Chrysler vehicles can be hacked

ANY computer can be hacked...that has any kind of EXTERNAL CONNECTION...even then it can
be left exposed by getting a nasty installed via some software loaded onto it's system...it can hide
till a connection is made later...

After decades of comuter news where they report infected/hacked/etc...folks here think not hackable...AMAZING to me

Ask if anyone has anti-virus software on their computer, cell, etc....even MAC's...

Part of my amazement is that there is little difference between today's vehicles vs any
personal computer...heck even Target/IRS/etc with their $Million plus buck servers gettin
hacked...why do folks think vehicle OEMs who think "El Cheapo" for most components
would choose high end computers and software????

BillyW wrote:
I went there, downloaded the file, which is an executable that extracts an ISO. The instructions I've seen say nothing about that part. I haven't seen where they want the ISO extracted to the flash drive or how they expect you to accomplish that part. Unless someone has a suggestion, I'll either wait for their flash drive in the mail or maybe have a local dealer take care of it. In reality I'm not all that worried about my truck being digitally hijacked in the near term.

After extracting the ISO file to your hard drive, simply copy it to a blank flash drive.
Now go to your RAM and turn your ignition on. Plug in your flash drive into the USB port. It will read the ISO file and do the installation.
Takes about 15-20 minutes. It also fixes several other bugs like the backup camera jitters.
It really is easy, I did it yesterday morning.

Hopefully this helps..
Brian

Outside NA, that is not the case.
FCA cannot be hacked in Australia and New Zealand

Please note, no vehicles in Australia or any other international market outside of the USA were affected by this issue, as it is an American-only system not present in Australia l

I went there, downloaded the file, which is an executable that extracts an ISO. The instructions I've seen say nothing about that part. I haven't seen where they want the ISO extracted to the flash drive or how they expect you to accomplish that part. Unless someone has a suggestion, I'll either wait for their flash drive in the mail or maybe have a local dealer take care of it. In reality I'm not all that worried about my truck being digitally hijacked in the near term.

For those with Chrysler UConnect systems, you can download the software update from this web site and the patch fixes the latest security vulnerability. http://www.driveuconnect.com/

itguy08 wrote:

Again, they are not talking how they did it. Sure in theory all that could do it. Bu how did it happen. The fact they are not talking is interesting at the least.

If you are truly concerned, I'd contact the source. Those kind of details don't work well in news articles intended for a mass audience. The same way the technical details seldom make it in to mass media articles about Microsoft exploits. There are other avenues for that information.

There's also the point of not telling EVERYONE the method of a potentially dangerous exploit before it gets a chance to be patched.

itguy08 wrote:

Sure. But that's no different than any car on the road today. Brake lines can be loosened/cut, tires can be deflated, GPS trackers can be installed. Once anyone has physical access the game is over. It's the #1 defense in any security system. Secure physical access.

Heck, it's a long shot but I'd bet someone could take your true for a few hours each day without you even noticing it if you're like many who do not have views of the parking lot and go into work at, say 8am, lunch @12, and out at 5.

Which is why pointing out that an attack needs physical access to be viable is really pointless. Physical access is possible to almost any vehicle. Requiring a black box or OBD port access may lessen the scale of the vulnerability, but it does not lessen the danger to the individual vehicle. An exploit is an exploit and needs to be fixed.

itguy08 wrote:

You and I don't know that. I would hope that the TPMS has no capabilities to backed into the ECU. And if it does then that's a bigger issue, especially for those that use wireless sensors. Probably what they did was flood the TPMS wireless radio and used that to gain access to the ECU for reprogramming. Similarly to how they jailbreak and root iPhones and Android phones.

Seems like poor engineering if that's true, doesn't it? We know they were able to exploit those features. "How" matters from the perspective of patching it, but the end result is the same, a hacked vehicle.

itguy08 wrote:

The scary thing with the Chrysler hack is that as long as they were on the Sprint network they got VIN, IP's, and GPS coordinates for vehicles in a large geographic area. That should not be possible. That sort of stuff should be protected via SSL at the least or some sort of encryption algorithm tied to the VIN. Once I have your IP it's easy to attack it and that seems precisely what they did.

All the same information carried by OnStar, which has been hacked previously. How much are you willing to bet there isn't another lurking exploit out there in OnStar's code?

itguy08 wrote:

Yet this is the one that is getting (and I shudder at the thought) Congress to do something. So either the Onstar stuff was not that great or this is the tipping point. Take your pick.

I'll vote for tipping point. Vehicle security is going to be a huge topic over the next 5-10 years. The Chrysler attacks aren't the first, and aren't the biggest. Just the latest.

itguy08 wrote:

Nice try. Don't get me started on the security mess that is Windows and how poorly programmed that ecosystem is. Microsoft is trying but until they do a ground up re-code that ain't going to happen. That's another topic for another board. And, FYI I don't run Windows so I am concerned about security (again nice try). So rather than trying to defend poor practices, I choose to avoid them. I also don't use the excuse "they all do that".

I run Windows because I have to. So I HAVE to deal with it. We don't choose the applications, the organization's leadership does, based on organizational needs. We then choose the platform to run them. Often, that means Windows.

"They all do that" isn't the excuse. Instead, it's a demonstration that they all have problems, even when they are supposed leaders in the field. Expecting perfection from FCA when Microsoft, GM, BMW, and others have not yet achieved that is unrealistic and unfair. They ALL need to fix them. They should all be held to an equally high standard. None of them have reached that yet. Not FCA, not GM, not Toyota, not Ford.

itguy08 wrote:

GM and BMW also have poorly engineered systems. There, I said it. Doesn't change the fact that the Chrysler system seems to be the worst.

Wouldn't be an ITguy post without that final brand bash. I hope to see you chime in on future engineering and security issues with ALL brands, not just FCA.

jtallon wrote:

Nice supposition, but the second article clearly states found that they could wirelessly penetrate the same critical systems Miller and Valasek targeted using the car’s OnStar-like cellular connection, Bluetooth bugs, a rogue Android app that synched with the car’s network from the driver’s smartphone or even a malicious audio file on a CD in the car’s stereo system." Wirelessly. No black box. No physical access.

Again, they are not talking how they did it. Sure in theory all that could do it. Bu how did it happen. The fact they are not talking is interesting at the least.

Sure. But that's no different than any car on the road today. Brake lines can be loosened/cut, tires can be deflated, GPS trackers can be installed. Once anyone has physical access the game is over. It's the #1 defense in any security system. Secure physical access.

Heck, it's a long shot but I'd bet someone could take your true for a few hours each day without you even noticing it if you're like many who do not have views of the parking lot and go into work at, say 8am, lunch @12, and out at 5.

The very section you quoted stated that Scarier yet, another group took control of a car's computers through cellular telephone and Bluetooth connections, the compact disc player and even the tire pressure monitoring system. It seems unlikely that all of them started with a OBD port hack.

You and I don't know that. I would hope that the TPMS has no capabilities to backed into the ECU. And if it does then that's a bigger issue, especially for those that use wireless sensors. Probably what they did was flood the TPMS wireless radio and used that to gain access to the ECU for reprogramming. Similarly to how they jailbreak and root iPhones and Android phones.

I'd also never pop in an unknown CD, USB stick, etc. But that's me.

I'm curious as to the exact details of the exploit so we can gauge the threat. If it's through BT the threat is small as they'd have to be practically on top of me to get it to work.

The scary thing with the Chrysler hack is that as long as they were on the Sprint network they got VIN, IP's, and GPS coordinates for vehicles in a large geographic area. That should not be possible. That sort of stuff should be protected via SSL at the least or some sort of encryption algorithm tied to the VIN. Once I have your IP it's easy to attack it and that seems precisely what they did.

That's a pretty simple explanation. Notoriety. Doing something first. OnStar has already been exploited on at least a couple of occasions. There's no great fame in being the THIRD guy to do something. No one writes an article about that.

Yet this is the one that is getting (and I shudder at the thought) Congress to do something. So either the Onstar stuff was not that great or this is the tipping point. Take your pick.

And Microsoft's poor engineering with Windows, and GM's, and BMW's. But you're not concerned about security, or you'd at least be AWARE of those situations, too. You're just looking for a tool to brand bash, regardless of accuracy. It appears to be your primary contribution to this forum.

Nice try. Don't get me started on the security mess that is Windows and how poorly programmed that ecosystem is. Microsoft is trying but until they do a ground up re-code that ain't going to happen. That's another topic for another board. And, FYI I don't run Windows so I am concerned about security (again nice try). So rather than trying to defend poor practices, I choose to avoid them. I also don't use the excuse "they all do that".

GM and BMW also have poorly engineered systems. There, I said it. Doesn't change the fact that the Chrysler system seems to be the worst.

itguy08 wrote:

bwanshoom wrote:
Don't kid yourself that other car manufacturers are handling security any better.

Then why target Chrysler? Why not go after the biggest target, OnStar? OnStar has been doing this for quite a long time and offers many of the same features as Uconnect, all through the cellular vote and data networks. OnStar can remotely unlock doors, start the car, etc...

It could just be that Chrysler's system (like their vehicles) was poorly engineered.

They had to target someone first. Did you read this article? They explain exactly how the decided to target Jeep first. "Based on that study, they rated Jeep Cherokee the most hackable model. Cadillac’s Escalade and Infiniti’s Q50 didn’t fare much better; Miller and Valasek ranked them second- and third-most vulnerable."

itguy08 wrote:


It's unclear how the hack happened. If someone has physical access to your vehicle, then game over. No different than any other "hack". Installing a black box on your OBD port enables you to control 100% of the car and that's on every car made with that system. Especially if you can install custom code on it. So nobody is talking about how this hack happened. But it did happen.

Nice supposition, but the second article clearly states found that they could wirelessly penetrate the same critical systems Miller and Valasek targeted using the car’s OnStar-like cellular connection, Bluetooth bugs, a rogue Android app that synched with the car’s network from the driver’s smartphone or even a malicious audio file on a CD in the car’s stereo system." Wirelessly. No black box. No physical access.

Even requiring physical access is a poor defense. My truck sits in a parking lot all day while I'm at work. Physical access is not a difficult thing to achieve.

itguy08 wrote:

Again nobody is talking and one wonders if these hacks all start out with something connected to the OBD port? The Bluetooth thing is scary but I'd want to know a lot more about how it happened. Was it a BT dongle like we use for scanning for codes or was it through the BT Cell connection. The latter is more scary than the former.

The very section you quoted stated that Scarier yet, another group took control of a car's computers through cellular telephone and Bluetooth connections, the compact disc player and even the tire pressure monitoring system. It seems unlikely that all of them started with a OBD port hack.

itguy08 wrote:

So the question is: if OnStar was hacked first, why did the researchers pick Uconnect? It would have made a much bigger splash to single out OnStar since they have by far the largest installed base!

That's a pretty simple explanation. Notoriety. Doing something first. OnStar has already been exploited on at least a couple of occasions. There's no great fame in being the THIRD guy to do something. No one writes an article about that.

This is the FIRST major breach of the Chrysler system. That gets you publicity and exposure.

If they were looking to exploit on a mass scale to wreak havoc, maybe they would have targeted OnStar for it's larger install base. But they're researchers, looking to prove a point. So a new target is a better way to do that. And it's GOOD to expose these exploits, so they can be fixed. Just like OnStar and BMW's exploits that they patched.

itguy08 wrote:

Again, it's poor engineering on FCA's part. Par for the course with them.

And Microsoft's poor engineering with Windows, and GM's, and BMW's. But you're not concerned about security, or you'd at least be AWARE of those situations, too. You're just looking for a tool to brand bash, regardless of accuracy. It appears to be your primary contribution to this forum.

Let's look at your links...

on the DARPA link:

Although the intentionally-disguised vehicle was described by "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl as a “regular new car,” it was actually a 2009 Impala running an older version of the OnStar software, according to GM spokeswoman Deana Alicia. The automaker isn’t sure, however, if the software was modified by DARPA in any way.

It’s also not clear if DARPA hacked the vehicle over a public cellular network, or through other means, but it was apparently able to install malignant code via the OnStar connection that gave researchers control over many of the car’s functions, according to the 60 Minutes report. DARPA has not yet responded to a request from Fox News for more details on the exact method used to access the car.

It's unclear how the hack happened. If someone has physical access to your vehicle, then game over. No different than any other "hack". Installing a black box on your OBD port enables you to control 100% of the car and that's on every car made with that system. Especially if you can install custom code on it. So nobody is talking about how this hack happened. But it did happen.

From the other:

In one case, a pair of hackers manipulated two cars by plugging a laptop into a port beneath the dashboard where mechanics connect their computers to search for problems. Scarier yet, another group took control of a car's computers through cellular telephone and Bluetooth connections, the compact disc player and even the tire pressure monitoring system.

Again nobody is talking and one wonders if these hacks all start out with something connected to the OBD port? The Bluetooth thing is scary but I'd want to know a lot more about how it happened. Was it a BT dongle like we use for scanning for codes or was it through the BT Cell connection. The latter is more scary than the former.

Probably best to look at your OBD port when you get in the car. :)

So the question is: if OnStar was hacked first, why did the researchers pick Uconnect? It would have made a much bigger splash to single out OnStar since they have by far the largest installed base!

Again, it's poor engineering on FCA's part. Par for the course with them.