Comment on Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US

OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

• teyrnon@sh.itjust.works ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They want to be able to remotely disable vehicles, but in the process have made us vulnerable to all sophisticated actors to do so. Our leaders have their priorities all screwed up.

  source

  • teft@piefed.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.

    source

    • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator.

      source

      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device

        Uhhh nope, there’s no reason for a remote connection.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It makes sense - a self-contained device can be circumvented. A connected solution is much, much harder to fool

  source

  • x00z@lemmy.world ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Please explain further because I do not believe that.

    source

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Someone knowledgeable enough could tamper with the local equipment to get it to give false negatives, or always pass regardless of blood alcohol content. If it doesn’t phone home, the company (or the court) doesn’t know it’s been tampered with.

      source

      • bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        It could phone home regularly without the ability to receive command to disable the car. Sounds like lazy enforcement.

        source
      • XLE@piefed.social ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        If somebody is good enough to tamper with the part that checks for BAC, why not also tamper with the part that phones home? Would they even need to?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        If it knows it’s been tampered with, it doesn’t need to phone home, it can be disabled locally…

        source
      • teft@piefed.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I agree with you in principle but you could just have the person show up once a week for tamper checking. Those interlock devices are punishment for DUI/DWI so making the user show up once a week wouldn’t be too harsh, imo.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    If you want to circumvent it, it’s as simple as disconnecting it. Source: I’ve done it (professionally)

    source