▲ 433 ▼ Cyberattack on vehicle breathalyzer company leaves drivers stranded across the US (techcrunch.com) submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] teft@piefed.social 56 points 7 months ago (5 children) Once again proving backdoors are fucking idiotic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Archr@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (4 children) Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 months ago Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering. It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea. Deoending on the way it's implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y'know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archr@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archr@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (4 children) Not sure that I would really agree that these are backdoor. Since disabling the vehicle remotely is kinda the express intention of this device. Just a consequence of how they designed them to not be circumvented by the operator. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 months ago Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering. It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea. Deoending on the way it's implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y'know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archr@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Honse@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 7 months ago (1 child) Why is remote access the intention? Should the device not verify the alchohol % locally and then mechanically allow the car to star or not? What part of that needs any form of remote oversight? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 months ago Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering. It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 7 months ago Probably the part where keeping everything local would allow the driver to easily bypass the device. Splice a few wires, and boom. But if it is doing some off-site verification, they’ll be able to immediately know if the device is disabled. Similarly, they could do things like monitor the car’s location in real time, and have it throw up a red flag if the car is moving but the driver hasn’t performed a test. That would be a sign of tampering. It also allows them to know if the driver fails the test, which is important for probation/parole reasons, where not drinking is often a condition of release. So if they fail the test, it should automatically alert their supervising officer. Can’t do that if it’s all local. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 1 point 7 months ago (1 child) I mean, if someone is responsible enough to brethalyze themselves, they should also be responsible enough to not drive. Hooking the brethalyzer up to the car to disable it seems like a terrible idea. Deoending on the way it's implemented, a bad one could brick a car for hours if someone drunk tries it, but there are perfectly sober people who could drive. Or y'know, this shit with someone coming on and remotely disabling things all willy-nilly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Archr@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Archr@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago But. That's the point. If no one breath tests then the car does not start. Hence it being an ignition interlock device. The whole point of the device is to stop drunk people from driving. If there is a sober person then obviously the drunk person should not do the test since that would lock the car. permalink fedilink source parent