CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT: Kinda makes you think about Princess Di.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Frosted
    Member
    • Mar 2010
    • 5798

    CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT: Kinda makes you think about Princess Di.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10119492.stm

    Hack attacks mounted on car control systems
    Page last updated at 12:35 GMT, Monday, 17 May 2010 13:35 UK
    E-mail this to a friendPrintable version The research team could subvert almost every car control system The computer systems used to control modern cars are very vulnerable to attack, say experts.

    An investigation by security researchers found the systems to be "fragile" and easily subverted.

    The researchers showed how to kill a car engine remotely, turn off the brakes so the car would not stop and make instruments give false readings.

    Despite their success, the team said it would be hard for malicious attackers to reproduce their work.

    Locked in

    The team of researchers, led by Professor Stefan Savage from the University of California-San Diego, and Tadayoshi Kohno from the University of Washington set out to see what resilience cars had to an attack on their control systems.

    "Our findings suggest that, unfortunately, the answer is 'little,'" wrote the researchers from the Center for Automotive Embedded Systems Security.

    The researchers concentrated their attacks on the electronic control units (ECUs)scattered throughout modern vehicles which oversee the workings of many car components. It is thought that modern vehicles have about 100 megabytes of binary code spread across up to 70 ECUs.

    Continue reading the main story
    This represents an opportunity to head off a problem before it starts, in the not-too-distant future it may represent a real risk to life.
    Rik Ferguson

    Trend Micro
    Individual control units typically oversee one sub-system but ECUs communicate so that many different systems can be controlled as the situation demands. For instance, in a crash seat belts may be pre-tensioned, doors unlocked and air bags deployed.

    The attackers created software called CarShark to monitor communications between the ECUs and insert fake packets of data to carry out attacks.

    The team got at the ECUs via the communications ports fitted as standard on most cars that enable mechanics to gather data about a vehicle before they begin servicing or repair work.

    The researchers mounted a series of attacks against a stationary and moving vehicle to see how much of the car could fall under their control.

    All modern cars are fitted with computer control systems "We are able to forcibly and completely disengage the brakes while driving, making it difficult for the driver to stop," wrote the researchers. "Conversely, we are able to forcibly activate the brakes, lurching the driver forward and causing the car to stop suddenly."

    In one attack, the team transformed the instrument panel into a clock that counted down to zero from 60 seconds. In the final seconds the horn honks and as zero is reached the car engine shuts off and the doors are locked.

    They found that almost every system in the car, including engine, brakes, heating and cooling, lights, instrument panel, radio and locks was vulnerable.

    The team concluded that the car control software was "fragile" and easy to subvert. In some cases simply sending malformed packets of data, rather than specific control code, was enough to trigger a response.

    The team are presenting a paper on their results at the IEEE symposium on Security and Privacy in California on 19 May.

    "Cars benefit from the fact that they are (hopefully) not connected to the internet (yet) and currently are not able to be remotely accessed," said Rik Fergson, a security analyst at Trend Micro. "So in order to carry out a successful attack you would already need to have physical access to the vehicle, as a break-in or as a mechanic, seem the two most likely scenarios."

    "As cars, and everything else in life up to and including even pacemakers or fridges, become steadily more connected and externally accessible, research such as this should be taken increasingly seriously by manufacturers," he added.

    "This represents an opportunity to head off a problem before it starts, in the not-too-distant future it may represent a real risk to life."
  • Frosted
    Member
    • Mar 2010
    • 5798

    #2
    AWWW - damn!! Wrong section - please move Mods.

    What an idiot.

    Comment

    • lxskllr
      Member
      • Sep 2007
      • 13435

      #3
      Originally posted by Frosted View Post
      please move Mods.
      Done :^)

      Comment

      • Frosted
        Member
        • Mar 2010
        • 5798

        #4
        Phew - cheers - that was quick.

        Comment

        • danielan
          Member
          • Apr 2010
          • 1514

          #5
          Or the final scene of the Charles Bronson movie "The Mechanic"

          It's time for a re-make.
          The note on the mirror. The countdown on the display. The bomb hooked to the the horn.

          Apparently they are remaking "The Mechanic" - I hope they don't screw it up.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6GNu0jysQ

          Comment

          • sgreger1
            Member
            • Mar 2009
            • 9451

            #6
            Yah this has beena concern for a while. Services like onstar that allow remote access are even more vulnerable. This is the difficulty with everything being electronic. The terrorists and wars of the futures will be fought by hackers.

            Comment

            • Frosted
              Member
              • Mar 2010
              • 5798

              #7
              It's like the recent Toyota problem - the electrical systems must be really open to interference.

              Comment

              • truthwolf1
                Member
                • Oct 2008
                • 2696

                #8
                I am pretty sure remote-control was used in the Planes that hit the towers. There are quite a few pilots who said they could never of hit a target manually at those speeds.

                Comment

                • Frosted
                  Member
                  • Mar 2010
                  • 5798

                  #9
                  Originally posted by truthwolf1 View Post
                  I am pretty sure remote-control was used in the Planes that hit the towers. There are quite a few pilots who said they could never of hit a target manually at those speeds.
                  That's the only thing that has personally bugged me about the twin towers attack. I didn't believe they could hit them so accurately. It would seem that to get those planes right dead centre into those towers was a bit strange - things go wrong in real life and for me reality dictates that one of those planes should have just clipped the tower. To have two dead centre hits from two very inexperienced pilots stinks.

                  To add to this - If electronic systems can be hacked - why were these planes not hacked by the security services? I'm positive they have the know how.

                  Comment

                  • truthwolf1
                    Member
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 2696

                    #10
                    There is a lot of conspiracy about this dude.

                    Comment

                    • sgreger1
                      Member
                      • Mar 2009
                      • 9451

                      #11
                      Not saying it's impossible that they could have hit the towers, but crashign into the pentagon was the real task. Again, not that it's not possible, but would be quite a feat for some dudes fresh out of flight school to crash into the side of the pentagon at those speeds. Whatever flight school they went to is where I would want to go if I wanted to be a pilot.


                      Even that doesn't seem impossible to me, the only 9/11 conspiracy thing I fully buy into is the WTC building 7 falling. Why would it just collapse? Because of debris falling in it? Yah that doesn't cause a freefall implosion.

                      Comment

                      • Frosted
                        Member
                        • Mar 2010
                        • 5798

                        #12
                        Weren't these guys only trained in a single engine plane? There's a whole world of a difference between that and a passenger jet.

                        Comment

                        • tom502
                          Member
                          • Feb 2009
                          • 8985

                          #13
                          Yeah, building 7 just falling, and I think it fell before the towers were hit? And the Pentagon, with no plane, just a round hole, and then all the black boxes not found, even for the plane that crashed in the field. It just don't add up.

                          Comment

                          • Bigblue1
                            Banned Users
                            • Dec 2008
                            • 3923

                            #14
                            Watch "loose Change: final cut" You will have no Doubt those towers were taken down intentionally. It's as plain as day once you allow yourself to actually think the government does these things.

                            Comment

                            • sgreger1
                              Member
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 9451

                              #15
                              Tom, WTC 7 fell after the planes hit. Their explanation was that falling debri somehow caused the building to freefall into itself. Rofl.

                              I'm just saying, hitting a skyscraper is one thing, flying into a window of the pentagon is another, it's just extremely hard to do (especially for an ammeature pilot) And also, where the hell was NORAD? I mean they can scramble jets to just about anywhere in a matter of minutes, WHY WAS THE PENTAGON UNPROTECTED? NORAD's lack of response to this situation is the biggest red flag imo.

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X