Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Is Hacking Cars a Thing of the Past? 748

PhotoGuy asks: "I went to install a remote car starter in our Honda last week, which used to be kind of an elegant hack (like a controlled hot-wiring of your car), only to find out that additional expensive parts and modules were required, due to the anti-theft system on the vehicle, where the car's computer would not let it start, unless it received the right code from the magnetic encoding on the key! In order to install a car starter, you have to actually put a spare key to the vehicle *in* the add-on module to let the car starter do it's thing. Yeah, that makes me more comfortable, leaving a key installed the remote car starter. That sucker went back to the store pretty quickly, that's way too much work, when a dealership can do it for me. Is the slight reduction in risk of theft of your vehicle, worth that much loss of freedom of choice and control?"

"Ever since electronic ignitions, and especially ones controlled by computers, it seems the "hackability" and user-maintainability of cars has been declining. Your neighborhood grease monkey can't do much to a modern car without a bunch of electronic gear interfacing to the car's computer. It's almost a little anti-competitive.

Carbeurators, and the other mechanical systems which were fairly standard and visible and self-evident, really seem to be the equivalent of "open source", while the new computer-based systems seem to be more closed and proprietary. I know in the early days of cars with computers, there were third party ROM upgrades for performance tweaking; I'm guessing that's falling by the wayside more and more, as these systems get more and more complex.

It almost seems like a Microsoft-like statement, to tell you they're doing all of this to reduce theft, while really they're doing it to ensure you are forced into coming back to their dealerships..."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Hacking Cars a Thing of the Past?

Comments Filter:
  • by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:41PM (#2666091) Homepage
    How on earth do you lose freedom here? You're still free to go buy a car that doesn't use this sort of antitheft system -- get a Kia or something. I don't recall seeing legislation requiring you to go buy a Honda.

    Jesus, this is on the level of whining that you can't use the windshield wipers from your old car (which were brand new!) on a new car you just bought.

  • Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uslinux.net ( 152591 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:44PM (#2666127) Homepage
    As the once proud owner of a 1966 Mustang, I remember what it was like to mod the hell out of my car. Now my wife has a Civic and I have a 4Runner (hey, we live in the mountains, so 4WD is a MUST on at least one vehicle). Modern cars are a LOT quiter, ride better, get better fuel economy, and are better for the environment. Equivalent sized (outside dimentions) vehicles actually have MORE room inside them now, more luxuries (all but the cheapest cars now have power windows/locks/disc brakes/etc, are much safer, etc, etc.

    All of this comes at a price. You now nearly need to be a rocket scientist (or at least an automotive engineer) to work on them, but IMO, the price is worthwhile. Meanwhile, my 5.0L V8 '66 Mustang used to get about 16 MPG and had about 220HP, yet you can buy a 4-cylinder Subaru WRX with 225HP (Turbo) which gets ~27MPG, and will let you walk away in a crash.

    Yes, cars have gotten harder to work on, but they've also gotten safer, lighter, less polluting, and more luxurious. If you want to tinker with your vehicle, buy a 2-door Civic and mod it up, or buy a classic to restore like I did. Or get a kit, and build it from scratch.
  • by Restil ( 31903 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:44PM (#2666130) Homepage
    I mean.. why break into cars, hotwire them, and drive them off. The smart thief would save up and get himself a tow truck. The ONLY person who would pay any attention at all is the owner. The alarm could be going off and nobody would give it a second glance. Chances are good, nobody would ever even get a plate #. You could steal the car in plain sight, and never hear a peep about it.

    No antitheft system in the world will help against a dedicated theif. The most effective system would probably be to just remove the distributor cap, or a kludge to disconnect the battery easily. No car thief is gonna spend time under the hood finding out why the car won't start. Of course, you get bit on convienence issues. But you'll never have to concern yourself with car theft.

    -Restil
  • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Natasha ( 31280 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:44PM (#2666139)
    I don't know where you live, but where I am (Montana) we have below zero winters. Having a remote starter means I can start the car before I'm dressed and have it warmed up by the time I'm ready to go.
  • Oh good lord! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by talesout ( 179672 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:46PM (#2666159) Homepage

    What? Couldn't you find something about computers to bitch about today?

    Seriously, how is this reducing your freedom? You still have the freedom to buy an older car, or even modify your newer car to use the older engines and transmissions. The bottom line is that a lot of the modern computerized gimmicks in cars are there to increase performance, and mileage. Some minor things are done to increase security. But I really don't see how requiring the proper code to be administered (in this case with the key in the automatic starter) is restricting your freedom. And how is the little addon that requires a key in it "that much more work"? You make it sound as if that one extra little thing is a world ending situation, while the entire project would have been a yawn without that.

    Yes, cars are becoming less hackable. But, in case you haven't noticed, so is damn near everything else around us nowadays. Things get more and more complex, with more and more specialized parts, and eventually it becomes less "hackable" by the common man. When the internal combustion engine was invented it was a fairly simple device. But progress has lead to changes that are vast improvements over the original. One of those improvements is a computer that controls all sorts of aspects of the engines performance. Is that really a bad thing?

    Seriously, not everything is out to get you. Just calm down and take a rational look at it. That, or go back to bitching about Microsoft. (Oh, never mind. I see you managed to fit that into an article on cars anyway. Hey, wait a minute! Since when was Slashdot a site for car jockeys?)

  • by the right sock ( 160156 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @02:47PM (#2666167)
    Computers making modern cars un-hackable? That's a bit far-fetched. For just about any car there's dozens of custom mods for them that can be installed by any mechanic. There are still 3rd-party performance chips you can put in. You can still change just about everything in a car, the only thing different is that it's a little harder to do. You can go get all the computers that a dealer uses and do all the tweaks yourself. Yeah it's more expensive, but so are cars and so are the parts inside them.
    And I wouldn't go around comparing cars from the past to open-source and modern cars to microsoft - that's essentially saying open-source software, though infinitely hackable, is inefficient, outdated, and insecure. Drawing a parellel between Microsoft (closed-source) and modern cars would in effect say MS software is clean, efficient, secure, and performs well out of the box.
    If modern cars are less "hackable" than older cars, why are there thousands of custom shops dotting the country, hooking up modern cars? Why are there still car shows for people to show off their mods (some of which leaving the original car nearly unrecognizable)?
    Cars aren't getting less hackable, you just have to do it differently than before.
  • by KernelHappy ( 517524 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:01PM (#2666305) Homepage
    There are tradeoffs in everything. If you want the remote start ability you give up some of the security.

    As far as leaving an entire key in place I guess that depends on the car and the kit your using. My Acura has one of the mentioned keys and when I looked into a remote start for it, I was told I needed to buy a spare key which would be disassembled to get just the coded portion out. I decided it wasn't for me.

    But the point about cars being less hackable is valid. For years manufacturers have been making it harder to replace stock radios, and if you want to retain steering wheel controls your going to need lots of electrical tape and redbull.

    I think Mercedes Benz has taken this to an entirely new level. New MB vehicles are incredibly difficult to steal thanks to their code hopping IR keys, so much so that the theft portion of insurance rates on them are down right cheap (which is good). But forget putting a remote starter in your brand new benz. Last time I tried counting there are 97 buttons within reach of the driver in the S class (I counted knobs as one switch even if they had more than one selectable position). All of this runs through a central computer in the car so basically if you want a different stereo system you better know german and feel like dumpster diving at MB headquarters.

    Mercedes has a integrated cell phone system that comes with voice recognition. It uses a standard motorola timeport phone, identical in every sense except the firmware. Yet if I plug in my old timeport the car refuses to recognize it. Mercedes apparently thinks that the $87K you spend on the car with the phone isn't enough, they want the extra $450 for every phone you want to use in the car.

    I'm currently trying to figure out how to get a copy of the firmware off the timeport that comes with the benz system so that I can put it on my original timeport.

    This is quite sad, among manufacturers there is zero incentive or requirement to play nicely. I understand that they want to protect profit margins but its damn near predatory. There was an article on wired about some company offering a in car voice recognition system that works with bluetooth enabled cell phones. Great idea, too bad bluetooth is a technological unicorn and car manufacturers are bound to shut these guys out of the business.
  • Luddites unite! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <michaeljohnmiller@mSPAMsSPAMnSPAM.com> on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:13PM (#2666406) Homepage Journal
    (Oh boy, FINALLY a topic I know something about!)

    I'd MUCH RATHER have a GOOD factory security system than a botched aftermarket one. (I've had 4 cars that had aftermarket systems installed by previous owners. ALL of them have caused more headaches than the 'security' they provided.)

    Having any kind of security system will not likely prevent the really serious fella trying to seal your car. While you CAN buy LOJACK et al, they pretty much ensure you get back the bits and pieces you DON'T care about. By the time somebody recovers the professionally stolen car, all the nifty doodads have been stripped or broken.

    I own Corvettes. (That my, ahem, other hobby) One's an 89 and the other's a 98 (OBD I and III) yeah they're more difficult to work on than the 76 Pontiac I _just_ got rid of, but no more so than working on computers. Often, that 'technological B$' folks complain about actually HELPS in diagnosing the problem.

    If you aren't willing to spend time learning how to work on something, you probably oughtn'ta go at it uneducated.

    As far as installing the remote starter, it didn't sound like you wanted it bad enough. IMHO, the one thing it MIGHT give you (remote starting) isn't worth the things you MIGHT get (wiring issues, intermittent gremlins, connections that don't AGE well.)

    Honestly, a Nerd complaining about complexity on Slashdot...who'da thunk?
  • by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:13PM (#2666409)
    Sure, let's treat everyone like criminals because the might do somthing bad. Hell, while we're at it let's put speed governers in everyone's car so nobody can drive too fast. Let's put in proximity sensors to force them to slow down if they are tailgating someone. Let's put in a system to shut off the engine if they run a red light. Let's mandate GPS transponders and surveillance devices in all vehicles so the government can track our every move.



    I have no problem with installing a breathalizer in the car of someone who has been convicted of DUI/DWI, but it's totally unacceptable to require it of someone who has not even been accused, let alone convicted, of a crime.

  • by Nightclaw ( 41212 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:22PM (#2666477) Homepage
    Comparing modern computer-controlled cars to closed-source software is a bit unfair, really. Modern cars are VERY hackable, if you know what you're doing and don't mind voiding parts of your warranty. The car-modding game's the same, but the rules have changed is all. If you understand the rules, there is little you cannot mod on a new car.

    To use my own car as an example, there is a program that would allow me to modify the fuel tables, ignition tables and other operational parameters on the on-board computer using a standard PC (program: LS1Edit). This acheives the same thing as playing with the distributor dwell and carb mixture on an older engine, and then some.

    Or, for the less adventurous, Hypertech [hypertech-inc.com] makes a device [hypertech-inc.com] that allows you to apply "macros" to the onboard computer, doing the same thing as LS1Edit, but to a lesser degree.

    Further, modern cars (with the appropriate computer hacks) still respond quite nicely to the old-school tricks: headers, camshafts, intakes, strokers, blowers, etc. It's like having the best of both worlds - the reliability and economy of computer control, and the performance and "hackability" of old-school tricks.

    It all comes down to learning new rules to play the same old game. :-)
  • by Boomer2 ( 515406 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:35PM (#2666593)
    When will automakers offer the ability to set options? When we make them, of course.

    I personally hate the lighting systems that act like your mom. I don't want my lights on during the day. I also want the dome light to go off immediately when I shut off the car, unless I intervene. I also don't want the @$%# locks to lock every time the car goes off->on and vice versa.

    Add to that the ability to turn on/off the chipped key requirement and whatever else isn't absolutely required for the car to run.

    Would it be so hard to allow the owner to chose?
  • Re:Their goal... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pyrosz ( 469177 ) <amurrayNO@SPAMstage11.ca> on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:45PM (#2666697) Homepage
    These guys [aeswave.com] sell a generic OBDII scan tool for your Palm or Handspring Visor PDA for $329.

    On the whole "their making it more complex to make more money for dealers issue", its not even close to that. They make it more complex by adding computer controls to get finer control of the car. Mechanical switches and valves are not as good (emissions, gas mpg, etc..) as computer controlled (electronic) ones. I have a feeling a lot of geeks don't even change their own oil let a lone do something like change an engine. Please go to a local net forum about cars and read a little.

  • by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @03:55PM (#2666770) Homepage
    The car-starter situation is nothing new. For quite a while, the car manufacturers have been making it harder to build knock-off parts, while simultaneously preserving installation revenue for the dealers. Funky tools, fasteners, threads, anything to discourage the non-dealer mechanic or the knock-off manufacturer. Standardization encourages dealer avoidance, hacking, cloning and (in the case of cars) theft. Cars with lots of interchangeable parts are popular with the "chop shops".

    To be fair about it, Honda had a big problem with theft. It's no secret that the engine computer is the final frontier of anti-theft technology. How can anyone critize Honda for addressing the problem?

    Car hacking is not dead, but it requires more ingenuity than it used to. I remember the old days when I upgraded my home computer by soldering additional memory chips on top of the onboard memory. Just because I can't do that with a modern motherboard, does that make it "unhackable"?
  • Re:spare key (Score:3, Insightful)

    by morris57 ( 23356 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @04:50PM (#2666948) Homepage Journal
    I have a Honda with the chipped key, and the remote starter that this guy was talking about. The security question occurred to me, so I tried to think about how a thief would go about using the key that's in the remote starter against me.

    You can't just remove the key and then take the car. You have to remove the key, remove the remote starter, then reconnect the ignition to the car's starter. This job, in an ideal environment would take about an hour to do.

    It then occurred to me that the least secure place to leave the car is in my own garage, since that place would provide the thieves with the most cover to work under overnight.
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @04:52PM (#2666967) Homepage Journal
    Versus, say, simply having the car refuse to go over the speed limit?

    They were talking about that on CNN while I was travelling through Europe. It's quite feasible to implement it. It's also quite feasible to implement automatic ticketing that tickets all speeders all the time. Neither system would stand a chance of hell of ever getting implemented. In the case of the car just refusing to speed, that'd eliminate speeding ticket revenue and a lot of places depend on that revenue. In the case of the automatic ticketing thing, people would force the speed limits to be removed or raised to the actual speeds people drive at (Which again would have the effect of eliminating those lovely ticket revenues.)

    What this adds up to is that there is a system that is arbitrairly enforced against a population which more or less completely ignores the posted limits.

  • Yup. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by supabeast! ( 84658 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @05:00PM (#2667025)
    Hacking a computer is nice and no big deal, because they are cheap (Compared to cars.) and unnecessary for things like getting to work, the grocery store, etc. If I screw up my computer, no big deal, it can wait to be fixed. If I screw up my car, my life is thrown into a screwy loop. If my computer is stolen I go drop $1500 on a new one and wait for the insurance company to reimburse me, if my car is stolen I cannot go anywhere until the insurance company reimburses the creditor of the car and I can buy a new one.

    Cars are not meant to be toys anymore. If you really insist on playing with your car, buy an old mustang that you don't need to worry about.
  • by bkocik ( 17609 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @05:26PM (#2667246) Homepage
    Electric current goes through the chip, and if the car doesn't receive the correct change in current, the car doesn't start. Requiring a key with VATS doesn't do much for the professional car theif or the theif with access to a dealership with a corrupt car parts guy (imagine that).

    (Former locksmith)
    Except that there are something like 16 possible resistance values (that was a few years ago, there may be more now) used in, for example, the Corvette. If you try to start the car with the wrong value, the fuel pump is disabled for a period of time (I think it started at three minutes). Second wrong one, the pump is disable for six minutes. Then 12, then 24, etc.

    We had a tool called a Sidewinder that slipped over a cut key and slipped copper prongs alongside it in place of the normal contacts. You cut the key to satisfy the tumblers, then slip on the Sidewinder and start trying resistance values (it has a dial on it to change values). It didn't get us around the pauses, however, and sometimes generating a key for a VATS enabled vehicle was an multiple-day event (unless you got the key code from GM, which is not always available...hence the need for the Sidewinder).

    All of this is more time than the average car thief has. Now, flatbed trucks with winches, those are another story.

  • by Javboy ( 541910 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @06:02PM (#2667555) Homepage
    Just because you are use to something doesn't make it right. At the turn of the century most Americans were use to Blacks and Whites being separate, but that wasn't right. People seem to think that technology can solve all of our problems. It can't, as it will always be circumvented. People have to be responsible for their actions. Once they have shown that they aren't, curtail their freedoms. As mentioned in other posts, put the breathalyzer in the car of someone that has committed the crime, not in everyone's car.
  • by domc ( 11897 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @06:03PM (#2667569) Homepage
    So...driving is a privilege because they tell you it is, and you believe them? Wake up, and smell the coffee. Many people depend on this so-called privilege to make a living -- should making a living be a privilege?

    Personally, I'm not a big fan of automobiles. I have structured my life in such a way so that I do not require any vehicle beside my feet, and my bicycle.

    I think that most people would be much happier without the pollution, financial burden, endless concrete slabs, and accidents caused by cars, but, I still don't consider cars to be a mere privilege.

    domc
  • by tz ( 130773 ) on Thursday December 06, 2001 @06:52PM (#2667868)
    It is a violation of federal law to tamper with any automotive emission system. That is one reason the modules are made difficult to alter. The other reason is purely the harsh environment, things like hot salt spray isn't good for circuit boards and other electronics.

    But the engine control module and software, etc. is all part of the "emission control system". Modify them and you aren't "street legal". The anti-theft portion comes from the insurance companies. Many people won't buy models if the insurance gets too expensive.

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...