You don't think there's a difference between exploiting physical access, and remote network exploits? Given physical access to a computer, you can break into it almost trivially; but you don't see people sweating about that.
> Given physical access to a computer, you can break into it almost trivially; but you don't see people sweating about that.
Sure you do. This is why large businesses (smart ones, anyway) require employees' smartphones to be locked with a password or PIN. This is why standards like HIPAA require secure data to be encrypted at rest. This is why laptops being stolen from government agencies leads to things like millions of confidential records disclosed (true story).
And you're still missing my point: that the likes of Toyota and Ford are relying on their wireless systems being secure. That's reckless, since now their wireless systems are the single point of security failure. The lack of even basic safeguards, access levels, etc. should a breach occur is the point of this article, more so than the specific UConnect breach. Having only one layer between "secure" and "pwned" is by no measure a good idea.
