"Unpatchable" exploit found in Tesla cars, allowing jailbreaking of internal computer

[wanderingfool2]

14 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Maybe we talk again if you are not making delusional claims.

Even one of your favourite companies cannot change the basic rules of engineering.

Congratulations on being that kind of student who quotes wiki, doesn't follow the reference and doesn't use their brain to check what they are quoting.

 

14 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

Sure. Something with a specific energy density (raw, just the cell) of 100 - 250 Wh/kg will surely deliver 1 kWh with 2 kg weight...

It's Tesla, so it must be at least twice as good as physically possible...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery

And you have the gull to call me delusional, yet you are apparently can't figure out that "100 - 250 Wh/kg" isn't what is "physically possible".  If you want to know what is physically possible...https://physicsworld.com/a/lithium-ion-batteries-break-energy-density-record/#:~:text=Researchers have succeeded in making,of over 700 Wh%2Fkg.

 

So don't you dare call me delusional, when you are too dense to realize the number you quoted isn't what is physically possible, but rather just a number grabbed from a 2009 paper.

 

IF you had even spent 2 seconds clicking on the reference link to Wiki you would have easily spotted that the larger number was what Panasonic managed to achieve...in 2009 for 18650 cells.  Panasonic happens to also be the provider of Tesla batteries.

 

I said 2 - 3.5 kg/kWh (since I doubt you can do math, that's 285 Wh/kg - 500 Wh/kg).  The 21700 cells have at 269 Wh/kg (but depending on the source could be 300 Wh/kg)...which falls at least roughly in line with what I said.

 

Your claim however assumes the WORST possible energy density listed, which we all know isn't the case.  So yea, don't call me delusional when my range has overlap with what actually it is, AND your proposed number is quite frankly stupidly assessed at 10 kg per Wh.

 

Even WITH the oldschool 1860 batteries, AND the battery packs themselves; you get over 212 Wh/kg https://evsource.com/products/tesla-model-s-lithium-ion-battery-18650-22-8-volt-5-3-kwh

 

That's WITH the packaging of the battery pack.

 

14 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1272-january-9-2023-electric-vehicle-battery-pack-costs-2022-are-nearly

 

Maybe we talk again if you are not making delusional claims.

Even one of your favourite companies cannot change the basic rules of engineering.

Congratulations on your illiteracy.  You quote a statement of me saying WITHOUT the battery pack, and talking about PER CELL cost...and you barf up an average of ALL car manufacturers that INCLUDES the batter pack cost.

 

Tesla's cost for batteries is really the lowest out of all manufacturers (do to many reasons, including being a lot more vertically integrated on the front...and producing the batteries in the plants).

 

Or are you going to just stick your fingers in your ear and claim I'm delusional for stating PER CELL.  Let me demo it in numbers why I talked about per cell.

 

You have $20 in manufacturing the pack; and say you put in $20 in batteries for 5 wh.

You have $20 in manufacturing the pack; and say you put in $22 in batteries for 5.5 wh

The key metric isn't that option a costs $40 it's that the delta for 10% more power only equates to $2 more (or 5% of cost).

 

In this case, battery cell cost is the important bit, as the pack cost (without cells) will remain roughly the same.  The sub $100/kWh has been speculated for quite some time; although no definitive pricing has ever been released publicly.  What is a guarntee though is it's not at the $150/kWh.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/12/01/are-battery-cost-improvements-still-a-big-driver-of-teslas-margins/?sh=4b3dade64ae7

 

 

11 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Wait a minute, explain it to me. In what universe does paying money for unlocking features that may reduce the lifespan of a vehicle lead to an offset in additional cost?

Higher acceleration puts more strain on the battery.  Tesla warranties batteries that don't retain a 70% charge after 8 years or some amount of miles.  If you take your Tesla to the track every day and floor it you will destroy your battery faster.  So people who are unlocking that feature have a higher chance of needing a warranty replacement due to the additional wear on the battery.

 

So Tesla can charge something that makes them a slight profit, but also to offset the cost of more vehicle warranties.

 

11 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Wait, but the feature is already present though in the hardware? If the customer is paying extra, that is a surcharge, not a charge to add to the cost of the materials of the vehicle, right? Since the feature is already present?

Yes, the higher kWh pack would be in there, but software locked.  The key though is you would be paying the price as though it was the lower battery pack installed.  It's why I'm not opposed to all hardware being locked down through paid upgrades.  (I do however disagree if there isn't outright purchase options, if there isn't an active service being done as well)

 

A way of looking at it is like this, over simplified business approach inbound to demonstate

Say company A sells a basic tamagotchi ($10), but also a premium tamagotchi ($20)

Company B sells the "basic" tamagotchi ($10), but also the premium tamagotchi($20); but the "basic" in this case can be changed into the premium product for a $10 software update (as they added in the necessary hardware).

 

In both cases for A and B assume the basic tamagotchi is the same; and in this case they cost the same to the consumer.

 

The key is what happens behind the scene. COGS (cost of goods sold)

Company A COGS, basic $5, premium $10 (Two lines different parts)

Company B COGS, basic $8, premium $8 (They are essentially the same product, but expenses are reduced by streamlining production of a single product instead of 2 separate builds).  In this situation they actually sell the "basic" at a loss.

 

Now as an end users, if you wanted to "upgrade" to a premium...you are out of luck and have to pay the full $20.  Company B, has the $10 upgrade path.

 

What Company B is banking on though is that enough people who buy basic, end up upgrading.  In my example if even 1/3 of people who buy the basic "upgrade" company B ends up with more money than Company A...but it's in general a balancing act, and far more complicated.  (Also take note, it reduced the cost to make the premium product as well)

 

Hopefully this explains at least some of the justification of why hardware can be included but not really contributing to the end users cost when it's walled off.

 

11 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

Or, as we had build to order before? Most car companies typically have these options as build to order? Or in case you have very common features which come as standard, or come as standard in higher tier models. Maintaining and building multiple tiers is a business expense, and most car companies absorb these costs.

"Absorbing" the costs is just lingo for spreading the costs to other consumers.  If they maintained separate SKU's and still had to charge the same amount for the base model as they currently do, then what's the point.  It's like I mentioned above, there are certain features that it's just better to throw it in every vehicle and make up for the lower margins by selling the upgrades (the customer is still paying the same price either way for the base product...just now they have a cheaper upgrade path)

 

 

11 hours ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

It is insane how automakers went from making really nice and good cars to shitty subscription lootboxes in a matter of a few years. Buy a car from 2015-2016, and they will still have physical buttons, standard placement of driver controls, and most importantly all th features you paid for. It is almost ridiculous how fast they fucked everything up and I blame BMW and Tesla for this stupid bullshit.

BMW was doing things like this well before Tesla.  Tesla didn't really do much subscription as a service (well aside from the connectivity...but in all fairness that's an actual cell data service being provided).

 

Actually most manufacturers have been doing similar things well before Tesla.  Old GPS in the vehicles, you had to buy expensive map updates..even the infotainment stuff some of the car companies charged to update it.

 

Autopilot/FSD, literally billions being spent on R&D of it; the other safety features are all included free...and actually benefited from some of the autopilot/fsd dev stuff.

 

8 minutes ago, Kisai said:

And then when you sell the car, or make a business of buying used cards, "unlocking" them and flipping them, suddenly the manufacturer has a pile of angry car owners giving them 1 star reviews.

https://electrek.co/2022/07/26/tesla-ransom-customer-over-80-miles-battery-range/

 

It's happened before.

Think it should be noted regarding the article; the guy "bought" a 90 badged (so physical decal saying P90D on the back) that turned out to be a 80, with a 90 battery in it (likely hacked to be 90 range)...but connecting it back to the network Tesla noticed the issue and reversed it.

 

I just thought I'd point this out, as like your comment essentially implied "1 start reviews", when range can be hacked it can create a real PR nightmare...especially when the news and people assume Tesla was at fault.

[HenrySalayne]

16 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I said 2 - 3.5 kg/kWh (since I doubt you can do math, that's 285 Wh/kg - 500 Wh/kg).  The 21700 cells have at 269 Wh/kg (but depending on the source could be 300 Wh/kg)...which falls at least roughly in line with what I said.

A raw 21700 cell has 269 Wh/kg WITHOUT the structural encasement, terminals/wiring and a thermal control system and you want to argue that you were roughly right?

 

22 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Your claim however assumes the WORST possible energy density listed

That's were you're wrong, kiddo. Battery cells are not just dumped as a pile in the back of an EV. Turning the cells into an actual battery pack adds all kinds of additional weight.

 

But this wasn't even the point. Unused battery capacity adds significant weight and cost. And it doesn't matter if it's $150, $120 or 8 kg/kWh or 10 kg/kWh.

 

But enjoy your anti-gravity wiring, your anti-weight encasement and your anti-mass thermal solution in your Tesla to get the 2 kg/kWh...

[wanderingfool2]

On 8/8/2023 at 5:38 PM, HenrySalayne said:

A raw 21700 cell has 269 Wh/kg WITHOUT the structural encasement, terminals/wiring and a thermal control system and you want to argue that you were roughly right?

You call me delusional yet are foolish enough to not read when I say PER CELL, and you assume pack level is 100 Wh/KG which is wildly wrong, even at pack level it's wildly wrong.

 

If you used any sense you have, you would have noticed I POINTED OUT that the 54kWh vs 62kWh Tesla curb weight of the vehicle was different by 27 KG...if the weight difference was made up from the cell it would be 3.375 kg/kWh (or 296 Wh / kg).

 

On 8/8/2023 at 5:38 PM, HenrySalayne said:

That's were you're wrong, kiddo. Battery cells are not just dumped as a pile in the back of an EV. Turning the cells into an actual battery pack adds all kinds of additional weight.

 

But this wasn't even the point. Unused battery capacity adds significant weight and cost. And it doesn't matter if it's $150, $120 or 8 kg/kWh or 10 kg/kWh.

 

But enjoy your anti-gravity wiring, your anti-weight encasement and your anti-mass thermal solution in your Tesla to get the 2 kg/kWh...

Again, you are being ignorant and show your utter lack of BASIC mass production.  Do you think some fairy comes by and magically resizes all the battery packs when cell density is changed or the kWh pack is changed?  No, they keep the SAME battery pack solution before, except now you have plastic dummy cells inserted.

 

Are you seriously not understanding that?  A  late stage 60 kWh pack, compared to 90 kWh pack...do you know the difference?  It's that the 60 kWh pack has dummy cells placed in it.  [And before you claim that using dummy cells is a waste and adds costs, I'm cutting that off by pointing out again that it simplifies manufacturing and saves the retool cost].

 

 

Notice those cells with holes in it.

 

So yea, if you open your eyes and stop mindlessly thinking that your 10 kg / kWh is correct; you would see that most of what I said implies ~3.2 kg/kWh based on 21700 cells.  Even 18750 cells would be less than 4 kg/kWh...a far cry from the lunacy of assuming 10 kg/kWh.

 

On 8/8/2023 at 5:38 PM, HenrySalayne said:

But this wasn't even the point. Unused battery capacity adds significant weight and cost. And it doesn't matter if it's $150, $120 or 8 kg/kWh or 10 kg/kWh

27 KG isn't "significant weight", $1000 isn't significant cost IF you have analytics that lets say 20% of people will upgrade it...hint hint, if even 20% of people end up upgrading it, it's now covered the entire loss in margin...which is the point, anything beyond 20% would additional margin.  27KG is going to have negligible impact on performance as a whole; with EV's the killer is aerodynamics

 

Just like how Costco sells their chickens at a loss (during the peak).  They take a hit on it knowing most people will buy other products with margins.

[ewitte]

Anything that can be read can be hacked/modified/copied.  To be honest the whole locked ecosystem and microtransactions is a big reason why I wouldn't get a Tesla.  That and it not making economic sense at its price.  People don't understand the $millions of dollars potential they lose on vehicles...

[kpluck]

On 8/6/2023 at 5:32 AM, RejZoR said:

But charging people monthly for heated seats…

To be clear, Tesla has never charged a monthly fee for heated seats. That was a one time charge that unlocked the feature.

[da na]

3 minutes ago, kpluck said:

To be clear, Tesla has never charged a monthly fee for heated seats. That was a one time charge that unlocked the feature.

Still though that is ridiculous and stupid. The heater is there so you pay for it in the price of the car anyway. 

[HenrySalayne]

1 minute ago, kpluck said:

To be clear, Tesla has never charged a monthly fee for heated seats. That was a one time charge that unlocked the feature.

It's a DLC then?

[LAwLz]

I still don't get why people get so up in arms about software locking down hardware, but some of the same people are totally fine with software locking down software. Like for example Windows Home vs Windows Pro. That's just artificially segmenting things through software locks to make customers pay more, and I am mostly okay with that (although not in all cases). The practice itself of software locks is neither good nor bad in my eyes. It depends on how it's handled. I might even be okay with software-locked seat heating, depending on the circumstances. 

 

 

Anyway, this is probably a big blow to AMD, since the vulnerability is in their hardware. 

 

I am skeptical whether or not this will result in anything good for consumers though. Tesla might be able to lock down this in some other way, or punish users who do this (since it probably breaks some software agreement) if it can be detected. 

[Corrupter]

This made my day

[wanderingfool2]

On 8/13/2023 at 12:44 PM, da na said:

Still though that is ridiculous and stupid. The heater is there so you pay for it in the price of the car anyway. 

Not exactly; like I've said in this topic already the reality is not as black and white of "I paid for this"

 

If lets say it costs Tesla only $50 more/vehicle to add it into every vehicle (because less SKU's and such), they have a few choices.

For this hypothetical I'll say a Tesla costs $50,000 because it's easier to demonstrate.

Make all vehicles $200 more in price (as they try making higher margins, and luxury features are where the margins are made); so $50,200

Or they could offer one for $50,000 (effectively getting less margin on the vehicle), but selling the heated seats one for $200 more or $50,200...but purchasing it after the fact costs $400.

 

So in the case above, Tesla would bank on the fact that 50% of people to purchase heated seats to "make back" the margins.

 

But then if you consider the case of manufacturing on demand; with some heated seats and others not.

The added cost for heated seats lets say raises to $150/vehicle (as 2 SKU's and transport costs etc create extra overhead).

The base model still would cost $50,000...but now Tesla has to charge $300 for heated seats.  They get less people buying the heated seat package as well then.

 

It's why I've said that purchasing something that knowingly has a software lock isn't stupid, if the pricing of the vehicle was assumed as though it wasn't installed in the first place

[Distinctly Average]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:11 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

Autopilot/FSD being the major feature locked behind a paywall...although in Tesla's defense to that they are pumping in like billions of dollars on the supercomputers that's training them.  (Normal driver assist stuff is provided already)

 

Technically the plaid also has an expensive option for faster acceleration locked behind software (which I think gets enabled if you buy the tesla hardware, can't recall didn't really look into it as it's well out of my price range)...since things like the brakes needs to be up to spec otherwise you can run into issues.

 

The rear heated seats used to be a feature unlock, but they just increased the price on the base model and included it.

 

Battery capacity was an option for some people, who had purchased things like lower X kWh batteries but their vehicle was equipped (or warranty replaced with a higher capacity).  So for example, they paid the price for a 65 kWh, but really got a 75 kWh one; so there was an "upgrade" you could pay for to unlock the other 10 kWh (which iirc was set at the difference between what the 65kWh vs 75kWh cost).

 

There was also one where you could get better acceleration on normal vehicles as well...but from what I understand that was also locked behind a paywall because they expected the people who purchased it to essentially have to warranty their batteries more often (so the cost essentially was offsetting the additional cost to Tesla for the eventual warranty repairs)

I never really got the point of that. A few months ago I was given a Model S with Ludicrous + mode and frankly it scared the willies out of me. Nobody needs a 0-60 in under 2 seconds except on the race track. I reckon if I had it more than the week I did, I would have either been banned from driving or upside down in a ditch.

On 8/6/2023 at 7:11 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

 

I guess in theory as well, some of the app stuff might also be behind software as a service...like using music apps (which in that case it's using the cell data from the car)...so in theory that could maybe be accessed.  Although in a case like that, where the vehicle is actively using Tesla server's I'm sure they will detect jailbreaks quite quickly and ban them from the network...good luck getting your car serviced if they found you running jailbroken software on the vehicle; wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to service it (as this level of jailbreaking could have safety implications if you installed something bad).

 

 

 

The thing is though, tricking your Tesla into some of these "purchases" isn't exactly new, people have already been doing it...it's just you tend to sacrifice things such as being able to connect your Tesla to any network (which means goodbye to the maps, and most of the other useful features in a Tesla).  There was a hacker a while back who got his Tesla to render the voxels that was used in Autopilot/FSD.  What I think this allows though is for you to keep it more on the Tesla network.

 

 

 

 

[jagdtigger]

7 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

I reckon if I had it more than the week I did, I would have either been banned from driving or upside down in a ditch.

The car has nothing to do with that, you just lack the self control... 

(Like many others.)

[Distinctly Average]

32 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

The car has nothing to do with that, you just lack the self control... 

(Like many others.)

While I agree, it is still IMO pointless. I am probably a more experienced driver than most on the road having driven 35-40K miles per year for the last 26 years. Amazingly I have a clean licence, which is quite a feat here in the UK where there are cameras everywhere. It is all to easy to forget, especially in such a quiet car, just how quickly you are going. With ICE card you have more audible feedback and with time you can tell from the sound what speed you are doing. In an EV, that feedback isn’t there to the same extent. Fortunately my base level model 3 has just enough wind noise and rattles that I have a good idea. I’ve done 14k miles in it since the end of May and the electronics also work well helping the driver keep inside speed limits. The traction control is quite intrusive, far more so than any ICE I have driven over the years. So it is unlikely I will loose control. My only worry is how well as a rear wheel drive car it will handle the 3 days snow we get in the UK on average every year. The RAV4 I previously had did a sterling job but I fear I will be stuck at the bottom of hills like all the other twonks in their BMSs, Audi’s and Mercs.

[jagdtigger]

23 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

While I agree, it is still IMO pointless

Until you are in a situation where that insane acceleration saves your bacon. Had a few cases while riding on my motorbike. If i were driving my car i wouldnt be able to avoid an accident.....

 

 

23 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Audi’s

That depends on what kind it was. An SUV sure, but if it has the proper quattro power train (that always drives all wheels unlike SUVs) thats a different kind of animal..... ( Lets just say the old "Ski Jump" ad contrary to popular beliefs aint a fake....)

[Distinctly Average]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Until you are in a situation where that insane acceleration saves your bacon. Had a few cases while riding on my motorbike. If i were driving my car i wouldnt be able to avoid an accident.....

 

 

That depends on what kind it was. An SUV sure, but if it has the proper quattro power train (that always drives all wheels unlike SUVs) thats a different kind of animal..... ( Lets just say the old "Ski Jump" ad contrary to popular beliefs aint a fake....)

Seems here a lot of company car drivers go for the basic Audi and BMW models. Often they hit their allowance with rear drive, base colour only. It is often those I have seen, and in a few cases towed out of trouble. I will probably be the one in need of a tow in this car. A couple of years back I pulled 5 cars out of a car park at a local beauty spot in the snow. I’ve been stuck myself in the sand on a beach in Ireland and ware really happy that a fellow windsurfer helped

me out there.