Very true and I can look at it from both angles. But in the end and ultimately safety at this point is going to win out and not getting sued. I certainly would like to see tech continue to improve and offer is more. Security just has to keep up.
In the case of Tesla, one reason they have to offer more OTA is the lack of a large dealer network who like the other automakers already have in place and can fall back on updating a vehicle. While say Tesla is ready to take more risks and do more now, we don’t really know what is locked down on that car either as far as starting and shutting it down remotely. You have to believe failsafes are still built in.
Well, I'll start by saying that some people do understand what is exposed.
The same goes for even commercially used aircraft. What is possible is very science-fiction-like and terrifying.
In essence, what ford does is lock down the root shell of the OSes unless a physical USB key is used. The danger there is that once "cracked" you could potentially use the stored routine that this system employs for malicious purposes.
While it isn't the most secure option, can you imagine if Ford required you to find that magical "default keypad code" card that comes in the owner's manual to apply an update?
Those that think having to use a USB stick might revolt and turn in their vehicles!
The best way to remain secure is to air gap. Anyone with access to a junkyard can yank an APIM and/or a modem from a wrecked vehicle, take it home and commence cracking it to find vulnerabilities. If there was a way to jump the modem and the infotainment, someone would find it and could then develop a full canbus hack, which is terrifying to me.
since they are air-gapped, unless you have physical access to connect the two, you have a layer of security that would be extremely difficult to circumvent.
with as much computer equipment that is in cars today, this kind of caution is welcomed. ( at least by me. )
I know tech has to evolve, but the burning question continues to be, at what expense?
