Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #21460

Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/23/2015 4:49 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:20:33 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/22/2015 10:49 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2015 3:30 PM, lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Den onsdag den 22. juli 2015 kl. 00.22.18 UTC+2 skrev Don Y:
>>>>> On 7/21/2015 2:35 PM, Ian Yellowley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why there should be any connection between these networks, I
>>>>>> can see consolidation of steering, suspension and braking info for
>>>>>> stability but the rest??? There would seem to be huge differences in
>>>>>> required bandwidth, latency and reliability so is there a cost
>>>>>> saving? I
>>>>>> was involved in the design of steer by wire systems many years ago and
>>>>>> the extent to which we went to provide reliability, multiple layers of
>>>>>> redundancy and isolation from other systems were fairly extreme. This
>>>>>> was in a University lab...I would expect at least that from a
>>>>>> commercial
>>>>>> product.
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the (limited) exposure I've had to automotive control systems,
>>>>> there
>>>>> doesn't seem to be a cohesive, integrated "system design" at work.
>>>>> Instead, there are all these little islands of control that are hacked
>>>>> together and "integrated" after-the-fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Often, individual subsystems are farmed out to third parties.  E.g.,
>>>>> you
>>>>> can bet that the auto manufacturer doesn't design the navigation system,
>>>>> entertainment system, security system -- perhaps not even the engine
>>>>> control system itself!]
>>>>>
>>>>> E.g., why would the ECU need to talk to anything other than the
>>>>> *engine*?
>>>>> "Ah, but we can tell the air conditioning compressor to disengage
>>>>> when we
>>>>> are calling for extra demand from the engine!  So, let the *engine* tell
>>>>> the air conditioner to 'pause' -- instead of having some higher level of
>>>>> integration impose those rules.  Likewise, let the tranny controller
>>>>> tell
>>>>> the door locks to engage when the vehicle is put in gear (or, when the
>>>>> wheels attain a certain speed).
>>>>
>>>> afaiu from a guy I know that works a lot with car electronics as in
>>>> building
>>>> ECUs, gearbox controllers and integrating them with the different
>>>> system in
>>>> a number of different cars, most of the systems are stand alone and
>>>> mostly
>>>> listen to each other, i.e. the ECU does nothing but run the engine and
>>>> broadcast what it is doing, ditto for all the other systems
>>>>
>>>> so if the doorlocks see the tranny broadcasting a speed over x it can
>>>> decide to lock the doors, if the AC see the engine broadcast a load
>>>> over x
>>>> it can decide to pause, if the ECU see the ABS module broadcast
>>>> wheelspeeds
>>>> that indicate wheelspin it can turn down the power
>>>>
>>>> I guess it is similar to the unix philosophy, do one thing and do it well
>>>
>>> Modern cars are more highly (functionally) integrated.
>>>
>>> There is little inherent in the protocols that directly supports
>>> authentication.  E.g., a node has no *proof* that a message/datum
>>> actually originated from a node that is *intended* to source messages
>>> of that type.  So, the "radio link" -- once hacked -- can *forge* a
>>> message indicating the engine speed is X or the shift lever has been
>>> placed in 'R' or...
>>
>> Only if the radio link has access to the bus for the engine and
>> transmission.  It is a simple matter to maintain adequate separation
>> between the core functions and the peripheral functions.
>
>
> There are/will be inevitable points of intersection.  Things like the
> primary display will need to be attached to both the entertainment
> system and the more critical car functions.  The engine and nav system
> will need to send messages to the main display and audio system, the
> main display will configure drive system parameters ("teenager mode",
> for example).  What about the need for your car's crash safety system
> to chat with the cellular radio in the case of a crash?
>
> And no, demanding separate displays and whatnot will never fly.

Why not?  If that is what safety requires, that is how it will be done. 
  That is why the brakes are split into two circuits.  It doesn't 
require "two" displays.  It only requires that the engine speed and car 
speed are reported through separate electronics in the display.  I know 
my car does that anyway... because it costs less.


> So it's not ever going to be quite a simple matter of hard physical
> separation between the critical and non-critical systems.  More likely
> a node serving a firewall/gateway function between otherwise
> segregated systems makes sense.  Rather than trying to implement
> security in hundreds of different nodes (maintained by a similar
> number of teams generally not communicating well with each other),
> concentrate (most) of it in the firewall node.

If you need security,  you do what it takes for security.  Two buses are 
not a problem.  Yes, it's that simple.

-- 

Rick

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2015-07-21 19:28 +0000
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 13:00 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2015-07-21 21:49 +1000
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 18:55 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> - 2015-07-21 20:37 -0400
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 18:47 -0700
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ian Yellowley <iany99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 14:35 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 15:22 -0700
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ian Yellowley <iany99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 13:42 -0700
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 18:48 -0400
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:33 -0700
            Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2015-07-24 16:51 +0000
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 10:23 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-24 11:22 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-24 21:49 +0200
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> - 2015-07-24 12:45 -0600
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-22 16:59 -0700
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:30 -0400
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 15:30 -0700
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 18:53 -0400
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-22 19:49 -0700
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 23:20 -0400
            Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-23 03:49 -0500
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-23 03:26 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:09 -0400
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-23 21:38 +0200
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 16:36 -0400
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0200
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 13:25 -0400
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 11:32 -0400
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 20:00 -0700
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:57 -0400
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2015-07-26 15:06 +0000

csiph-web