undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDylan168075y ago0 comments

Which part is false?

The remote control wasn't used here but it normally works and they tried to use it. So it does show that these cars could be hacked remotely.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

nomel5y ago· 2 in thread

This part:

> The bricking shows that all these “smart” cars with remote software control are liable to hacking

No remote control or wireless communication was used here, so this can't provide evidence that it is liable to hacking.

Dylan16807OP5y ago

The bricking shows how deeply integrated the remote control system is, and that it can brick the car.

And since it's remote control, it can be hacked (or Ferrari themselves can be hacked).

Therefore we can conclude that the bricking shows how badly the car can be affected by remote hacking.

It doesn't matter that wireless remote communication didn't happen here. The wireless remote control system was demonstrated. And the comment is making claims about the wireless remote control system. The only way the difference would matter is if you think they're lying about the ability to send signals to the system.

nomel5y ago

We don't know if it can be enabled remotely from this story. There is no evidence for that beyond your speculation. There is only evidence that it cannot be enabled remotely. This is why I said your claim is false. Looking at other instances, or the documentation, will probably show that it can be enabled remotely, but that evidence is not here.

But, it appears your perspective is that if remote control operation exists, so it can be hacked. This is proof that remote control operation exists, so it can be hacked. Framed in that perspective, sure I guess.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse