Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Cell Phones Disable Keys for High-End Cars

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon May 28, 2007 03:53 PM
from the fun-toys-to-exploit dept.
Geoffrey.landis writes "Turns out if you have a top-end Nissan car, your cellphone may erase your car key. '"We discovered that if the I-Key touches a cellphone, outgoing or incoming calls have the potential to alter the electronic code inside the I-Key," Nissan spokesman Kyle Bazemore said. "The car won't start and the I-Key cannot be reprogrammed."'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by creimer (824291) on Monday May 28 2007, @03:55PM (#19302333) Homepage
    I miss the days when you could open the car door with a coat hanger and hot wire the ignition.
  • Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomcircuit (938963) on Monday May 28 2007, @03:57PM (#19302353) Homepage
    The amount of electronics in modern cars is ridiculous, especially when you think about how often electronics break and how easily they're broken.

    My mom has a ford escape, there have been two wiring recalls and the wiring has failed on two separate occasions. They had to completely replace the main board!

    I can understand that putting electronics in cars seems like a good idea, but it's not.

    It's DANGEROUS!
    • The problem wasn't the wiring in the car.

      The problem was that your mom owns a Ford.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        "The problem was that your mom owns a Ford"

          Problem with your statement is that the Escape is a Mazda Tribute.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          "The problem was that your mom owns a Ford" Problem with your statement is that the Escape is a Mazda Tribute.
          Nope, no problem, because not only does Ford own a 33.39% controlling interest in Mazda, but they also co-developed the Mazda Tribute.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2007, @04:03PM (#19302403)
      The new mechanical engine in modern cars is ridiculous, especially when you think about how often mechanical engines break and how easily they're broken.

      My mom has a ford Model T, there have been engine problems and the engine has failed on two separate occasions. They had to completely replace the engine!

      I can understand that putting mechanical engines in cars seems like a good idea, but it's not.

      It's DANGEROUS!

      Think of all those poor out of work horses and buggy whip manufacturers now!
      • Bad, bad analogy! (Score:5, Informative)

        by mangu (126918) on Monday May 28 2007, @05:07PM (#19302847)
        The Model T was extremely simple, sturdy and reliable. Just to give you an idea, it didn't have a fuel pump. The tank was located above the engine, gasoline flowed down into the carburetor. There was no water pump either, water flowed through the radiator by convection. Ignition was powered by a magneto, it didn't need a battery.


        The Model T had two different clutches, one for going forward and the other for reverse. When the forward clutch wore down and started slipping under heavy loads, one turned the car around to go up a steep hill. Or, if the brakes didn't work, you could use the reverse pedal to stop the car.


        Perhaps one could say that Model Ts were so widely used because they were more reliable than horses. It's more probable that a horse would become sick and die than a Model T engine would need replacement.

        • Re:Bad, bad analogy! (Score:4, Informative)

          by smellsofbikes (890263) on Tuesday May 29 2007, @10:17AM (#19309503) Journal
          And they also got about 15,000 miles before you had to regrind all the valves because the valve seats were so soft. And they had negligible oil pressure because the oil pump, such as it was, just splashed oil up onto the main bearing ends and bottoms of the pistons, so if you did anything interesting involving lateral acceleration the engine would oil-starve and the bearings would all start galling. And because of the gravity feed fuel system, you couldn't drive up a hill forwards unless you had an absolutely full tank of gas, so you had to back up the hill.

          Yes, it was extremely simple. It was even moderately sturdy for short periods of time. But reliable? compared to modern cars that can go 100,000 miles with *no service* -- not even oil changes -- it was a fiendish monster of horror and misery.

          and, having rebuilt a couple flatheads from the 1940's, I don't want to imagine what rebuilding an engine built in 1920 would be like.
        • Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hamster Of Death (413544) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:34PM (#19302629)
          You interact with critical systems every day that rely on electronics. You probably just never sat down to think about it since they are implemented well and tested to hell and back. How often do traffic lights fail? Elevators? Medical equipment? These all have a drastically lower rate of failure than consumer electronics. The problem here isn't with electronics in cars, it's with poorly implemented electronics in cars. Manufacturers need to give their quality control teams a kick in the butt and the means for them to implement the correct solutions. However, as long as marketing runs the show we will continue to have the users as a testbed instead of technicians testing these systems before the users and time and effort will go into areas that have a bigger payoff like 'styling'.
        • Except they do... (Score:5, Informative)

          by name_already_taken (540581) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:43PM (#19302693)
          Electronic controls do not give anything that a well engineered engine does not

          Huh?

          Show me a car engine that can meet current emissions requirements without electronic controls while running on fuel that you can buy at your local gas station. You can't, because it simply isn't possible. Even diesels have computer controls these days.

          Electronic controls are an absolute requirement for gasoline engines because of the fine level of control of air/fuel mixture and ignition timing required to burn the fuel efficiently and somewhat cleanly whilst not destroying the engine in the process.

          One car I owned recently (a 1995 Chevy) had an 11:1 compression ratio and ran on 87 octane fuel (that's the lowest grade of gasoline available in most of the USA). Without electronic controls such as knock sensing, O2 sensor feedback, mass airflow measurement, and the precise control of both the quantity and timing of fuel injection and the timing of the ignition by a computer, it simply would have been impossible to reach the power level that engine developed (or even to drive at all with an 11:1 CR on 87 octane fuel without knocking holes in the pistons) and at the same time producing HC and CO emissions that were a fraction of the same size (5.7L V8) engine from ten model years earlier.

          An easy example of how electronic controls have improved the reliability of modern cars is the elimination of the ignition distributor. Pretty much all modern cars do not have distributors now, because they were such a common point of failure for ignition systems that they made cars break down due to things like worn out cap and rotor, or burned points (going back to before 1975 when electronic ignition became pretty much mandatory). Take a look at the tune-up intervals in a modern car's maintenance schedule. It used to be you'd have to change half the ignition system out every couple of years - now the whole thing is good for at least 100K miles in most cases.

          Without modern electronic engine controls, US cities would still be blanketed photochemical smog from vehicle exhaust, and people's cars would be significantly less fuel efficient and far less reliable.

          Your statement that electronic controls are not a vast improvement over the previous mechanical and vacuum controls is patently incorrect.
            • by LWATCDR (28044) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:44PM (#19303447) Homepage Journal
              Actually about twice the HP of your car. Oh and EU emission standards are lower the US standards. The US has some of the highest emission standards in the world and CA and a few other states are the at the very top. Most cars are 50 state cars so they meet those high standards.
              The US is very different from the UK. The UK isn't much bigger then a good number of states. In some places in the US distances are vast and the population is low. Ever wonder why people in the US and Australia tend to drive the same types of cars?
              Oh and my car? One is a Mazda 3 and the other a Dodge Intrepid. Both get pretty good milage. And my commute is only 14 miles each way and I carpool with my wife. I would say that you are the one that needs to get off your high horse. The US is different from the UK. I happen to like European style cars but I can tell you that they are not ideally suited to the US.
        • You wouldn't get the power and efficiency of a modern engine without the electronics which control it.
        • Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jd (1658) <imipak.yahoo@com> on Monday May 28 2007, @06:19PM (#19303277) Homepage Journal
          There's a race in England, the Brighton Run, in which cars dating no later than 1905 street-race for something like 100 miles. From what I understand, two-thirds make the distance. At Goodwood, they have some amazing historic cars which are seriously put to the test - flat-out on one of Britain's oldest (and probably most dangerous) racing circuits. So, no, I'm not the least bit surprised that a historic Ford could have its original engine and be put through its paces. Modern cars are complex systems, and no matter what technical manual says what, when you increase complexity you WILL reduce reliability. Modern cars are not designed with 100-year-warranties in mind - they are designed to be cheap and disposable. If you check, even the cars just off the assembly line and placed straight into show rooms will have rust spots (ie: not sealed correctly) and other signs of deterioration.
    • Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2007, @04:24PM (#19302559)

      I don't think it's the electronics per se, but rather the attitude creeping in from the computer industry. I've noticed it in other industries as well, such as television and phone service. Faults that wouldn't have been tolerated ten years ago are suddenly cropping up everywhere. People have become desensitised to failure with electronics because of computers. Sloppy QA because of the training/expertise/staff overlap with computers.

      And at the same time, another problem is preventing this from being solved. People put up with it. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that if somebody fucks up, you can go with a competitor. But now it's trendy to complain and then forget about it until next time something goes wrong. Shitty mobile phone reception? Moan about it, but don't ask for your money back. Crashing computer? Complain to your neighbourhood geek, but don't demand a refund. Evil dictator in charge of your country? Re-elect the fucker! When there's no consequences to providing a shitty service, that's exactly what people will give you.

    • Re:Stupid New Cars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:29PM (#19302589)
      No, crappy engineering (Ford cruise control switches, having large areas of harness "hot" even with the vehicle not running...) is dangerous.

      The public want blingful features, the public are no longer mechanically literate, and the public will not vocally insist on reliable vehicles. This creates tremendous pressure on makers to offer stupid shite at a competitive price.

      Even good features like electronically controlled automatic transmissions are often poorly engineered and are brutally expensive to replace when they fail.

      As an aside, tool prices have remained quite low, and if you are the sort of person who isn't afraid to learn you can save many thousands of dollars by doing your own work. The money you save easliy buys good equipment you can use for a lifetime.
      Never has an auto repair course at the local community college been a better value. You can free yourself from ever having to buy a new car, free yourself from being at the mercy of undertrained or unethical automobile repair outfits, and know the person who worked on your car gave a shit.
      If you can understand computers, it isn't a great leap to understand other technology, and as usual the internet can help.

    • Source? My auto mechanics textbook from college has this blurb that tries to reassure you about electronics in cars by saying "80% of problems don't stem from electronic failures."

      The electronics have given us more features and higher fuel efficiency. But still, there are times when it would be nice to make it all manual. Cars that you can't shift into neutral unless the battery is charged can be a pain to get off the road after an accident. If a wheel sensor goes bad, you ought to be able to turn them off and drive the car to a service station, instead of put-putting along at five MPH on the side of the parkway.
    • I can understand that putting electronics in cars seems like a good idea, but it's not.

      That's why I like not having any electronics in my car. Oh, wait, I think the indicators use an electronic flasher unit, but it's not like anyone else around here signals when they're turning.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:00PM (#19302371)
    A safety ad here runs the slogan (roughly translated) "Car and Cell don't mix well". It actually promotes abstaining from using your cell while driving, but in this light, it gets a whole new meaning...
  • by Hsensei (1055922) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:02PM (#19302393) Homepage
    A friend of mine his dad purchased a Honda S2000 the garage was next to the kitchen. Well when they turned on the microwave it set off the alarm. The cars' keys would always have to be next to the microwave because of the "feature". When he called Honda then told him to buy a different microwave. I fould it hilarious.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2007, @04:49PM (#19302737)
      So Honda's logic was that the microwave is not in fact compling with FCC interference regulations, like the sticker on the back says it does?

      That's not unreasonable. We usually buy the cheapest appliances, and there's virtually no testing on imports after the demo model. Since around 1995, I've seen some amazing crap inside electrical items that were supposedly UL and CSA certified.

      And really, do you want to stand beside a microwave that can trigger car alarms? Take Honda's advice on that one.
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday May 28 2007, @06:14PM (#19303241)

        So Honda's logic was that the microwave is not in fact compling with FCC interference regulations, like the sticker on the back says it does?
        Yeah, because the FCC reguires all microwave ovens to encrypt their emissions to prevent interference from confusing other devices.

        Microwave ovens emit on the largely unregulated 2.4GHz band, the fact that crap on that frequency could hork up the Honda car alarm is almost certainly Honda's fault, regardless of if the oven exceeds signal strength limits or not. Especially on a security system, otherwise they've left the car owner a big wide denial of service vulnerability.
  • Nissan should simply state, that the car owners only bought the right to use a specific version of the key, and that they'll have to buy a new car, if they ruin the old key.
  • direct Reuters link (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2007, @04:03PM (#19302405)
    How about a website without a required login?
    Nissan warns U.S. cellphones can disable car keys [reuters.com]
  • That's ok, I usually drive and use a laptop instead of a cellphone.
  • Lies... (Score:5, Funny)

    by penguinwhoflew (904673) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:09PM (#19302447) Homepage
    "The car won't start and the I-Key cannot be reprogrammed."

    Obviously it CAN be reprogrammed, or else they wouldn't have this problem to begin with.
      • And I completely ignored the issue of the cellphones rendering the key unusable. Well it doesn't necessarily have had to erased the data; some other component could fail as a result of whatever particular radiation the key is vulnerable to.
  • by ushering05401 (1086795) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:10PM (#19302449)
    IF the signature can be altered by a signal why could it not be re-alligned by another? Is the frequency somehow damaging the medium that holds the signature?

    If you expose magnetic media to random magnetic forces you lose data... but it does not destroy the medium itself.

    OTOH if you pass a Sensormatic EAS tag through an EMF it destroys the medium.

    Why would you make a key like that? What's going on here? Who's running this show?
    • by Quietust (205670) on Monday May 28 2007, @05:01PM (#19302809) Homepage
      When dealing with old-fashioned EPROMs, all bits are "1" when the ROM is erased. When you program it, some of the "1" bits go to "0" in order to represent the data you wanted to write.

      Now, it's certainly possible to change additional "1" bits into "0"s into the ROM and change the data further, but it is not possible to change a "0" into a "1" without erasing the entire EPROM (by removing it from whatever device it was in and shining ultraviolet light into window on the top of the chip).

      My guess is that something similar is happening here.
  • Only high-end cars? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jimicus (737525) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:10PM (#19302451) Homepage
    The only thing that surprises me about this is that it's taken this long and it's only high-end cars. Here in the UK, practically every car on the market for the last 10 years has an immobiliser chip of some sort built into the key. It's sold as a security measure, and the fact that it allows the manufacturer to charge you £70 (around $140) for a replacement key - £30 for the key, £40 to reprogram your car to recognise it - has nothing to do with it ;) Are things radically different in the US?

    In any case, my understanding was that with most of these, the key leaves the factory with a fixed number, no two keys have the same number and you reprogram the car to recognise the key rather than reprogramming the key to work the car. This sounds to me like a simple case of bad engineering which was never considered when the key was designed.

    The upshot is that Nissan will re-design the key so it's not affected by cell-phones, new cars will ship with the redesigned key and owners of existing cars will have to pay a small fortune to replace the keys because it's not a safety recall issue.
    • These are not your regular key with an immobilizer chip. These are "proximity" keys. You just leave them in your pocket, purse or whatever. When you turn the ignition key, the car searches around "wirelessly" for the key. Same thing for opening the doors; you push a little black button on the door handle, and if you are in possession of the key, it unlocks. The car is surprisingly careful about where you have to be in order to accomplish these things. For example, it won't let you lock your keys in th
  • by compro01 (777531) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:11PM (#19302457)
    seriously, these chipped keys are nothing but problems and it makes the keys stupidly expensive. to get another key for the ford van we have will run you $50, and that's just for the blank! cutting it is another $15. then another $5 to get it programmed if you can't do it yourself (doing it yourself requires 2 already programmed keys)

    why can't we just use a bit of properly carved metal to start the vehicle without throwing in a bunch of junk?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I have keyless entry and ignition on my car (2004 Prius) and I gotta say, I do like it a lot. When I rent cars nowadays and have to use a physical key, or even a pushbutton to unlock, it feels positively archaic and a bit annoying. I'd most likely get the feature again on my next car. They put a lot of thought into the behavior, and it basically does what you expect without you even
      thinking about it. Eventually it feels like the car just knows you.

      Sometimes it can be confusing, like if you get out of th
  • by photomonkey (987563) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:28PM (#19302583)

    This is precisely why, at least where I live, the cars you most commonly see are more than 15 years old OR are less than three years old.

    The relative simplicity of cars even from the early 1990's, nevermind the 60's and 70's, is what allows them to stay on the road so long. They're easier to work on (no super-expensive diagnostic equipment needed in most cases), the parts are made of stronger metals (steel and iron instead of aluminum and plastic) and the electrical systems are more independent of eachother than in today's cars.

    The electrical mess that is today's cars is probably the single largest contributing factor to people's desire to replace a car instead of repairing it. Electrical gremlins are one of the hardest problems to chase down in today's cars because everything is sensor this and computer that. The systems are not redundant in most cases, and the parts and skills necessary to fix the problem once its diagnosed can be cost-prohibitive.

    In an age when everyone is rightfully concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency, why are we building cars that are very complicated, have a high energy cost to produce and go straight to the junkyard, on average, in less than 10 years?

    The worst problem is that, with the exception of some of the more advanced engine control systems allowing better fuel economy, very few of these electronic 'improvements' actually make driving safer, better or more enjoyable.

    I mean, as cool as it looks to wave an electronic key and have the car start, have we gotten to the point where a mechanical lock and tumbler are too hard to turn?

    People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".

    Even hybrid gas-electric cars are based on 80+-year-old tech. Diesel-electric submarines were built and operated with very little, and early on no computer support systems.

    As with a great many things, I think it's time we take a good hard look at what we have, and attempt to simplify instead of further complicate.

    • by TrappedByMyself (861094) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:38PM (#19302663)
      People got along for more than 100 years in cars without GPS systems telling them (in some cases incorrectly) to "turn right in 300 yards".

      Perspective

      People got along for thousands of years without cars, so maybe you should consider getting rid of yours.
  • I betI know why! (Score:4, Informative)

    by kurthr (30155) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:34PM (#19302625)
    This probably only occurs with GSM cell phones. These phones use a TDMA (Time Domain Multiple Access) technique, which causes them to transmit at very high powers (2W) for short (1ms) times. Depending on the efficiency of the transmitters it's common for voltages over 20Vp-p (peak-to-peak) to be generated and transmitted to other devices.

    The capacitive coupling of an antenna to a key could then be quite good at the 1-2GHz frequencies (0.5pF @ 2GHz => 150Ohms). That's a low enough impedance to power up a device (through its protection diodes) and cause it to reprogram itself due to noise on the inputs. It could actually even fry the poor little silicon device, if it rectified the voltage got up high enough (>5V) for any length of time.

    It's not that hard a problem to prevent (put a filter on your inputs folks!), but I doubt the automotive key entry designers are normally thinking of transmitters at that power and frequency.
  • Slightly OT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Living Fractal (162153) <execyte&execyte,com> on Monday May 28 2007, @04:48PM (#19302725) Homepage
    I have noticed of late that when someone's cell phone rings in my house it's almost like a mini EMP just went off. If the phone is close to a set of speakers you can often tell before the phone even rings that there's a call incoming -- the speakers start making all sorts of noise.

    I've looked into this and I'm not the only person who has speakers/electronics that respond to cell phones this way. Are they really pumping that much juice in the signal these days or is my setup wired so that EM signals somehow translate into sound on the speakers? And how do I fix that?

    TLF
        • Re:Slightly OT (Score:4, Informative)

          by mangu (126918) on Monday May 28 2007, @08:17PM (#19303969)
          there's also something wrong with MY computer speakers


          Check your line-in. If you have nothing connected there, disable the input at the control panel.


          my clock radio


          Clock radios are usually "el-cheapo" units with very high sensitivity antenna inputs. Designed for RFI.


          my friend's speakers


          Check the input connectors. Replace old cables, use only good-quality (gold plated connectors) cables at the inputs.


          my TV


          Same as clock radios.


          and my computer monitor


          Sorry, I can't explain that one...


          Oh, and a plane's directional sensor that the Mythbusters team sat next to a phone.


          I'm an electronics engineer and have worked most of my life in aerospace equipment. Electronic equipment in airplanes are *very* sensitive, they are designed to work far away from everything. There's no sense in a directional sensor that only works inside the airport. That's why no one is allowed to use cell phones in an airplane.


          Cell phones (at least some GSM phones) cause short bursts of *massive* amounts of EM interference


          Define "*massive*". Would a trillion (or, in British units, a million million) times do? Well, it's pretty normal for inputs in electronic equipment such as radios and TV receivers to have -120 dBm sensitivity. That means one trillionth of one milliwatt. A phone with a 100mW signal has a hundred trillion times more power than the smallest threshold a radio or TV can detect.


          Cell phones are designed to have enough power to send signals through one or two concrete walls and that's all. If they were more powerful than that, their batteries wouldn't last. OTOH, radio and TV receivers are designed to detect the most feeble signals possible. The combination of a so-so transmitter in a cell phone with a non-limited sensitivity on a TV or radio is what makes RFI happen.

  • by nuggz (69912) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:48PM (#19302727) Homepage
    A base model Altima is high end?
    What exactly is a mid range car?
  • This is news? (Score:3, Informative)

    by nwbvt (768631) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:49PM (#19302731)
    I thought that was a well known danger. My father recently got a car with one of those, and it came with a warning to keep the key away from electronics like TVs. Cell phones might be more problematic since people often keep them with their keys, but if they can do it too that probably means its a rare problem (otherwise we would have heard of a lot more people getting into this kind of trouble).
  • New Owner -- G35 (Score:5, Informative)

    by alexfeig (1030762) on Monday May 28 2007, @04:59PM (#19302795)
    Just bought a 2007 Infiniti G35S and it's a beautiful car.

    Infiniti has been dealing with the problem quite well.

    This is really not as big of an issue as the press is making it out to be -- it's a very isolated issue. I keep my phone next to my Blackberry all day and haven't had any problems. On the G35 forums, maybe 3-4 people have run into the issue. All owners recieved a letter about 2 weeks ago informing us of the issue and that they would have a replacement key for us within a few months.

    Read more about it here: http://g35driver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15378 8 [g35driver.com]

  • This is why... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by whoisjoe (465549) on Monday May 28 2007, @08:30PM (#19304065) Homepage
    I picked up a 2006 Infiniti G35 (available without the Intelligent Key) instead of the '07 (which is not). I read the part of the manual about this key, and it looked so needlessly complex. I have enough problems without worrying about whether or not my key is going to malfunction.

    On a similar note, I was getting ready to store my jumper cables in the trunk (accessible only through one of three electric pushbuttons) when I realized that if the battery dies, I won't even be able to get into my trunk! What kind of crap is that?
    • by geezer nerd (1041858) on Monday May 28 2007, @09:31PM (#19304477)
      Chipped keys have been around for years. I had one for my 1999 Lexus. I think this story applies to the newer "keys" that operate by proximity, rather than by being inserted.

      With either type of chipped key, the cost of replacing the key is very high. I am reminded of an incident I witnessed about 3-4 years ago at my Lexus dealer while I was waiting for service to be finished on my car: In comes a fellow, all excited that he had just managed to buy a nice Lexus for a ridiculously low price at a police auction. (No doubt it was a vehicle confiscated from a drug dealer or something.) Trouble was, the car he bought had no key with it. He came into the dealer with the VIN hoping to get a replacement key issued. The parts man did a lot of manual searching, and catalog thumbing and told the man the cost of a new key would be $3000+! Seems not only a new key was needed, but a complete replacement of the main computer module for the car. I don't know when I have seen someone more disappointed and frustrated as the fellow who got such a good deal on the Lexus.