Honestly a car is one of the items where I could see a safety aspect outweighing... y'know... compared to a game console.
Not saying cars should be locked down like this, I really don't know and my first 'hacker' instinct is to say it should be free-as-in-freedom, but the argument has an extra dimension to it when compared to the Nintendo Switch.
Related to Mercedes saying they take responsibility if their self driving car crashes. It's certainly arguable if you don't take the upgrade they can stop taking responsibility at some point.
Remote attestation isn't inherently evil. Remote attestation can protect your privacy too. You can run code on a public cloud, with remote attestation proving that the cloud provider cannot read the memory of your VM, even if they use a malicious hypervisor.
(That's of course assuming in your threat model you trust the hardware maker but not the cloud provider. The sentiment in this thread is clearly don't trust the hardware maker.)
Or you can just run security-critical code on your own hardware on your own premises, as has been and will always be the answer for strong security. If a legal contract with a datacenter is not enough of a security guarantee, then neither is a wink from a hardware manufacturer. The societal downsides from abuse of remote attestation - eg computational disenfranchisement of end users - far outweigh any claimed benefits.
Maybe it's possible in older models. I have a 2021 Model X and asked a service center if I could downgrade the software after the new UI came out, and they told me it was impossible and that not even they could to it.
It's possible they were lying, I suppose, it would not be the first time, but it seems an odd thing to lie about.
Honestly a car is one of the items where I could see a safety aspect outweighing... y'know... compared to a game console.
Not saying cars should be locked down like this, I really don't know and my first 'hacker' instinct is to say it should be free-as-in-freedom, but the argument has an extra dimension to it when compared to the Nintendo Switch.
Related to Mercedes saying they take responsibility if their self driving car crashes. It's certainly arguable if you don't take the upgrade they can stop taking responsibility at some point.
Remote attestation is the enemy of our freedom.
Remote attestation isn't inherently evil. Remote attestation can protect your privacy too. You can run code on a public cloud, with remote attestation proving that the cloud provider cannot read the memory of your VM, even if they use a malicious hypervisor.
(That's of course assuming in your threat model you trust the hardware maker but not the cloud provider. The sentiment in this thread is clearly don't trust the hardware maker.)
Or you can just run security-critical code on your own hardware on your own premises, as has been and will always be the answer for strong security. If a legal contract with a datacenter is not enough of a security guarantee, then neither is a wink from a hardware manufacturer. The societal downsides from abuse of remote attestation - eg computational disenfranchisement of end users - far outweigh any claimed benefits.
5 replies →
Already here. Teslas cannot be downgraded, even by a service center.
What part, the Linux OS ? if so, I'd like you to cite your resources as I had assisted this in an older Telsa.
Maybe it's possible in older models. I have a 2021 Model X and asked a service center if I could downgrade the software after the new UI came out, and they told me it was impossible and that not even they could to it.
It's possible they were lying, I suppose, it would not be the first time, but it seems an odd thing to lie about.
4 replies →
i believe the 3 and y have eFuses as well