So demo it at a race track. The essential point here is that the uninvolved public were placed at real risk of maiming or death.
Your argument is ludicrous, because you're attempting to cast the actors as either good or bad. IMHO they are guys with a good idea and motivation who did a bad thing.
We are a very visual culture, unfortunately. Unless there's a video of your average Joe driving on a regular highway and a regular car going wild, everyone would just dismiss the problem as limited to "race track" and would not connect the vulnerability to his/her own car.
edit: as per the article "researchers already did test these exploits in controlled environments and presented these tests to auto manufacturers. Said tests were dismissed by said manufacturers.".
>We are a very visual culture, unfortunately. Unless there's a video of your average Joe driving on a regular highway and a regular car going wild, everyone would just dismiss the problem as limited to "race track" and would not connect the vulnerability to his/her own car.
If optics is your justification for this, then perhaps having these two irresponsible researchers arrested would bring even more attention to this.
>edit: as per the article "researchers already did test these exploits in controlled environments and presented these tests to auto manufacturers. Said tests were dismissed by said manufacturers.".
Where do you see that in the article? Only thing I read was manufacturers downplaying a wired-in attack they demoed.
> "researchers arrested would bring even more attention to this."
Yep.
> Where do you see that in the article? Only thing I read was manufacturers downplaying a wired-in attack they demoed.
No "air gap" between "CAN bus and Internet" equals vulnerable.
We know that. Auto manufacturers know that.
Yet they dismiss the possibility of a hack and continue producing unsafe vehicles. And the trend is toward more vulnerabilities.
I was to lazy to search a direct quote, but here it is now: "Miller and Valasek represent the second act in a good-cop/bad-cop routine. Carmakers who failed to heed polite warnings in 2011 now face the possibility of a public dump of their vehicles’ security flaws.".
That is very much NOT a quote from this article, if you are quoting another article by mistake please link it. As this article does not even use the word "presented"
In this article it mentions how Chrysler is working with them and has developed a patch, indicating that they did not dismiss previously done tests. So basically saying the opposite of what I take your point to be.
Yeah, you and your family. Well, you are lucky. These researchers and this reporter had already risked their reputations, lives and their livelihoods. So you, now, don't have to. And maybe you'll be even able to benefit from all their hard work, because were would be fewer vulnerable cars around. Although you would probably never know that.
Your argument is ludicrous, because you're attempting to cast the actors as either good or bad. IMHO they are guys with a good idea and motivation who did a bad thing.