Polish Hackers Repaired Trains the Manufacturer Artificially Bricked. Now The Train Company Is Threatening Them (404media.co) 221
Hackers unbricked a train in Poland that had been deliberately disabled by its manufacturer. Now the manufacturer is threatening legal action against the hackers despite evidence it sabotaged the trains. From a report: The manufacturer is also now demanding that the repaired trains immediately be removed from service because they have been "hacked," and thus might now be unsafe, a claim they also cannot substantiate.
The situation is a heavy machinery example of something that happens across most categories of electronics, from phones, laptops, health devices, and wearables to tractors and, apparently, trains. In this case, NEWAG, the manufacturer of the Impuls family of trains, put code in the train's control systems that prevented them from running if a GPS tracker detected that it spent a certain number of days in an independent repair company's maintenance center, and also prevented it from running if certain components had been replaced without a manufacturer-approved serial number.
This anti-repair mechanism is called "parts pairing," and is a common frustration for farmers who want to repair their John Deere tractors without authorization from the company. It's also used by Apple to prevent independent repair of iPhones.
The situation is a heavy machinery example of something that happens across most categories of electronics, from phones, laptops, health devices, and wearables to tractors and, apparently, trains. In this case, NEWAG, the manufacturer of the Impuls family of trains, put code in the train's control systems that prevented them from running if a GPS tracker detected that it spent a certain number of days in an independent repair company's maintenance center, and also prevented it from running if certain components had been replaced without a manufacturer-approved serial number.
This anti-repair mechanism is called "parts pairing," and is a common frustration for farmers who want to repair their John Deere tractors without authorization from the company. It's also used by Apple to prevent independent repair of iPhones.
This is what happens (Score:4, Insightful)
When you let capitalism run amok and not properly regulate it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I do agree that capitalism needs to be regulated because often the market takes more than a lifetime to react to abuse,
In this case it's a problem of over regulation.
Without regulation the manufacturer of the train would not be able to do anything but fume
Because of some inappropriate regulations they have a voice over what people do after their items are sold.
In a truly free market, where suppliers enter the market to address a need and buyers can leave a supplier for a new supplier with better features or prices, there would be absolutely no need for government regulation to prevent parts pairing to block repair. In a free market, a new supplier would arise that would offer a product without blocked repair, buyers would favor that supplier, and that type of "feature" would disappear on its own.
However, these markets are not truly free because there are impediments to the entry of new suppliers. In this case, the ramp-up to building a train is too great for most potential new suppliers. And incumbent suppliers have the same motivation to preserve the consumer-unfriendly features. In this type of constrained market, government regulation is the only practical recourse.
This is sort of the way that Christensen's disruptive technologies arise. However, in a constrained market, disruptive technologies that arise from the bottom are not possible.
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
There still has to be regulation within a free market. An honest person will never be able to compete against a dishonest person and without regulation and proper enforcement the dishonest people will quickly take over the whole thing. That's where we are right now. The regulations exist they just stopped enforcing them about 20 years ago. Now there aren't enough jails for the monster that's grown out of that.
Re: (Score:2)
The regulations exist they just stopped enforcing them about 20 years ago. Now there aren't enough jails for the monster that's grown out of that.
Plenty of profits grew out of that for lawmakers to enrich themselves with instead.
Hence why they became deaf and dumb to the concept of "monopoly", giving birth to entities so large they're simply Too Big for the regulation known as Failure.
Ironic that jails became for-profit centers of investment.
Re: (Score:3)
There still has to be regulation within a free market. An honest person will never be able to compete against a dishonest person and without regulation and proper enforcement the dishonest people will quickly take over the whole thing. That's where we are right now. The regulations exist they just stopped enforcing them about 20 years ago. Now there aren't enough jails for the monster that's grown out of that.
This.
A truly laissez-faire market is always going to operate on the honour system simply because no-one has the authority to watch over it. So any honest merchant will be taken out by dishonest ones, essentially it will always end in a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
In a truly free market, where suppliers enter the market to address a need and buyers can leave a supplier for a new supplier with better features or prices, there would be absolutely no need for government regulation to prevent parts pairing to block repair. In a free market, a new supplier would arise that would offer a product without blocked repair, buyers would favor that supplier, and that type of "feature" would disappear on its own.
However, these markets are not truly free because there are impediments to the entry of new suppliers. In this case, the ramp-up to building a train is too great for most potential new suppliers. And incumbent suppliers have the same motivation to preserve the consumer-unfriendly features. In this type of constrained market, government regulation is the only practical recourse.
This is sort of the way that Christensen's disruptive technologies arise. However, in a constrained market, disruptive technologies that arise from the bottom are not possible.
Couldn't a case be made that copywrite, itself a regulation, is what allowed this situation to develop in the first place? Without copywrite, the manufacturer has no legal basis with which to even threaten the hackers. So I'm not sure regulations to fix what other regulations already broke is a functional solution.
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Perfect is the enemy of functional, useful, & appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that people use terms incorrectly is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The GP is right. There is no such thing as a truly free market, because a market free from regulation is not free from influence unequal competition.
A true free market is an inverted pendulum. It is inherently unstable. Without any system in place to keep it balanced (regulations, thus not a free market) the market tends to a stable state dominated by monopolies (who have power to prevent competition, thus not a free market)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Its worth noting Adam Smith was an adamant advocate of regulating markets because he thought unrestrained capitalism would be harmful to workers, consumers, and society.
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
If Smith imagined a free market, he recoiled in horror. He pointed out in his famous work that regulation was an essential part of keeping the market healthy and that that regulation was absolutely the job of government.
He also admonished that corporate charters be handed out exceedingly sparingly and only when in the public interest and no other solution would work. He further admonished that such corporations be kept strictly to their charter and closely watched. The economic dystopia we have today bears little resemblance to anything Smith had in mind.
Under Smith, we would have no corporations that make light bulbs, jet engines, medical equipment, and finance all in one.
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Informative)
In a truly free market, where suppliers enter the market to address a need and buyers can leave a supplier for a new supplier with better features or prices, there would be absolutely no need for government regulation to prevent parts pairing to block repair. In a free market, a new supplier would arise that would offer a product without blocked repair, buyers would favor that supplier, and that type of "feature" would disappear on its own.
At first I thought you were living in a Libertarian / Randian fantasy - I recognize it because I used to live there too. But then I read:
However, these markets are not truly free because there are impediments to the entry of new suppliers. In this case, the ramp-up to building a train is too great for most potential new suppliers. And incumbent suppliers have the same motivation to preserve the consumer-unfriendly features. In this type of constrained market, government regulation is the only practical recourse.
Now I'm confused. In my experience, people who talk about a "truly free market" usually imagine that such a thing is possible; yet you seem to realize and admit that it's not possible, and that government regulation is therefore necessary.
IMO any market that starts out free, very quickly ends up being abusive and coercive because of greed. As a species we are fundamentally competitive and WILL cheat to gain a survival and/or status advantage. And the 'corrective force' of people not buying from an abusive company is a hopelessly slow, coarse, fickle mechanism. And that doesn't even account for various types of collusion which tend to thwart any efforts on the part of buyers to bring companies into line.
If you believe a truly free market isn't possible, why mention it? And if you believe it IS possible, how would you go about implementing it?
Re: (Score:3)
People talk about a truly free market but no one defines it, just the idealism where they can do X thing with no foresight into the rest of it. People shouldn't talk about a truly free market because they don't know what that means or what it would look like, and by definition nothing is free, free doesn't exist. You might be in a country where you say you have free speech. It's not really free, it's regulated and protected so that you CAN say your opinion. That's not lack of regulation, that's regulation p
Re: (Score:3)
A "truly free" market is a logical contradiction.
If there is no government regulation, then monopolies will control the market. They will have enough wealth to block new suppliers (or whatever) from entering the market, and thus the market is not "truly free" (nor "free" in any sense, as it will be completely controlled by the monopoly).
If there is government regulation, then the market does not qualify as "truly free."
In either case, "truly free" is an imaginary ideal that can't exist in the real world.
Re: (Score:3)
Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976 legitimizing software copyrights passed the year after microsoft started.
Re: (Score:2)
In a free market, the product with blocked repair will be cheaper up front than the one without in order to get people to purchase it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is what happens (Score:4, Funny)
>In a truly free market, where suppliers enter the market to address a need and buyers can leave a supplier for a new supplier with better features or prices, there would be absolutely no need for government regulation to prevent parts pairing to block repair.
Wrong. In a truly free market there would be only one supplier and no other supplier would be allowed by the current supplier. They would be crushed. Any attempt to repair any device outside the suppliers supply chain would result in that device no longer working, your warranty void, and the contract requiring the device be delivered back to the supplier, with the additional clause that they can come get it if they want. Device part pairing would be the norm.
Now what?
Re: (Score:3)
No, in a free market you cannot control a monopoly. The natural state of a totally free market with no regulations is towards monopolies and trusts, newly arriving competitors have zero chance of success. History has shown this happening many times. Anyone still believing that laissez-faire economics is fair is relying upon beliefs that verge on the religious.
Re: (Score:3)
What regulation are you claiming is allowing the manufacturer to decide who can repair their trains?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Google Right to Repair Laws for information on the general issue being discussed. If you're being pedantic and think you're winning an argument because we don't have access to a specific Polish case that isn't publicly available... then I guess you won. I'm not sure what you won though.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, at least in the U.S. is corporations being allowed to abuse copyright for things that are not properly the subject of copyright in the first place. No idea what's going on in Poland.
Re: This is what happens (Score:4, Informative)
I have no idea what you're rambling about.
I'm for Right to Repair and I'm for anyone that is too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they can try to make their product harder to hack, consuming a lot of time and money and in the end charging their customers.
There should be regulation, preferably sending the directors to jail, for intentionally making something more difficult to repair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trademark is only IP law that I agree with it protects customers from being fooled, basically don't lie. The copyright and patents the net effect of damaging consumers, the initial intent may have been noble but result is not mess that serves mainly to protect the wealthy that can afford to buy and defend these things in court.
What regulation [Re: This is what happens] (Score:4, Interesting)
What regulation are you claiming is allowing the manufacturer to decide who can repair their trains?
In this case, The Office of Rail Transport.
From the article [404media.co]:
“Hacking IT systems is a violation of many legal provisions and a threat to railway traffic safety,” NEWAG added. “...We also notified the Office of Rail Transport about this so that it could decide to withdraw from service the sets subjected to the activities of unknown hackers.”
Re: (Score:3)
So wait, NEWAG, a private corporation, is claiming that The Office of Rail Transport (IE The government) is some how unauthorized to make changes to their own IT systems?
Hacking in it self is not illegal, it is the unauthorized access, which does not appear to be the case here as the government is not going after these "hackers" and in fact paid them to do the work. Also since the trains are working again, who do you think the Polish government is going to side with?
Re:What regulation [Re: This is what happens] (Score:5, Informative)
So wait, NEWAG, a private corporation, is claiming that The Office of Rail Transport (IE The government) is some how unauthorized to make changes to their own IT systems?
What?
NEWAG, a private corporation, is claiming to the Office of Rail Transport (i.e., the government) that safety regulations that they enforce make it illegal to unbrick the trains.
Re: This is what happens (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, what would prevent them from building in parts-pairing in the absence of regulations?
Re: This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that to be true, even if the DMCA was revoked, what would keep them from building in parts-pairing?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
*with* regulation the manufacturer of the train wouldn't have been able to brick them in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong with GOOD regulation the manufacturer of the train wouldn't have been able to brick them in the first place.
The problem there is bad regulation that stops you fixing your own stuff, or allows companies to legally prevent you. There is nothing wrong regulation the problem is it can be both good and bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I do agree that capitalism needs to be regulated because often the market takes more than a lifetime to react to abuse,
Errr no. Capitalism needs to be regulated because the stable state of capitalism is one where the market has an inability to react or prevent abuse. All unregulated capitalism tends towards monopolies, and maximising profit at the expense of the consumer.
You're confusing capitalism (free market) with the concept of a perfect market (capable of reacting to abuse through means of limitless competition). A perfect market necessitates regulation to keep it perfect.
Re: (Score:3)
When you let capitalism run amok and not properly regulate it.
(Every DRM Pimp) "Ah, technically we laid it out clearly for you, conveyed in our finest legalese brogue, as per regulation. Right there on page 274 of the EULA you agreed to."
"Wait, what do you mean you didn't read it?"
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like these hackers are proving you wrong. Now it's government's job to step in and defend the manufacturer's abusive behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This is what happens (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much "running amok" as "allowing it to progress too far".
Capitalism is a restraining system on the natural law that is described in biblical terms as "he who has plenty will have more given to him, while he who has little will have everything taken away from him". Capitalism limits this process to economic realm only from full spectrum combat that this is in nature.
Capitalism is the best system we have when it's in the middle stages. When combat has been restrained to economic sector, and competition is cutthroat in every field between multiple providers. Capitalism is at its worst when it reaches the logical endpoint, where enough parties in every competition have fallen to "zero", the point from which they cannot recover and are removed as a competitive factor. Leading to rapid monopolization, and all the problems that come with aforementioned natural law.
So regulation must be in place to ensure that competition in every sector and every field remains viable and doesn't fall to zero. Capitalism is the epitome of a progressive ideology, in that it must be progressing to be successful, and never allowed to reach the endpoint. It's what sets it apart from most human-made artificial ideologies like communism (as opposed to natural law based ones), which are awful in their progression stage, while claiming to be utopian in their endgame that no one can ever reach because of just how utterly destructive the progression part is.
Re: This is what happens (Score:2)
Fraud isn't capitalism.
And yes if you include things like this on purpose to make competiton look bad because you lost the service bid thats what it is, the tender most certainly didn't include provision to make it unservicable by a 3rd party
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulation is required in order to protect the freedom of the market.
It is logically impossible for there to be a truly free market (as in, no government regulation at all). In very short time a few monopolies will emerge, and they will be able to use their superior market position to prevent competitors from entering the market (no government regulation is needed to erect barriers to entry like this, as they can lock all the potential suppliers into exclusive contracts, temporarily sell at a loss in areas where competitors spring up, illegally damage the storefronts of new competitors, and many other tricks that seem obvious once listed). Then the market is the opposite of free; it is completely controlled by the monopoly. We have seen this play out in history, and it is awful.
Government regulation is the only means of halting anticompetitive behavior. There is no other way! It IS true that government regulation can also make things a whole lot worse. The regulation needs to be the right regulation. But examples of bad regulation are no evidence that the market would be better off with no regulation at all.
What I am saying here is not controversial. This is a very basic principle of capitalism and has been discussed by all of the historically famous economists, including Adam Smith. This is simply the way it is.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Though it helps if we also state the correct terms. What people often consider a "free" market is actually in economics referred to as a "perfect" market - perfect competition, free for any company to enter and leave, free for consumers to decide where to spend their money.
Your definition of free markets are correct. Governments regulate free markets in an attempt to create perfect markets because free markets are a complete disaster. People need to start using the term perfect market if that's what t
Ok (Score:2)
And all of these train operator/owners aren't immediately filing a class action lawsuit against NEWAG....because why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:4, Funny)
The only thing more ridiculous would be a tantrum over people unbricking their own* property.
*did not RTFA, but I expect so since they're the ones paying for repairs
Re: (Score:2)
Bricking anything is wasteful. Although military and law enforcement justifications do exist. Bricking a train on the tracks in the middle of nowhere though?! That's a lot of waste to brick.
Re: (Score:2)
Bricking anything is wasteful. Although military and law enforcement justifications do exist. Bricking a train on the tracks in the middle of nowhere though?! That's a lot of waste to brick.
Uh, that's not JUST a "waste" sitting on the train tracks.
That failure could represent a longer set of "bricks" meant to create a chain reaction that disrupts transport to and from entire areas, potentially cutting off critical/key supplies near the "right" place at the wrong time.
Doing something like that is akin to an auto manufacturer who makes hospital ambulances remotely shutting them off by disabling the transmission because "certified" service is due. Or else.
Any citizen caught doing any of the abo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Hence the question of why aren't the owners of these trains suing the ever-living fuck out of the manufacturer? I know I would be. I would be making NEWAG pay for all maintenance costs related to figuring out these fake problems, lost profits due to the trains being bricked, as well as removal, or permanent disabling, of these bogus DRM systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also the risk of alienating the manufacturers.
Manufacturer - singular, in this instance. As far as we all are aware, as of this article, none of the other train manufacturers in Poland (there is at least 3 others) are accused of such action. So, why would anyone give a flying fuck about alienating this one? Alienate them until they fix their shit or go out of business. They aren't important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand in poland the main operator it's PKP. They are holding the knife by the handle, because they can simply refuse to make business with them.
Is it really used by Apple? Not so sure. (Score:4, Informative)
This anti-repair mechanism is called "parts pairing," and is a common frustration for farmers who want to repair their John Deere tractors without authorization from the company. It's also used by Apple to prevent independent repair of iPhones.
Me - Took nephew's iPhone 13 to UBreakIFix, a national chain of computer/phone repair shops. Them - Replaced broken screen on said iPhone. iPhone worked like a champ afterward. Maybe Apple did that kind of thing in the past, but I just don't know about claiming they still do that. The price was far lower than what Apple wanted to fix it so I'm not sure at all that they used Apple parts, but it worked fine after they repaired it. It's still good like 8 months later.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be because the repair game is always something of a "whack a mole". IE the independent repair places regularly figure out ways to bypass the restrictions, then the companies update the restrictions.
Personally, if I was Poland I'd pass some sort of law saying that what the hackers did is fully authorized, that what the company did was illegal*, and that the company is to be fined for every day the train is out or some such.
*I know, post ip facto, but if they're nasty enough...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the 13 is from before they started being really nasty about it...
Re: (Score:2)
Screens generally being one of the parts you can't (or would be extremely difficult to) pair so, your specific example and experience isn't relevant. Apple (still) does it for internal components - the charging port, battery, etc.
Re: Is it really used by Apple? Not so sure. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Apple did that kind of thing in the past, but I just don't know about claiming they still do that.
Apple absolutely still do that. Have you been in a coma during the congressional inquiry into the topic? The only reason your phone was able to be repaired by UBreakIFix is because Apple has specifically sanctioned that company to repair a phone and provided them with screens, ... at twice the cost of what they used to be. They are even listed specifically on Apple's website.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can use https://support.apple.com/repa... [apple.com] to check if have access to Apple genuine parts and repair resources. UBreakIFix is in that Apple's list. iPhone would complain if it doesn't have genuine parts. I did that with two old iPhone 6+s' swollen batteries and a touch screen (broke during its battery replacement when I tested my fixed iPhone).
Re: (Score:2)
This person told what happened when they took their device for repair. They were not defending Apple. So you calling them a fanboy is just douchey. Typical /. ASPY/ADHD BS.
If you're going to act this way, your opinion means nothing.
Old locomotives never used software (Score:2)
Drone+hellfire missile+manufacturer=solved (Score:2)
Story is so outrageously unbelievable it has to be true.
Alternatives included but are not limited to: snipers at board meeting, ied in named parking spot, good old fashioned baseball bat to the skull.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better would be for the (presumably state-owned) rail company to lobby the Polish government to pass right-to-repair laws for trains that ban manufacturers from doing this stuff and forces them to share all the stuff needed for the independent repair shops to repair the trains.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the mature answer. I'm still thinking baseball bat. Much more satisfying and "justice" oriented.
This is terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)
this sh#% has to stop (Score:3)
Not just Deere (Score:3)
VW does the same thing with their batteries. Cost me a small fortune to replace my battery because it "had to be paired".
Re: (Score:2)
Polish law? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Debate is not pointless: if the law is lacking, human beings who don't live in a dystopia should be able to fall back on common sense.
Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like the manufacturer may have made false claims about there being a malfunction. If they did this purely based on GPS readings, this really sounds like they have no way to defend against claims that they were doing intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. That could very well be considered fraud in a court. Especially if they didn't mention any of that in their contracts.
They are now denying that they ever had this software in [theregister.com].
Sounds like it's time for police to investigate this matter. If they committed fraud in the order of millions of value (as train maintenance can be) then that sound like some people may end up in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the article, the train didn't come up with a message saying "Unauthorised Repair". Instead it stopped working and the manufacturer claimed it was because of malpractice by the independent workshop. So they had installed "break the train and blame the workshop" code, which looks like straight-forward criminal deception to me.
Who onws the trains? (Score:2)
If its the city and not the Manufacturer, they can fuck right off. It's not their property and they have no say.
Re: This carries passengers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This carries passengers (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you get on a plane if they hacked the control systems to get past some issue with the manufacturer?
Airplanes are serviced by employees of the airline, not the manufacturer, and we still get on them. I'm not sure your example holds, especially in light of the fact that the systems on these trains had explicit GPS locations for competitor's repair shops in them. This isn't about safety, this is about locking in repair revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you get on a plane if they hacked the control systems to get past some issue with the manufacturer?
If all they did was re-enable hardware that was bricked? Absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you get on a plane if they hacked the control systems to get past some issue with the manufacturer?
If all they did was re-enable hardware that was bricked? Absolutely.
They re-enabled the train, but that doesn't certify the repairs done by the service company are ok
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But (In the US anyway) there's a certification process the airplane service company goes through, wherein the manufacturer vouches that the servicer knows what they are doing. The maintenance company in question was not authorized by the manufacturer to perform the maintenance, ergo would likely not possess the documentation or training required to do the work up to the manufacturers standards. To continue the analogy, over here if a Delta plane did a nose-dive, and Delta were found to have knowingly used
Re: (Score:2)
Would you get on a car if they hacked the control systems to get past some issue with the manufacturer?
you're damn right I would... Hell, lots of people hack their own cars to get functionality outside what the manufacturer intended - whether that be getting more horsepower, or bypassing the stupid heated seats subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But those third parties are qualified and certified, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd think folks would want these things to be safe and reliable.
Of course. That doesn't give the rent-seeking manuifacturer the right to put malware in the trains to brick them if they spend time at a competitor's repair shop.
Obviously the owner of the train has the moral right to remove the malware.