that’s not how this works
Comment on Detroit man steals 800 gallons using Bluetooth to hack gas pumps at station
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year agoUSB is way safer lol.
Bluetooth is notoriously bad with security. Especially Bluetooth 4 and earlier. I’d put money on a gas station pumps Bluetooth to not be using the most up to date protocol.
sturmblast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Ah, brilliant. Another expert.
Yes, it is how it works. Cheers.
some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is the kind of rigorous debate I’m here for.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s like saying TCP has bad security. That is to say, pointless comparison. Bluetooth is just transport layer and security is done on higher level. This is most likely the classic example of “security through obscurity”. Meaning they did nothing special and hoped no one will figure it out, just like recent TETRA vulnerability.
carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Come on now! The pumps required you to enter the secret pairing code: “12345”
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 1 year ago
You fool! It was 00000, now you’ll never have free gas!
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Transport level is absolutely a security vulnerability vector.
TCP is absolutely low security if not configured correctly.
I don’t know what it is you’re trying to say. I agree that this instance was probably security through obscurity, but to say that Bluetooth, and TCP are not security considerations is absolutely ridiculous.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Of course wired connection is inherently safer than wireless. There’s no question about it. And yes you can absolutely exploit at every layer of communication, but this here is not the case of exploiting Bluetooth as transport layer. It’s simply someone not configuring anything or adding any additional verification and just hoping no one finds out.
foggy@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Okay, but your claim that my comparing Bluetooth to USB being like comparing Bluetooth to TCP is misinformed at best.