Tesla Model S Ethernet Network Explored
dragtimes.comI am very amused that people in this thread assume that this ethernet port allows tinkering with the automotive systems.
Automotive systems communicate over a CAN [1] bus, not ethernet. In fact, this bus is usually physically separated between drive-critical bus (which controls things like ABS) and "comfort" bus (such as electric window controls, central door locks, wheel-mounted audio controls). Ethernet has none of the industrial strength qualities that make CAN a valid automotive control bus, such as signal hardening and real-time guarantees.
As far as these users have found, this ethernet port is connected to the infotainment system: the 17" display.
I would be deeply disappointed in Tesla if the infotainment system can modify drive-control devices with anything less than signed binaries and commands. As an aside, I wonder what the legal requirements of such safeties are.
Sadly, the segregation between CAN buses is not nearly as good as you would think. ONSTAR, for example, sits on the drive critical bus (and is exploitable). Of course, this is not on a Tesla, but still.
A few years back, a joint UW-UCSD team showed that car systems are remotely exploitable. They were able to literally call the car's cell phone number and control the brakes/gas/door locks remotely.
(oops, sorry about gratuitous use of "literally" -- i should learn not to editorialize better)
The above paper is one of two the UW/UCSD group wrote.
Assassination via car hacking would have seemed like sci-fi a decade or two ago.
See Michael Hastings conspiracy theories: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/michael-hastings-ca...
Assassination via physical-access car hacking (cutting brake lines, etc.) has been around for a long time. Seems like a small jump to electronic.
Has there ever been a successful assassination using this method? If some cut my brake lines I would know about it the moment I started the engine and applied the service brakes while putting the car into drive/releasing the e-brake, or become aware of it while maneuvering out of a parking space at speeds under 5mph.
The theory is that the brake lines are weakened and fail at some point during the journey.
Not necessarily -- it would take a good few pumps of the pedal to introduce enough air into the system for the brakes to become ineffective.
There are a bunch of cases of amateurs who do this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081590/Man-arrested... http://www.ktbs.com/story/22346692/man-accused-of-trying-to-...
I'm more used to people just putting car bombs on the vehicles, though.
You should be good with the e-brakes, and should never 100% depend on your primary brakes when driving, but in practice I'm sure a lot of people get into situations where they wouldn't know to switch to e-brake if the main brakes failed, or wouldn't have time. The biggest risk to the assassin is that car accidents in modern cars just aren't that fatal -- you can hit another car head-on at 60mph and, with seatbelts, non-offset crash, airbags, etc., either walk away or at least survive at a hospital. It also leaves enough forensic evidence, especially if the driver survives and reports "my brakes just didn't work!" that it wouldn't be surreptitious.
A bomb isn't likely to be taken as an accident, either, but is at least likely to be effective.
I'm probably missing something here, but wouldn't it make sense for ONSTAR to sit on the drive critical bus? If it's able to monitor collision data and (in newer models) slow down a stolen car, it'd need access to drive-control systems.
I'm unsure whether it makes sense in the context of safety. However, in the context of being able to sell the product as having those features - makes perfect sense.
Thank you for pointing this out. A few additional notes on the way most modern car electronics work:
1) The entertainment system generally has read-only access to the CAN bus via an intermediary DCU. Even if you were able to "jailbreak" it, you wouldn't be able to modify the CAN.
2) The control unit(s) that actually have the ability to modify things like brakes, maximum speed settings, etc. are ECUs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_control_unit) and are entirely separate from the entertainment system.
3) Updates to vehicle-critical systems generally never even go through the entertainment system. They are sent over the air to the car's receiver (usually a kind of DCU), and are processed outside the purview of the entertainment system. The only thing the entertainment system can do is schedule the download and read the progress of the update.
It's interesting to see that Ethernet is used to connect the infotainment displays, but this isn't really a security concern as far as I can see. It just means we'll probably see some mods for the displays in the future, like turning off the YouTube lockout or enabling different data displays.
There isn't any reason why the entertainment system couldn't reprogram the ECUs, I have never seen a read-only CAN controller so the hardware will be able to write to the CAN bus. The OBD-II diagnostic connector provides full access to the CAN bus anyway so once you are inside the vehicle there isn't much security.
You could even run the service diagnostics on the entertainment system and avoid the need for extra hardware in repair shops.
At least with the auto manufacturers I've worked with the entertainment system is controlled by a DCU, which is in turn connected to the CAN controller. It is the DCU that limits the access to be read-only. It may be possible to alter the firmware of the DCU to allow two-way access, but it would not be easy.
100% agree with you that if you're already inside the car security of the entertainment system is a moot point. There are attack vectors you could use that bypass software controls entirely.
> I am very amused that people in this thread assume that this ethernet port allows tinkering with the automotive systems.
I'm still surprised people think like this. We had 60+ years of technology hacking to learn that if it is not airgapped, it can be hacked. And even if it is, it probably still can be (cf. Stuxnet). So while I doubt Tesla is using Ethernet to control critical car systems, I also don't think that they can't be tinkered with using that port if someone cares hard enough to try.
Some high-end luxury cars are remotely exploitable, to the point where attackers can control the breaks/engine/locks using a cell connection: http://youtu.be/bHfOziIwXic
Agree-
I'm not expert on this, but I'm pretty sure the IT guys in our Formula Student Team use a Ethernet cable to connect their laptop to the Autobox and then the Box runs the CAN signals.
http://www.dspace.com/de/gmb/home/products/newprod/microauto... (Table: Host-Interface = Ethernet)
I guess the point is that signed binaries aren't full proof. Look at how jail breakers have been able to continually defeat the iOS security controls over the years. And surely Apple has a larger and more experienced development team than Tesla.
Why would you believe that?
Apple is mainly a Design firm, they are good at making things look pretty... not much else..
Just a note, automotive Ethernet PHYs exist [1] and there is some interest in real-time Ethernet applications (piggy-backing on an original audio use case, AVB) [2].
[1] http://www.broadcom.com/products/Physical-Layer/BroadR-Reach... [2] http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1315425
Yeah, BroadR-Reach is currently used by BMW only. There will be more used cases, but I can't talk public about for obvious reasons. But then, don't expect to have TCP/IP available, like this article suggest.
There's also EtherCAT, which has been around for a while and has realtime and safety guarantees.
lol, Ethercat, lol
Yeah, it looks like ethernet, but it isn't. It is not used in cars. Currently, I don't know if it will be used in cars. Presumably not. Ethercat is used for hardware in the loop simulation.
That was my first fear, actually. Reading the headline, cold chill "They can't have been stupid enough to build the Tesla with Ethernet instead of CAN bus, right?"
You can be disappointed - you can unlock the vehicle from your app, thus 0wning/jailbreaking that box will give you CAN-bus access.
Super interesting. There was this hack from a few months ago that involved messing with items on the CAN bus. I think they get into more of the details;
What about cars where you can enable/disable features like traction control and auto-break from the entertainment system? They must have some sort of connection, and that connection probably has bugs that could be exploited.
The cool things: Tesla is running Linux (!) and standard technologies/protocols such as SSH, NFS, X11, HTTP, etc. to do things in the car. That is cool, and probably highly efficient since developer test labs can probably just be basic Ubuntu-like virtual machines.
The sketchy things: Jailbreaking a car seems pretty dangerous, especially since as far as I'm aware, the electronic systems control things including the brake. I know this only because Tesla recently released a software update that added "hill assist" which will hold the brake in place for 1 second when at a certain incline to avoid rolling back. Imagine a malicious software update that disabled the brake! Personally, I would jailbreak a phone, but not a car. :) HOPEFULLY the system the ethernet port provides access to is firewalled out of being able to update any software (i.e. the software update mechanism is some other device), but who knows.
The phone home can also be considered sketchy, but any Tesla owner is well aware the car pings home and relays diagnostic data to Tesla. At the very least, Tesla owners know it must ping home to check for updates periodically.
If anything, I thought it was kind of cool that Tesla engineers detected it and reached out so quickly. Imagine if you weren't tampering with your car and it WAS a high-tech attacker. It is good to know that they can detect the basics.
No way is the drive control software is running linux, its almost certainly running on its own embedded system.
Absolutely, I agree, but the software update mechanism is somehow able to update or interface with that system. If you're able to jailbreak _that_, then its one less barrier in the way of taking over the drive control.
I'm sure only signed updates are allowed. Same as with intel microcode updates and most firmwares. They'd be highly irresponsible if jailbreaking was left possible.
Nobody intends jailbreaks to be possible. It's done through exploiting bugs. And saying it'd be highly irresponsible to write a bug is like saying it'd be irresponsible to use the bathroom. It may stink, but everyone does it.
I'm aware these are just bugs, but there's a huge difference between iOS/android (let's keep it fairly secure, if anyone breaks it we'll release a fix... maybe, noone really cares) and car's system (probably at the level of: holy shit this cannot run untrusted code, even if that means adding trusted execution module that prevents booting if there's any unsigned byte present).
Sure, I agree, but what system checks the signature? A responsible engineering team would have a dedicated piece of hardware for that. For decent security, it would need to physically sit between the untrusted, internet-connected machine and the embedded hardware.
Not to mention that there must be some key floating around Tesla that can be used to completely reprogram any Model S from anywhere.
Its not the first time a company has needed to privately secure a key, but this time there's a lot more at stake. I wonder what the privacy success rate is for companies with highly-sought-after keys like that. Over a long period of time, the chance of a key leak has got to be pretty high.
> For decent security, it would need to physically sit between the untrusted, internet-connected machine and the embedded hardware.
TPM style solutions already exist. Keys burned into the chip + verification at boot should do most of the work.
> there must be some key floating around Tesla that can be used to completely reprogram any Model S from anywhere.
It could be something more interesting. A set of keys where signature requires N out of them? Even if there is some master key, they wouldn't keep it on a node connected to the network (one would hope...) Some hardware crypto-box maybe?
> Even if there is some master key, they wouldn't keep it on a node connected to the network (one would hope...) Some hardware crypto-box maybe?
I imagine Elon sending the only copy to space on one of the recent SpaceX launches, so that they can deorbit it when needed, but to steal it, you'd actually have to go up there and find it ;).
Jailbreaking is always possible, period. It's only matter of trying hard enough, and (un)fortunately, it's usually enough for one person to put the effort once, and then everybody can use the results.
Lots of systems are built to only allow signed updates, but bugs often allow bypassing that. If you can exploit the existing firmware, you can effectively load new ones. That's how iOS jailbreaks work despite Apple's attempt to only allow booting an Apple signed OS.
...which you can hack, as all car systems are connected by the CAN bus, and people already have exploited buffer overflows in car radios, in turn giving access to the CAN bus, and unlocking the vehicle.
You are correct.
According to the article, the car's network consists of three devices - the centre console, the dashboard, and one unknown device. There's no way that the whole car has only three computers.
My guess is that this ethernet network is only for the user interface. I'd also guess that the unknown device serves as a gateway (and, hopefully, a firewall) between the critical systems of the car and the car's UI.
Firewall? The CAN bus interfacing with the core vehicle components assumes no access controls or anything. Any device connected to it is inherently trustable, no questions asked.
I think the commenter you replied to was inferring that the whole CAN bus was not accessible via the Ethernet network.
Get ssh access to the box connected to the CAN bus and boom, you have access.
There must be at least one of those connected because Tesla is able to remote-unlock your vehicle.
There are usually discrete CAN bus firewalls that sit between controllers that are explicitly programmable, and the bus. They might be ASICs, microcontrollers or FPGAs, but there's no way into the mfrom the network. The only attack vector onto the bus is to stab the car with a sharp knife until you have the PCB in your hands, at which point you have owned the car anyways.
Unless someone re-wrote the kernel to be MISRA-compliant...
MISRA Compliance...Coming soon in Ubuntu 149.04 Zany Zealot!!</s>
Depends what level we're talking about surely? SpaceX have their own real time Linux which they do use on rocket systems - stands to reason they might bring a similar idea over to automotive systems.
likely using a real time os like qnx/vxworks for the more critical stuff.
You started with jailbreaking then transitioned to malicious software update - aren't those two different things? While it's possible that bad software would cause dangerous problems with the car, it's also possible that a bad repair job or bad part will as well. Yet we allow unlicensed mechanics, like the owner of the car, to do things like replace the brakes.
While you may not be comfortable jailbreaking your own car, you might also not be comfortable replacing your own brakes? Do you think my replacing the brakes of my own car would also be sketchy? I am a better programmer than I am a car mechanic. Also, after-market mods which reprogram the engine have been around for a while, so it's not like people do things like this already.
I'm assuming the critical stuff is pretty walled off, but if I were Tesla I'd be nervous about someone potentially poking around with anything like that because they think they know what they are doing.
Oh, I agree. But wouldn't any existing car company also be worried about aftermarket mods to the car they sold, by people who "think they know what they are doing"? What marks Tesla's cars as significantly special or error-prone?
As important, how do you distinguish between a valid concern about the easy of making a stupid error, vs. designing the system to be more resilient to those sorts of mistakes, vs designing the system so the owner isn't able to modify the car without the manufacturer's permission?
(Eg, Massachusetts has a "Right to Repair" law, which is supposed to reduce the last case.)
>Oh, I agree. But wouldn't any existing car company also be worried about aftermarket mods to the car they sold, by people who "think they know what they are doing"? What marks Tesla's cars as significantly special or error-prone?
They ARE significantly special to the media and to consumers. Compare the press coverage of the Tesla fires to the, what, hundreds or thousands of petrol (gasoline) vehicle fires a year?
One fool disables some safety features to squeeze out some more performance from his vehicle, the vehicle catches fire and kills him. How do you think that'll play out in the mainstream American media and what will it do to Tesla's stock price?
Ahh, yes, I see your point.
Now... imagine you have a low tech car facing an attacker armed with a pair of side cutters.
First, locate the hood, second, use the release to pop it. Locate the master cylinder, and the hose running to the engine, cut it. Now the brakes don't work very well. Locate the hose not running to the engine, cut that, now the brakes don't work at all.
Imagine that any person strong enough to operate side cutters can hack into your car and disable the brakes.
Seriously? You're illustrating the point here. On low tech cars, an attacker has to hack the cars one-at-a-time. They could endanger one car load of people with each "job".
With high-tech cars, an attacker could hack every car of the same model. With thousands of Teslas on the road, I think it merits a higher concern than somebody with side cutters.
I thought it was obvious. Next time I'll let it go unsaid..
It's a wired-ethernet network not Wifi.
The attacker would still need physical access like the low-tech attacker to network and update software on the Tesla.
Also, the brake line could be cut in seconds whereas 'jailbreaking' and then flashing the drive control software would take ages in comparison.
yeah but the state police can examine a crash after the fact to determine a brake line was cut.
even if the software survives a high-speed crash, it's possible for the surreptitiously placed modification to erase itself as its final act. additionally, the surreptitiously placed modification can wait for weeks or months, giving the attacker time to build a cover story or misdirect or accomplish any number of other goals.
Now imagine someone hiding in the hood of your car waiting to cut your brakes while you are traveling 80mph down the freeway.
Is it even that complicated? Just cut one (or all 4) of the lines under the car that runs to the brake calipers. No need to get under the hood.
You're almost certainly going to notice you have no breaks way before you're going to be at a speed to do serious harm, especially in an urban setting.
“Tesla USA engineers have seen a tentative of hacking on my car.”, “can be related to industrial espionage and advised me to stop investigation, to not void the warranty”.
So long as you don't cause any damage they can't void your warranty in the US thanks to the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.
And that's a mighty hacker-unfriendly stance to take for a company whose client base is made up of a disproportionately large number of engineers and computer scientists, many of whom will doubtless be curious as to the inner workings of their car computer systems.
I mean, could you imagine if a car manufacturer took this attitude toward car owners who were exploring the car's transmission, which is clearly just as critical to the car's safety as the car computer system?
My view of Tesla just sank a notch (but I still want one).
Edit: Actually, I thought about it a bit, and I actually don't want one anymore if this is the attitude that prevails inside the company. For the same reason that I don't want any Apple products. I'm far from a Stallman acolyte, but I'll be damned if I'll buy from a company that wants to forbid me from hacking on hardware that I have purchased and own.
I think there is a difference between hacking (or even exploring) something like a phone, game console or router and a car, plane or any other thing that can immediately put in danger the live and health of many unrelated persons.
Therefore I thinks Tesla acts as responsible as they should when detecting and reacting upon active (as opposed to passively analyzing radio transmissions) manipulation of their cars inner systems. As other comments have pointed out you don't want to find out about bugs in critical systems triggered by your entertainment system jailbreak when driving with 100km/h+ on a crowded highway.
Your phone hack / mod fails badly => Buy a new phone Your car hack fails badly => People die
It's simply not worth it.
Car modification has been around since cars started coming off assembly lines - everything from purely aesthetic stuff to lifting or lowering the suspension, turbos, nitrous oxide etc. Software is just the next step. There are even open source ECUs now http://hackaday.com/2014/01/01/building-an-engine-control-un... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/312898525/rusefi-gpl-au...
> Tesla... of their cars
This is the key point. If I've bought it, the car does not belong to Tesla anymore and they have no valid reason to be policing what the owner of the car is doing with it. If there should be rules against modification, then that should be the purview of vehicle licensing, not Tesla (and while you're at it, you should probably outlaw people maintaining their own cars or building them from scratch too.) The most that is reasonable is for them to refuse to honor the warranty if I've damaged it while modifying.
You don't have to outlaw homebrew vehicles. The car already has to pass an inspection to be allowed on the road. I guess, if it doesn't already, that the inspection will soon have to include that any safety critical software is unmodified. And when people are making their own fly by wire cars, and writing their own software - who knows how they'll certify it.
It's certainly true that the manufacturer should have no say over what you do with your car (if they had what would stop them from going the way of the printer industry and force you to only use their tires etc).
I might have misused the words "their" in this sentence so what I was trying to say is that since modifying software can very easy (no special tools, garage or knowledge required, just an unchecked download and a 5€ self made adapter of ebay) I'm in the favour of locking down security critical systems (the WHOLE car) as much as possible since not only you but everyone around you is concerned at least until checks associated with getting a valid license are updated and enforced.
What would be really great is if manufactures where to offer an API to allow developers and hackers customizations where they make sense (like adding your favourite online service) and not forcing them through the whole process of trial and error.
Given that the fires were blown out of proportion by the media, I'm totally not surprised that they reacted this way.
Imagine headlines if someone would be killed due to not correctly operating component because the owner used a buggy mod.
If that's possible from the entertainment system bus rather than hotwiring chips and critical inaccessible wires, they deserve such headlines.
The only thing blown out of proportion is the reaction by Tesla and their supporters to the media. The media is doing what they do. Presenting stories that people care about. Major incidents to a brand that is new and popular is absolutely newsworthy.
But just because there maybe a bad story or two doesn't mean that Tesla should prevent people from doing whatever they want to their own car.
Maybe all the source code of the media system is written in Python, and everybody can see / modify the code..
Poking around an unknown device's network and sending arbitrary commands to see how it responds could certainly very well damage something.
So could poking around the physical components of the car.
But people are well within the right to do so.
On page 53 of the "Adventures in Automotive Network and Control Units" paper there's a photo of what happened to the researchers garage after a command to run diagnostics on the brakes left the vehicle unable to stop even at slow speeds http://illmatics.com/car_hacking.pdf
A quick google for the source code only revealed http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/archive/index.php/t-10748.htm... - apparently Tesla has never released the source code of the "modified Ubuntu" they're using.
Whoops.
Also, looks like Tesla has got international deals with mobile carriers for data flatrates. I'm looking forward to see the first guy stream youtube or youp*rn on the dashboard :D
Moreover, it's my understanding that if there's any GPLv3 software on the Tesla, you have the right to receive installation instructions that allow you to install a modified version of that software on your Tesla. But Tesla is not required to honor the warranty of Teslas whose software has been modified.
I wonder if they ship coreutils?
If they don't modify gpl code but just configure existing software and add their own packages, do they still have to pub everything?
Yes, you at least have to say where to get the source from if you publish/distribute binaries to others.
but only if their binary is linked against a gpl library..?
Nope, it is enough to distribute any binary made with GPL source code to have an obligation to publish the code. As soon as you use GPL code, no matter if you modify it or not, you have to re-distribute the source code you used.
"The source code you used" which you obtained from GPL sources.
You do not have to distribute proprietary source code which has not been incorporated into the GPL code (the definition of this varies depending on whether the GPL code is GPL, LGPL, etc.)
They're shipping Linux. There's certainly plenty of GPL binaries in their system.
The original thread that this came from:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/28185-Successf...
Interesting in particular is one poster's claim that Tesla gave him a seemingly-dismayed call...
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/28185-Successf...
So, inspecting a product you own is industrial espionage now?
Can Tesla detect if settings or the files for one of their cars are modified?
I would like an option to contact home base to verify that all files and configurations in my car are exactly like their suppose to be, else either disable the car or download the correct software.
Maybe a way to enable a developer mode which can only be used on a non-public road.
I just can't imagine modifying an electric vehicles computers and settings for anything useful. Please offer some suggestions if you can.
I could certainly see people modifying cotor controller settings. Changing hard RPM limits, or tuning PID controller gains for extra milliseconds on the track.
I doubt there is too much that can be done to increase the performance. Removing seats seems like it would be more effective than messing with RPM limits.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2...
I just don't think it's worth compromising safety and implementing more systems (to regular where the modified cars are driven) to satisfy the small percentage of people who want to use a Model S as a serious track car.
It's already pretty competitive on the track https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLCdP6sMN9k
One wreck from a modified Model S would be disastrous for Tesla, it's just not worth it at this point in my opinion.
In Germany you have to get your car checked every two years by the "TÜV", if it passes you get a sticker for the license plate without which you are not allowed to drive the car.
Given how critical the software already is, I would be surprised if there isn't a system already in place, that car companies are required to put in, that can use to verify the software for any car.
Nice. A bit like Steam's verify game cache.
Interesting that it phoned home
How can the car communicate with the Internet? Does it have a cell modem or something? Is a lifetime subscription included in the purchase price of the vehicle, or does the user get a monthly bill?
Wouldn't a real industrial espionage operation disconnect or Faraday cage the vehicle's remote communications capability as their very first step? If you were trying to reverse engineer Tesla's secrets, would you really care about voiding the warranty?
Onto more important matters, does anyone know the track being played?
The title is 'All the things she said', which originally was a #1 Top 40 song by the Russian pop group 'Tatu'. However the picture is definitely not the Russian duo. Is this a German cover version of some sort?
I tried reverse image searching the photo, but got nothing.
However, a simple YouTube search for the song name turned up a bunch of cover versions. This one matches the length shown (4:17): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tytPcvyJASc
The band, Simple Plan, also appears to have five members, which is pretty strong supporting evidence. Strangely, I couldn't find the exact image shown in the Tesla photo.
Someone should post some wireshark pcaps.
As a hacker...Cool!
As a driver who will have to occupy space around people playing with this while driving...F#&*!
Agreed. There should be a large warning on the console: "Warning to passengers: The Vehicle Systems have been Compromised. Please do not ride in this vehicle. A Service tow truck has been dispatched."
Also, the car should not move.
Wow, as someone who grew up "hacking" on my car (i.e., on the engine) this attitude is pretty amazing. What a dangerous, mysterious thing a car must seem to you.
I can see both sides of this one. If I R&R my brakes or repair the steering rack, I can reasonably claim that I did so using good mechanical skills and practices, and prove it in court if necessary. But if I tinker around with a closed-source software system in my car, I literally have no idea what I'm doing. The changes I'm making could affect any and every other system on the car... and nobody but the factory engineers would know for sure.
The best solution is the simplest: no closed-source systems allowed in cars used on public roads. But I wouldn't hold my breath until everyone gets on board with that.
It's different in a number of ways: Suppose it's not you hacking your car, it's an enemy that want you dead. So they disable the brakes. Or perhaps it's possible for an attacker to disable the brakes only when you're braking hard and have a speed above 100 km/h (60 mph).
Or suppose a neighborhood kid is angry at you, have figured out how to hack the system, but haven't yet figured out the difference between "that'll teach them a lesson" and "this might actually kill them".
Or, hypothetically, if system hacks don't require a physical connection, it's wide open for anyone anywhere in the world to replicate something like the file encryption extortion scam[1]: Break into as many cars as you can. Send them a mail saying that you hacked their car. They can take the chance of figuring out what you did on their own, or pay you money to revert it. The scam might work just as well for cars you didn't break into, as long as the owners believe it's a credible threat.
The point isn't necessarily that these scenarios are more likely than in the physical world. The point is that many people have a fair idea how the physical world works, while they have only vague notions about "hacking" in the virtual world. We know that there are new threats, but we don't yet know what they are, so these new threats will be inherently scarier than the threats we already know about. (The devil you know, etc.)
[1]: http://www.techspot.com/news/17678-file-encryption-extortion...
Cutting the brake lines or using a kitchen knife (or a gun bought off Craigslist in the US) to kill the person you hate works just as well and is much simpler.
I personally would like to see various "hacks" adjusting the suspension, brakes, spark timings and other things for a better ride in certain conditions (racing, drifting, mountain roads, etc).
The scary thing would be if people started writing viruses aimed at infecting Tesla's. And when I say viruses, I don't mean the type that mine doge :)
I'd mine doge on a Tesla. Maybe it would mine enough to pay for a rapid battery change once a year on its own.
I've done plenty to cars. Have done plenty with computers too. I wouldn't let my family and friend ride in a car with compromized safety systems.
Do you think the same thing about a car where the owner has, say, installed aftermarket brake calipers and suspension components? ... Because that's incredibly common.