Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally.
Buried in the article is the claim that this will let them pull the RSA private key the car owns out for other uses -- while this is likely to remain a very niche attack vector, that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla. On the other hand, post jailbreak you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers, which would be nice.
Just like we used to have cable box guys willing to sell you an unlocked box for premium channels, we are eventually going to have feature unlock guys that you go do and for a small fee perform some slightly more technical hack to enable features that are already there.
> I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place.
For the Xbox 360, the "Reset Glitch Hack" (which worked similarly) would just try over and over again until it got it right. A computer is happy to try tens or hundreds of times on your behalf.
Definitely sophisticated, but something console hackers have been doing for quite some time now including the boot flow. I'm wondering if a Tesla vehicle/computer is more sophisticated than say a PS5?
Semi related question I suppose. Do the Teslas simply use GPS for their location information? If so, couldn't one spoof the GPS using a hackRF or similar?
This is the same attack (and same people who developed) faulTPM[1] that was previously discussed[2]. This article is the same people demonstrating that attack against Tesla vehicles. The paper[1] and previous discussion[2] address the underlying problems with AMD's Secure Processor (AMD-SP) that is embedded in their CPU SoCs and previously and more commonly known as Platform Security Processor (AMD-PSP).
Unlike a web browser where W3C AntiFraudCG folk propose that websites would blacklist all impacted AMD-SP hardware and create massive amounts of e-waste[3], Tesla likely can't do much about this attack because Tesla (not users) would be responsible for a very expensive change of vehicle hardware.
If it's not an easy-to-execute attack like faulTPM, there are more complex (but becoming more mainstream and cheaper) IC reverse engineering methods like polishing the die down to take photos of each metal layer and regenerating VHDL, FIB editing an operational IC to bypass tamper detection methods, etc[4].
A security architect of the Xbox One presented a talk[5] a few years ago which provides some good background too. Largely the Xbox One has managed to avoid piracy because they made it economically not worth anyone's time to attack due to competitive pricing models versus high cost of attack. Similar to use of Denuvo for a month or two after release of a PC game, attackers aren't going to bother if their work amounts to nothing a month later.
Hacking a Tesla to enable additional features is worth a lot of money, so the economics are quite different. It's also different economics for printer cartridges, "pay to enable more features or performance" network equipment, etc. The cost of IC reverse engineering / FIB editing attacks (or other future attack methods) will keep reducing. IC tamper detection features will get more complex. Perhaps attackers will even get an advantage once they can readily reverse engineer 3nm ICs and defenders can't do much other than implementing ever more complex and obfuscated IC tamper detection features and VHDL logic (kind of like a Denuvo situation in hardware).
There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks.
Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine.
Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine.
Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple secondary markets: sorry, the BMW account you have isn't linked to this VIN. Heated seats and android auto are disabled.
> Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry.
Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
Game theory at play. Tesla and its customers are adversaries, vying for the same dollars. Tesla implementing these security measures directly translates to being able to charge more for services. Same as John Deere and many others. This is a minmax problem. How to pay the least to cause the other actor to pay the most. If the feature costs $15K and breaking security costs $15K then it is effective security. Obviously not the case here.
I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it.
Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking?
But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers unlock it for everyone for free?
The real question is Tesla Supercharger capability. If you can't plug your car into that network, then you've lost a ton of value. But here's the thing. In order to disable supercharging, Tesla remotes into your vehicle to turn it off. It doesn't happen on the charger side, it happens on the vehicle. So if you have root on your Tesla, you can make sure you can always supercharge, which isn't mentioned anywhere else.
Here's a question for the lawyers out there: if you notify Tesla that they're no longer authorized to access YOUR car, and they remote into it anyways, would that come under Computer Fraud and Abuse?
This should be "hacked" by the regulator and not by the hackers. If they sold you a car with heated seats (so if the hardware is there), the heated seats should be available for the consumer to use.
I would have thought that EFF and FSF would be more active in trying to promote open source in automobiles for privacy, security and being able to repair and modify the vehicle. I would think that it would be rather mind blowing how much information is gathered by the new vehicles about oneself. I have enough money to buy any model of Tesla, but will not due to privacy, security and safety reasons. (I consider drive by wire braking and acceleration a safety issue. With a stick shift I can insert the clutch and know that the drive system can be disabled. I also consider that the software can be modified over the air forcibly by Tesla a safety issue because it could be used for nefarious purposes.)
While the exploit that allows them to run arbitrary code is unfixable, that doesn't mean Tesla couldn't update the vehicle to make accessing these features more difficult. For example, simply not delivering chunks of FSD to unauthorized vehicles server-side.
I guess my point is: This will start an arms race. Eventually you'll need to pick between an on-network Tesla getting software updates from them, or an off-network Tesla with FSD and other things that unlocked can provide. Heated seats can likely be re-enabled electronically without software (i.e. splice in a switch).
Personally, purely from a utilitarian perspective, I wouldn't choose to use FSD that wasn't getting continuous updates because it may not include road changes, state law changes, and frankly still has a lot of room for safety/reliability improvement. Maybe "Enhanced Autopilot" ($6K) just for lane change.
PS - 9/10 of Tesla's recalls have been software updates. So you'd lose those with an off-network Tesla.
Seeing this gives me the same warm, fuzzy feeling I had when I jailbroke my first iPhone to gain features that were impossible otherwise.
I wonder if Tesla will start using physical one-shot fuse bits buried deep in hard-to-access components (eg. hardwire a heater control relay open in the final programming step at the factory) to make these type of attacks more difficult. Of course that would preclude up-selling the feature later.
I think it's all about the possibility to later upsell. I don't think the economics work out where it's cheaper to install something like a seat heater in every car and permanently disable for price discrimination purposes (the way you might for e.g. a CPU).
My brain can kind of rationalize this as "it makes the up-front price lower, and you can add features to your car without even visiting a dealer", but my heart definitely recoils at the idea of paying for something like that already in my possession.
That's very cool. Especially if this could compromise the desktop version of this tech as well. Extracting my own TPM keys could be useful if MS/GOOG decides to boil the frog even harder.
Will be interesting to see how they did it. Using low cost off the shelf parts means nothing if you have to dismantle the entire car and solder to the tiniest of points. I still remember the first Xbox mod...30+ wires attached to the smallest of points on the motherboard.
At least in France if you have a serious accident there’s a technical examination of your car. If the insurance company finds out you tampered your car software (debridage) you’re left without any coverage.
> Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry.
Popular is the wrong word. Common, maybe. But popular?
[+] [-] vessenes|2 years ago|reply
Buried in the article is the claim that this will let them pull the RSA private key the car owns out for other uses -- while this is likely to remain a very niche attack vector, that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla. On the other hand, post jailbreak you could anonymize your location on Tesla's servers, which would be nice.
[+] [-] ddalex|2 years ago|reply
I already anonymise my location on Tesla's servers by simply not owning a Tesla
[+] [-] mgiampapa|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] striking|2 years ago|reply
For the Xbox 360, the "Reset Glitch Hack" (which worked similarly) would just try over and over again until it got it right. A computer is happy to try tens or hundreds of times on your behalf.
[+] [-] judge2020|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bushbaba|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bastardoperator|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closewith|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klysm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brewtide|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FirmwareBurner|2 years ago|reply
It says in the article: "Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems."
So it's only a matter of time till Tesla patches it.
[+] [-] dhx|2 years ago|reply
Unlike a web browser where W3C AntiFraudCG folk propose that websites would blacklist all impacted AMD-SP hardware and create massive amounts of e-waste[3], Tesla likely can't do much about this attack because Tesla (not users) would be responsible for a very expensive change of vehicle hardware.
If it's not an easy-to-execute attack like faulTPM, there are more complex (but becoming more mainstream and cheaper) IC reverse engineering methods like polishing the die down to take photos of each metal layer and regenerating VHDL, FIB editing an operational IC to bypass tamper detection methods, etc[4].
A security architect of the Xbox One presented a talk[5] a few years ago which provides some good background too. Largely the Xbox One has managed to avoid piracy because they made it economically not worth anyone's time to attack due to competitive pricing models versus high cost of attack. Similar to use of Denuvo for a month or two after release of a PC game, attackers aren't going to bother if their work amounts to nothing a month later.
Hacking a Tesla to enable additional features is worth a lot of money, so the economics are quite different. It's also different economics for printer cartridges, "pay to enable more features or performance" network equipment, etc. The cost of IC reverse engineering / FIB editing attacks (or other future attack methods) will keep reducing. IC tamper detection features will get more complex. Perhaps attackers will even get an advantage once they can readily reverse engineer 3nm ICs and defenders can't do much other than implementing ever more complex and obfuscated IC tamper detection features and VHDL logic (kind of like a Denuvo situation in hardware).
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14717
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35787195
[3] https://github.com/antifraudcg/proposals/issues/19
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6390Zqca3Mg
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo
[+] [-] suction|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sirsinsalot|2 years ago|reply
Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine.
Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine.
Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple secondary markets: sorry, the BMW account you have isn't linked to this VIN. Heated seats and android auto are disabled.
Let's stop the third.
[+] [-] liendolucas|2 years ago|reply
Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
[+] [-] johnl1479|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngneer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nottorp|2 years ago|reply
Ref: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/08/steering-failures-are-t...
Apparently it's a software problem.
[+] [-] LocalH|2 years ago|reply
Good on the hackers. Good on everyone who helps to liberate us from the overreach of big business.
[+] [-] umvi|2 years ago|reply
I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it.
Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking?
But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers unlock it for everyone for free?
[+] [-] fragmede|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eschneider|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajsnigrutin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigmofo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vz8|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|2 years ago|reply
I guess my point is: This will start an arms race. Eventually you'll need to pick between an on-network Tesla getting software updates from them, or an off-network Tesla with FSD and other things that unlocked can provide. Heated seats can likely be re-enabled electronically without software (i.e. splice in a switch).
Personally, purely from a utilitarian perspective, I wouldn't choose to use FSD that wasn't getting continuous updates because it may not include road changes, state law changes, and frankly still has a lot of room for safety/reliability improvement. Maybe "Enhanced Autopilot" ($6K) just for lane change.
PS - 9/10 of Tesla's recalls have been software updates. So you'd lose those with an off-network Tesla.
[+] [-] advael|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kotaKat|2 years ago|reply
https://www.blackhat.com/us-23/briefings/schedule/index.html...
[+] [-] mrkeen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rkagerer|2 years ago|reply
I wonder if Tesla will start using physical one-shot fuse bits buried deep in hard-to-access components (eg. hardwire a heater control relay open in the final programming step at the factory) to make these type of attacks more difficult. Of course that would preclude up-selling the feature later.
[+] [-] frankus|2 years ago|reply
My brain can kind of rationalize this as "it makes the up-front price lower, and you can add features to your car without even visiting a dealer", but my heart definitely recoils at the idea of paying for something like that already in my possession.
[+] [-] no_time|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrkeen|2 years ago|reply
I think the hackers should have waited.
[1] https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/is-tesla-full-self-drivin...
[+] [-] j_walter|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccosmin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jchw|2 years ago|reply
Popular is the wrong word. Common, maybe. But popular?
[+] [-] dathos|2 years ago|reply