Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Transportation IT

New Cars Vulnerable To Wireless Theft 280

Posted by timothy
from the unauthorized-driver-detected dept.
tkrotchko writes "In a story published by Technology Review, researchers have demonstrated multiple times that they can bypass the security of wireless entry and ignition systems to take a car without the owner's permission. As researchers in the article point out, car security systems will begin have a real impact to every day use if a thief can simply walk up to your car and drive it away. Although this article is light on technical details, a companion article shows how the researchers accomplished the security bypass. An interesting read, and certainly something that will no doubt be the subject of a new movie any day now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Cars Vulnerable To Wireless Theft

Comments Filter:
  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @04:21PM (#34782906) Homepage Journal

    An interesting read, and certainly something that will no doubt be the subject of a new movie any day now.

    How about "gone in 60 microseconds"?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 06, 2011 @04:39PM (#34783192)

    So I was drinking a wine cooler and watching Knight Rider last night and Some dude totally hacked Kit using a TI computer and an ATARI joystick. This tech has obviously existed since the 80s. Sheesh.

  • by noidentity (188756) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @04:47PM (#34783314)

    they can bypass the security of wireless entry and ignition systems to take a car without the owner's permission

    If only we had a word that meant taking something without the owner's permission...

  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @04:53PM (#34783396) Homepage Journal

    This patent presents a locking system for automotive vehicles that can not be snooped by a nearby wireless hacker. This approach eliminates the need for problem prone wireless receivers and transmitters, whose signal can easily be captured by a third party in the vicinity. This devices presents an opening in the door of about 2mm x 5mm and requires the use of a specifically shaped piece of metal This piece of metal would be unique to each owner. Activation and deactivation is accomplished by a rotational action in either clock-wise or anti-clockwise directions.

    This patent is truly ground-breaking since it eliminates the need for an electronic system to function.

  • by TheL0ser (1955440) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @05:03PM (#34783530)
    I can find no fault nor prior art with regards to your patent application. Your application is hereby approved. Please note that on the way out the door intent to sue forms are on your left, and a directory of lawyers on your right. For your convenience, we have also supplied a list of the largest companies that may be possible targets for your legislation. Thank you for visiting the Lawsuit-o-matic Patent Office, and have a nice day.
  • by thewils (463314) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @05:06PM (#34783566) Journal

    That would be "copyright infringement" right?

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @05:12PM (#34783658) Journal

    Yeah, and I might not post this.

  • by tool462 (677306) on Thursday January 06, 2011 @06:14PM (#34784438)

    Your post advocates a

    (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

    approach to fighting vehicle theft. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won’t work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

    ( ) Thieves can easily use it to harvest spare change
    ( ) Remote starts and other legitimate email uses would be affected
    ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
    (x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
    ( ) It will stop vehicle theft for two weeks and then we’ll be stuck with it
    ( ) Users of cars will not put up with it
    ( ) Chrysler will not put up with it
    ( ) The police will not put up with it
    (x) Requires too much cooperation from thieves
    ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
    ( ) Many car companies cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential passengers
    (x) Car thieves don’t care about invalid keys
    ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else’s car or truck

    Specifically, your plan fails to account for

    ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
    (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for car keys
    ( ) Open roadways in foreign countries
    (x) Ease of searching tiny valid keyspace of a mechanical key
    (x) Asshats
    ( ) Jurisdictional problems
    ( ) Unpopularity of weird new mechanical things
    ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of keys
    (x) Huge existing software investment in Keyloq
    ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than Keyloq to attack
    (x) Willingness of users to insert keys into doors
    ( ) Armies of rust-riddled pickup trucks
    ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all locking approaches
    (x) Extreme profitability of car theft
    ( ) Joe jobs and/or vehicle theft
    ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
    ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with car thieves
    (x) Dishonesty on the part of car thieves themselves
    ( ) Outlook

    and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

    (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
    ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
    ( ) Keyloq algorithms should not be the subject of legislation
    ( ) Blacklists suck
    ( ) Whitelists suck
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve registration fraud or insurance fraud
    ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public roads
    ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
    ( ) Unlocking car doors should be free
    (x) Why should we have to trust you and your key makers?
    ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
    ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
    ( ) Temporary/one-time keys are cumbersome
    ( ) I don’t want the government opening my car door
    ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

    Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

    (x) Sorry dude, but I don’t think it would work.
    ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you’re a stupid person for suggesting it.
    ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I’m going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

1 Mole = 007 Secret Agents

Working...