Radio Attack Lets Hackers Steal 24 Different Car Models (wired.com) 228
An anonymous reader writes from a Wired article: A group of German vehicle security researchers has released new findings about the extent of a wireless key hack, and their work ought to convince hundreds of thousands of drivers to keep their car keys next to their Pudding Pops. The Munich-based automobile club ADAC recently made public a study it had performed on dozens of cars to test a radio 'amplification attack' that silently extends the range of unwitting drivers' wireless key fobs to open cars and even start their ignitions (in German). The ADAC researchers say that 24 different vehicles from 19 different manufacturers were all vulnerable, allowing them to not only reliably unlock the target vehicles but also immediately drive them away. "This clear vulnerability in [wireless] keys facilitates the work of thieves immensely," reads the post. "The radio connection between keys and car can easily be extended over several hundred meters, regardless of whether the original key is, for example, at home or in the pocket of the owner." [...] Here's the full list of vulnerable vehicles from their findings, which focused on European models: the Audi A3, A4 and A6, BMW's 730d, Citroen's DS4 CrossBack, Ford's Galaxy and Eco-Sport, Honda's HR-V, Hyundai's Santa Fe CRDi, KIA's Optima, Lexus's RX 450h, Mazda's CX-5, MINI's Clubman, Mitsubishi's Outlander, Nissan's Qashqai and Leaf, Opel's Ampera, Range Rover's Evoque, Renault's Traffic, Ssangyong's Tivoli XDi, Subaru's Levorg, Toyota's RAV4, and Volkswagen's Golf GTD and Touran 5T.
Scary ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had this in a rental car recently, and once I figured out there was not place to put the key (never seen it before, never even occurred to me) I did wonder just how secure it was.
So, what, it just continuously broadcasts "you can start now", with no intermediate encryption or anything? There's clearly no user interaction required to start the car (I never did get used to having the "key" in my pocket to start the car), no button to push or anything.
TFA says "every second semester electronic student should be able to build such devices without any further technical instruction." That positively screams of something which was built to be cool, but with no real thought about security.
I wonder if this is something which even changes on each invocation, or if you could simply record and play back the signal ... in which case this is a pretty pathetic system.
And, once again, the security of such things is purely an afterthought when it's pointed out how trivial it is to bypass. And, once again, I say companies need to have legal liability for shit like this.
Re: (Score:3)
People have been able to use replay attacks to get into houses via garage door openers for forever. I'm surprised by the lack of strong encryption on this, but do you even need to replay? If it's just MITM as an amplifier, no intermediate decoding is needed to get in and steal belongings anyway. It's a bad design all around.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, think about it ... sit in a parking lot at an office or something, and passively collect a bunch of these things as people enter the building or something.
Instead of stealing belongings, you target a bunch of cars, come back the next day with a bunch of people, and drive off with a dozen or so cars in one go.
Why steal stuff when you can just drive off with the cars later and without needing to get the thing near eno
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think they are replay attacks. They are using MITM to amplify both sides of the conversation with the keys. The keys and car respond as if the victim is standing next to their car. Imagine a MITM HTTPS attack where the attacker didn't need to actually decrypt the data - just pass it along. So the encryption itself does nothing to protect the car.
That's not to say they can't do it with an entire office full of people, but it's not something you could do without the victim within range of your dev
Re: (Score:2)
The keys and car respond as if the victim is standing next to their car.
Doesn't the owner have to press a button, though? It'd be kinda nuts if your car unlocked and/or started everytime you walked near it, (or a window facing your driveway). Sorry, I couldn't RTFA due to some kind of pop-up, but I don't get exactly how this works.
Re: (Score:2)
The keys work via proximity (like RFID or NFC) and the iginition is a button. The door unlocks as you approach the car. And is as full of as many problems as you might imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
One nice thing is it's impossible to lock the fob in the trunk of my BMW. One day I kept closing the trunk and and the car kept opening it right back up. I was about to start swearing at the car when it occurred to me to check by briefcase. Behold, there was my fob.
If there was a app for biometric security here it is. Wireless fob paired with the owners thumb print. Of course we could just drop our fobs into a metal card file box and close the lid. Shields the RF and makes it harder to loose the fob (don't
Re: (Score:2)
It's a rolling code so you can't replay.
This attack is just making the key work from a few hundred meters instead of a few meters.
Re: (Score:2)
These are in fact "MITM as an amplifier" attacks. The key works by being within a certain range of the car - typically just a few feet. Boost that signal (both ways) enough, and the car is unlocked. The practical attack seems to be to steal a car parked on the street in front of the house/building the owner is in, as otherwise it's impractical (too many potential signals, too much amplification required).
A useful, related trick when hunting for your car in a big parking lot - you can double-triple the ra
Re: (Score:2)
These are in fact "MITM as an amplifier" attacks. The key works by being within a certain range of the car - typically just a few feet. Boost that signal (both ways) enough, and the car is unlocked. The practical attack seems to be to steal a car parked on the street in front of the house/building the owner is in, as otherwise it's impractical (too many potential signals, too much amplification required).
A useful, related trick when hunting for your car in a big parking lot - you can double-triple the range at which your remote works to lock/unlock your car to find it by pressing the remote against the side of your head.
Try raising it above your head. The benefit comes from the height not the RF properties of a human head.
Telling people to touch it to their head just get them to lift it higher.
Separate the variables. Touch the transmitter to your head, then foot and see if the range improves. Then stand on your head and touch the transmitter to your elevated foot and your ground level head. Report back with results.
Re: (Score:3)
Here you go: a physics prof demonstrates and explains the antenna effect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Sixty Symbols is a great channel for debunking commonly held physics misconceptions (whether they're right here or not).
Re: (Score:2)
His explanation is a little odd. Either the head-antenna is a more efficient isotropic antenna, so more power is being drawn from the battery, or it's creating a more directional antenna with more of the energy pointed in the direction of the car, or both.
Maybe we should fit our key fobs with Yagis.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah - the idea that the FOB is always awake surprises me. I'd have thought pressing the button would wake it up for "30 seconds" and then go back to sleep. "I did not initiate this request"
More modern ones apparently don't allow replay (aside from that hacker thing - geez). I remember years ago (1998) my VW Beetle had a reprogrammable FOB - one simply placed the key in the ignition, turned it "on" and for 30 seconds any FOB near the car with both buttons held down would be allowed future entry to the ca
Re:Scary ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It’s not a continuous broadcast. When key & car are in range, car broadcasts a challenge, and key replies. Most models only do it at door open & engine start. They don’t continuously require it since if the process failed for some reason as you’re going down the highway & the engine just cut out... Not good
There’s some rudimentary obufscation at the protocol level, and recent-ish models have a reasonable degree of replay attack prevention. This attack appears to just amplify the radio signal in both direction with a repeater near the car & the key. You’d need one person ready to drive the car away and another to get close enough to the owner.
It’s only going to be good for one use though. Unless you can steal the key or stay on top of the owner, the car won’t re-start after you turn it off. Maybe you could slip the repeater in their bag or something to buy a little more time, but it’s pretty limited. Okay if you’re planning to scrap the car for parts, not so much if you expect to be able to keep driving it or sell it off after stealing it. It doesn’t look like this attack does anything to clone the key or defeat the challenge/response between key & car. It just lets you carry out that C/R at a distance.
Honestly, I might like a set of these to enable remote start at long range on my own car.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not continuous, but on all the models I've seen, when the engine is running the key is checked quite often. If you have the engine running and then walk out wit
Re: (Score:2)
On the Honda HR-V it does appear to be polled at least every 5 seconds.
Open door, get out and walk two steps and the car is already pinging saying the key has been removed.
I haven't tried it, but I'd bet that if you passed the key out the window it would still do it that quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not continuous, but on all the models I've seen, when the engine is running the key is checked quite often. If you have the engine running and then walk out with the key, the dashboard display immediately displays a warning that the key is no longer in the vehicle. Usually if this condition persists for about 5 minutes, the engine will shut off.
TFA says that "usually" thieves drive away, even refueling while leaving the engine running, to get out of the country and be able to circumvent protections at leisure.
Re: (Score:2)
One start is plenty. It just needs to be driven somewhere out of the way, after which it can be ransacked for valuables/ID theft material at leisure. Then an accomplice can come pick it up with a tow truck/trailer to part it out, or whatever.
It means all of the suspicion-generating activity can be done out of view. No one would give a second look at someone getting into a car and driving away. Nor would they pay much attention to someone "having car trouble" taking stuff out of a car while it's being loaded
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you can steal the key or stay on top of the owner, the car won't re-start after you turn it off.
As long as you can get it to the chop shop, that's not a problem. Even if they weren't using the car merely for parts, I imagine this system could be replaced.
Re: (Score:2)
I started typing a long, in-depth reply but it's easier to just link to the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] as it covers your questions pretty thoroughly.
Pudding pops? (Score:5, Interesting)
"their work ought to convince hundreds of thousands of drivers to keep their car keys next to their Pudding Pops"
Huh? Pudding pops? What does that even mean? I thought the new Slashdot management was going to get rid of these horrible summaries that don't make any sense. Since the word is capitalized, I assume this means Jell-O Pudding Pops? The frozen snack from the 80s? They stopped making these a long, long time ago [amazon.com]. So you should keep your key fob in the freezer? How does that help?
Re:Pudding pops? (Score:5, Informative)
Freezer = faraday cage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"their work ought to convince hundreds of thousands of drivers to keep their car keys next to their Pudding Pops"
Huh? Pudding pops? What does that even mean? I thought the new Slashdot management was going to get rid of these horrible summaries that don't make any sense. Since the word is capitalized, I assume this means Jell-O Pudding Pops? The frozen snack from the 80s? They stopped making these a long, long time ago [amazon.com]. So you should keep your key fob in the freezer? How does that help?
I just assumed this was a hidden slashvertisement for a new car security service led by Bill Cosby.
Re: (Score:2)
"Huh? Pudding pops? What does that even mean?"
If you can't figure out that this means "Put your shit in a faraday cage like a freezer" then you are showing either your ignorant youth or your increasing senility.
Given your UID, I'll have to assume the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
"Huh? Pudding pops? What does that even mean?"
If you can't figure out that this means "Put your shit in a faraday cage like a freezer" then you are showing either your ignorant youth or your increasing senility.
Or you don't have a shared cultural reference that allows you to connect the dots.
Protip .. the internet doesn't end at the boarders of the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't figure out that this means "Put your shit in a faraday cage like a freezer" then you are showing either your ignorant youth or your increasing senility.
Or maybe didn't grow up in your city with your parents and your diet. What the heck is a Pudding Pop anyway? And why would you keep Pudding in a freezer. That would just make it go hard.
Re: Pudding pops? (Score:2)
And why would you keep Pudding in a freezer. That would just make it go hard.
Being put in a freezer has quite the opposite effect on me...
Re: (Score:2)
Pudding Pops were frozen snack, with Bill Cosby in their TV ads. There's a recent meme from those ads, good joke material given the recent allegations against him. Whether you're old and savvy, or young and hip, you should get the reference.
Re: (Score:2)
you should get the reference.
I don't think you quite get how localised some of the things you consider everyone should know really are.
Bill Cosby? I've never seen him in an advert. Actually I think I've seen him more in the news than in any TV show (though at least I know he was in a TV show).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing from your UID that you weren't a kid in the 80s, or weren't watching US TV programs (even those that went abroad). TV Guide called it "TV's biggest hit in the 80s".
Re: (Score:2)
TV Guide called it "TV's biggest hit in the 80s".
You know you are not going to win an argument about specialized localization if you offer up the fact that a US based company called a US TV show a big hit, from which the main US based character was advertising a US based food product.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is a US-centric site. Expect US-centric cultural references. Also, it's called "soccer", football is the US sport. :p
Re:Pudding pops? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, there's this:
Cuz, you know, Pudding Pops are frozen. And go really nicely with quaaludes, apparently [realitytvscandals.com]. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Pudding pops? What does that even mean?
I too was somewhat puzzled with that one since I didn't bother RTFA and thought it was probably something American that nobody outside the USA would know of. Some pondering of the summary led me to conclude that it was something kept in the fridge since that would block radio signals, although other comments seem to indicate that they are stored in a freezer. Same difference, one might think, but even though car keys tend to have big plastic grips there's still enough exposed metal that I'd favour the fridg
Re: Pudding pops? (Score:2)
...it was probably something American that nobody outside the USA would know of.
...or anyone inside the USA who wasn't a total fat-ass at the time; for the rest of us, well some cultural references were meant to die a healthy death.
Re: (Score:2)
They stopped making these a long, long time ago
Interesting. The disappearance of Pudding Pops coincides with the disappearance of Quaaludes. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter.
1) The text wasn't in quotes, so the author of the summary is responsible for it.
2) Even if it was in quotes, the submitter and Slashdot editors are responsible for writing summaries that make sense. That may mean putting things in their own words, rather than copy/pasting text from the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go with the fallback of "you must be new here", but, really, have you ever seen any evidence of this?
I sure as hell haven't. I'm skeptical it's even in the job description, because people have been griping about the editors as long as I've been using Slashdot.
We need to stop solving problems that don't exist. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't owned a car with keyless drive like this, you can't imagine how convenient it is to just walk up to locked car, open the door and drive away without digging out a ring of keys.
I can go days without ever taking my keys out of my coat pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, hmmm ... I wonder if the rental Jetta I just had opened the doors as well with that thing.
I'll feel like a right fool if I could have just walked up to it and opened the door instead of pulling out the fob to open the doors and then putting it back in my pocket before I got in.
Because that struck me as kind of a waste of time.
I was so baffled when I first couldn't figure out where to put the key to start the car it never even occurred to me it opened the doors as well. I spent over 5 minutes trying to
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be even more convenient if the doors had no locks at all? No need to worry about keys at all. The point of security and keys is to trade convenience for security... more the security, higher the inconvenience.
BTW, if you're at a gas station and outside the car but close enough for the car to detect the key, wouldn't this be enough for a thief to enter the car and
Re: (Score:2)
All security is inconvenient. If it's convenient it's not secure. It's really convenient to leave your front door open so that you can just walk in, it's not very secure.
Security is a trade off, you balance your convenience with your security at whatever point you feel comfortable. Does the convenience of using just a fingerprint to access your phone justify the level of security it offers? If so then use it. If not, don't. You don't get to complain that your convenient security didn't turn out to be very s
Re: (Score:2)
Our lives aren't significantly enhanced by wireless keys. Are they?
Oh yes they are. Have you not heard of the Heisenberg Shopping Principle? The one that states the key to your car is always in the pocket of the hand most heavily loaded with shopping bags?
Actually funny side story I lost my keys once. I was about to go back up to my apartment and check there but then I thought I'll see what happens if I push the start button, and sure enough the keys were under my car seat.
Not entirely a surprise, But... (Score:2)
To be honest this wasn't entirely a surprise, wireless I have to admit is very convenient thou and well as they say there's a fine balance between convenience and security. On the other hand a lot of modern cars feature systems such as OnStar which means your vehicle can be tracked or disabled by the manufacturer so they're not exactly the most ideal cars to try to steal.
And no, these keys are encrypted but the problem is they're using a "range-extender" to make make it seem like your key is right next to
timestamps (Score:3)
Solution:
(Assuming the key/car are using private/public key pairs)
You'd have to put a reasonably accurate clock in the key, and then have it encrypt and send timestamps to the vehicle using a sequence of rapidly fired request messages followed by response messages.
The car could then decrypt the messages and compare the timestamps from the sequence of messages measuring the distance between the key and the car. The clock in the key would have to have similar accuracy to a laser ranger finder.
The actual protocol would be a bit more complicated in the details, but the basics outlined above are what is needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Or just make the user press a button to actually unlock / start their car.
Which seems a fecking good idea anyway.
All this "do things from out of visual range" junk is just asking for trouble when you have to a) touch the door to open it anyway and b) touch the pedals/wheel to drive it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, most people right now need mitigation measures. I am not sure if removing the battery from the key is a good one - the design is bad enough to expect the key forgetting the data when left without power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This problem has been solved in TOF laser range finders, like the hand held ones used on golf courses. An expander chip takes the incoming analog signal and stretches it out a million times with considerable precision. The signal can then be analyzed by standard low cost and low power processors.
The challenge here is that instead of a reflecting laser, you have the call/process/response in the equation. That process time will be orders of magnitude larger than the signal traversal. So, you'd have to hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The processing times of the ASICs in the car and the key would have to be extremely well calibrated with very low clock drift tolerances. Crypto would all have to be out of band, with some kind of signature exchange at the end of the process to validate the message chain.
Good luck with the patent.
Add a secure lock mode (Score:3)
They could add a secure lock mode, where if you affirmatively press the lock button on the keyfob, the car will require an affirmative unlock press on the keyfob and not unlock based on the "presence" of the keyfob.
I also wonder why they couldn't have some means of shutting off the radio in the keyfob so it didn't produce a signal that could be relayed to the car. Maybe a motion sensor in the keyfob that when it wasn't moved for a period of time would shut off its radio completely until enough movement woke it up.
Re: (Score:2)
They could add a secure lock mode, where if you affirmatively press the lock button on the keyfob, the car will require an affirmative unlock press on the keyfob and not unlock based on the "presence" of the keyfob.
Reminds me of a convertible we owned. One press on the key locked the car. A second press on the key locked the lock so you couldn't just reach over the window through the open roof and unlock the door.
IOW: Your garage door opener is more secure?!? (Score:2)
Years ago you could open your neighbour garage door with a radio transceiver and a tape recorder. Today you can't because all of them use ROLLING CODES.
Does this mean car FOBs don't use rolling codes?!?!
Re: (Score:2)
"Today you can't because all of them use ROLLING CODES."
Wrong! Cars now days have the means to tune into the rolling code transmission (this is how newer cars have the ability to 'program' them with your garage door's rolling code, so you can open your garage door by pressing a button on your steering wheel or whenever the car detects it is getting near your home.)
So good my '82 UAZ is completely keyless... (Score:4, Funny)
And then, you need to know how to drive it, be strong enough to actually do that, and a good reason to steal a pile of soviet-era rust. It is a very good city car.
and if it happens to your rental discover will not (Score:2)
and if it happens to your rental discover will not cover you. That will be 22K
They may or may not of used a hack to take the car but as a renter you will be on the hook if they fail to update there car software.
http://elliott.org/should-i-ta... [elliott.org]
Incentive to improve security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do car makers really have good incentives to fix their security?
Not really, since they can sell a new car paid by the insurance company when someones car gets stolen. The only downside is negative reporting - but that can be fixed by massive ad-campaigns; just look at VAG, they are running ads like crazy in Europe right now, but they have dropped their tag-line "vorsprung durch technik" (lead by technology). I guess they don't want to use the new and improved tag-line "vorsprung durch betrug" (lead by cheating).
The whole wireless key fob thing is a pure convenience thing that when it fails becomes extremely inconvenient because convenience is security's biggest enemy. I can't understand that people would accept that their car have no physical security to speak of since it is quite a huge investment for many people.
The only mitigation I can think of if you still want the convenience of a wholly wireless key fob is that they introduce a check for max latency for the key-challenge response which is like 27 picoseconds(?) for a 4 meter radius not including the electronics internal response time. This means of course that the timing of the key exchange must be wholly deterministic.
It hate it when . . . (Score:2)
. . . my car starts in German.
OK, can we stop calling them hackers? (Score:2)
No tesla (Score:2)
Needs two factor authentication (Score:5, Funny)
This could be solved by two factor authentication. Not only would the key fob transmit a radio signal, but you would also need a metallic dongle with uniquely coded grooves that when inserted into a specialized slot would engage a mechanical door release mechanism.
Auto systems security is terrible (Score:3)
That'll teach you (Score:2)
While I'm on the subject, any car that has any sort of wireless systems built into it needs to have a hardwired switch you use to turn OFF the transceivers completely, so the car is isolated and can't be hacked into wirelessly.
My Nissan (Score:2)
back in the days security was pathetic (Score:2)
That is in 1960s/1970s can easily use a slim-jim or a coat hanger (bent with small hook), stick inside door at window line, push down and up until the hook grabs the mechanism and the door lock button pops up. I remember when a friend left keys in car, called a locksmith and arrived on scene, 5 seconds later unlocked the car with a slim-jim. His reaction, "well why in the hell even lock the car in the first place!!!" Then can easily hot wire the car by reaching under and digging up the wires. For column key
tin foil time (Score:2)
So, to defeat this attack, keep the key in a Faraday cage.
Maybe inside my foil-lined wallet next to my NFC cards, then.
NO LINKS TO WIRED.COM! (Score:2)
Happened to a co-worker (Score:2)
Lexus of some sort, it was a car, not an RX wagon.
Parked at McDonald's in Miami, a white van pulls up, not a minute later a guy from the van pops the door with his hand and just drives away. Security camera recorded it.
Car was found later, no signs of forced entry.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why analog is still better, but I'm sure there will be people on here who will give excuses for why we absolutely, positively, without exception MUST go digital.
Because . . . digital.
Re: (Score:2)
Analog car remotes were subject to much more trivial replay attacks. Of course those at least required you to know when the owner was pressing a button. Once you're in the car, you can steal it if it's an older car without computer-based security.
Re: (Score:2)
Analog car remotes were subject to much more trivial replay attacks.
My analog is an actual key in the actual ignition switch.
I have a 2001 Honda Civic Ex and 2002 Honda CR-V Ex and have only ever used the remote entry fobs occasionally and don't usually even carry it -- them -- with me. I like to keep my keys hooked on my belt loop and stuffed into my back pocket and the remote fobs are simply too big - and unnecessary if you have the key.
I don't have key-less start - yet (it's becoming inevitable) . While I can understand the perceived appeal -- especially to the man
Re: (Score:2)
analog signal != physical objects
The same remotes are also used for keyless entry and not just keyless ignition. I do think keyless ignition is a mistake, at least in its current form.
Re: (Score:2)
Try educating yourself. Digital is just discrete analog.
All signals are prone to reamplification attacks.
Re:Did anyone not see this as a dumb idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, I need to go... car shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 2015 Mazda3, and it's the same. It works by having multiple transceivers mounted around the vehicle: one on each front door, one on the hatch door, and one (maybe two) inside the passenger compartment. It can tell where the key is that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't notice. I have a Mazda too, and if you leave the engine running as you leave the car (with the key in your pocket), it beeps loudly and annoyingly, just like your Toyota and Subaru (though not "constantly", it beeps for several seconds as you walk away). You'd have to be deaf to miss it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On top of which, when was the last time the batteries in a $2 mechanical key died?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only reliable way I know of to do a distance check using radio is to time a signal/response loop, but at the distances we're talking about here, processing time in the fob is probably the majority of it and if that's not precisely predictable it doesn't help much.
For example, at 300m the speed-of-light round trip time is about two microseconds, so if the time it takes the fob to accept, process, and respond to the signal has more than 2 microseconds of variation the car can't tell if it's far off or jus
Re: (Score:2)
Stick shift. So that eliminates some thieves right there. Manual choke. Most thieves were not alive when one had to know how to start a car with one of these.
And if I want to be really nasty, I'll disable the electric starter and use the crank handle that fits into the crank pulley (yes, my truck has one of these).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Insurance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automatic vehicles exist but not in significant numbers. Companies like Hertz laugh their asses off by hiring them out to US visitors for a small fortune.
I'm British but live in the US with a US driving license. When I go to Europe and rent from Hertz, they will bump me over to an automatic, assuming I made a mistake when I asked for a manual. So they aren't getting any more money out of me, but they do get to give me horrible cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cars in Europe are stick shift...
I thought Europeans were more interested in fuel economy, since fuel taxes are so high there. Automatics get better fuel economy than manuals in all new cars now.
Nope (Score:2)
Automatics get better fuel economy than manuals in all new cars now.
Sounds good. The only problem: it's not true. Granted, the efficiency of non-manual transmissions (traditional automatics, CVTs, automated manual transmission , etc.) has improved greatly, and in some cases it's better than manual transmissions, but from what I've seen from shopping for small cars, manual transmissions are still a bit more fuel efficient on average.
I won't post a ton of links, but your statement only requires a single counterexample to disprove, so here's one: the Hyundai Accent [hyundaiusa.com].
Re: Nope (Score:2)
but from what I've seen from shopping for small cars, manual transmissions are still a bit more fuel efficient on average.
You're misinterpreting the data; you're seeing manual transmissions on smaller, more fuel-efficient cars [that typically ship with manual transmissions]... but they're not more fuel efficient because they're manual...
Re: (Score:2)
but from what I've seen from shopping for small cars, manual transmissions are still a bit more fuel efficient on average.
You're misinterpreting the data; you're seeing manual transmissions on smaller, more fuel-efficient cars [that typically ship with manual transmissions]... but they're not more fuel efficient because they're manual...
Fuel efficiency of a manual transmission primarily depends on the driver's ability to use the manual transmission. The reason why a manual transmission will always be more efficient than an automatic transmission (until we have a fully autonomous vehicle that can do the same thing) is that a driver brings a situational awareness to the use of gearing that an automatic transmission has no ability to account for.
For instance, automatic transmissions do not gear down (engine brake) when going down a hill; n
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Insurance (Score:5, Funny)
But do not fear. For just $5USD a month, we can install a package on your vehicle that will detect the theft, drive the vehicle to the nearest police station, lock the doors, tune the radio to celinedion.24_7.com, and turn the volume up to 135dB. You can contact us at www.makethebastardspay.com
Re: (Score:3)
No, they don't. The keys passively send out signals without user interaction, probably in response to a signal sent out by the car which has a bigger battery than the key. In either case, if you have a keyless car, the car communicates with the key without user interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the so-called "keyless" entry system where mere presence of the key-device is considered enough to open the doors and start the car.
All they are doing is extending that "probe" range artificially so the key thinks it's near the car and the car thinks the key (and thus the driver) are near too.
It's one of the incredibly STUPID ideas that I actively removed from the list of options on a new vehicle that I was offered recently, for precisely this reason. If you have the traditional "press a button to
Re: (Score:2)
The amplification attack introduces a detectable latency in the keyfob's response due to the time required to process and relay the communication.
That's only true if they are demodulating and remodulating the data. If they are simply up-converting / down-converting the RF signals using mixers and local oscillators, the additional latency probably isn't detectable without complex and expensive circuitry at the car end, and extremely consistent processing delays in the key itself.