Quote:
Originally Posted by L2SS455
First, GM IS held accountable for their software. True , That's why they need to fix it. There is no exceptions, period !
But in this case it meets all relative FMVSS requirements and as someone mentioned GM can’t be held accountable for where you park or the scumbags hunting your car down for a joy ride. IMOP not true.
OBDII - Security Attention for Automotive
Author
Cuong Nguyen January 16, 2023
Associate General Manager HCL Tech
"As connectivity in vehicles is increasing, related parties (e.g., regulators and car makers) need to pay attention to every source of connection, as they could potentially open a multitude of remote attacks on vehicles [1, 2]. Since an OBDII system is necessary for vehicle health, passenger safety and sustainability, it is critical for manufacturers to ensure the security of this system."
This has largely been overlooked. Hence Jaguar Land Rover , KIA have acted responsible to address their OBDII systems. GM has to be called out in a lawsuit, on Onstar and stops sharing driver data with brokers amid backlash data selling.
Eventually, this same issue will be resolved no doubt, perhaps this way too.
|
Hyundai and KIA was a completely different situation. They simply didn’t have the hardware to prevent thefts. Had zip to do with software. They sold cars without an ignition mobilizer in the key. Remeber the old chip GM had in the key years ago? Basically that. Hey cheaper out.
Also, Europe has some pretty strict rules on theft prevention. I don’t recall the test but you basically had to be able to stall an experienced thief for something like 2 minutes. Don’t recall if it was an insurance require or ECU. But we had to do extra stuff to export.