tesla's recalls have been software updates. So you'd lose those with an off-network Tesla.

count• 3 years ago

The arms race started the first time a Tesla shipped. They've had some serious security folks on the Tesla side since the early days.

somerandomqaguy• 3 years ago

Makes me wonder how Tesla's going to react to this. Can't imagine they're happy about this.

fragmede6• 3 years ago

The real question is Tesla Supercharger capability. If you can't plug your car into that network, then you've lost a ton of value. But here's the thing. In order to disable supercharging, Tesla remotes into your vehicle to turn it off. It doesn't happen on the charger side, it happens on the vehicle. So if you have root on your Tesla, you can make sure you can always supercharge, which isn't mentioned anywhere else.

eschneider10• 3 years ago

Here's a question for the lawyers out there: if you notify Tesla that they're no longer authorized to access YOUR car, and they remote into it anyways, would that come under Computer Fraud and Abuse?

pbhjpbhj4• 3 years ago

IANAL. It seems like it should probably be covered anyway, without the notification. Assumed consent would cover updates and improvements. No-one is consenting to their car being crippled, surely.

xwdv• 3 years ago

You agreed to EULA.

kramerger• 3 years ago

Wait a minute... heated seats are software locked on Teslas?

WTF guys?

DistractionRect• 3 years ago

I kinda get it. Rather than maintaining a supply of multiple parts which complicates your supply chain and install/repair procedures, Tesla is making cars nearly 100% identical physically and differentiating in software.

Workaccount2• 3 years ago

And getting the suckers who pay up to cover the cost for all vehicles having it.

LesZedCB3• 3 years ago

so make them all cost the same then.....?

Night_Thastus2• 3 years ago

The supply and install problem clearly isn't that hard, auto makers have been doing it for many decades at this point.

Plus, it seems backwards from a business standpoint. You always have the cost of installing the hardware, but now you only get a % of users who agree to pay for the additional cost? The only way to "fix" that is to artificially raise the price of the product so effectively everyone is paying, which means now you're double-dipping from the people who do want it.

It's just crap. If I buy a physical device (not renting) then I own it and should be able to use its full capabilities. The only thing that should cost more is anything that has ongoing cost to the manufacturer if I use it.

yardie3• 3 years ago

As are the footwell lights, fog lights, and premium audio.

Heated front/rear seats have been standard equipment since 2020 I believe.

ggreer2• 3 years ago

That's not true. The fog lights and premium audio both require hardware retrofits.

jh00ker• 3 years ago

Premium audio isn't a software-disabled feature. You can buy a wiring harness on Amazon to enable the disabled, yet installed, speakers: https://amzn.to/3rVBrel

ggreer2• 3 years ago

Before November of 2021, the cheapest Model 3 had heated front seats, and the rear heated seats could be unlocked for $300 (later reduced to $200).[1]

In November of 2021, they made heated seats standard. I think the only software unlocks available for current vehicles are acceleration boost, enhanced autopilot, and FSD.

1. https://www.tesla.com/support/upgrades#tesla-accordion-123-w...

PicassoCTs• 3 years ago

Now comes the funny part, were tesla tries to make the platform trusted and locked down, and then people start to flash there own firmware and solder chip-mods, cause there is nothing GNUnder the sun.

Wouldn't be surprised if Tesla has a defeat-device buried somewhere that allows for remote permanent deactivation once parked in case of piracy

autoexec2• 3 years ago

using the hardware you own should never be considered "piracy"

denysvitali3• 3 years ago

They can anyways remotely ssh into any parked Tesla nowadays

EspressoGPT• 3 years ago

In other news: If you intercept the boot process of a system and open a root shell there, you can access the system.

system2• 3 years ago

I won't be buying any car with software locked features.

ngneer• 3 years ago

Game theory at play. Tesla and its customers are adversaries, vying for the same dollars. Tesla implementing these security measures directly translates to being able to charge more for services. Same as John Deere and many others. This is a minmax problem. How to pay the least to cause the other actor to pay the most. If the feature costs $15K and breaking security costs $15K then it is effective security. Obviously not the case here.

logifail3• 3 years ago

Game theory at play. Tesla and its customers are adversaries, vying for the same dollars

Umm, I think this is more like "airlines vs passengers" when passengers read about "hidden city ticketing" in a travel blog, think it sounds cool yet haven't properly understand it, yet decide to go to town on it anyway.[0]

Since most providers are entirely at liberty to tell a customer they're no longer welcome, as a customer you have to be really really sure you want to own up to the provider as being an adversary, since you might end up needing another provider. For ever.

(Full disclosure: have been looking for, booking, and flying on less-than-entirely-legitimate airfares for a looong time. Have occasionally broken out in a cold sweat at an airport in some far-flung country on a dodgy itinerary when I think I've been rumbled...)

[0] https://www.insider.com/skiplagging-american-airlines-banned...

dktoao• 3 years ago

Fascinating article, didn't know skip lagging was a thing or that it is illegal. It definitely shouldn't be, just seems to be government protecting entrenched corporate interests at the cost of the populace. aka par for the course.

catboybotnet• 3 years ago

It seems the thought that Teslas are not cars, but rather tablets with wheels is accurate.

gcanyon3• 3 years ago

Because what could possibly go wrong hacking a hunk of metal that transports you at lethal speeds...

iramiller• 3 years ago

This line of reasoning is what is used to justify lock-in and anti-right to repair legislation. Following this reasoning you shouldn’t be allowed to change a flat tire on your car as it could be improperly tightened and fly off at speed.

Technical constraints to lock out owners/users only serve to enforce a manufacturer’s feudalistic rent seeking and revenue extraction policies.

In the overall scope of driving a personal automobile cellphone use or even adjusting the car entertainment system are far more common causes of accidents and death and yet these are not locked away via technical controls despite being very easy to accomplish.

gcanyon3• 3 years ago

Two things can be true at the same time: 1. It's a sketchy idea for the manufacturer to lock away features behind paywalls. 2. It's a really bad idea to monkey with the internals of a self-driving car.

gedy• 3 years ago

As someone who made and drives a rat rod, it's basically the same situation? If the car fails due to my physical hacking, it's on me. Should be same for software.

gcanyon3• 3 years ago

I never said they shouldn't be able to do it; I said it's a bad idea to do it.

To put it in your terms: I'm happy for you to be allowed to drive a rat rod (hello, fellow old? I haven't heard that term in a looong time), but clearly a car with likely no crumple zones, air bags, antilock brakes, etc., etc. is less safe than a modern sedan.

waterheater3• 3 years ago

Everyone accepts a certain risk simply by driving, and we all have relative risk tolerance. Point in case: I knew of a 20-year-old driver who owned a nice, safe vehicle but was too afraid to drive on an interstate highway because they were afraid. That's not a "hunk of metal" issue but a risk-comfort "issue," which really is relative.

Regardless, your point highlights the eternal fight between liberty and "safety and security." A society which tolerates little risk seeks to minimize liberty and maximize safety and security. A society which tolerates much risk seeks to maximize liberty and minimize safety and security.

To use cars as the prime example: why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags [1]? They're expensive, bulky, decrease fuel economy, and may cause harm to a passenger if it improperly inflates. By owning a vehicle, I assume sole responsibility for the correct and proper operation of it as well as the physical well-being of any passengers. Frankly, I should be able to purchase a vehicle equipped without airbags to decrease the overall purchase price, thereby allowing me to use that money on other things.

The same argument doesn't apply to certain things like ABS, which I argue should be regulated because poor braking affects people both inside and outside the car. Airbags, on the other hand, only apply to people inside the car. By carrying any passenger in the vehicle, the owner assumes legal responsibility for their safe carriage.

[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/federal-legislat...

fwip• 3 years ago

why am I required to purchase a vehicle equipped with airbags?

The same reason that you can't sell food that's sweetened with lead. You can add lead to your own food if you want, just like you can drive a car without airbags.

kelnos16• 3 years ago

I think it makes more sense if you frame it that the manufacturer is required to sell cars with airbags. We don't, as a society, want people to have to make a choice between safety and cost in that particular situation, so we mandate that the manufacturer can't even sell without them.

Beyond that, if we assume airbags, on average, decrease injuries and deaths, then society also has an interest in helping to ensure that. Heavily injured and dead people put more of a strain on our health care system, and the costs for that are not solely borne by the person who gets injured or dies.

Certainly there's room for disagreement on whether or not all that is worth the added per-individual cost, the regulatory cost, etc. But let's remember that there are many things that, on first glance, seem to only affect an individual, but actually ripple out and affect others as well.

no_time• 3 years ago

That's very cool. Especially if this could compromise the desktop version of this tech as well. Extracting my own TPM keys could be useful if MS/GOOG decides to boil the frog even harder.

LocalH5• 3 years ago

Rent-seeking is the true American way, it seems.

Good on the hackers. Good on everyone who helps to liberate us from the overreach of big business.

umvi2• 3 years ago

Is it rent seeking/overreach?

I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it.

Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking?

But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers unlock it for everyone for free?

qup• 3 years ago

Rent keeps getting paid. It's not a one-time purchase of $25.

LocalH5• 3 years ago

Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective.

If the content is on the disc or shipped as part of the files of the base game, then it should be accessible without additional purchase. Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content".

Imagine this taken to the logical extreme. I sell you a printer. It comes with an amount of ink. However, I've decided that instead of allowing all of the ink to be used, I will limit the printer to only give you X number of pages per cartridge, regardless of actual ink content. Buuuuut, you can also pay me $5 for the "ability" to use all of the ink in your cartridges instead of only part of it. Would it be wrong for hackers to unlock my printers to use all of the ink without having to pay a subscription fee?

Cornbilly2• 3 years ago

Yes. You've already distributed the binary to their machine and are using their resources to store it. In my view, it belongs to them and they should have full access.

LesZedCB3• 3 years ago

how is this even a question? this is exactly what happened with Star Wars Battlefront II, and EA was once again absoutely crucified by the decision to have paid unlocks for content you technically could grind for but was essentially unfeasible.

the only difference between now and 2017 is people saw EA raking in the money anyway and have followed suit, so it's now more common. the outrage was proved toothless... cause star wars sells, and so does te$la.

kelnos16• 3 years ago

I don't think you'd "deserve" to have hackers unlock it, but I also think that you should have no legal right to prevent people from unlocking it without your permission, and I don't think it's unethical or immoral for anyone to do so. If you sell something to someone, and put it in their hands, they should have the right to do whatever they want with it.

Presumably you've made the choice to bundle the base game and the DLC together like that in order to reduce your costs somehow, and I'm not responsible for your business model or logistical issues. If you're worried about people unlocking the DLC for free, don't put it in their hands without charging them for it.

Either way, I think it's entirely reasonable to classify the concept of "charging extra at a later date for something you've already given the customer" as rent-seeking or overreach. Even more so if, instead of a one-time charge, you choose to charge a subscription for something that does not require any ongoing costs for you to provide.

sakopov2• 3 years ago

Am I the only one who thinks it's incredibly irresponsible to disclose this without going through proper channels first? They claim this hack unlocks a host of other features. Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences.

kerkeslager• 3 years ago

No, fuck that. Tesla is locking people out of their own cars' features. Being allowed to mess with your own car is one of the privileges of owning a car.

sangnoir2• 3 years ago

Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences

People have always been able to do this with a wrench since before the invention of cars.

sakopov2• 3 years ago

I don't think anyone's taking a soldering iron to their on-board computer in a standard ICE vehicle. The fact that tesla has vehicle control code running on it (beyond your typical lane assist) makes this infinitely worse. Or am I missing something? I get that people disagree with these features being locked down and I agree. My point is this isn't like changing a cold air intake in your ICE car. This can have you go into a fucking wall at high speeds.

dbg31415• 3 years ago

Was the password, “XGonGiveIttToYa”?

kklisura• 3 years ago

Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems.

We need to bring back hackers/crackers of the old and NOT share exploits with these companies.

elvircrn• 3 years ago

'sup

jchw2• 3 years ago

Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry.

Popular is the wrong word. Common, maybe. But popular?

dathos• 3 years ago

From the point of view of the auto industry I would say popular is the right word.

jchw2• 3 years ago

Call me pedantic but I think using the word popular without qualifying it any further really begs for you to interpret it more generally, even in this context. Prevalent or common are better terms here in my opinion, since they regard the status quo rather than opinions.

rkagerer• 3 years ago

Seeing this gives me the same warm, fuzzy feeling I had when I jailbroke my first iPhone to gain features that were impossible otherwise.

I wonder if Tesla will start using physical one-shot fuse bits buried deep in hard-to-access components (eg. hardwire a heater control relay open in the final programming step at the factory) to make these type of attacks more difficult. Of course that would preclude up-selling the feature later.

frankus• 3 years ago

I think it's all about the possibility to later upsell. I don't think the economics work out where it's cheaper to install something like a seat heater in every car and permanently disable for price discrimination purposes (the way you might for e.g. a CPU).

My brain can kind of rationalize this as "it makes the up-front price lower, and you can add features to your car without even visiting a dealer", but my heart definitely recoils at the idea of paying for something like that already in my possession.

kevincox16• 3 years ago

I agree that it feels really wrong but I don't think it is actually unethical to lock features like this. (Although the way the locks are implemented may be unethical.)

It allows making multiple logical models with a single production line. This lowers the cost and in theory that is valuable to consumers. I imagine that if there was no ability to "upgrade" later this wouldn't even be news. Consumers would just see it as a base model and a premium model, and Tesla found a very cost effective way to provide two models of car. Or four models if you count self-driving.

But upgrading later is actually valuable. Why not let someone add features as their budget allows? It does "expose" that these are only software locks but I think that is actually fine. In theory it is just the people who purchase the premium upgrades that are paying for these features in all cars. It shouldn't necessarily affect the price of the base model and you aren't really paying for the feature unless you purchase the upgrade.

londons_explore• 3 years ago

There are already third party garages offering to unlock various things for less than Tesla wants (or upgrades Tesla simply doesn't sell).

They tend to involve a gizmo intercepting can messages though. The gizmo is usually keyed to the serial number of the car so you can't clone/move/resell them.

liendolucas4• 3 years ago

Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry.

Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.

ryathal• 3 years ago

You better be ok with building your own car then, because every major player is adding subscriptions for various features. Remote start and remote lock/unlock are the most common, along with satellite radio.

liendolucas4• 3 years ago

The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.

forgetfreeman2• 3 years ago

I am very ok with building my own car if it comes to that. It's the cretins willing to actually go along with bullshit like this that are the problem.

hot_gril11• 3 years ago

Or having an older car. Personally this concept doesn't bother me; I'd just not pay for the features. Many old cars have features locked behind buying the physical button to activate them. Hackers find their ways around that, and now it's becoming harder to hack. Fine, whatever. But I just don't trust the crappy software they increasingly put into new cars, so I'm riding out my old one for now.

eganist3• 3 years ago

if everyone is doing it, it's time for the law to step in.

grishka• 3 years ago

Features that need servers — which all remote ones do — have a running cost, so it's fine for them to be a subscription. However, paying to use the hardware you already have installed on your car, like heated seats or smart headlights, is absolutely not fine.

pkaye2• 3 years ago

BMW has plans for locking features behind subscriptions like seat heaters, heated steering wheels, recording from your car's camera, etc.

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...

hot_gril11• 3 years ago

My friend bought a new BMW, and the seat heater subscription is already a thing on it.

lambersley• 3 years ago

This isn't new. Automakers following software companies' subscription model

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/automakers-bmw-gm-mercedes-char...

oatmeal12• 3 years ago

People overreact to this. If this didn't exist, they would just manufacture cars the old way where multiple version of the same car are produced at high and low prices. I have seen no evidence provided this actually increases the total price of a high feature car. This might actually lower the average price paid because of the economies of scale achieved by making fewer different versions of the same car. Resale value can increase as well, since the person buying your car can get the features they want, even if you didn't originally purchase those features.

circuit103• 3 years ago

In an ideal world we could just give everyone those features if they didn’t cost any extra to add instead of creating an artificial pricing structure to get more money out of people. Maybe it can’t work that way but making people’s lives worse just to punish them for paying less in order to incentivise them to pay more, rather than as compensation to the company for doing more work, seems wrong

liendolucas4• 3 years ago

I'm not overreacting to this. I'm absolutely tired to learn that subscriptions are being pushed everywhere. Having to pay for something that is already in a vehicle is insulting to me. Car manufacturers should sell cars, not subscriptions of ANY kind. What's going to be tomorrow? Will I have to subscribe to a service to actually let my speakers emit sound despite that I have payed for them? Ridiculous today, a business tomorrow.

wpietri2• 3 years ago

You have pretty strong opinions for somebody who has admittedly seen no evidence either way.

Personally, I think it's a terrible idea in that it further changes the relationship between buyers and sellers toward a relationship of long-term exploitation. It takes the notion of enshittification [1] and extends it into the realm of physical goods.

[1] https://kottke.org/23/01/the-enshittification-lifecycle-of-o...

afavour2• 3 years ago

It strikes me as a far more fundamental shift: up until now I buy something and I own it. In the future I will effectively be renting part of my car. Instead of a one time payment I’m now I’m now required to make monthly payments until the day I stop using my car. That’s a massive difference.

Unless it’s something that requires the car manufacturer to also spend money on an ongoing basis (e.g. a cell data connection or something) it strikes me as absolutely immoral that these companies are going to band together and force this arrangement upon us.

Tangurena24• 3 years ago

Every car manufacturer is planning to do this. Not enough people protested when this category of features first came out.

eimrine2• 3 years ago

Can electric car be not a computer-powered car?

okanat• 3 years ago

You cannot get rid of the entire computerization because of the battery management. Also having some smarts for different terrain conditions generally enable some efficiencies. The hard truth is energy in Lithium ions will never be as energy dense as breaking a hydrocarbon bond. So electrification will always need some computers unlike the efficiencies we can gain from changing the mechanical design of the engine (which can also and did improve with computers).

However as many industries the car companies try to keep the infinite growth premise alive by entirely computerizing all parts and close off any innovation with patents. Just like ICs, in the future nobody will own their car and those who want that will need hundreds of billions to burn to create companies that has no chance of competition.

alden5• 3 years ago

It really depends on your definition, pretty much every car for the past 50 years has been computerized. If what you're really after is an ev with no lockouts there are plenty of ev's where the only lockouts are to ensure you don't do anything stupid (no over-discharge destroying the battery for slightly more range, etc) But if you're after complete control you'll find that in ev conversions with dedicated speed controllers will give you complete control, so you can shoot yourself in the foot if need be.

advael• 3 years ago

Big fan of anything that harms the control companies have over computers they've sold people, especially in deadly weapons like cars. Excellent work

thevania• 3 years ago

every time there is some HW hacking and its TU Berlin, only one man comes to mind prof. Seifert and his team: https://www.tu.berlin/sect/ueber-uns/team

quite prolific

1023bytes• 3 years ago

Doesn't seem like a good idea to actually do this, since the car phones home all the time. Tesla could blacklist you from supercharging etc.

slowmovintarget• 3 years ago

The 21st century equivalent of yanking the governor chip out of the Grand National? Well, OK, not quite.

https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/39941/what-is-a-buick-gran...

ajsnigrutin4• 3 years ago

This should be "hacked" by the regulator and not by the hackers. If they sold you a car with heated seats (so if the hardware is there), the heated seats should be available for the consumer to use.

abandonliberty• 3 years ago

So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

You make a common argument that's deceptively anti-consumer.

Yes, this can be abused - but that's a different argument.

hot_gril11• 3 years ago

I'd be happy paying less for less features. Or paying less and then hacking the features in. It's kinda like ad-supported YouTube, pretty nice for me cause I just ad-block.

ajsnigrutin4• 3 years ago

If they sell you a car with heated seats, you should have heated seats. They already sold you the heated seats, you already have the heated seats, and they just want more money for something they already got money for, and you already have.

TobyTheDog123• 3 years ago

So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features?

They should, it's called buying a different car without those features installed.

Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

You are already paying for those features upfront as part of buying the car - there is no recurring expense to the manufacturer. If you do not want or are unable to pay for those features, you buy a different car without them installed.

What you're arguing for is for everyone to have to pay another monthly subscription, and conflating "paying more for a car" with "paying monthly for non-consumable resources for a car".

BeFlatXIII• 3 years ago

So people should not have the option of paying less of paying less for less features? Everyone must pay for features that only a subset of customers use?

Yes. I'm sick of concern for the value-conscious dragging down the entire market.

notpushkin• 3 years ago

I think this can then be “hacked” back by not selling you car, but instead renting it for something like $1/yr + the price of the car as a contract setup price. Personally, this is not the world I would like to live in.

sushid• 3 years ago

How do you feel about CPU/GPU/RAM binning?

sirsinsalot2• 3 years ago

There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks.

Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine.

Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine.

Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple secondary markets: sorry, the BMW account you have isn't linked to this VIN. Heated seats and android auto are disabled.

Let's stop the third.

hot_gril11• 3 years ago

What's the difference between the second and the third?

dr_orpheus• 3 years ago

Second is "I pay $50 once to unlock heated seats in my car forever. This car now has heated seats and anyone that I sell it to also gets heated seats"

Third is "I pay $5/month for heated seats for the entire time I own the car. Anyone that I sell the car to would also have to pay $5/month for heated seats."

Edit: The other version of the third option (your BMW account is not tied to this vin) is something like "I pay $50 once for heated seats in my car. If I sell it to someone, they also have to pay $50 to unlock the heated seats"

lajamerr• 3 years ago

Probably the same sentiment between DLC vs Expansions in gaming.

But fundamentally no difference because you are getting a discounted price in exchange for the soft locked feature. So 2 and 3 are the same imo.

sdfignaionio2• 3 years ago

Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine.

Tolerable, perhaps, but pretty far from fine. It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with?

We have built a society where what is plainly crazy is rational.

hot_gril11• 3 years ago

It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with?

All part of cost tradeoffs. Previously, they'd build the car with the ability to support all those add-ons even if the customer isn't getting them. Turns out it's cheaper not to do that.

wingworks• 3 years ago

Kinda what the chip Intel (and others chip makers?) have been doing for years. Make the best next gen chip, then strip out parts to slow it down and sell cheaper ones. Not 1:1 the same, but pretty similar.

someplaceguy9• 3 years ago

Tolerable, perhaps, but pretty far from fine. It's pretty shocking to me that people in our society build things and then deliberately break them so they can make more money. Is this really the best system we can come up with?

It's not as bad as it looks. If you think about it, it's basically a form of wealth redistribution.

Rich people will pay the premium, which subsidizes the cost of the car for others. In other words, poorer customers will get a cheaper car.

It's a pretty good deal for those who are less wealthy and don't really need the extra functionality.

Also, these poorer customers can always upgrade later if want to (because circumstances change and they want the functionality or because they get richer and can afford more luxury). This is not always possible with hardware-based customization, or even if it is, it would be more expensive.

The alternative would be to only install the extra hardware in the cars of the wealthier customers, but presumably this would make the car more expensive for everyone (both the poor and the rich owners), due to the added costs of hardware-based customization. So everyone would lose.

And even if the latter is not true, a similar car manufacturer could just offer you a better deal by selling you a similar, cheaper car without installing the hardware, which means that the manufacturer/brand that does the shenanigans would lose customers. Competition is pretty awesome like that.

harry8• 3 years ago

Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine.

Ok as long as /any/ end run around that garbage made by the car's /owner/ is specifically: legal, legitimate and not-warranty voiding.

Because you know the step from there to not being able to repair the things you own without paying more to allow you to do so is nonexistent.

Panzer04• 3 years ago

The solution to these problems? Don't be a customer of said abusive company.

If they don't present value for money at a given price point (including these sorts of shenanigans), don't buy it. So long as you know about these issues up front I don't think it's that problematic (even if it feels a bit wasteful in a holistic sense)

satao• 3 years ago

Individual solutions are never going to fix collective problems.

ravenstine• 3 years ago

The third is exactly why the second is NOT fine. The second naturally leads to the third.

Until legislation is passed, you will only pry my dumbcar from my cold dead hands.

kevincox16• 3 years ago

I think the third is fine depending on how it is implemented. For example if the heated seats have a simple controller that requires a passphrase to enable and when I purchase the feature I get that passphrase then it seems reasonable.

If the feature is implemented by locking down the whole infotainment system or I need a new passphrase every month and its going to break when Tesla servers are down then I am less fine with that.

I think if you can accurately lock off a feature without affecting the rest of the user's freedom than that is pretty fair. (Sort of like CPU manufactures burning fuses to disable cores or features) But if the lock depends on locking down the entire system and restricting how I use the bits that I did pay for then I start to have a problem with it.

robotnikman• 3 years ago

Now lets do the the same for Mercedes and any other car manufacturer who starts to try this crap. Good to see stuff like this happening.

ccosmin• 3 years ago

At least in France if you have a serious accident there’s a technical examination of your car. If the insurance company finds out you tampered your car software (debridage) you’re left without any coverage.

bigmofo2• 3 years ago

I would have thought that EFF and FSF would be more active in trying to promote open source in automobiles for privacy, security and being able to repair and modify the vehicle. I would think that it would be rather mind blowing how much information is gathered by the new vehicles about oneself. I have enough money to buy any model of Tesla, but will not due to privacy, security and safety reasons. (I consider drive by wire braking and acceleration a safety issue. With a stick shift I can insert the clutch and know that the drive system can be disabled. I also consider that the software can be modified over the air forcibly by Tesla a safety issue because it could be used for nefarious purposes.)

rossdavidh2• 3 years ago

Sooner or later, some city is going to be held for ransom by a group that has disabled (or hijacked) all of the Teslas in it. "Give us a king's ransom or your roads will be clogged with immovable cars, and thus unusable, for weeks". Right now, there are not enough software-hijackable cars on the road for this to work, but that is changing. Once you have a critical mass of perhaps even just 5% of the cars, you can bring all traffic to a halt until your demands are met.

balls187• 3 years ago

Curious, why do that, and not say attack the power grid?

Swenrekcah• 3 years ago

I do agree with the sentiment, but in this particular example if I were the local government I’d endure the pain for the 24-36 hours it’d take to get the inflicted vehicles gathered up and then simply ban them from driving until the manufacturer fixes the issue.

If I didn’t have the legal authority to do it I’d probably still do it and rather pay the damages than the ransom.

Tangurena24• 3 years ago

Something close happened with a used-car dealership where every car got a remote immobilizer added in order to make repossession easier. One ex-employee logged into the system and locked up every car, including cars that were paid off or had been sold to unsuspecting customers.

https://www.theregister.com/2010/03/18/repo_man_hack/

jdjdjdhhd• 3 years ago

I have enough money to buy any model of Tesla, but will not due to privacy,

Which modern car do you think is not violating your privacy?

bigmofo2• 3 years ago

That would make for a good topic. Also, it is difficult to maintain older cars going when parts become harder to get. So, even if one does not want to buy a new car; at some point one might be forced to getting a newer car. I very much appreciate these hackers and hope that there will be a thriving and vibrant hacking community for new vehicles. I am personally not interesting in unlocking unpaid for features; but for privacy, security and safety reasons.

WeylandYutani2• 3 years ago

You wouldn't download a car.

AlbinoDrought• 3 years ago

A mostly-software solution would be cool. I've heard of hardware solutions before, a la https://ingenext.ca/collections/bonus-module

owlbite• 3 years ago

My main worry is that by incentivizing customers to install dubious software on their own vehicles in a rent-seeking money grab, manufactures will make us all less safe.

xbar• 3 years ago

Sweet. Now I need to devise a patch to re-enable Low Regenerative braking. It's still in there and drivers in China had it restored earlier this year.

stickler9834918• 3 years ago

"Tesla has been known for their advanced and well-integrated car computers, from serving mundane entertainment purposes to fully autonomous driving capabilities."

No, the word "autonomous" should not be used in conjunction with any Tesla vehicles. That means it can drive itself with no one inside. No Tesla vehicle is anywhere near autonomous.

superhoops540• 3 years ago

Injury Reserve said it best: Fuck it, jailbreak the Tesla https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWQL_XORalY

spants• 3 years ago

what happens if you paint road symbols on your car (speed, emergency, diversion, stop etc). Would a tesla behind you act on them?

CatWChainsaw• 3 years ago

I would have said I'm surprised that so many "hAcKeRz" are eager to prostrate themselves at the altar of eternal rent-seeking and powerlessness, but a lot of people here love simping for profit extractors, especially Lord Xoldermort. Another day, another rote disappointment.

shermix011• 3 years ago

Son of Anton remix did this year's back

Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features

Related Stories