In 300 feet, slam into the highway divider - Tesla Model 3 spoofed off the highway

[rcmaehl]

Source:
Regulus (Best Read)

NoteBookCheck (Quote Source)

 

 

Summary:

Tesla Model 3s are apparently susceptible to GPS spoofing attacks. Allowing attackers to easily run them off the road.

 

Media:

 

Quotes/Excerpts:

Quote

One of Tesla's latest selling points is Navigate on Autopilot. In theory, this should be done under close human supervision.  It is found in the newer Models S and 3 cars from the American company. Autopilot requires Tesla's GNSS (or GPS) to complete the tasks involved. Accordingly, the group Regulus Cyber decided to test its theory that this software is vulnerable attacks known as GPS spoofing. This experiment was allegedly carried out using a Tesla Model 3 located in Europe, using the "low-cost, open source hardware and software...that is accessible to anyone via e-commerce websites and open source projects on GitHub". A successful spoof of the Model 3's GNSS took "less than one minute". It allegedly caused the car in question to mistake a straight stretch of road for the turning located 3 miles ahead of it, while driving autonomously and "maintaining a constant speed and position in the middle of the lane". This resulted in the vehicle's deceleration prior to turning sharply to the right, which the driver in question was apparently unable to prevent. In addition, it was reported that the attack also affected the test car's air suspension systems as it made its inaccurate exit, causing it to alter its ride-height as if alerted to a change of road surface. Regulus Cyber have made these findings public, and will hopefully also pass them on to Tesla.

My Thoughts:

No autonomous car should be fully reliant on GPS like this test is indicating. It should be aware of any sudden jumps in distances or GPS lag due to loss of signal. I'm sure Tesla will be quick to fix this but I'm a bit disappointed this affected the Model 3 to begin with.

[Drak3]

Who could have seen this coming?!?!?!

 

 

Oh yeah, me.

[Fasauceome]

Naturally the Tesla cars are already advertised as distinctly not self driving, but the main problem is

7 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

This resulted in the vehicle's deceleration prior to turning sharply to the right, which the driver in question was apparently unable to prevent

That's significantly worse than "Tesla autopilot is able to be fooled" because it can make disasters unavoidable.

[poochyena]

Does this require access to the car to implement? All these hacks typically do, so I don't see the big deal.

[RejZoR]

If things can go so wrong so quickly, I'd call that a very bad design not fit for public use.

[Radium_Angel]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Who could have seen this coming?!?!?!

 

 

Oh yeah, *everyone*.

Fixed.

 

[brwainer]

I call BS on this being related to GPS - Tesla’s Autopilot is based on cameras and radar, and Elon has specifically said that navigating based on high resolution maps and GPS is a bad idea for a number of reasons. “Navigate on Autopilot” takes the base Autopilot, and adds the ability for it to change lanes and take exits based on the GPS Nav system - but the actual lane following is still handled using cameras and radar. Even if it thinks an exit should be somewhere, it won’t drive where there isn’t a lane. Its been well documented that Autopilot understands construction closing a lane, for example.

 

I don’t doubt that this research group has found an issue with Navigate on Autopilot, I just doubt that a GPS spoofing attack (generating powerful and false GPS signals) was all it took to made the problem happen.

[JJB]

Apparently the attack can be initiated from the outside, without prior access to the car. But what do I know, that video could easily have been faked.

[handymanshandle]

19 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Who could have seen this coming?!?!?!

 

 

Oh yeah, me.

but but SeLf dRiViNg CaRs ArE tHe FuTuRe!!!!11!1!!!!!!1!!1!1!!11!!111!!

 

 

wait to appease the mods I should add something here...

 

 

Same I kinda thought that was another concern about the push for self driving cars is attacks like that and also just adjusting for inclement weather and when a sensor doesn't work.

 

Sure California has a lot of places where you can do road testing of self driving cars to try and represent the climates of other areas, it's still not the same as those cars actually being tested in those areas.

[maartendc]

As far as I know, autonomous driving features dont rely on GPS at all for manouvers, but on LIDAR technology to map the area around them.

 

GPS is highly inaccurate anyway, as the positioning could be off by as much as a couple dozens of meters. So the cars simply cannot rely on GPS to know in which lane they are for example. That is why they have LIDAR, cameras, etc. to map the road, vehicles, pedestrians, etc.

 

Just tricking the GPS signal should not have the car " slam into a highway divider". At worst, it should confuse the car about which is the next turn to make or something like that.

 

Not to say the other electronics cannot be hacked. Just saying.. this GPS thing should not be a big deal.

[bcredeur97]

13 minutes ago, maartendc said:

As far as I know, autonomous driving features dont rely on GPS at all for manouvers, but on LIDAR technology to map the area around them.

 

GPS is highly inaccurate anyway, as the positioning could be off by as much as a couple dozens of meters. So the cars simply cannot rely on GPS to know in which lane they are for example. That is why they have LIDAR, cameras, etc. to map the road, vehicles, pedestrians, etc.

 

Just tricking the GPS signal should not have the car " slam into a highway divider". At worst, it should confuse the car about which is the next turn to make or something like that.

 

Not to say the other electronics cannot be hacked. Just saying.. this GPS thing should not be a big deal.

I agree. A GPS signal shouldn't be able to override the other systems that actually prevent the car hitting objects or even just going off pavement in general.

at worst the car should just go the wrong direction or surrender control to the driver to take over as the info it's getting is conflicting.

If the car just slams into a highway divider because of this that is fixable, and should be fixed immediately.

[theninja35]

38 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

but but SeLf dRiViNg CaRs ArE tHe FuTuRe!!!!11!1!!!!!!1!!1!1!!11!!111!!

wait to appease the mods I should add something here...

Same I kinda thought that was another concern about the push for self driving cars is attacks like that and also just adjusting for inclement weather and when a sensor doesn't work.

Sure California has a lot of places where you can do road testing of self driving cars to try and represent the climates of other areas, it's still not the same as those cars actually being tested in those areas.

Well, they are. I love cars just as much as the next guy, but to deny that at least semi-autonomous cars is the future would be delusional. They'll solve traffic problems, have great accident avoidance, and will allow the *passenger* to do whatever he/she wishes while in the car. Especially to an average consumer, to have that much time freed up is nothing but a dream right now. We're in the testing phases right now, but I bet in 5 or 10 years the technology will really start to grow and will become mainstream. Then they can be integrated with roads, signals and other cars and then it'll be smooth sailing from there.

 

The weather is certainly an issue, as is road condition. But I have no doubt that that problem can be solved. There are already stability control systems, so modifying those and turning them up to 11 could work. "These go to 11."

[The King of the Undead]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

If things can go so wrong so quickly, I'd call that a very bad design not fit for public use.

windows, linux, mocOS, non self driving cars, boats and planes

[justpoet]

The reality is, all systems can be hacked.  It just depends on how easily and if it has been found yet or not.  If you have dissenting opinions, are pushing technology forward, have any political or cash clout…you probably don't want to trust your life to a self driving car, that may or may not be hacked by somebody opposing or trying to take advantage of you.  Just think of all the security patches in products like Windows that we see every day for remote code execution, and then imagine that each of those can make your car do something like…only be able to turn left once at highway speeds.  Even before "self driving" cars, we've seen exploits like this taking place through the OnStar cellular connections of vehicles to do things such as remove the ability to use brakes, or to take a vehicle out of gear while it was on the highway.  "Hacks only get better with time", and that was back in 2015, then spread to most all OnStar vehicles in 2016.  The OnStar issue got a recall patch on many vehicles, but to think that a company like Tesla, doing everything on its own, won't have security issues get found over time on top of its machine learning flaws that it currently has, is simply silly and naive.

https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

[RejZoR]

32 minutes ago, will1432 said:

windows, linux, mocOS, non self driving cars, boats and planes

Yeah, but Windows doesn't crashes you into a road barrier.

[COTG]

1 hour ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

but but SeLf dRiViNg CaRs ArE tHe FuTuRe!!!!11!1!!!!!!1!!1!1!!11!!111!!

 

 

wait to appease the mods I should add something here...

 

 

Same I kinda thought that was another concern about the push for self driving cars is attacks like that and also just adjusting for inclement weather and when a sensor doesn't work.

 

Sure California has a lot of places where you can do road testing of self driving cars to try and represent the climates of other areas, it's still not the same as those cars actually being tested in those areas.

Self driving cars will obviously be the future. Anyone who can/does not want to see this is either ignorant or shall we say less than intelligent. Of course there will be bugs, and the fact that tesla’s can essentially be crashed remotely due to a simple gps spoof is concerning. The company should definitely have anticipated this and implemented various safety procedures. But, as with all things in life, they have to start somewhere, and bugs will always occur. This does not mean that the tech itself will not survive, just that it needs improving. If humanity gave up everytime we hit a speedbump we would still be living in trees

[The King of the Undead]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Yeah, but Windows doesn't crashes you into a road barrier.

however planes explode and crash into oceans and steal control away from the pilots and crashes itself.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, theninja35 said:

Well, they are. I love cars just as much as the next guy, but to deny that at least semi-autonomous cars is the future would be delusional. They'll solve traffic problems, have great accident avoidance, and will allow the *passenger* to do whatever he/she wishes while in the car. Especially to an average consumer, to have that much time freed up is nothing but a dream right now. We're in the testing phases right now, but I bet in 5 or 10 years the technology will really start to grow and will become mainstream. Then they can be integrated with roads, signals and other cars and then it'll be smooth sailing from there.

 

The weather is certainly an issue, as is road condition. But I have no doubt that that problem can be solved. There are already stability control systems, so modifying those and turning them up to 11 could work. "These go to 11."

Being able to do what you want while going to work is pretty easy now. You just take the bus. Self driving cars are not the future imo but rather better mass transit infrastructure. A bunch of automated cars will not get rid of the issue of there being too many cars on the road and not enough roads  

[Drak3]

Just now, COTG said:

Anyone who can/does not want to see this is either ignorant or shall we say less than intelligent. 

That's asinine.

There are literally only two ways of going about self driving tech.

Either you have everything localized and have machines becoming dangerous when their maps become outdated, assuming that no major bugs pop up, as the typical user doesn't keep things up to date on their own 

Or you have everything interconnected and vulnerable to hacking. That's not a good idea in a world where cyber terrorism and cyber war are growing rapidly as viable options.

[Monkey Dust]

I feel like self driving cars are going to turning into the tech that is just 10 years away in perpetuity. Like nuclear fusion.

[COTG]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

I feel like self driving cars are going to turning into the tech that is just 10 years away in perpetuity. Like nuclear fusion.

Funnily enough, nuclear fusion is actually getting closer to reality. I would suggest reading up on some of the private companies pursuing the tech as their approach is actually quite interesting. Then again, Im sure people were saying this 20 years ago but I like to be hopeful

[COTG]

12 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

That's asinine.

There are literally only two ways of going about self driving tech.

Either you have everything localized and have machines becoming dangerous when their maps become outdated, assuming that no major bugs pop up, as the typical user doesn't keep things up to date on their own 

Or you have everything interconnected and vulnerable to hacking. That's not a good idea in a world where cyber terrorism and cyber war are growing rapidly as viable options.

Only a sith deals in absolutes. In all seriousness tho, the way I envision the future of self driving cars would be with an interconnected solution, possibly using 5g or some future variant of it, as  the latency and speed of the technology is technically already capable of facilitating such an endeavor. Concerning the vulnerability to hacking, I am in no way an expert or even moderately educated, but I do believe that there must be some way to properly encrypt/protect the system as to make it safe against hacking attempts. Blockchain technology could potentially be used for this? But as I said above, I really am not very well versed in that area, so I might be completely wrong

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, COTG said:

but I do believe that there must be some way to properly encrypt/protect the system as to make it safe against hacking attempts. Blockchain technology could potentially be used for this? 

There is literally no way to make anything hack proof. The best you can do is try to slow them down.

 

Whereas human drivers don't have the issue of mass hacking turnung every (or even most) vehicles in to 1 to 2 ton weapons.

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Who could have seen this coming?!?!?!

 

 

Oh yeah, me.

Is your name "everyone with a clue"?

[COTG]

8 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

There is literally no way to make anything hack proof. The best you can do is try to slow them down.

 

Whereas human drivers don't have the issue of mass hacking turnung every (or even most) vehicles in to 1 to 2 ton weapons.

Im sure nothing is technically “unhackable” but i do believe that something as fundamental as the self driving network, if it were to ever be implemented could be made secure enough to make hacking attempts “unfeasible”. Look at how many people die due to car crashes every year. 1.25 million. Thats around 3000 deaths per day. Obviously this cannot/will not continue into the future, and with the technology such as an interconnected self driving car network the number of car crash fatalities could be drastically decreased. Would there still be bugs? Sure. Could some cars get hacked, killing their owners in the process? Probably, but very infrequently. Self driving technology will become mainstream, it is just a matter of when