Still_Small_Voice Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) This is older news but I just heard about it recently. This makes me like OnStar even less.Some will take comfort in knowing that GM’s OnStar system can slow a vehicle's speed in the event of a chase, but others, like me take fear in knowing that Big Brother or perhaps even a 2k bug could render my vehicle powerless (that is if I owned a GM) . Adding to their Stolen Vehicle Assistance services, OnStar launched Ignition block, a remote kill switch that can disable the vehicle’s ignition by working in concert with the system’s built-in GPS. The service is available on select 2009 and 2010 GM vehicles.Full release after the ‘leap’*edited due to copyright: l content © 2005 - 2010, Gadgetreview, All Rights Reserved Read more: GM Adds Remote Kill Switch To OnStar Vehicles | GadgetReview Edited January 11, 2011 by pam Quote
Blackmarch Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 This is older news but I just heard about it recently. This makes me like OnStar even less.Some will take comfort in knowing that GM’s OnStar system can slow a vehicle's speed in the event of a chase, but others, like me take fear in knowing that Big Brother or perhaps even a 2k bug could render my vehicle powerless (that is if I owned a GM) . Adding to their Stolen Vehicle Assistance services, OnStar launched Ignition block, a remote kill switch that can disable the vehicle’s ignition by working in concert with the system’s built-in GPS. The service is available on select 2009 and 2010 GM vehicles.Full release after the ‘leap’*edited due to copyright: l content © 2005 - 2010, Gadgetreview, All Rights Reserved Read more: GM Adds Remote Kill Switch To OnStar Vehicles | GadgetReviewVery sensible idea.... but now is not the time to implement it. Personally something like that should be from a professional third party, installed at the owners expense and will. Quote
Gwen Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 the onstar concept has always made me uncomfortable. Quote
Guest Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 the onstar concept has always made me uncomfortable.Yeah, especially after Live Free and Die Hard. Quote
Canuck Mormon Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Give me a break. This system can onyl be activated if the vehicle is reported stolen and if the police spot the vehicle. Then there are a series of test to make sure that it is the correct vehicle, then the shut down code is sent. They do not constantly monitor what you are doing. The Onstar system is only activated when you push that little blue button. BTW - They are coming out with a new system that you can purchase at Best Buy and have it installed on any vehicle. Quote
Still_Small_Voice Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Posted January 11, 2011 I really do not like the idea of someone else having power to slow or shut my car off at will. I thought it was bad enough that OnStar could be used to eavesdrop on private conversations. Quote
DigitalShadow Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 Give me a break. This system can onyl be activated if the vehicle is reported stolen and if the police spot the vehicle. Then there are a series of test to make sure that it is the correct vehicle, then the shut down code is sent. They do not constantly monitor what you are doing. The Onstar system is only activated when you push that little blue button.BTW - They are coming out with a new system that you can purchase at Best Buy and have it installed on any vehicle.I'm not particularly worried that authorities will abuse those features, I'm more worried that those features aren't adequately secured and tech savvy trouble makers will take advantage of those features and publish exploits so that any script kiddie with google and access to a radio shack can take control of your vehicle.In my professional experience, companies who don't have to fend off already established lines of attack put very little time and engineering into security to the point where it's almost trivial for someone with experience in the field to bypass them. Quote
Bini Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 I guess I'm not as concerned as I should be. When I look at the overall picture, I think to myself, who's going to want to override my vehicle? Maybe if I were the President and someone was planning some sort of ambush? But otherwise I'm not paranoid or worried really. Quote
Mahone Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) I'm not particularly worried that authorities will abuse those features, I'm more worried that those features aren't adequately secured and tech savvy trouble makers will take advantage of those features and publish exploits so that any script kiddie with google and access to a radio shack can take control of your vehicle.In my professional experience, companies who don't have to fend off already established lines of attack put very little time and engineering into security to the point where it's almost trivial for someone with experience in the field to bypass them.My line of thought exactly. Systems like this would be a major advantage to any cyber warfare.A lot of people still think of cyber attacks as kids sitting in their garage and causing minor to intermediate disruption to networks which don't have much of an impact of the general population. However this last year a virus in the wild proved how much damage a virus can cause when the people who wrote it have a very specific target, specalist knowlege of the systems they are attacking, and the appropriate funding behind them. The suspected creator of the stuxnet virus is the government of Israel, and it was specifically designed to attack Irans nucear program (and succeeded). More info is here: Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaStuxnet is a Windows-specific computer worm[Notes 1] first discovered in July 2010 by VirusBlokAda, a security firm based in Belarus. While it is not the first time that hackers have targeted industrial systems,[1] it is the first discovered worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems,[2] and the first to include a programmable logic controller (PLC) rootkit.[3][4] It was specifically written to attack Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used to control and monitor industrial processes.[5] Stuxnet includes the capability to reprogram the PLCs and hide its changes.[6]The worm's probable target is said to have been high value infrastructures in Iran using Siemens control systems.[7][8] According to news reports the infestation by this worm might have damaged Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz[9][10] and eventually delayed the start up of Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.[11] Although Siemens has stated that the worm has not caused any damage,[12] on November 29, Iran confirmed that its nuclear program had indeed been damaged by Stuxnet.[13]Russian digital security company Kaspersky Labs released a statement that described Stuxnet as "a working and fearsome prototype of a cyber-weapon that will lead to the creation of a new arms race in the world." Kevin Hogan, Senior Director of Security Response at Symantec, noted that 60% of the infected computers worldwide were in Iran, suggesting its industrial plants were the target.[14] Kaspersky Labs concluded that the attacks could only have been conducted "with nation-state support", making Iran the first target of real cyberwarfare.[15][16][17]No system is 100% secure - so lets put GM's onstar system in place of Irans high value infrastructures. Imagine a rootkit virus being planted onto the inbuilt computer systems on all GM onstar cars, as happened with stuxnet. No-one would know until the creator actually send out commands to them. There is no difference between stuxnet and that scenario. All it takes is a group who has a good enough reason to spend the time and money on doing so. Edited January 12, 2011 by Mahone Quote
bytebear Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 If you own a cell phone, you can pretty much be tracked already wherever you go. Big brother is not going away. Quote
Mahone Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 It's not a case of "is my government/next door neighbour spying on me", it's a case of increasing the ability for cyber warfare. I've given a proof of concept example - it's the first known case, but it sure as heck won't be the last. The more cars that have systems like this built in, the more attractive it will be to hackers. Quote
Blackmarch Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 Give me a break. This system can onyl be activated if the vehicle is reported stolen and if the police spot the vehicle. Then there are a series of test to make sure that it is the correct vehicle, then the shut down code is sent. They do not constantly monitor what you are doing. The Onstar system is only activated when you push that little blue button.BTW - They are coming out with a new system that you can purchase at Best Buy and have it installed on any vehicle.I saw an article where a research team hacked a car, so they could hijack it remotely without the drivers input or notice... In this case they needed physical contact with car to "jailbreak" it, but the potential is out there.And I seem to recall an incident with some car company where someone goofed up on some database but temporarily inconvenienced a bunch of cars because they were electronically linked to it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.