Forum Discussion

Tour1's avatar
Tour1
Explorer
Jul 27, 2015

Hacked jeep vs a tag axle hitch

Recently some computer hackers showed that they could invade a jeep's computer and remotely operate things, in particular the brakes. The short wheelbase jeep has an anti sway control that operates the left or right side brakes unequally to make it go straighter if it starts to do bad things. The hacker made it do a bad thing and of course if there was a mechanical or electrical problem.
The builder rates my Liberty at 2000 lbs towing without the anti sway or 5000 lbs with it factory installed. There is no dealer or home installed version.

So I am wondering if any of you have ever seen, heard of, or even thought about bolting a tag axle on to a short wheelbase tow vehicle to stabilize it and/or increase the rated tow?
The turning radius would change, I think, maybe front wheel alignment wouldneed adjustment on installation. Also since braking ability depends on tire loading, the axle would need coordinated brakes on it.

The load budget would go up by 3000 lbs so if the thing weighed 1000 it would still add a ton of tow, and it seems like the amenities increase dramaticly as trailers go over the 2000 lb mark. It would be best to have an easily dettached setup like maybe 3 or 4 reciever hitches but it would have to be proven workable first.
Tow Vehicles
  • Tour1's avatar
    Tour1
    Explorer
    Jul 28, 2015
    Sch911, I think they'll let me have any necessary cooling upgrades.
    I forgot some of the details since this idea has been stewing for a long time.
    I imagine the tag axle would have 60 psi trailer tires smaller than the vehicle's regular tires and each would have its own fender. An air bag suspension would support the tongue weight and push the vehicle nose down. The tag axle would have the receiver hitch for the trailer on it and be attached to the tow vehicle by at least 2 receiver hitches, not normal ones but one under each frame rail.
    As for the hack, I think time and corrosion will accomplish the same thing eventually. I had wacky electric issues with a Montana minivan including a speedometer that gradually re-adjusted itself while I drove in the rain.
  • n7bsn's avatar
    n7bsn
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    AndyW wrote:
    They needed prolonged physical access to CREATE their exploit. As in, a vehicle they could reverse engineer to figure out how everything worked. Once created, they could hijack ANY similar model vehicle without physical access.

    That is why this particular demonstration was novel - past vehicle hacks have all required physical access to the ACTUAL vehicle being hijacked.


    Correct, if you read the entire Wired article you will note them IDing (via the vehicle's connection to Sprint's 4G network) additional vehicles that they could exploit via the same exploit.
    These vehicles were physically remote and had never been accessed
  • AndyW's avatar
    AndyW
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    They needed prolonged physical access to CREATE their exploit. As in, a vehicle they could reverse engineer to figure out how everything worked. Once created, they could hijack ANY similar model vehicle without physical access.

    That is why this particular demonstration was novel - past vehicle hacks have all required physical access to the ACTUAL vehicle being hijacked.
  • pconroy328's avatar
    pconroy328
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    Found it:


    That’s true: Miller and Valasek had worked on their Jeep hacking exploit for over a year. “The software manipulation addressed by this recall required unique and extensive technical knowledge, prolonged physical access to a subject vehicle and extended periods of time to write code,” reads Chrysler’s statement.
  • pconroy328's avatar
    pconroy328
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    sch911 wrote:
    AndyW wrote:
    whjco wrote:
    The "hack" was performed under a set of circumstances where the hackers had direct physical access to the vehicle and would be virtually impossible to duplicate over the internet. A security update to the UConnect software is available via download or dealer installation to plug any discovered security vulnerability.


    That is false - the most recent demonstration was entirely via the internet, and they even demonstrated that they could scan for and find other vehicles susceptible to the same bug via the cellular network.

    It's an interesting read about something that is likely to get worse before it gets better:

    http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/


    Yes they did in fact spend several days with the vehicle physically enabling the exploit, before connecting to it remotely


    They talked about redoing and then uploading new uConnect firmware. While remote firmware updates are old news, I was surprised that an auto manufacturer would turn down the chance to get you back into the shop for maintenance. :)


    Physical access makes more sense.

    Do we have confirmation from them that that's how the got thru the first zero-day?
  • sch911's avatar
    sch911
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    To respond to the OP's question: Even if you could devise a hitching method with brakes, the limiting factor is the cooling system. You'll overheat before anything else on a good hot day....
  • sch911's avatar
    sch911
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    AndyW wrote:
    whjco wrote:
    The "hack" was performed under a set of circumstances where the hackers had direct physical access to the vehicle and would be virtually impossible to duplicate over the internet. A security update to the UConnect software is available via download or dealer installation to plug any discovered security vulnerability.


    That is false - the most recent demonstration was entirely via the internet, and they even demonstrated that they could scan for and find other vehicles susceptible to the same bug via the cellular network.

    It's an interesting read about something that is likely to get worse before it gets better:

    http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/


    Yes they did in fact spend several days with the vehicle physically enabling the exploit, before connecting to it remotely
  • AndyW's avatar
    AndyW
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    whjco wrote:
    The "hack" was performed under a set of circumstances where the hackers had direct physical access to the vehicle and would be virtually impossible to duplicate over the internet. A security update to the UConnect software is available via download or dealer installation to plug any discovered security vulnerability.


    That is false - the most recent demonstration was entirely via the internet, and they even demonstrated that they could scan for and find other vehicles susceptible to the same bug via the cellular network.

    It's an interesting read about something that is likely to get worse before it gets better:

    http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
  • whjco's avatar
    whjco
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    The "hack" was performed under a set of circumstances where the hackers had direct physical access to the vehicle and would be virtually impossible to duplicate over the internet. A security update to the UConnect software is available via download or dealer installation to plug any discovered security vulnerability.
  • n7bsn's avatar
    n7bsn
    Explorer
    Jul 27, 2015
    AndyW wrote:
    ... This won't fix the underlying problem of critical vehicle systems being connected to a cellular communication package (a profoundly stupid idea on the part of automakers, IMO), but welcome to the future I guess.

    It's going to take a few high profile incidents before manufacturers really address this problem, unfortunately. After all, the security researchers in question did this public demonstration for a journalist precisely because Chrysler wasn't listening to them when they said the system was insecure.


    Of course the real solution is NOT connect the Info-Tainment system (with it's 3G/4G and wifi) to the ECU.
    As you note, a dumb idea.

    Of course Chrylser LLC "not listening" has a lot to do with today's announcement of fines, forced recalls, etc.

About Travel Trailer Group

44,026 PostsLatest Activity: Feb 24, 2025