×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Disgruntled Ex-Employee Remotely Disables 100 Cars

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the I-think-I-saw-this-movie dept.

Crime 384

hansamurai writes "Over one hundred cars equipped with a Webtech Plus blackbox were remotely disabled when a former employee of dealership Texas Auto Center got hold of his employer's database of users. Webtech Plus is repossession software that allows the dealership to disable a car's ignition or trigger the horn to honk when a payment is due. Owners had to remove the battery to stop the incessant honking. After the dealership began fielding an unusually high number of calls from upset car owners, they changed the passwords to the Webtech Plus software and then traced the IP address used to access the client to its former employee."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

384 comments

and (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517062)

this makes front page of slashdot, why?

Re:and (1, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517066)

To get Wired more traffic.

Re:and (1, Offtopic)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517194)

Second link to Wired today. I smell something fishy...

Re:and (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517274)

At least Slashdot got it right unlike Wired who states it was an act of "hacking". WTF Wired, it wasn't a hack. It was as simple act of intrusion without authorization. Nothing special or fancy was required to do so.

Re:and (4, Funny)

ThePengwin (934031) | about 4 years ago | (#31517604)

<sarcasm>
Of course its hacking! how else could someone do that???
Next you're going to say that someone guessing a Facebook password isn't hacking!!!
</sarcasm>

Re:and (1)

v1 (525388) | about 4 years ago | (#31517852)

it wasn't a hack. It was as simple act of intrusion without authorization.

One could argue semantics in that he was authorized, but he was incorrectly authenticated. IE he used an authentication that wasn't his, and then did what that authentication entitled him (was authorized) to do. Authorization worked perfectly. This is a case of an "authentication failure", but in the sense that the authentication process didn't do it's job, but in a way that allowed when it should have denied. (in contrast to the usual interpretation, denied when it should have allowed)

Re:and (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517108)

this makes front page of slashdot, why?

Because it makes the idiots who claim this kind of backdoor would never be misused look bad. Why are you protesting so much, anyway?

Back door? (0, Flamebait)

zippthorne (748122) | about 4 years ago | (#31517404)

What back door. The ex-employee had the password. He went in the *front* door.

It's not a back door if you forget to change the locks.

The real question is, why is there *one* password for all the cars? Shouldn't it be one password for each employee who has access to log into the "car disabling" server which then sends the lockdown signal using a trusted certificate?

They shouldn't have to change the passwords at all, just delete the employee's user account.

Re:Back door? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517466)

It is a back door. It's a back door installed by the dealer into your car with the assurance that it won't be misused.

The "front door" would be for them to send you a letter when you miss a payment, and send someone over to repossess the car if you continue to miss them, but I guess they feel that the tiny number of people who would try to steal the car justifies inflicting this system on all of their customers.

Repo in AZ (3, Interesting)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | about 4 years ago | (#31517960)

Or do what Arizona does where all the dealer has to do (other than a few formalities) is ask you to return the car, OR ELSE.

Since the OR ELSE in Arizona is a class 6 felony!

Facing up to 2 1/4 years in prison and being a felon for not turning it in makes having repo woman/man kinda redundant (surprisingly they exist, even though a dealer can have the police get the car back for free).

P.S. I'd HATE that law if I was a repo company employee or owner! Less reason to be used, and people in prison don't drive cars and felons have trouble getting them, so bad for repeat business. I can see how the deadbeats were unable to stop such a law, but surprised the repo companies didn't pay someone off to have it not pass or get repealed. There's big money in that business.

Also surprised the repo companies didn't get behind lobbying to make the remote black boxes illegal (have a "consumer protection" front lobby against it). No need to hire a repo company when all you need is a remote shutoff box and a tow truck.

As far as I know AZ is the only state with the law making it a felony to not return a car, although others make it a crime to "conceal collateral" (IL felony (*), CA misdemeanor).

P.P.S.:

(*) IL is probably the state with the most things defined as felonies I have seen. Not NY or CA or UT or anywhere else you'd expect (except maybe FL, but you don't even need to be convicted of a felony - they took people off the voter rolls in 2004 for felonies "committed" in 2007 - plus that state seems to be in a race with TX to see how pro-execution they can be.)

Re:Back door? (4, Funny)

bunratty (545641) | about 4 years ago | (#31517470)

The real question is, why is there *one* password for all the cars?

Well, duh! Because it's easier to remember. And it's better than having a post-it for each car -- just one post-it with the one password will do!

Re:Back door? (4, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | about 4 years ago | (#31517576)

No.

The real question is what the blistering hell are remote kill switches doing on cars in the first place?

I'm sure there's an iPhone analogy somewhere here...

Re:Back door? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517612)

I think he means that the device is a backdoor into your ignition system. Whoever thought giving remote access to car ignition systems was a good idea should be slapped around a bit then fired from a cannon.

Re:Back door? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#31517770)

The real question is, why is there *one* password for all the cars? Shouldn't it be one password for each employee who has access to log into the "car disabling" server which then sends the lockdown signal using a trusted certificate?

They shouldn't have to change the passwords at all, just delete the employee's user account.

No. That's not the real question. It's a stupid ass question because it was answered in article.
Each employee does have an account. His account was even disabled. He used another employee's account.

Man, you got a +5 for "I didn't read the article" - I can understand no one bothering to mod you down, but +5 stupid? Come on...

Demonstrates possibility of same flaw elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517440)

I can't wait for the same story about "Smart Meter" electric meters being installed around the country.
Or about the first zero day flaw in their wireless access allowing anyone to shut off your power.

Re:Demonstrates possibility of same flaw elsewhere (1)

headkase (533448) | about 4 years ago | (#31517508)

Shut off power will result in death for a few people who depend on home-oxygen equipment. But hey wiring everything up to enable a convenient cyber-attack makes sense right guys? Right?

Re:Demonstrates possibility of same flaw elsewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517644)

Some Arizona senior will leave us early when a kid disables the AC during nap time and leaves it disabled. Or it might just be the power company making their 'green' quota.

France shed a bunch of oldsters when some OMGWTFITSGLOBALWARMING +90F days occurred while most of the care takers were on their umpteenth week of vacation.

Re:and (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517316)

Faggots don't have anything else to talk about since nothing happened in LinSux world today.

Re:and (1)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | about 4 years ago | (#31517750)

This makes it to the front page of Slashdot so that you can summarize it with a car analogy.

Or maybe it's a trick and you're supposed to summarize it with a computer analogy. Could go either way.

I don't understand (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517064)

Can someone explain this article to me using a car analogy?

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517160)

Can someone explain this article to me using a car analogy?

Sure. You don't qualify for a car loan, but they'll sell you a car, with a 5% per month interest rate, all sorts of fees, and a "you pass by the office by such-and-such a date with the cash or we kill your car" deal. Lots of cash income, much of it undeclared by the dealer, since the financing is not reported to credit rating agencies (it's called "in house financing" for a reason :-)

The car analogy? It's like getting a sh*tty deal on a sh*tty car.

Re:I don't understand (3, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517206)

To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who don't overcharge but do sell to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying.

Re:I don't understand (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#31517332)

To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who don't overcharge but do sell to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying.

Here, let me fix that for you:

"To be fair, there are plenty of used car dealers who overcharge when they sell not-terribly-reliable cars to not-terribly-reliable clients. They need a way to get their vehicle back when those clients quit paying so they can flip them to the next sucker."

40% or more a year interest, extra fees, inflated "deposits" that are inevitably forfeited as soon as the sucker is one day late, the car repoed and the customer STILL owes the full amount as damages, "it's not a sale, it's a lease - at the end you can buy it for $100.00" - when at the end it's $100 + fees.

It's the auto equivalent of pay-day loans.

Re:I don't understand (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#31517546)

Yet those things have their place too, and they allow the worst of the deadbeats to somehow get a car. After all, it's not like getting a regular car loan from a reputable dealer is particularly difficult. I have a friend who works part time in a $12/hr job, has terrible credit history and no assets worth mentioning and she just got financing for a small used car from Carmax with an interest rate of 16%. People who have to get the deals like you mentioned are the ones that nobody in their right mind would loan money to except under those conditions. If they are being harsher than necessary on their customers then somebody (why not you?) will step in and be a slightly less harsh and take all the business.

Re:I don't understand (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517844)

never understood why banks expect to make money by charging higher interest rates to those who are least able to pay in the first place. what is it? some kind of poor tax?

Re:I don't understand (3, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 4 years ago | (#31517918)

Why? Do the "worst of the deadbeats" somehow still deserve credit? Credit isn't a basic human right. For that matter, owning a car isn't a basic human right, either.

If the deadbeats "need" a car, they really "need" to save enough money to buy one. I'm sorry about your destitute friend's situation, but I didn't extend her the credit that she defaulted on in the first place. I didn't give her the bad debt history. If she "hit a rough patch", she was already overextended when she hit it. Her creditors deserved to lose the money they never should have loaned her in the first place, but they also have the right to honestly report her repayment behavior to the credit bureaus -- it's why they keep track of such things.

Anyone stupid enough to loan money to someone who has walked away from their previous debts deserves the chance to lose any money they loan that person. Usurious loans fall under that category, too.

Re:I don't understand (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 4 years ago | (#31517548)

It's the auto equivalent of pay-day loans.

Yeah, except you actually do get some of the money. With these places, you're out a car, all the money you invested, and nothing you can do except start over. And anyone who's thinking they can make monthly payments for two or three years and not be late once -- you're either wealthy enough to not have to resort to this kind of thing, or you're a grade school teacher. Everyone else misses payments. Don't ask me why teachers always pay their bills. I don't know... but I worked for a place once that had several thousand of them for customers. We never once had a check bounce, or a late fee assessed. Management was pissed, but a contract's a contract. Our christmas parties were, achem, cheap affairs.

Re:I don't understand (3, Insightful)

adonoman (624929) | about 4 years ago | (#31517916)

Or you can just set up automatic payments for everything. I'm neither wealthy, nor a school teacher, but every monthly payment I make is automatically pulled out of my bank account without my interference. Car loan, student loans, phone, cell phone, internet, water / sewer, electricity / natural gas, mortgage, city taxes, car insurance, house insurance, even retirement savings, and donations all just happen. My pay-cheque is direct-deposited as well, so really the only interaction I have with the bank is when something changes. Otherwise, all I have to do is check my monthly statements to make sure everything's fine. I've never had a late payment, since in general, it's not up to me to make the payment.

Re:I don't understand (0, Troll)

AK Marc (707885) | about 4 years ago | (#31517982)

Here, they stay away from that. You get a $500 Dodge Neon for $5000 on "rent to own" so that if you stop paying rent, they send in the police, rather than having to repo a car that you own but they have a lien on. The interest isn't bad, but the cars are at least 2x the regular dealer price, often more.

Re:I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517424)

This is like DRM for cars.

The real question, though, is whether removing the battery was a violation of the DMCA.

Re:I don't understand (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 4 years ago | (#31517822)

This is like DRM for cars.
The real question, though, is whether removing the battery was a violation of the DMCA.

No the really real question is now that real hackers know about this system how long before the real lulz....

What a dolt . . . (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517070)

He couldn't reprogram it to make all of the cars play jingle bells?

Re:What a dolt . . . (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517150)

or the Brown Note?

Re:What a dolt . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517268)

He couldn't reprogram it to make all of the cars play jingle bells?

Jingle Bells this early in the year, that just crazy talk. Let that anger fester until December. Then you can be disgruntled and festive.

Re:What a dolt . . . (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517432)

I'd bet at least one of them was playing "La Cucaracha."

Re:What a dolt . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517494)

and now that God damned soundbite is rolling through my head.

back in soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517076)

car takes you!

Re:back in soviet russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517132)

In mother Russia you take car.

They say racism doesn't work...but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517118)

This is what happens when you hire a ...

SPIC!

Re:They say racism doesn't work...but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517208)

We hired George W. Bush and he screwed us a lot worse than that. And he wasn't a "Spic."

He was worse, much worse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517306)

He was so ashamed of his actual heritage he pretended to be a Texan. Fucking pathetic.

Re:He was worse, much worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517618)

What, American!?? (ducks for cover)

So... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517124)

How long until the police/feds/intelligence/etc get to start using this on civilians?

Re:So... (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517184)

Well, since the devices are probably not terribly cheap, they are only installed on cars from tote-the-note car lots. Since the places are a horrible scam, it shouldn't be too surprising that other... non-fun consequences... can come of the deal.

If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).

Re:So... (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#31517586)

If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).

If you get a car new or used, you should try and get a better auto loan than you can typically get from the dealer. I'm assuming that even the sketchy places that use this blackbox technology only do it if they provide the loans, otherwise it's none of their business whether you're up to date or not on them.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517196)

Already in the field [autotropolis.com].

Even better, Onstar, unlike this service, cuts across multiple demographics. Most of the people with credit so shitty that used car vendors are installing remote kill switches are probably the sort that the police already know how to "deal with", so to speak(after all, what is some overworked public defender going to do about it if they 'slip and fall' during a little friendly questioning?). Onstar, though, is a service that gives you access to the sort of people you can't just pull over and shake down....

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517528)

"Smart meters" for your home are also already being deployed. These meters can also be used to remotely turn power off.

You can imagine the police asking that power to a house be cut before a raid. Or the power company turning your electricity off if your monthly payment doesn't clear for a few days.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517228)

How long until the police/feds/intelligence/etc get to start using this on civilians?

They already are. See the latest OnStar commercials. If they're chasing you and you don't stop, they can either slow your car down, kill it, and/or make it start honking and flashing lights. And they can keep you locked in your car.

They've also been caught using it to spy on people by activating the voice channel.

Never buy a vehicle with OnStar.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | about 4 years ago | (#31517302)

If the vehicle is otherwise a good deal, I think it is fairly straightforward to either pull the fuse or disconnect the antenna.

Re:So... (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 4 years ago | (#31517588)

Frequently, a fuse controls more than one thing. On my 10 yr old F-150, the same fuse powers the cig lighter/power tap AND the OBDII tap. Disable 1, disable both.

Re:So... (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | about 4 years ago | (#31517992)

On older OnStar-equipped cars, the OnStar stuff was in one or two separate boxes, and you could unplug them from the harness.

IIRC, though, on newer cars, it's integrated into the ECU. Unplug that, and your engine doesn't run.

You could probably unplug the antennae, and build a Faraday cage around the connections, though.

They shouldn't be able to listen, but more complex (2, Interesting)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 4 years ago | (#31517654)

> Never buy a vehicle with OnStar.

The system should be more or less hard-wired so that it notifies you when the microphone activates for any reason. But as a consumer, I might be willing to accept the possibility of listening in for the added level of safety. I'd be a helluvalot MORE likely to do so if they needed a warrant to listen, but even so, it's good to have an added level of redundancy in your safety systems. Keeping a cellphone, being able to get to a cell phone, the cell phone working where you are, and knowing who to call and how to report your position, are all single points of failure. You can work around some of them--e.g. calling 911 instead of the local police--but the more redundancies, the better.

This is doubly true if you have a family, in which case you're buying not for your own safety, but for that of other people. To my mind, that's a greater responsibility.

The real danger, of course, is warrantless recordings, mass recordings, and data-mining.

Re:So... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#31517668)

And do you have any evidence that those things have been used when the owner is driving the car (even if wanted by the police) or only when the car is reported stolen? As long as the owner (but not the car thief) has a way to both completely disable and override those 'features' when they kick in, then I don't see a huge problem with it.

Re:So... (5, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 4 years ago | (#31517834)

And do you have any evidence that those things have been used when the owner is driving the car (even if wanted by the police) or only when the car is reported stolen?

Sure. Case in Las Vegas [subliminalnews.com]. Note that the FBI's use was not deemed illegal/inappropriate, but rather that it denied the user/owner of use during that time.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517698)

You can actually gut the OnStar service and replace it with a cell phone of your choosing.

I'm not sure if they have locked down the recent releases, but I'm sure there are a half a dozen tech sites explaining the specifics.

Re:So... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517804)

They already are. See the latest OnStar commercials. If they're chasing you and you don't stop, they can either slow your car down, kill it, and/or make it start honking and flashing lights.

Sounds like something that Toyota could use for their cars...

Re:So... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 4 years ago | (#31517814)

How long until the police/feds/intelligence/etc get to start using this on civilians?

The technology to do this has been around for over 10 years.

I just hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517152)

that no pointed haired types work for the company that made my pacemaker.

Should have changed password right away (0, Redundant)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517162)

As soon as you fire an employee, change the password! You never know what they can access and how they feel about you. Why take the chance?

Re:Should have changed password right away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517204)

ahhhhh snap martin, just wait til Sheneneh hear's bout dis!

Re:Should have changed password right away (4, Funny)

MDMurphy (208495) | more than 3 years ago | (#31517256)

Since I RTFA I know that he used someone else's password.

Re:Should have changed password right away (2, Informative)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 4 years ago | (#31517556)

the correct procedure is to

1 revoke the passwords/tokens for said employee
2 redact the persons desk and figure out how long of a timeout is needed (if any)
3 after the timeout escort the employee from the property

so the three words you need to know are Revoke Redact Remove this would be the only safe thing to do

Re:Should have changed password right away (1, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 4 years ago | (#31517924)

I don't think that goes far enough. Here is my proposal:

1. remove all clothes and perform anal cavity search - he could be taking company property with him
2. place in a straight jacket and a muzzle before escorting out - he could try attacking or biting other employees
3. install a radio controlled explosive device inside the body, to go off if he ever gets within 100 feet of the office building

It's the only way to be sure.

What a maroon. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31517214)

If you're going to play around with your ex-employer's systems like that, you don't do it from your own home. You go interstate, to a 'net cafe, and do it from there! Sheesh. Kids these days.

Maroons make the news (3, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 4 years ago | (#31517434)

Non-maroons who do stuff like this, do it from net cafes using a chain of anonymous proxys, and they do not get caught.

It's just the maroons like this one that you hear about.

Re:Maroons make the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517456)

those anonymous proxies tend to be mighty slow though

Re:Maroons make the news (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | about 4 years ago | (#31517776)

those anonymous proxies tend to be mighty slow though

Not if you use seven of them...

Re:Maroons make the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517952)

GOOD LUCK

Re:Maroons make the news (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#31517976)

Non-maroons who do stuff like this, do it from net cafes using a chain of anonymous proxys, and they do not get caught.

It's just the maroons like this one that you hear about.

If I was ever going to consider doing this I'd buy a cheap laptop off Craigslist for cash, and then buy a wireless card for cash from another location, and then drive to some community in the middle of nowhere and look for an open wireless AP. After which I would then pass said laptop through a shedder .. a really big shredder.

Re:What a maroon. (1, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#31517562)

Just to be clear this Texas. Not only Texas, but central Texas. To get from Austin to a civilized area outside of Texas, i.e. Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and back is going to take a person several hours. In fact, it would make more sense to leave the country and go into mexico.

As another point, I hope that the dealership is prosecuted for this. If they are providing loans, they have sensitive data, and if they are not changing passwords when an employee is terminated, one can assume that they have equally ineffective control of customer data, such as social security numbers. It is a good this that this guy was only trying to be annoying, or at least we hope so.

Re:What a maroon. (1)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | about 4 years ago | (#31517790)

Well, if that's Central Texas you have to drive around the block to find a neighbour who is incapable of enabling encryprion on his/her wi-fi router and do it from them.

Moron (3, Interesting)

CSHARP123 (904951) | about 4 years ago | (#31517282)

If not that job, go find another what did he achieve doing this may be getting pounding in the ass in Federal Prison. Now he cannot get anymore job anywhere.

Re:Moron (4, Funny)

aztektum (170569) | about 4 years ago | (#31517362)

>.<

Oh man, trying to read that hurt. Punctuation is our friend.

Re:Moron (3, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 4 years ago | (#31517370)

> Punctuation is our friend.
>
>--
>:: aztek ::
>No sig for you!!

Uh..it's easy to get carried away, however...

Re:Moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517492)

..... tell about it.....

Re:Moron (1)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | about 4 years ago | (#31517632)

Well, to be fair he did state up front he was a moron, and as far as incoherent ramblings of a moron go that wasn't too bad.

Re:Moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517532)

He get... I... you... We're who on the what, now?

Re:Moron (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | about 4 years ago | (#31517608)

getting pounding in the ass in Federal Prison

why perpetuate this? granted, it CAN happen, but nowhere near the level that pop culture seems to imply. do you also think that many guards are bribed regularly?

Re:Moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517858)

I love office space! (good reference)

This sounds like some great software. (4, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 4 years ago | (#31517308)

I would definitely be interested in buying a car that can be triggered to shutdown or start blaring its horn remotely! Is there anyway to buy one with a built-in bomb?

Re:This sounds like some great software. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517350)

I think a new Toyota would be exactly what you're looking for.

It's for people with crap credit (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#31517530)

They don't ask for it, the bank makes it a requirement of the loan. This way if a payment isn't on time, they can turn the car off to force the issue. You aren't going to find it on a car from a dealer, financed by a normal bank. It is for high risk situations.

"Smart meters" do this for your home (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517666)

The new "smart meters" being installed on homes not only do power monitoring but also do remote control, often over a wireless mesh network. How long until this ability is abused or repurposed?

Another disgruntled employee (5, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | about 4 years ago | (#31517354)

When are bosses going to learn to stop taking away their gruntles??

/. where are you? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517452)

I have been reading /. for a couple years now as anon coward, and I have seen a huge decline in conversation recently. I am not trolling, I am concerned. I enjoy the tinfoil hat banter, I enjoy the uninformed but concerned banter, and I also enjoy the informed and willing to share banter. /. has sparked my wonder, concern and inquisitiveness....Where has this gone? It seems like it's flooded with negative non-informed slander. I want it back...I understand that as an anon coward, I don't have pull, but I will miss something in my life, if it comes to another .com that I regular.

Austin newspaper story link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517478)

Car owners honking mad: Cops charge man with remotely disabling cars [statesman.com]

"Omar Ramos-Lopez, 20, is charged with breach of computer security, a state jail felony for which he faces up to two years behind bars."

Too bad they can't charge him once for each car whose computer-security system he disabled. If he "faced up to 202 years behind bars" he would be much more willing to plea-bargain it down to 23 months.

OK, seriously, I say his punishment (after a stint in jail) should be that for the next 5 years there should be a 50/50 chance of his car not starting on a given day. OK, that won't happen. But hopefully the judge can be a bit creative with this guy.

And THIS, ladies and gentlemen... (5, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 4 years ago | (#31517566)

...is the perfect example (and with car analogy indeed) of why DRM and remote product (de)activation is doomed to failure.

Bruteforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31517880)

How would they stop bruteforcing of this? Does it lock out connections to the car after x many failed attempts, and if so, that is an exploit in itself. This is begging for a whole new level of wardriving...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...