Dangerous control of my Jeep over the internet

[jlrocks]

Whatever fellas. Jeep tells you it's dangerous and could result in "serious injury or death" right in the manual and you still think it should be rammed down everyone's throat. Each to their own.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Getting into the damned truck and taking it onto I235 at rush hour is far far far more deadly!
You are more likely to die driving around Indianapolis.
No one is ramming anything anywhere, just dispelling the BS that's out there about these things - and the laughable risk. Car makers must warn people not to ingest antifreeze or gasoline, too, people are such fools these days and want to sue if the coffee is hot or the soda stains their suit.
Do don't use it - it's really that bloody simple.
Every once in a while someone comes in complaining about the technology that most people want, demand and use - all because of lack of understanding or thinking or reading some stupid attorney talk to prevent a big company from being sued. Real life example - a guy I KNOW personally was climbing up the side of his silo to access a hatch. He didn't have safety cage on the ladder up. He fell off the side of the silo and landed on a piece of equipment HE parked below to handle silage. He SUED that equipment maker because when he landed on it he broke his back. They didn't have the proper shields on top of the equipment. And guess what - the ass won!
I guess they must not have had warnings in the manual "warning, falling on this equipment from 25 feet may result in injury or death". These days you have to protect idiots from themselves because this country won't allow Darwin's laws to be upheld.

Warning - driving this vehicle may result in injury or DEATH.............

I struggle to see how having the ability to do a remote lock, unlock, remote start or honking of horn to find a vehicle at the Iowa State Fair parking lot can be risky in any way but hey, attorneys apparently know of someone who SUED over it.

Bottom line - if you don't like the bloody thing - then don't use it! It's truly THAT simple!! Most of the rest of the customers DO want it - they don't include what the MAJORITY do not want or have not asked for. And if Ford or Chevy include it, and Jeep does not, then people will migrate to those other companies and Jeep loses sales and stops selling Gladiator. There, you got your wish.

 

[SwampNut]

Long ago, I had a two-way pager that said this on the second page of the manual:

WARNING!
DO NOT eat the battery door.

 

[jlrocks]

Bottom line - if you don't like the bloody thing - then don't use it! It's truly THAT simple!!

If not using it would mitigate the danger then I never would have started this thread. My point as I've said is that we should have the choice to be vulnerable to this or not. But if no one demands that choice then it won't be made available to us and judging from this thread there is not enough demand.

 

[SwampNut]

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Where do you come up with some of this stuff? The creativity of some people here is amazing. And the sense of humor is - wow
(and lack of sense of humor of some is scary)

 

[SwampNut]

Where do you come up with some of this stuff?

Just monkeying around.

(and lack of sense of humor of some is scary)

Remember they've gone apeshit over the key fob and the "danger" of the proximity system.

We truly would have a horse-drawn Gladiator if we let some people design cars.

 

[jlrocks]

I've worked in network engineering, security, and servers for 25 years.

Most someone could do, if they hacked the Guardian system which itself is unlikely, is to randomly unlock some vehicle somewhere?

Hoping I don't do business where you work.

 

[SwampNut]

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Hoping I don't do business where you work.

There, you proved our point, and a point I keep making over and over elsewhere!
Look at the second bullet point! DUH!!
That warning is NOT about a remote wireless or cellular access - it's about YOU doing something stupid like inserting USB media that isn't safe. Geesh.
You just proved our point.
That's the same sort of warning I, as an IT specialist, network security admin and former Symantec support person would tell anyone.
The risk is NOT from the remote, the risk is from YOU - yes YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Almost EVERY SINGLE HACK OR BREACH or other issue is USER-RELATED!
Stuxnet hit Iran because an IDIOT working with their centrifuge control systems inserted media! It was NOT an internet hack because those were fully isolated.
Most "hacks" are not "hacks" but are the result of some fool INVITING trouble by inserting something. Principal Financial Group was hit by a nasty one because - get this - some IT helpdesk idiot brought in a CD of malware and was curious. He stuck the CD into his computer -which the fool has set or enabled "autoplay" and bingo - a multi-billion dollar company was hit hard.
Read the whole thing - the risk is NOT the remote lock, unlock, remote start and so on - the RISK is from YOU not following the second bullet point and sticking a USB stick in there that you found in the aisle at WalMart and it was labeled as music.
OVER 90% of all people (and this is a fact that was proven over and over) who find media somewhere, source unknown, will insert it into a computer or device at work - and I'd say it's not unthinkable that someone who finds a USB device labeled as Beyonce's greatest hits will stick it into the USB port of their JT.
If I wanted to have some fun I'd load up malware onto a USB stick and mark it as some rapper's big hits and sit back and enjoy.

You read only the parts you wanted to read and ignored the next warning - any breach is going to be YOUR fault, not the fault of the remote start and lock!
The only real vulnerability for these things is people who failed to read the second point because they got so bloody hung up on the first point.

You proved my point perfectly, but you should have circled the second point, not the first.

The risk is YOU. Just like the media out there, taking something completely out of context, posting a sentence or two instead of the whole page or paragraph. Love it.

So - in short, if you follow the second point you failed to look at, if you don't put in media you don't know for a fact is riskless, there's no problem. It's truly that simple.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Read his post with the image - the SECOND point is the critical one. They really should put 2 on top and make the top point the second one.

 

[jlrocks]

There are 3 points made in that photo of the manual. Nowhere does it say the 1st point only applies within the context of the 2nd. Sorry.

 

[SwampNut]

Read his post with the image - the SECOND point is the critical one. They really should put 2 on top and make the top point the second one.

Oh, yeah, I pointed it out a few pages ago but he still keeps saying it's related, and it's somehow evidence that the cellular system could be cracked to steer you off a cliff.

I've been doing network consulting for decades, and a huge part of my job is dragging people kicking and screaming into the current century. BUT OMG WHAT IF!!!!! You know, the people who want to keep paper copies of everything they get by email...

Look at what phones/pocket PCs looked like before Steve Jobs said "F you, that's not what you need, here you go."

 

[ShadowsPapa]

There are 3 points made in that photo of the manual. Nowhere does it say the 1st point only applies within the context of the 2nd. Sorry.

You see what you want to see. Reading comprehension.
There is only risk if there's a breach. There's almost zero chance of breach unless you ignore that second point about media. These are generic warnings, that's all. It's not meant to imply anything.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Oh, yeah, I pointed it out a few pages ago but he still keeps saying it's related, and it's somehow evidence that the cellular system could be cracked to steer you off a cliff.

The risk is from the owner, not the outside world.
Start, lock, unlock, honk - not things that can kill. But inserting media of unknown origin or safety is where the real risk is.
I haven't checked to see if the vehicle senses the FOB being present and ignoring those commands if it is. Would be a good test -if FOB is detected in vehicle, ignore all outside commands. Hmmmmm, will have to test that. I'll go put my FOB in my truck and then see if I can send a start command, etc.

That legal warning is just that.

Again, people fear and hate what they don't understand.
I guess it explains the state of the world today.

Sponsored