"There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United Sta - Polidicks

[QUOTE] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/michael-hastings-car-hacked_n_3492339.html[/url] [B][U]Was Michael Hastings' Car Hacked? Richard Clarke Says It's Possible[/U][/B] The peculiar circumstances of journalist Michael Hastings' death in Los Angeles last week have unleashed a wave of conspiracy theories. Now there's another theory to contribute to the paranoia: According to a prominent security analyst, technology exists that could've allowed someone to hack his car. Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard Clarke told The Huffington Post that what is known about the single-vehicle crash is "consistent with a car cyber attack." Clarke said, "There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers" -- including the United States -- know how to remotely seize control of a car. "What has been revealed as a result of some research at universities is that it's relatively easy to hack your way into the control system of a car, [B]and to do such things as cause acceleration when the driver doesn't want acceleration, to throw on the brakes when the driver doesn't want the brakes on, to launch an air bag," [/B]Clarke told The Huffington Post. "You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it's not that hard." ...Clarke worked for the State Department under President Ronald Reagan and headed up counterterrorism efforts under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He also served as a special adviser on cyberterrorism to the younger Bush and published a book on the topic, Cyber War, in 2010. [/QUOTE] Well this guy seems like he would know what he's talking about. He could also just be trying to be relevant or something.

I always thought die hard was lying about the government being able to hack my car

Considering how computerized cars are becoming, this doesn't really surprise me all that much.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;41192948]Considering how computerized cars are becoming, this doesn't really surprise me all that much.[/QUOTE] And the US government using this technology to kill people doesn't surprise me unfortunately.

Somebody make an Open Source ECU please.

But brakes are a physical thing aren't they? (as in not digital as they work when the car is off) So why wouldn't they stop the car?

It CAN technically be done but the method is incredibly convoluted and there are about a thousand other (easier) ways to sabotage a car discreetly, so why do this

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41192958]And the US government using this technology to kill people doesn't surprise me unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Jumping the gun.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;41192964]It CAN technically be done but the method is incredibly convoluted and there are about a thousand other (easier) ways to sabotage a car discreetly[/QUOTE] If it meant for sure the tampering would be utterly undetectable I think they would do it anyway.

Wait, how exactly can they do that? It's not like the breaks on my car are connected to a wireless router. This means that they probably have to sabotage the car beforehand, which nullifies the whole point anyway.

I can imagine they could do some damage by hacking into a vehicle, just not to this extent yet. I think it's perfectly reasonable that they could remotely take over the vehicle and do some damage via the electronics such as opening the windows during a blizzard, sabotaging my radio/cd player and deploying the airbag whilst I'm sleeping on the steering wheel. also this video [video=youtube;Z3_gyFD2Ndk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3_gyFD2Ndk[/video]

[QUOTE=Glorbo;41193073]Wait, how exactly can they do that? It's not like the breaks on my car are connected to a wireless router. This means that they probably have to sabotage the car beforehand, which nullifies the whole point anyway.[/QUOTE] Cars with things like on-star.

They can turn the heater on when it's already 85 degrees out! [I]The horror![/I]

[QUOTE=OzJackal;41192986]ABS brakes use electronic speed sensors. Cutting the brake lines is the cheaper alternative if you want sabotage.[/QUOTE] also a lot more dangerous. compare making brakes permanently on vs brakes permanently being off.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41193385]also a lot more dangerous. compare making brakes permanently on vs brakes permanently being off.[/QUOTE] not sure about you guys but I'd notice straight away if my brake lines were cut... unless they use remotely controlled brake line cutters that activate once I hit 100km/h and fall off once they'd severed everything :tinfoil:

Except apparently some people who witnessed the crash reported they heard a small explosion prior to the crash, and the car was allegedly on fire before it 'hit the tree' (and it didn't even look like it hit the tree in the photos I saw, the tree wasn't even damaged from what I could see). That sounds more like a car bomb than hacking to me. Either way his death is highly suspect considering what he supposedly knew and was going to make public.

Just push it into neutral and pull the emergency brake. Most automatics don't even require that you depress the trigger to shift it into neutral. Both of those should still be mechanical on a vehicle.

[QUOTE=MelonGuy;41192963]But brakes are a physical thing aren't they? (as in not digital as they work when the car is off) So why wouldn't they stop the car?[/QUOTE] No, antilock breaks are controlled by the cpu to rapidly step on the brakes so much faster than a human to achieve a much higher deceleration. Cars who dont have that just lock up and skid across the road.

[QUOTE=GunFox;41193743]Just push it into neutral and pull the emergency brake. Most automatics don't even require that you depress the trigger to shift it into neutral. Both of those should still be mechanical on a vehicle.[/QUOTE] If they're cutting brake lines, they might as well go and cut the emergency brake too. But if you're talking about the hacking bit, yea if you have enough time to respond this is a good option. Or just drive a car that's old enough to be mostly controlled mechanically.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;41193733]Except apparently some people who witnessed the crash reported they heard a small explosion prior to the crash, and the car was allegedly on fire before it 'hit the tree' (and it didn't even look like it hit the tree in the photos I saw, the tree wasn't even damaged from what I could see). That sounds more like a car bomb than hacking to me. Either way his death is highly suspect considering what he supposedly knew and was going to make public.[/QUOTE] The tree did have some damage, it didn't have a chunk missing or anything because its a fucking tree.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;41193876]No, antilock breaks are controlled by the cpu to rapidly step on the brakes so much faster than a human to achieve a much higher deceleration. Cars who dont have that just lock up and skid across the road.[/QUOTE] There is still a direct mechanical link to the brakes even with ABS. Even my car, which has completely computerized braking, has a complete mechanical emergency bypass that comes into play if you hit the peddle hard enough.

Oh, get real. There are so many easier, more discreet ways to off a dude than hacking his car and sending it barreling down a busy road. This dude's been watching too many cheesy action movies.

[QUOTE=MelonGuy;41192963]But brakes are a physical thing aren't they? (as in not digital as they work when the car is off) So why wouldn't they stop the car?[/QUOTE] A lot of new cars have minicomputers that do stuff for you. Press down on brakes, you aren't pressing them actually, but sending a command to a computer that then clamps down on the brakes an a lot of other stuff. The truth is, proving that a device that is almost never connected to a network can or cannot be hacked isn't all that hard really. In part because their connectivity is so rare.

This will probably become more significant in the future when cars are going to have those wireless connections.

tin foil hood hat

I'm gonna drive a "Maluch" 'till the end of my days

[IMG]http://www.honestcharley.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/H/C/HC-EDE-1406-A.jpg[/IMG] HA! Control my car now, government!

This makes me think of OBD3, which is set to allow police officers to scan your car during a routine traffic stop. The information this would provide him includes, but is not limited to, your driving history (from minutes to weeks), whether or not you've been speeding, if you've modified the vehicle, if you've been using your seat belt, etc. It's invasion of privacy no matter how you look at it.

Seems like Watch_Dogs is already lagging behind in terms of technology.

[QUOTE=Aetna;41195811]This makes me think of OBD3, which is set to allow police officers to scan your car during a routine traffic stop. The information this would provide him includes, but is not limited to, your driving history (from minutes to weeks), whether or not you've been speeding, if you've modified the vehicle, if you've been using your seat belt, etc. It's invasion of privacy no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE] OBDs do not have those capabilities. Where are you getting this information? OBDs (which stands for on-board diagnostics) only measure a vehicle's diagnostics, like emissions, RPMs, electrical systems, and other basic safety information. They're used in vehicle inspections to check for errors. They aren't blackboxes that report whether or not you've been speeding or wearing your seatbelts to police officers. Also, even wireless OBD links require a physical connection to the vehicle they're reporting on; there is not an OBD link that can instantly pull up a vehicle's diagnostics by simply pointing it at the vehicle. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but I sell and service OBD links, among other systems, on behalf of my state's highway patrol, and nothing we have can do what you're suggesting. A quick Google of "OBD3" only brings up people on forums and blogs postulating about this technology, which as far as I can tell, doesn't actually exist.