Cars are technology that were developed because humans are too damned lazy to get off our asses and walk.
Cars are technology that were developed because humans are too damned lazy to get off our asses and walk.This technology was developed because humans are to lazy to put a key in a lock and turning it was to much trouble.
This whole thing, the way the media has spun it, and agencies "investigating" it, is 100% bs.There is probably more to it than the key fob and/or either unlocking sequence....
Good move, I did that and put the fobs in the "Faraday" container. Why not? It's free and just in case, it makes sense to err on the side of safety. Besides there are only one or two naysayers while the preponderance of the evidence says that there is a credible threat. I would rather be safe than sorry.I disabled my passive entry system just in case
Its the degree of threat which can differ car...car. Worst case a fob shield AND turning off passive entry are both required.Good move, I did that and put the fobs in the "Faraday" container. Why not? It's free and just in case, it makes sense to err on the side of safety. Besides there are only one or two naysayers while the preponderance of the evidence says that there is a credible threat. I would rather be safe than sorry.
A+Since the passive entry sequence relies on the FOBIK battery to amplify the RFID signal, I wonder what would happen if you simply removed the battery from the FOBIK.
Complete 100% b.s. They have had schematics, devices and imperical data proving how this is done for over a decade.I watched the video.
It has been over a year now the "authorities" have supposedly had in their possession these devices, more than one according to the various reports. The have not figured it out? I bet I could figure it out in a few days at most if I had one of the alleged devices.
There are multiple methods to determine distance. Some extremely difficult to hack.Apparently, the frequency band normally used for passive entry cannot be used for distance measurement (between the car and the fob). I have not researched it, and I am not an RF Engineer, so can't say exactly why this would be the case.
However, It takes time for the amplifier to receive and amplify the signal.
This is fundamentally how distance measurement would work if it were implemented:
- In a scenario where the fob is really close to the car, the person touches the door handle. When the car computer detects this touch, it transmits a signal and starts measuring time. The fob receives the car signal and replies back to the car. The car computer receives the answer from the fob and stops measuring time. If the time duration is short enough, then the car computer knows that the fob is close by and therefore unlocks the door.
- In a scenario where the fob is 200 ft away, but the person has one of these fob amplifiers, the person touches the door handle. When the car computer detects this touch, it transmits a signal and starts measuring time. The signal must travel 200 ft to get to the fob. The fob replies, but the signal is too weak for the car to detect. The signal from the fob travels another 200 ft to the sensitive receiver of the black box amplifier. The amplifier receives the signal. It must finish receiving the signal before it transmits, otherwise it will drown out the signal that is it trying to receive from the fob. Once the black box amplifier has finished receiving the signal, then it can re-transmit the signal so that the car can detect it. Finally, the car computer gets the signal (after it has traveled 200 ft to the fob, 200 ft back to the transponder, read into the transponder buffer, and then retransmitted). All of this signal travel and processing takes time. Once the car computer receives the input signal, it stops measuring time. Due to the slowness of the response of the amplifier, the car computer should be able to deny entry.
NOTE: These are speed-of-light times, not human-discernible, but can be measured sensors and circuits and computers.
In actual implementation, the car could stop trying to receive the answer from the fob once the signal has had time to travel perhaps 10 or so feet round-trip, so that it would never even "listen" to an attempt from an amplifier.
So the manufacturers have known about this problem and specifics of the vulnerability for over a decade and they have done nothing to mitigate it?Complete 100% b.s. They have had schematics, devices and imperical data proving how this is done for over a decade.
100% true they absolutely know. And were presented from simple to complex, methods to reduce and in some cases make this hack almost impossible. And some changes that would make it impossible; those would just slightly alter the user experience, that technically might not be considered purely passive.So the manufacturers have known about this problem and specifics of the vulnerability for over a decade and they have done nothing to mitigate it?
Sounds like time for a class action suit.
Gotta link to all this great info?This is worthy of 60 minutes or an exposure cover up on tv. Make it happen, make it almost impossible to happen, show the costs tiny to the size of the auto behemouths in terms of parts or changes to the original fobik, not changing anything in the car, and then the date of the transfer and publication of the original papers. All on film, to the public. Then see what happens next. (Oh and loop in about a bazillion government agencies, standards bodies, regulating entities that all KNOW what really went down.)
Nobody is advocating carrying the fobs in a "spaghetti strainer" evidently you overlooked some details. The small sifter is used at home and it was small, convenient and most importantly immediately available and works 100% without fail adjacent to the car. For travels there are several convenient alternatives available on Amazon, etc., that are specifically designed to block RF, GPS, etc. These alternatives are pouches that are flat when empty.I would get rid of the cars before I would carry my key fobs around in a spaghetti strainer.
I'll answer this way Pete how's that.Gotta link to all this great info?
...or perhaps a cat burglar?So these are car burglaries, they're not stealing the cars correct?
Nice find TallCool1. This paper is the most exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of the high tech attacks. It boils down to "in this paper, we demonstrate that these attacks are both feasible and practical."I'll answer this way Pete how's that.
relay attacks on passive keyless entry - Google Search flip between list and google pics.
As far as I have seen in the media, you're correct.So these are car burglaries, they're not stealing the cars correct?