Dutch Researchers Show Connected Cars Can Be Cheaply Tracked (ieee.org) 25
schwit1 writes to point out an experiment undertaken on the campus of the Netherlands' University of Twente, in which two wireless sensing stations were able to cheaply pinpoint a target vehicle equipped with "smart" V2X systems nearly half the time, and track it (albeit less precisely) even more, according to Jonathan Petit, Principal Scientist at software security company Security Innovation.
"You can build a real-time tracking system using off-the-shelf devices with minimum sophistication," says Petit. In a paper to be presented at the Black Hat Europe security conference in November, he describes being able to place a security vehicle within either the residential or the business zones of the campus with 78 percent accuracy, and even locate it on individual roads 40 percent of the time.
The tracking here was accomplished by listening for transmissions emitted over using 802.11p at 5.9 GHz. Says the article:
Petit is now working with Ford, GM, and other carmakers to develop strategies to help secure connected cars. One interesting finding from his experiment was that a Manhattan-style grid of roads makes it difficult for potential attackers because there are more connections between the intersections. "This raises the idea of privacy-enhancing road networks, where cities are designed with the concept of privacy at their core," he says.
the Uncertainty Principle (Score:2)
Privacy-enhancing road networks (Score:5, Interesting)
New privacy violating technologies come along every few years. Road network layouts last centuries. It would be very foolish to let privacy-attack-of-the-day heavily influence your road layouts.
Re: (Score:2)
The cellphone traffic is also encrypted, so good luck coming up with a list of IMEI numbers.
The list of frequencies used is public information, like every radio spectrum license.
Re: (Score:3)
detect the presence of police vehicles in the near vicinity
Detect clouds of powdered sugar?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We used to have a 'sacrifice' driver when we left the bar. Someone, sober, would often stumble out to the road, fumble for his keys, and then weave down the road. When the cops followed him, we took off. It's a bit low-tech but it worked rather well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, don't let the sober guy drive you home. Use him so you can all drink and drive. Brilliant!
Obviously they were already drunk when they came up with the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wise in the way of drunk thinking. We wouldn't have all fit in his car! Ah, man... Those were the days. Heh, I no longer drink. Thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You don't snoop traffic at local stations...you go to the local donut shop.
Here in Edmonton, one of the radio stations ran a contest, where you would phone in, then they would tell you the address of a Tim Hortons, you guess if there are cops there, they phone and ask, and you win if you guess right. Everyone would guess yes, most of the time they were right, and then the station got the hint that they shouldn't be running the contest anymore.
Tracking: The raison d'etre of V2V (Score:2)
You don't need fancy communications networks to do any of the "driver safety" things V2V koolaid drinkers are talking about. They are already being done better and cheaper today in production vehicles with sensors that never have to rely on other vehicles or things equipped with working transmitters.
Technology has already been leap-frogged and made redundant by advances in computing/CV.
"V2X" is now just a massive waste of time and money to enrich industry and serve as yet another ridiculous excuse to evisc
Re: (Score:2)
What you say about driver safety could also be said about surveillance : why use V2X when you have cameras and computing/CV?
Sensors and communications can work together, both for safety and for surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say about driver safety could also be said about surveillance : why use V2X when you have cameras and computing/CV? Sensors and communications can work together, both for safety and for surveillance.
The only communication worth a damn WRT vehicle safety is what actually occurs in the real world. In-vehicle RF transmission is an unnecessary liability in that compelling use cases simply don't exist. It can all be done with sensors that don't depend on the actions of others for proper operation.
For surveillance RF can be passively monitored from great distances with little cost or effort. Yes you can do the same with magnetometers, optical sensors and constellations of spy satellites in low earth orbit
Re: (Score:2)
Right... We did a V2V experiment in 2012 where we measured road friction in corners using the ABS sensors from production vehicles. That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood.
This is worthless in the real world because friction varies by vehicle and path.
That was V2V because we announced the maximum safe speed to cars in the neighborhood. CV won't notice that, and if you're driving too fast for the corner your own sensors will detect the danger only when you're actually on the slippery patch - too late.
Infrared sensors have been demonstrated to detect the presence of ice, snow and water on roadways.
Most driver carry a beacon already (Score:2)
Nearly everyone I know carries a personal beacon which broadcasts an uniquely identifiable signature every few seconds. I suppose this is for the people who took the batteries out of their phones before going to the tin foil hat store.
No way, really? (Score:2)
An internet-connected device can be tracked? Wow, who knew?
Seriously, does this come as a surprise to anyone? It shouldn't.
Just like aircraft & ADS-B (Score:2)
Large commercial aircraft have to have a transponder that transmits (among other things) their height, bearing, speed and position. Each one has a unique identifier (ICAO24 hex code). All aircraft will be required to be equipped with these things after 2020. You can track them with a home mode aerial, a Raspberry Pi & a DVB-T dongle, using SDR. It's all broadcast in the clear (it has to be - the logistics of making sure everyone has keys for decryption would be a nightmare).
Don't see the significance here... (Score:1)
"However, there is nothing to stop anyone else from also tuning in to the messages using a wireless ‘sniffing station’."
Yeah, we all pretty much knew this. Also, maybe the guy should try three stations instead of two, which is basically what people found out what worked best eons ago. Yawn.