Which is a shame, but then again once I found that out I didn't bother looking at the cost of the parts so maybe it's a good thing
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Hmm....Sundayjumper wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 7:37 pm Security stuff. Long article about CAN injection. I didn't really understand it.
https://kentindell.github.io/2023/04/03/can-injection/
A Range Rover Sport that was stolen by cutting a hole in the tailgate to access the wiring. Either search instagram yourself to try and find a photo, or use the link I've provided here:
https://www.rrsport.co.uk/forum/topic60060.html
I, er.....what the fuck?The way CAN Injection works is to get into the car’s internal communication (i.e. the CAN bus) and inject fake messages as if from the smart key receiver, essentially messages saying “Key validated, unlock immobilizer”. In most cars on the road today, these internal messages aren’t protected: the receivers simply trust them. You can see how it can work in the RAV4 from the wiring diagram above: thieves break into the wiring for the red CAN bus (the one the smart key receiver ECU - shown in yellow - is connected to) and then use a simple electronic device to send CAN frames on to the red CAN bus to send fake “Key is validated” messages as if from the smart key receiver. The gateway ECU (a simple device that just copies certain CAN messages back and forth) will copy that fake message over to the green CAN bus, and the engine control system (shown in blue) will accept the message and deactivate the immobilizer function.
The thieves can then use their CAN Injector device to send a different fake CAN message that the door ECU (also shown in blue) that in essence says “Key is valid, unlock the doors”. So they don’t even need to damage the car to break into it: they can simply open the door, get in, and drive the car away - all without needing the key.
The article does touch on that towards the end - that ten years isn't really that long in vehicle development. My car is 7 years old but the L405 came out in 2012 and the architecture would have been in development years before that so it's maybe 15 years old now ? Even a brand-new just-launched car could be 5yo architecture with bells on.
I never really understood this concept, if I could have it back without cost then I'd happily have my car back.integrale_evo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:12 am I probably wouldn’t want the car back, it just wouldn’t be the same. However I’d like the people caught. Probably wouldn’t pay £260 a year for a miniscule chance of that happening though![]()
e.g. the RRS in the thread above - it needed £17k of repairs, it would never be the same. If I was in that situation I would have preferred that it had "disappeared".Rich B wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:30 amI never really understood this concept, if I could have it back without cost then I'd happily have my car back.integrale_evo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:12 am I probably wouldn’t want the car back, it just wouldn’t be the same. However I’d like the people caught. Probably wouldn’t pay £260 a year for a miniscule chance of that happening though![]()
obs I wouldn't want it back if it was fucked. But a straight stolen and recovered with no damage/cost, no problem!Sundayjumper wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:42 ame.g. the RRS in the thread above - it needed £17k of repairs, it would never be the same. If I was in that situation I would have preferred that it had "disappeared".Rich B wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:30 amI never really understood this concept, if I could have it back without cost then I'd happily have my car back.integrale_evo wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:12 am I probably wouldn’t want the car back, it just wouldn’t be the same. However I’d like the people caught. Probably wouldn’t pay £260 a year for a miniscule chance of that happening though![]()
That's a fair point, but I'm talking about literally zero cost, effectively perfect encryption - the cost of plenty good enough encryption has been very low for over well over two decades - basically since online banking became a thing and people wanted systems that didn't need dozens of watts per device to do key exchanges at scale. The sort of thing that to this day would still need a decent GPU running on mains power and a few hours to crack.Sundayjumper wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 9:11 amThe article does touch on that towards the end - that ten years isn't really that long in vehicle development. My car is 7 years old but the L405 came out in 2012 and the architecture would have been in development years before that so it's maybe 15 years old now ? Even a brand-new just-launched car could be 5yo architecture with bells on.
Plus once stuff is on the road, it'll be out there for quite a long time compared to IT stuff. To me a ten year old car is still pretty new; a ten year old phone or laptop is basically scrap.
Every single IT person who says how easy something is inevitably has to come back 5 times to fix the IT thing they said was easy.Beany wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 10:27 pmHmm....Sundayjumper wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2024 7:37 pm Security stuff. Long article about CAN injection. I didn't really understand it.
https://kentindell.github.io/2023/04/03/can-injection/
A Range Rover Sport that was stolen by cutting a hole in the tailgate to access the wiring. Either search instagram yourself to try and find a photo, or use the link I've provided here:
https://www.rrsport.co.uk/forum/topic60060.htmlI, er.....what the fuck?The way CAN Injection works is to get into the car’s internal communication (i.e. the CAN bus) and inject fake messages as if from the smart key receiver, essentially messages saying “Key validated, unlock immobilizer”. In most cars on the road today, these internal messages aren’t protected: the receivers simply trust them. You can see how it can work in the RAV4 from the wiring diagram above: thieves break into the wiring for the red CAN bus (the one the smart key receiver ECU - shown in yellow - is connected to) and then use a simple electronic device to send CAN frames on to the red CAN bus to send fake “Key is validated” messages as if from the smart key receiver. The gateway ECU (a simple device that just copies certain CAN messages back and forth) will copy that fake message over to the green CAN bus, and the engine control system (shown in blue) will accept the message and deactivate the immobilizer function.
The thieves can then use their CAN Injector device to send a different fake CAN message that the door ECU (also shown in blue) that in essence says “Key is valid, unlock the doors”. So they don’t even need to damage the car to break into it: they can simply open the door, get in, and drive the car away - all without needing the key.
There's a section later on about how it can be fixed by implementing end to end encyrption and utilising a zero-trust security model.
No, ya think?Toyota - and other manufacturers - should be put against a wall and shot for this level of shoddy, lazy architecture. End to end encryption has been effectively zero-cost for well over a decade; there's no excuse for this. They need to class-actioned or government sanctioned into the dirt for letting this shit out. Like the action against VW for the emissions scandal but with some actual teeth.
I'm not sure it is better to get it back though because you have to report it to your insurer to ensure they'll pay out in the event it is not recovered and then you have the potential for it to be marked stolen recovered. I think perhaps if there is no damage and nothing to claim from your insurer (e.g. not even a smashed window or replacement trim) then perhaps you don't get that marker. Anyway - I never found out as mine was long gone never to resurface.Rich B wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 11:05 amobs I wouldn't want it back if it was fucked. But a straight stolen and recovered with no damage/cost, no problem!Sundayjumper wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:42 ame.g. the RRS in the thread above - it needed £17k of repairs, it would never be the same. If I was in that situation I would have preferred that it had "disappeared".