this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
696 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
5725 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kinkles@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I don’t think anyone will disagree with you about unsupervised OTA updates.

To your first point- I agree that any update that changes the behavior of any fundamental system in a car is pretty reckless. Especially ones that increase a car’s acceleration, which Tesla historically does. I don’t know why those sorts of updates aren’t being regulated harder. OTA updates should be for mundane things like infotainment updates or, in more serious cases, to fix systems that aren’t functioning properly. It shouldn’t otherwise be used to alter how the car functions as a car, especially when these updates largely happen silently or the changes are tucked into some changelog that the owner doesn’t have to read.

However, to your second point, cars are smart now and there’s no going back. So cars do need software updates to close attack vectors.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

However, to your second point, cars are smart now and there’s no going back. So cars do need software updates to close attack vectors.

He's not saying that cars shouldn't be updated... But that OTA updates are a problem. They're saying that it should be a drive to the dealership to do an update. I would go a step further and make it possible to have it opt-in for car manufacturer to send out cd/usbs to update firmware.

Offline updates are generally fine and not super susceptible to general hacking. OTA on the other hand... that's a massive risk for a reward of.. slightly faster fix times?

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If it's a safety system, it might be "have the car taken to the dealership on a flatbed truck". Also, some people don't live near a dealership.

Like it or not, all modern cars are connected - for the maps if nothing else - and if a car is capable of an OTA update, I say do it. I don't see how a dealership adds anything other than cost which will always discourage updates from being made at all.

And I actually think physical updates are easier - connect a laptop to the ECU, and you're done. It's generally only OTA updates that use code signing/etc.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 6 months ago

all modern cars are connected - for the maps if nothing else

Carplay and Android Auto are better than any other in built infotainment shit. I do not see this as valid. Nor that does mean that firmware on the car should be writable from those systems.

I don’t see how a dealership adds anything other than cost which will always discourage updates from being made at all.

Thus why I said...

I would go a step further and make it possible to have it opt-in for car manufacturer to send out cd/usbs to update firmware.

Then any dick or harry can do it on their own.

But honestly whenever I say "dealer" I really mean any repair shop.