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

OldQWERTYbastard@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• teyrnon@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic.

    source

    • Archr@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

      • Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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
      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea.

        Deoending on the way it’s implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y’know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Wait, are you telling me…

    …that a device meant to disable a vehicle…

    …was used to disable a vehicle?

    Whould’ve thought?

    source
• JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

  source

  • x00z@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Please explain further because I do not believe that.

    source

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

        source
      • teft@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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
      • XLE@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

        source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

    source
  • gian@lemmy.grys.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It make sense only if there you keep in mind that there is no way to be sure that it will be always connected, which does not seems to be the case…

    source