Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by BLKMGK (#49475575) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

Benghazi doesn't bother me overmuch although it does sound like the situation was pretty confused and that security sucked but I don't think the person who isn't making daily decisions about it should be crucified for it. Was there some spinning? Probably. But I'm not convinced of malice, stupidity perhaps. Clinton Foundation - something I have also not researched but have heard rumblings that make me squirm a bit. Now the email server too? It smells and it smells badly of someone trying to hide something. Taken along with everything else to include Whitewater and files mysteriously showing up just after statute of limitations and I simply refuse to buy into this person as someone I want running this country. I'm also not thrilled at all that she's married to an ex-president and I couldn't care less if he's a Dem or a Repub, I think it is a bad precedent. Bad enough we've had father and son! Will I vote Republican instead? Almost certainly not unless they find a sane person to run and I'm not holding my breath. This next election cycle is going to really suck I fear :(

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by BLKMGK (#49475565) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

As I stated, it was the bottom link I read and I think it's pretty reaching for a newspaper to think they can simply ask for and receive correspondence. When the legal system or Congress asks for it however that's a different matter.

I have zero doubt that officials occasionally use personal email accounts to discuss things they shouldn't - it's stupid. That is a long ways off from setting up your own server, doing it intentionally and solely on that server, and then DESTROYING anything in that account! Sorry Hillary but as soon as you made that server your "business account" you no longer get to say what is and isn't record copy. If you or I had done something so stupid I have little doubt we'd be charged and convicted of something. I don't trust someone who thinks they're so far above the law as to flaunt requests like that, as a lawyer she knows better.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by BLKMGK (#49475527) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

As said below - if you or I had destroyed "evidence" like that we'd be screwed so bad it wouldn't be funny. If you think it was no big deal she kept a private email server and then destroyed email off of it after receiving notification that she was to turn over emails then it's you who are crazy. This woman has enough skeletons on the past to make me wary but this? Oh hell no, last straw. If you think the Dems can dismiss votes so easily then you may be in for a rude awakening. I hope like hell she isn't on the ticket!

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 3, Insightful) 676

by BLKMGK (#49460547) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

She's a LAWYER, she was ordered to turn over emails, she had a "neutral" 3rd party decide what to turn over, then trashed the rest. She knew what she was doing looked shady and she kept her own server for exactly the reason of wanting to make sure no one could see what she didn't want them to see. Shady from the word go on this one, that single act alone cost her my vote for sure. If she makes it as far as public debate I cannot wait to see her drilled for this. Want private emails? Sure, use your own server but OFFICIAL emails shouldn't be mixed. If she thought this was okay, as a lawyer, when official email services were available, then I'm sorry she's too stupid for my vote in that case either.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by BLKMGK (#49460465) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

I only read the last one of those. Newspaper asking for internal emails is a good bit different than a judge ordering a Govt. official to turn over emails. emails not stored on a Govt. server. I see exactly no reason why a Govt. official would have an issue turning down a newspaper requesting internal emails. I have ZERO issue with Govt. officials using "private email", I have massive issues with them doing it for official business. Particularly on a server they physically control. Especially when they decide what to turn over after a court order and then DESTROY the rest. If this is the best the Democrats can bring forth they're in a world of hurt from my perspective. She's a lawyer, she knows better than to do that kind of crap.

Comment: Re:Hell No Hillary (Score 1) 676

by BLKMGK (#49460329) Attached to: Hillary Clinton Declares 2016 Democratic Presidential Bid

I lean Democrat because I think the Repubs are batshit crazy. I voted for Obama 2x and I don't think he's done a bad job despite the crap the Repubs have been pulling since day one. But Hillary? I'm sorry but I can't do it. The last straw for me was her running her own server, having someone supposedly neutral decide what was pertinent, and then destroying everything else. Now, maybe she's just lily white like fresh driven snow and ever so innocent but this smells bad, really really bad to me. It gives the appearance of someone hiding something. She had official Govt run services made available to her and she sidestepped them. Nope Nope Nope, not going to touch this candidate. There's been enough controversy around her that I could more or less shake off but this tears it for me. I'm also not so thrilled that she's married to someone who's already been president. Bad enough we've done Father and Son but spouses? Lets pretty please get some fresh blood into the race?

Comment: Re:Offsite (Score 3, Informative) 443

Truecrypt volume on an external drive kept in a Tupperware container in a safety deposit box that's a duplicate of the one you keep at home in a safe. It's not an Italian Job I'd be worried about it would be someone in authority deciding they needed to have a peek. Chances of a fire at the bank AND at the home at the same time are pretty far fetched. Can sub friend's home for safety deposit box easily enough and maybe even do an exchange but use a locked box so said friend doesn't decide to use it to store his p0rn!

Comment: Re:Overblown Hyperbole (Score 1) 107

by BLKMGK (#49238697) Attached to: Lawsuit Claims Major Automakers Have Failed To Guard Against Hackers

Some of the hacks that claim to be done wirelessly have relied on reprogramming entertainment firmware, others simply flooding the bus as you've surmised. The OBDII port is but one way into the bus, any device on the bus offers access to this bus to include some surprisingly easy to access places. It's a shared network, nothing knows that these signals from from the OBDII port. Rate limiting WILL call for more processing, something has to count packets and have smarts - you've added another computer to the bus it seems.

I don't think you're going to get a light on the dash for diag mode, how would that work? For one thing you're going to complicate diagnostics and end up having to build in new interfaces or replace existing diagnostics - yuck. If they can get in past a locked door, they can get into the glovebox. I'm not such a special snowflake that anyone is trying either of these.

An interface between the OBDII and the bus might slow some of this but it may also screw with diagnostics, it's an interesting idea but it will also increase cost in an industry that tries to shave pennies off of a production run :(

As for controllability - I can make thermite at home if I want and I can use the same BT interface you're slapping into an OBDII port for a controller to light the stuff. You're not buying any real safety but you DO make things more complicated. Oh and yes I do drive with an interface plugged in, sometimes BT, more often wired. I'm not concerned that someone will interface with it - seriously. I would remove it if I were, the OEMs aren't offering that sort of access to the system from the factory.

Bottom line - why are we so much more worried about this when the capability to do all sorts of wicked things exists already right now at the local hardware store? Why does cyber make it more scary?

Comment: Re:Classless action. (Score 1) 107

by BLKMGK (#49238651) Attached to: Lawsuit Claims Major Automakers Have Failed To Guard Against Hackers

OnStar has apparently got the ability to disable some cars, for it to have this "safety feature" it's going to have to have capability. I'm not a fan of OnStar for many many reasons but this is a feature so I can't bitch about it too much - you can however find the silly cell modem and remove it. The car will probably squeal like a stuck pig for your having done so...

Comment: Re:Overblown Hyperbole (Score 1) 107

by BLKMGK (#49238639) Attached to: Lawsuit Claims Major Automakers Have Failed To Guard Against Hackers

Umm no, I sat in the talk where this was presented and while they did tear that Prius a new ass diving into the dashboard they never claimed to be faking out the ABS sensors and they mentioned the ABS pump making hellacious noises - which is what occurs when you bleed the silly thing. Overwhelm the CAN bus with data signals telling the pump to bleed and it will try...

BTW - I have a faulty ABS sensor on one of my cars right now thanks to the Winter slush slopping all over it and screwing with the tone ring. Light came on the dash, ABS no workie. Having repaired this system before I can tell you that a toasted ABS sensor is no big deal. having incorrect data from one however will trigger traction control, stability management, or anti-lock. It ain't hard to flood the CAN bus with signals like that either - so what? All of this stuff requires physical access to the bus or reprogramming something to allow signals from the entertainment center to be bled over on those cars that have both on the bus.

Comment: Re:Overblown Hyperbole (Score 1) 107

by BLKMGK (#49230759) Attached to: Lawsuit Claims Major Automakers Have Failed To Guard Against Hackers

Scenario - you lock your car up for the night, I roll up with a hacksaw blade, roll under your car, and nick the fuel line next to the exhaust manifold slightly. Rolling down the freeway the next day whoosh, you go up like the Challenger.

Scenario - you lock your car up for the night, I roll up with a hacksaw blade, roll under your car, nick a brake line. Rolling down the freeway the next day and whooops - you have no brakes.

Scenario - you lock your car for the night, I roll up with a small BT device connected to a piece of constructed thermite and a small battery pack. I attach this to your fuel line with a zip tie. Rolling down the freeway I trigger it. Whoosh - you look like a Roman Candle.

Scenario - you lock up your car for the night. I roll up with a small BT device connected to a piece of constructed thermite and a small battery pack. I attach this to your power steering line with a zip tie. Rolling down the road at speed the next day I trigger it as you go into a turn. Whoops - you haz no steering!

Maybe the thermite works better on the gas tank? I can use some JBWeld to stick it on or magnets if you have a metal shield on your plastic tank, maybe I strap it to the filler neck?

I can do this all day long with scenario after scenario. This boogyman remote hack stuff is utter shit and this lawsuit will do NOTHING but make life harder for those of us who actually know how to turn a wrench and go exactly zippy for the dumbasses who're screaming like chicken little!

Comment: Re:Overblown Hyperbole (Score 2) 107

by BLKMGK (#49230719) Attached to: Lawsuit Claims Major Automakers Have Failed To Guard Against Hackers

The control systems ARE isolated with firewalls, the hacks that have been demonstrated - to my knowledge - have removed those. What exactly does "hardening the OBDII port" mean? You realize that locking that down will prevent diagnostic and home use tools form working right? Rate limiting? The signals that have been demonstrated to disable brakes were standard brake diagnostic signals recorded from using a standard tool, it wasn't abnormal. Filtering is already done by the entertainment systems on stuff I'm aware of - it's being removed to demonstrate "hacks". How much processing do you want your ABS, steering, and door locks to do exactly? IMO they have more important functions to attend to than acting like Fort Knox from imagined threats. 5mins with a hacksaw blade and I can make sure you lose your brakes or steering, maybe catch the car on fire. Why aren't we armor guarding any of those hoses exactly? Why does "cyber" automatically mean it's a higher threat?

"You stay here, Audrey -- this is between me and the vegetable!" -- Seymour, from _Little Shop Of Horrors_

Working...