DARPA hacks onStar

Non-repair car talk
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

kevm14 wrote:By the way:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/ca ... ed-feature

That article is from 2011.
Love this.
heres an amateur's idea to solve the problem. use real emergency brakes, and hook them up to circuits in such a way that they totally override all other systems. that way, if u pull the emergency brake at high speeds, and keep it up for a certain amount of time, as determined by a manual circuit, not a chip, it will override the other systems and enter a limp mode, the engine will idle and the brakes will ignore all other electronic signals (including those from abs and stability control) and revert to manual operation.
Mechanical fail safe. Push a button that opens a relay and that relay shuts power down to the ABS, stability control, throttle control and whatever else. That gives you a little more than turning the key to the off position (which people are notoriously unable to do in an emergency). Of course, would they have the same issue with the button/switch/lever that they do with the ignition key? Probably not since all keyless go cars have electronically controlled ignition switches.
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

Bill we were talking about why you can't modify your own car. This touches on it.
As much as this problem is being framed as "protecting the consumer," this is more about preventing would-be tuners and enterprising tinkerers from reverse engineering technology that is protected under broad draconian patent laws.

(Here is where I climb onto the soap box I keep behind my desk).

This is total BS, and this type of "study," discretely funded by auto manufacturers, ultimately serves to distance the consumer further from something they may own outright on paper, but from a legal standpoint are only borrowing or renting.

As an example, years ago, if you owned, say, a GM car with a Rochester™ carburetor, you could dismantle the carburetor, rebuild it, and tune it to meet your needs, subject to smog laws of course. It was yours to do as you wish.

Somehow, this is no longer the case. You are no longer allowed to dismantle the equivalent component, which would be the Delco-Remy, or latterly, Bosch ECU, diagnose the problem within it, repair it, and tune it how you like.

Have you ever wondered why you had to go to the dealer to fix a check engine light when the local auto parts scanner couldn't detect the problem?

Automakers have worked closely with the EPA, using them as their whipping boy, to defend their overt efforts to protect and control access to something YOU OWN, citing smog law.

I do not understand why, in the face of the recent ruling against Apple regarding jailbroken phones, no one has taken on auto manufacturers when their relentless pursuit of secrecy regarding their technology clearly infringes on the rights of the buyer.

This type of thinking ultimately stifles innovation, and creates a de-facto monopoly of car technology, leaving any cottage industry auto maker at the mercy of the big boys. It is an anti-competitive stance.

Whither Panoz, Morgan, Spyker, TVR, Bristol, Wiesmann, etc? All use (or used) power trains certified for the US, but without a direct tie up with the power train manufacturer willing to share the onerous ANCILLARY requirements to meet certification, these cars are only vapor here.
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

billgiacheri wrote:Here is the story on Car and Driver:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/senator-is ... e-hacking/
You had me at "Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) just released a strident report..."

Markey doesn't do ANYTHING un-stridently. He's the poster child for a certain group's unending outrage over anything, everything, and all that is in-between. In this case, I assume he's carrying water for the tort lawyer lobby.
Always question the motivation of people delivering information. There's always an agenda.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by bill25 »

So, basically, you can't tune your car out of automakers fear of losing their proprietary data/engineering property.

You definitely said that as one of the options for why tuners can't easily get information, and I accept that as an answer.

I still think that if GM wanted to embrace the tuner community, they could sell something to hook up to the car to modify it, that was a compiled GUI that didn't give tech specs or actual back end code. This could be software that interfaced with the proprietary software, without exposing everything.

I can even understand the car companies fears since there are companies that seem to blatantly steal ideas (Hyundai).
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by bill25 »

I bet GM already has this software, because it is probably what their engineers use to tune cars and make adjustments before a car is released. I highly doubt they are writing machine code tunes at this point. They are more likely changing variable/constant values, and having a GUI that did that wouldn't really give you everything.
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

Engine management strategies can be inferred.

Historically, GM has had the most hackable computers from the standpoint of aftermarket companies understanding the code, variables, tables, memory addresses and so on, in order to develop and sell tuning software to the public. So they were already "tuning friendly."

But this sense of hackability refers to tuning and reflashing via OBD. Not cyber security.

And of course they have in house calibration tools. Their approach is more managed than an aftermarket approach to tuning. For example, there are stages. The engine is first calibrated on the dyno and last I checked, the spark map is dialed in to deliver output goals, emissions and durability (I suppose fuel economy must be in there as well). When the engine/powertrain is integrated into a vehicle platform, there may be additional calibration steps that take place (which may include dialing back the output for reasons such as general drivability/refinement). But they cannot exceed the spark map already given to them by the engine team.

This kind of process is beneficial when you integrate multiple engines into multiple platforms, which is something GM is very familiar with.
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by bill25 »

I am thinking something even more dumbed down.

Example:

Plug in laptop with OBD to USB cable, fire up GM tuning software. Go to the turbo tab. At the psi dropdown, change the psi to the new psi that you are delivering. Save. Drive.


Now, GM would have more work to do, they would have to determine common turbo psi's, a max and min that they would support, and load the range of maps into the compiled tool. These maps would be tested already at GM.

Now I could buy a turbo GM car and the GM software, and a bigger turbo, set it up, connect up, and set the new psi via the dropdown.

There is nothing here that somebody could reverse engineer just with the dropdown selection.

This is like a halfway step. It allows for tuners to easily modify their car for more power, it gives GM more revenue, and it gives GM more work. But it could cultivate the aftermarket tuner club buyers, and maybe younger buyers even if for used cars.
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

If GM already worked out those details, why wouldn't they just deliver the car that way?

The answer to that question is the same answer as to why what you're asking for won't happen (from GM).
bill25
Posts: 2583
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:20 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by bill25 »

Well... maybe.

GM is under a lot of pressure to develop smooth running, fuel efficient, compliant cars to stay globally competative.

I am sure there is tune headroom available to make their turbo cars faster, but there would be a hit to drivability and mpg. Tuners would likely take that trade off and have the faster car.

The compliant part is the problem, where what I am proposing may throw the car out of CAFE compliance. I guess GM releasing a tool to basically break the law (mandate) would be a problem. I would say that it is more a hit to CAFE and not emissions, because a turned up turbo would probably still be OK for emissions. I wonder if they could find a loophole in CAFE. If the seller's fleet meets the mpg average, does the company have an obligation to make it hard for owners to modify their cars after being sold in a way that could impact mpg?

The answer is probably yes. I don't have to like it though...
kevm14
Posts: 15384
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 pm

Re: DARPA hacks onStar

Post by kevm14 »

They offered this years ago. I don't know what more you could ask for.

http://www.gmpartshouse.com/products/19 ... e-kit.html

An OEM is never going to allow anyone to tune the computer. If they do, it will have to be so simplified that you could just access it from the car's native screen. You don't need a laptop and software to modify what they are going to let you modify.

The kit includes a new MAP sensor and ECM calibration. Warranty intact. What more could you ask for?

I guess I would be interested to see the engineering demonstrated in the Cobalt SS applied to the Cruze (including the GM upgrade kit). I guess that's what you're really asking for.

But unless GM redesigns the Delta II platform to be AWD, you don't get your wish. And the US market isn't the market where they would be motivated to spend the R&D.

I guess we'll see how the performance variants of the small Fords end up selling here. GM is probably watching.
Post Reply