Nope.
AFAIK, you can’t reflash any of those things wirelessly.
It has to be a chip that can be reprogrammed. While newer products such as DVD players may be programmable the components in them are not much different than earlier electronics that were not programmable.
It’s different for cars because the only things that can be done remotely are those things that are specifically programmed into the system. Remote Ignition Block and Stolen Vehicle Slowdown are two of those things, which can be helpful in mitigating a theft situation. General operation of the vehicle can not be done remotely, and reprogramming the system can not be done remotely. Accessed remotely is a long, long way from altered remotely.
We use the term “computers” for the microprocessors used in automotive electronic control systems, but they’re nothing like PC’s. The idea of a “virus” is not applicable here. It reminds me of the days approaching the year 2000, when some were claiming cars would stop running because of the Y2K problem. The thinking, as far as it went (which wasn’t very far), was that Y2K would affect computers, and cars had computers, so it would affect cars, right? WRONG! It’s apples and oranges, the use of the word “computer” notwithstanding. There was nothing in automotive computers that was date-dependent, and there’s nothing in automotive computers that’s virus-susceptible. It’s a laughably impossible notion.
It sounds like he was thinking of what might happen if he yanked the E-brake, and picturing it fishtailing.
Or to any embedded system other than a phone (or something similar which is meant to have new apps downloaded to it).
I find it a laughable notion that a presidential limousine would include OnStar. This is a vehicle that features sophisticated communications and a trained staff of drivers and other attendants.
I happen to design embedded systems for a living. I don’t however have any knowledge of how GM does their thing though. I do mostly industrial controls. I don’t work in automotive.
That said, from poking around on the net it looks like most (if not all) of the “computers” (or more accurately, embedded controllers) in GM vehicles do talk to each other over sort of a can-bus type of thing called GMLAN. It looks like it is possible to do a firmware update to the ECU over the GMLAN. Presumably, a tech would just connect something to the ODB-II port and tell the thing to flash the ECU.
If (and this is a big if) the onstar communication unit has enough control over the GMLAN then it could theoretically update the firmware in the ECU with whatever malicious code was desired.
This would require a lot of insider info about how onstar, GMLAN, and that particular ECU worked though. A hacker from the outside would likely not be able to figure out enough to make it work.
However, theoretically, if the hacker had enough insider info, I think maybe it could work. I don’t know enough technical details to say for certain, but my guess is that it is theoretically possible, just not very likely to ever happen.
That said, the presidential limo isn’t an off the shelf Joe Average type of car. It’s a custom built one-off. I’m sure the details of its exact construction are classified, but, like Mr. Moto, I seriously doubt that it has the same old standard onstar on it that your typical GM customer gets. According to Wikipedia it doesn’t even have the standard engine and drive train for a Cadillac limo.
To make the limo “secure” from a communications standpoint all they would need to do is disconnect the part of onstar that connects to the GMLAN. If your radio can’t reach the bus, you can’t send any commands to the computers, plain and simple. There’s no reason to rip out all of the controls and re-engineer old fashioned carburetors for it.
But even the Batmobile has OnStar. I remember the commercials.
Can I ask a bit more about this? What about computations for gas mileage and last time the oil was changed? I realize gas mileage would be dependent on just distance and volume of gas consumed, but I thought some cars had a “over the last 30 days” or some other calculation. I’m not trying to imply the cars would suddenly stop working, I’m just wondering if cars really know nothing about dates in the central processing units.
“Last 30 days” is a duration - it has nothing to do with a date.
Bolding mine.
Oh I would. And I’d leave myself a back door into the program and give it a ridiculously easy password, like the name of my only son that died, and then get fed up with society and move to an island near Seattle so I’d be the first to die in case of a nuclear missile attack from the Russkies.
Back to the caburetor issue/question, and being somewhat technical…it’s not a matter of carburetion or fuel injection because each requires physical movement of linkage. The only difference is that a late model FI car has an electronic inteface between the pedal and the FI unit atop the engine. If one really wanted to spend the time doing so (don’t know why) one could control a carburetor with the same electronically activated linkage arrangment you find on late-model fuel injected cars. Wouldn’t function very well, but the linkage could be activated.
They really don’t. Some information displays let you program a date in, but that’s just for your convenience, like a clock. The computer doesn’t know and doesn’t care what the date is.
As beowulff pointed out, elapsed time is a different animal. I’m not sure if any cars have such a calculation, but if they do all that would be required for it is a clock. We humans can calculate a span of days more quickly with a calendar than by counting seconds or hours, but a computer doesn’t need that crutch. So again, there’s no need at all for it to know the date.
Yep, exactly.
I’m not aware of this capability existing, though I’m sure it’s possible to achieve. I would presume there would be some pretty stiff protection against hacking if it were realized (though as you point out, this system has nowhere near the vulnerability of PC’s).
Some cars have this (drive by wire throttle), but it’s quite a minority at this time.
I could almost say for sure that automobile ECUs are not firmware upgradable at all. These units are what you call ‘hardened’, meaning they must continuously function in a semi-harsh environment. Upgradability takes a huge backseat to reliability. And having the ECU’s circuits be completely non-volatile goes a long way towards reliability. We’ve had PCs for 20+ years now and think about what a crap-shoot flashing their BIOS still is!
And the current Toyota problem is NOT a problem with their car’s computers, its simply with the pedal sensors and/or throttle servo. The gas pedal position isn’t sent to the computer so that the computer can ‘interpret’ & resend the signal to move the throttle ‘better’. This would not only be unsafe, but ridiculously unnecessary! Its a car, not an F-16! The relationship between pedal and throttle is a simple one-to-one position ratio (technically the ECU does get sent the gas pedal’s position (the TPS) but this is used for other, more complex things like optimal shifting and cruise control).
So what reason would there ever be to upgrade a car’s computer? None. Car’s don’t ever have to encounter new ‘software’ or even new (as in radically different) hardware for that matter. So rather than make them upgradable they instead test them rigorously before putting them into production.
Hot rodders sometimes ‘chip’ their cars and it means exactly that. They replace a chip in the car’s computer to increase performance (usually not by much) at the expense of lower fuel economy and dirtier emissions.
I personally have a 2004 Chevy Malibu that has had at least three firmware updates applied when I went in for warranty work. Two for the ECU and one for the Body Control Computer. So it definitely happens.
I can’t speak for the Prez’ limo, but when I worked for Diplomatic Security in the 80s, there were two types of armored Caddys: Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) and Fully Armored Vehicles (FAVs). The fully armored cars were armored at a plant in Germany, with the doors alone weighing in at about 300 pounds. The armoring alone cost over $100K back in the 80s, and the Cadilacs were an older 70s body style that GM had to tool up for whenever one was ordered. The reason for the older body style is that it was easier to armor than the newer models. I’m sure that the Prez FAV is one expensive monkey.
I know with absolute certainty that they are.
Actually, on drive-by-wire throttle that is what’s done. For example, the driver may mash the pedal to the floor. The ECU now knows that full acceleration is desired, but it may also be that a somewhat more gradual opening of the throttle actually gives better acceleration than suddenly opening it wide. In this case, the computer can move it better.
No, the TPS communicates the throttle’s position, just as its name (Throttle Position Sensor) suggests. On cars with mechanical throttle linkage, there’s no need to also monitor the pedal position. On cars with drive-by-wire throttle, there will be a separate pedal position sensor.
Solving various driveability, emissions, and customer satisfaction problems. There have been lots of TSB’s with software updates/reflashes for various cars for various reasons.