this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
18 points (87.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7336 readers
242 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The headline is very clickbaitey. Here is the body of the actual letter sent to manufacturers:
If you comply with the Mass. law, you may come into conflict with the Safety Act which preempts Mass.
While consumers should have access, this may open up a whole can of worms, safety-wise. A nefarious actor could misuse the system to remotely cause a crash.
If you leave a backdoor open and not properly secured, you'll be doing a nationwide recall.
Make sure you have everything secured, so only the authorized users have access.
You can't lock it all down, though. We may need access to the "black box" data for review of incidents. You may also need to leave openings to third parties that provide legitimate services, such as On-Star, etc.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23846414-nhtsa-letter
So what they are saying is it's okay to have telematics as long as access is only for those who they want to have it. The presumption is that the protocol/system is inherently insecure, so restricting it is the best way to avoid issues.
Classic "security through obscurity."
This argument has been made so many times in different forms. It's like the open source versus proprietary approaches to hardware, software, etc. But I understand it's a little different here because the implications of updating a vehicle's firmware is a lot different than updating your Roku. It's not as easy to implement security mechanisms like public-key cryptography on an embedded vehicle ECU meant to run reliably at all costs.
But artificial air-gap isn't the answer either.