Comment on Electronic devices or 'signal jammers' used in car thefts to be banned
swizzlestick@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
Typical BBC reporting of anything technical.
Keyless repeaters and signal amplifiers scramble the signal from remote key fobs inside people’s homes, enabling criminals to unlock cars.
No, they don’t. The situation described is a relay attack on keyless entry/start. Jamming is used in a two stage attack, where the device intercepts the first signal and stores it without allowing the car to ‘see’ it by jamming. The user then tries a second time.
This time the signal is intercepted the same way, and the first signal is played back to the car from the device. The second signal is stored and can be replayed later to bypass a rolling code setup.
It’s very niche and the stored signal quickly becomes obsolete anyway.
Sophisticated electronic devices used by criminals to steal cars are set to be banned
Making or selling a signal jammer could lead to up to five years
Jenny Simms said the possession, manufacture, sale and supply of signal jammers had provided an “easily accessible tool for criminals… for far too long”.
These devices have no legitimate purpose
Basically, fuck you if you happen to have or build a Software Defined Radio (SDR). Again with the UK ‘clamping down’ on something that does have plenty of legitimate use.
I use an F0 for toying with my own equipment, as an interface for my smart devices and as a general purpose keyfob. I may be arrested just for possessing it.
The crims will not care a jot and this only serves to restrict/annoy legitimate users.
The fault and solution lies with the manufacturers who implement insecure tech, and with the users who blindly sacrifice pounds of security for ounces of convenience.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
An SDR is not a signal jammer and the flipper zero can’t clone a rolling code remote.
swizzlestick@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
An SDR can be made to jam, even if that is not the normal purpose. Just like a kitchen knife can be used to murder people, instead of its normal culinary purpose.
Of course an F0 can’t clone a rolling code as-is. I never said it could. But it can harvest and replay a single or multiple consecutive codes just fine, providing the original key is not used in the meantime. Only need physical access to the key while it is out of range of the vehicle.
This alone puts the F0 on dangerous ground as an “electronic device (such as a signal jammer) for use in theft of a vehicle or theft of anything in a vehicle”
People have locked out their original keys by messing with this before.
The point is that our laws are reactionary, vague, and open to too much interpretation.
If someone gets shit stolen out their car and I happen to be nearby, then I will become suspect merely through possession. Even without intent.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Exactly!
To add to this, I used to work at a physical security company, and we needed to alert the guards of someone attempted to jam signals. How do you properly test that? By jamming signals!
I guess this scenario could be resolved through licensing, but that’s a ridiculous solution since criminals could still get it.
It should be illegal to use a jammer maliciously or negligently. It shouldn’t be illegal to posses one. Car manufacturers should also be held liable for losses due to lack of protection against jamming.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Did you mean something else here? You can’t “protect” against jamming. That’s like protecting from too much noise in a conversation.