Autonomous Vehicles

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2018, 11:13 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: So you would be ok with a system that can be hacked to where every vehicle can be made to accelerate and make a hard left turn? If you were lucky only a few million people would be killed.

Any computer with any kind of data link can be hacked and anyone who believes that those who have nefarious goals wouldn't work to use that to their advantage is a fool.

I have no doubt that North Korea, Iran, or ISIS would jump at the chance to kill off 10s of millions of imperialist infidel dogs with a press of a button.

So I take it that you refuse to fly on any commercial airline?

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So I take it that you refuse to fly on any commercial airline?

That is only one of a million things that could kill you that is "connected" and has heavy computer based operation. Many large city traffic light systems are connected and could be taken over to show all greens and create mass havoc. The subways can basically be ran now from a command center yet we don't see Subways being taken over and having trains routed onto the same track. Hell nearly every computer could be taken over right now and loaded with software to cause the processor to overheat and catch fire, yet here we are without computers spontaneously combusting. 

[Millhouse]

I have no doubt this will be the future at some point, though I am not sold yet the technology is there for the masses for quite awhile.

I think my biggest issue would be if the government makes having autonomous cars mandatory, basically outlawing manual driving.

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 12:56 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I have no doubt this will be the future at some point, though I am not sold yet the technology is there for the masses for quite awhile.

I think my biggest issue would be if the government makes having autonomous cars mandatory, basically outlawing manual driving.

It should outlaw them once it is widely enough accepted with rebates to offset the cost of upgrading, but they won't. Old school car enthusiasts tend to be people that are well off with money which are the people legislators pander to for contributions. 

[Hoofhearted]

(04-19-2018, 12:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: Hacked is a buzz word that gets thrown around a lot, but few understand it. The idea you are going to be able to remotely control someones car is kind of comical. Cars for the most part are self contained systems, some use satellite connections for GPS but satellite to system connections are about the most secure form of connection out there especially if using double blind encryption. Cars are already run almost completely by computers, if you could gain a connection to a car today you could already do this by feeding the car commands, the issue again is the system is a self contained system so only a direct connection to the car allows for this to happen. Now these cars adding WiFi into the car need to be careful that the Wifi system is segmented away from the controls system, if this is done there isn't really a threat there. Even so, fighter jets and military vehicles already used special encryption that have been successful to this point of not killing a bunch of people with their weapons due to takeovers. A lot of this technology is getting ported into staving off threats in autonomous cars.

The bigger issue is people trying to fool the sensors intentionally through devices to jam sensors but this wouldn't be as much of the mass attack dooms day you predict but rather more of a one off guy being a dick/ trying to commit crimes. They are using multiple systems to confirm information being fed to the car to try and minimize this, but it is a reasonable concern and one that constantly needs to be improved. The other way you could "hack" the car is on the component side by embedding malicious code in pieces of the system either in production or through an accessory that gets introduced into the contained environment. The thing about this is you'd need access to some sort of connection to feed it live time commands which as I stated before isn't really part of the current design of this generation of autonomous vehicles.

There are already much more critical networked systems that are prone to "hacking" than cars. As I said trying to take down a large portion of autonomous cars all at once isn't likely, however taking down an electrical grid or blowing up a gas pipe is far more likely yet I don't see people grand standing about it. 

I can guarantee you, as a network penetration tester, if it's connected to the internet, it can be hacked. Outside of controlling someone else's car, but knowing everything they do while also doing much more vague attacks like DDOS. They'll also know almost everything about you; SSN, where you work, what time you leave, where you stop for lunch, etc. Electrical and gas systems are generally not connected to a network. There's parts of the system that are accessible by the outside world, but the major functions are isolated from the internet.  You have to be actually on prem to do this. Hacking into jets is almost impossible because of the same reason: no internet connection. I am not sure they can do this with autonomous vehicles. They'd almost certainly need a way to spread information about traffic patterns, behaviors, etc, etc. 

[CKwi88]

(04-19-2018, 01:01 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I can guarantee you, if it's connected to the internet, it can be hacked. Outside of controlling someone else's car, but knowing everything they do while also doing much more vague attacks like DDOS. They'll also know almost everything about you; SSN, where you work, what time you leave, where you stop for lunch, etc. Electrical and gas systems are generally not connected to a network. There's parts of the system that are accessible by the outside world, but the major functions are isolated from the internet.  You have to be actually on prem to do this. Hacking into jets is almost impossible because of the same reason: no internet connection. I am not sure they can do this with autonomous vehicles. They'd almost certainly need a way to spread information about traffic patterns, behaviors, etc, etc. 

Those are the types of irrational fears that I believe will make humans the biggest obstacle, along with those who drive for a living and will be replaced with autônomos vehicles.

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 01:01 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: I can guarantee you, if it's connected to the internet, it can be hacked. Outside of controlling someone else's car, but knowing everything they do while also doing much more vague attacks like DDOS. They'll also know almost everything about you; SSN, where you work, what time you leave, where you stop for lunch, etc. Electrical and gas systems are generally not connected to a network. There's parts of the system that are accessible by the outside world, but the major functions are isolated from the internet.  You have to be actually on prem to do this. Hacking into jets is almost impossible because it does not have an internet connection. I am not sure they can do this with autonomous vehicles. They'd almost certainly need a way to spread information about traffic patterns, behaviors, etc, etc. 

Okay so there are a lot of things wrong here and I'll try to work through them each.

If something is connected to the internet there is a chance someone can connect, however a chance can be similar to a chance we get hit by an asteroid. There are plenty of ways to basically segment and secure systems through both practice and technology to make it nearly impossible, but as I said there is always a chance (like us getting wiped out by an asteroid). A lot of the things we hear about now are stealing of data not remotely driving commands which is much tougher to do. Stealing of data is often the result of laziness in following proper security standards and something that is easily avoidable when following these standards.

Knowing what is going on inside is already happening via phones and other devices, so an idea it is some great rrealization is kind of funny.

A DDOS attack wouldn't be applicable here because what a DDOS is doing is trying to disrupt a connection. If someone is trying to use a connection to gain access, why would they DDOS you and kill said connection? As a side they are highly inefficient for a single server let along millions of cars. This is really a non starter in this realm.

See my comment on cell phones already, a car is no more susceptible than what you already carry everywhere you go.

 Electrical and gas systems are in fact connected to systems that are connected to a network it's how things get routed during emergencies and such. Even if it is simply a computer on a network that has access to said system they are not segmented out nearly well enough to be considered a stand alone network. 

The jets thing is actually false as well, DHS did this in a test. It was a remote non cooperative penetration of their systems. It did not effect flight controls because of system segmentation. Cars would be designed in a similar fashion quarantining the most important controls away.

Most the Cars already do all the computing right now on board because it is simply more feasible due to the basic fact that there are dead spots around the country. Requiring a connection for anything of importance is defeated when you figure out the company still has massive dead zones. If this was the idea you were working under I can see your concern more, but almost all the top autonomous cars use self contained sensor systems to drive without the need for a connection.

[Hoofhearted]

(04-19-2018, 01:14 PM)Au165 Wrote: Okay so there are a lot of things wrong here and I'll try to work through them each.

If something is connected to the internet there is a chance someone can connect, however a chance can be similar to a chance we get hit by an asteroid. There are plenty of ways to basically segment and secure systems through both practice and technology to make it nearly impossible, but as I said there is always a chance (like us getting wiped out by an asteroid). A lot of the things we hear about now are stealing of data not remotely driving commands which is much tougher to do. Stealing of data is often the result of laziness in following proper security standards and something that is easily avoidable when following these standards.

Knowing what is going on inside is already happening via phones and other devices, so an idea it is some great rrealization is kind of funny.

A DDOS attack wouldn't be applicable here because what a DDOS is doing is trying to disrupt a connection. If someone is trying to use a connection to gain access, why would they DDOS you and kill said connection? As a side they are highly inefficient for a single server let along millions of cars. This is really a non starter in this realm.

See my comment on cell phones already, a car is no more susceptible than what you already carry everywhere you go.

 Electrical and gas systems are in fact connected to systems that are connected to a network it's how things get routed during emergencies and such. Even if it is simply a computer on a network that has access to said system they are not segmented out nearly well enough to be considered a stand alone network. 

The jets thing is actually false as well, DHS did this in a test. It was a remote non cooperative penetration of their systems. It did not effect flight controls because of system segmentation. Cars would be designed in a similar fashion quarantining the most important controls away.

Most the Cars already do all the computing right now on board because it is simply more feasible due to the basic fact that there are dead spots around the country. Requiring a connection for anything of importance is defeated when you figure out the company still has massive dead zones. If this was the idea you were working under I can see your concern more, but almost all the top autonomous cars use self contained sensor systems to drive without the need for a connection.

People, companies and systems are hacked every single day. Every. Single. Day. I don't know how you can say that's equivalent to our chances of getting hit by an asteroid. A DDOS is most certainly a form of hacking. Hacking comes in many, many flavors (Phishing, Trojans, Eavesdropping, DDOS). You don't actually have to "break into a computer" to hack it. 

And yeah, I would imagine they could come up with a way to segment the core components of the vehicles, but doesn't mean that it can't be hacked at all. There has to be a way to update the vehicles code, and I highly doubt they'll want millions of cars coming into said dealers just to update it.  

[Hoofhearted]

(04-19-2018, 01:05 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Those are the types of irrational fears that I believe will make humans the biggest obstacle, along with those who drive for a living and will be replaced with autônomos vehicles.

What's so irrational about it? 

[Hoofhearted]

(04-19-2018, 12:56 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I have no doubt this will be the future at some point, though I am not sold yet the technology is there for the masses for quite awhile.

I think my biggest issue would be if the government makes having autonomous cars mandatory, basically outlawing manual driving.

I highly doubt they do this, but could be wrong. I would hope they'd promote this in a way similar to electric cars, where they gave rebates, tax savings, etc.

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 01:48 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: People, companies and systems are hacked every single day. Every. Single. Day. I don't know how you can say that's equivalent to our chances of getting hit by an asteroid. A DDOS is most certainly a form of hacking. Hacking comes in many, many flavors (Phishing, Trojans, Eavesdropping, DDOS). You don't actually have to "break into a computer" to hack it. 

And yeah, I would imagine they could come up with a way to segment the core components of the vehicles, but doesn't mean that it can't be hacked at all. There has to be a way to update the vehicles code, and I highly doubt they'll want millions of cars coming into said dealers just to update it.  

Hacked again is a very broad term. As I explained taking information and forcing commands are very different things and require very different access. When we hear about hacking 90% of the time it is taking info not altering systems. Altering systems requires much higher levels of access to key components of systems that are usually locked down.Many things thrown out as far as taking over the cars functions would require changes to the Kernel and you can limit editing or updating of this to require an encryption key (which they probably already do). This would limit what can be done but you could also require updates to only be allowed through specific types of connections, which further assists in locking it down. 

DDOS is not hacking, DDOS is what bored kids in Russian and China do to annoy others. You never actually enter a system with DDOS only take it off line making it inaccessible. I already laid out why it doesn't fit here, so it's kind of a moot point. Side note, DDOS by definition is not hacking as hacking is defined as modifying or altering software or hardware outside the designed intent. DDOS only blocks access to a system from some who'd like to use it, but it doesn't alter the system in anyway. It often times gets grouped with hacking but there is no actual hacking it is simply telling a lot of computers to try to visit a server in a very short amount of time. As I said before, hacking is a buzz word people throw around for a lot of things that by definition aren't hacking but sometimes done by people who also hack. 

Again, a segmented and isolated system by definition can't be hacked by the outside because there is no outside as far as it is concerned. In an isolated environment a system can't be hacked just because it is next to a networked system, there has to be a bridge that also allows transferring of commands or programs. You could in fact isolate all critical systems and require updates to be ran either by key that can be delivered via uploading a physical device or through visiting dealers. This has been used in high level security device patching for years (Company I work for does this). 

The other thing that could be implemented is a double blind encryption which basically makes this whole thing moot but is a bit more complex and costly to roll out at a scale like millions of cars. If you went the double blind route you could have a completely network connected car with practically no chance of interception outside of physically taking over the Key Generation Center. This is the kind of technology that is being developed to allow for online voting in the future.

I'll just say I have a lot of experience in systems that are network connected that have to maintain a high level of security. Again, there are far more effective and easy ways to cyber attack the U.S. right now.

[XenoMorph]

(04-19-2018, 03:03 PM)Au165 Wrote: Hacked again is a very broad term. As I explained taking information and forcing commands are very different things and require very different access. When we hear about hacking 90% of the time it is taking info not altering systems. Altering systems requires much higher levels of access to key components of systems that are usually locked down.Many things thrown out as far as taking over the cars functions would require changes to the Kernel and you can limit editing or updating of this to require an encryption key (which they probably already do). This would limit what can be done but you could also require updates to only be allowed through specific types of connections, which further assists in locking it down. 

DDOS is not hacking, DDOS is what bored kids in Russian and China do to annoy others. You never actually enter a system with DDOS only take it off line making it inaccessible. I already laid out why it doesn't fit here, so it's kind of a moot point. Side note, DDOS by definition is not hacking as hacking is defined as modifying or altering software or hardware outside the designed intent. DDOS only blocks access to a system from some who'd like to use it, but it doesn't alter the system in anyway. It often times gets grouped with hacking but there is no actual hacking it is simply telling a lot of computers to try to visit a server in a very short amount of time. As I said before, hacking is a buzz word people throw around for a lot of things that by definition aren't hacking but sometimes done by people who also hack. 

Again, a segmented and isolated system by definition can't be hacked by the outside because there is no outside as far as it is concerned. In an isolated environment a system can't be hacked just because it is next to a networked system, there has to be a bridge that also allows transferring of commands or programs. You could in fact isolate all critical systems and require updates to be ran either by key that can be delivered via uploading a physical device or through visiting dealers. This has been used in high level security device patching for years (Company I work for does this). 

The other thing that could be implemented is a double blind encryption which basically makes this whole thing moot but is a bit more complex and costly to roll out at a scale like millions of cars. If you went the double blind route you could have a completely network connected car with practically no chance of interception outside of physically taking over the Key Generation Center. This is the kind of technology that is being developed to allow for online voting in the future.

I'll just say I have a lot of experience in systems that are network connected that have to maintain a high level of security. Again, there are far more effective and easy ways to cyber attack the U.S. right now.

a single car might be an isolated network but if everycar was a self driving car they would all be linked into the same network..

beyond the potential for something like a hacking incident. Theres the very simple aspect of The more you let technology do for you the less you know how to do and the less that is in your control.

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 03:13 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: a single car might be an isolated network but if everycar was a self driving car they would all be linked into the same network..

The controls within the system itself should be isolated (critical from non critical), the car itself could be networked if set up correctly. As for this idea right now that they are networked, they are but only for getting data back for testing purposes. The cars are designed to know nothing of their environment other than what it learns from it's sensors. The idea is the car must navigate a world of humans and so relying on things outside of that space it occupies would be a detriment to the vehicles success. You add in the fact many parts of the country don't have reliable enough satellite or cellular connections to trust it to control life safety equipment and you quickly understand why a lot of these concerns aren't really founded in reality. 

In the future updates could be pushed to the system in ways I talked about in the post above, but even then it wouldn't require any special "network" to achieve only access to an update server that uses high end double blind encryption with the car itself (think VIN) holding a piece of the key no one could know otherwise without physically being there. If you wanted to take it a level further you could require all updates to require a physical action at the car, think pushing a physical button, to initiate an update which takes away the ability to remotely drive firmware changes. 

[jfkbengals]

(04-19-2018, 08:27 AM)Au165 Wrote: A computer with high speed processing powers and 20+ sensors is more likely to react correctly to humans being unpredictable than other humans are for a variety of reasons. Computer don't fatigue as humans do, they don't get distracted, they have more information to make decisions with at any given time. Let's say you are coming over a hill at 45 MPH and there is something in the road. At 45 MPH you'll need about 196 feet to stop if you make the decision when you see it, however a computer would only need roughly 130 feet to stop if the correct course of action is in fact to stop. 

Let's change the scenario and say the correct course of action is to swerve because the object is coming at you now. A human within a second has to decide left or right and how hard to swerve to miss the object as well as maintain control without hitting anyone else. The issue is there is no time to check both left and right of you and to calculate this, so people's general reaction is to swerve to the right. An autonomous car with it's complete 360 degree sensing network can know all obstacles around it and then choose the most favorable action based on having all info infinitely quicker than a human could compile it.

I think mixing autonomous cars into our current roadway system as soon as possible is the best possible solution. By mixing in rolling computers that can make better, more calculated, decisions while avoiding fatigue and distractions that lead to most vehicular accidents I think we can see the number of roadway fatalities drop quickly.

I don't disagree with your statements.

Where I was coming from is the concept that the computerized vehicles will most likely have the ability to communicate amongst each other, integrating the destinations and routes of other vehicles into their own navigation plan to keep vehicles flowing at the highest rate with the lowest amount of congestion.  This could easily mean scenarios where four or more vehicles are changing lanes and re-ordering their layout on the road with only a few inches of space amongst them, all happening at an instant.

But then there is that jackass that we all have to deal with from time to time on the road who decides he/she can't be behind or around those vehicles, and thus is going to try and find a way to cut through those vehicles, in the process causing a pile up that brings traffic to a stand still.  Just like the good ol' days of non-autonomous vehicles.

In other words, humans will screw up the efficiency and safety factor if allowed to share the roadways with them, so they really need to be free from human intervention to really shine.

[*bfine32*]

My question is: Could I knock back some Natty Lights while riding in this thing?

[Au165]

(04-19-2018, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My question is: Could I knock back some Natty Lights while riding in this thing?

This is probably one of the biggest issues that will have to be figured out honestly. Another one being liability in the even of an accident.

[fredtoast]

Car accidents are currently the number one killer of people between the ages of 1 and 37 in the United States. Car accidents, crashes, and collisions cause about 3 million injuries a year, 2 million of which are permanent and crippling injuries per year. 40,000 people die in car accidents every year in the United States alone.

The property damage is in the billions and it has been estimated that the cost of medical care and lost productivity due to auto accident injuries is over 1 TRILLION dollars per year.

Autonomous cars will so much safer that we will be forced to go to them when the technology becomes available.  It will start with the interstate highways.  The high speeds on those make them the most deadly so they will be 100% autonomous.   the automobile is such a huge part of our culture that there will always be roads available for people who want to drive. And it will take a long long time before all rural areas are serviced by roads that are 100% autonomous, but the massive amount of damage done to people and property due to human drivers will demand a move to autonomous transportation.

Driving a car will probably never be illegal, but it will become a toy for the rich kind of like having a boat is now.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2018, 11:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My question is: Could I knock back some Natty Lights while riding in this thing?

(04-19-2018, 11:49 PM)Au165 Wrote: This is probably one of the biggest issues that will have to be figured out honestly. Another one being liability in the even of an accident.

The alcohol industry would invest millions in autonomous transportation research if it would make drunk driving legal.  Think of the boom for their industry.

Just me alone would have bought thousands of more drinks over all the times I stopped drinking because I had to drive.

[Hoofhearted]

(04-20-2018, 11:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The alcohol industry would invest millions in autonomous transportation research if it would make drunk driving legal.  Think of the boom for their industry.

Just me alone would have bought thousands of more drinks over all the times I stopped drinking because I had to drive.

You're thinking about it all wrong, Fred. I can download an app and the brew would be delivered to me by an autonomous vehicle. Maybe even make a semi filled with Bud-Light that they can simply "fill your car up" with beer. Possibilities are endless.

[Au165]

(04-20-2018, 11:56 AM)Hoofhearted Wrote: You're thinking about it all wrong, Fred. I can download an app and the brew would be delivered to me by an autonomous vehicle. Maybe even make a semi filled with Bud-Light that they can simply "fill your car up" with beer. Possibilities are endless.

Amazon drone delivery of beer, there in 15 minutes no traffic. I think it is a positive for the bar and night life industry.