View Single Post
Old 04-26-2015, 05:41 PM   #27
murg
No Comment
murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,240
Karma: 23878043
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo: Not just an eReader, it's an adventure!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey View Post
Well I'm glad that these 13 automakers are recognizing the very real risks. That they consider the DMCA to be a mitigation to the risk just means we're all truly f@#$'d. They could implement modular security to isolate the automated command and control features. They could include fail safe for those modules if they detect unauthorized code updates. Of course that would cost money to properly manage.

"Hmmm there must be a cheaper solution, what's this DMCA thingie? Think it will work as a CYA so we don't get sued? Good idea and we can make more money for our authorized dealers too."
Actually, this does bring up a tangent idea. If the car makers are making a big deal about safety (or lack thereof) associated with the on-board software, do they then become responsible for securing that software, and become responsible if someone hacks it and changes it for malicious purposes?
murg is offline   Reply With Quote