Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Security Software

Tesla Can Detect Aftermarket Hacks Designed To Defeat EV Performance Paywalls (thedrive.com) 209

Posted by BeauHD from the right-to-modify dept.
As recently highlighted by a Tesla Model 3 owner on Reddit, your connected car knows when you've hacked it, and it might be logging that data to use against you in a future warranty claim. The Drive reports: The image you see above is a warning message popped up on the man's Model 3 infotainment screen after he installed the latest over-the-air OS update from Tesla a couple weeks ago. Prior to the update, he had also added an aftermarket module from an outfit called Ingenext that allows the dual-motor Model 3 to achieve its quickest 0-60 mph time without Tesla's requisite $2,000 "Acceleration Boost" option. Its presence didn't trigger a warning prior to the software update, and though the car still drove normally, the owner couldn't get the display to clear. Ingenext is a Canadian company focused on activating the latent performance and comfort features baked-in to Tesla vehicles. One particular modification developed by the company is called "Boost 50," a $1,458 upgrade which claims to shave up to a half-second off the zero-to-60 MPH time when installed in a Model 3 equipped with dual motors but not the performance option.
[...]
Ingenext's founder Guillaume Andre told The Drive that he feared Tesla could use the detection of aftermarket parts to justify blocking vehicles from using the Supercharger network and make customers "a prisoner of the Tesla system". The owner of the Model 3 that began getting the pop-ups told us that he planned to visit a Tesla Supercharger to ensure normal functionality, but has not yet reported the results of his findings. [...] Ingenext got to working on finding just how Tesla detected its "undetectable" mod. After some prodding, it was determined that the vehicle had used a separate communications network to detect the presence of the module and ultimately determined that a second small hardware module could be installed to combat the detection. Ingenext dubbed its fix the "Nice Try Module" and has already begun shipping it to customers.

The Tesla community is torn on this matter. Some argue that owners who purchased the module knew the risk of not going through the official channels, akin to using a cheat code to unlock a DLC upgrade in a video game. Others bring up the very valid point of right to repair -- but does that also include right to modify? After all, you do own the vehicles you spent upwards of $40,000 on. Nearly every enthusiast-focused vehicle has an off-the-shelf tune of some sort that can be purchased. Ingenext says that this is only the beginning of a fight that it anticipates will be an uphill battle, if not for it, than for all aftermarket companies who develop performance mods for Teslas.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Can Detect Aftermarket Hacks Designed To Defeat EV Performance Paywalls More

Tesla Can Detect Aftermarket Hacks Designed To Defeat EV Performance Paywalls

Comments Filter:

  • Quite a few pieces of software I'm using have the ability to detect if they're running a version I modified and report it back. My banking software warns me all the time that my phone is rooted and therefore "less secure", etc.

    And these checks are not years old, they are decades old - there were dos games that could do it.

    Why don't we get a slashdot headline for every instance, what makes this one special?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      All to easy. They have a record of the state you purchased 'THEIR' vehicle in. On the first update, they check the state of the software, if it differs in configuration from the original, they set the change in display. Technically upon that basis you can sue them for vandalism, it spoils the appearance of your home screen and invasion of privacy. Install a hack, set the vehicle to no longer allow updates, if it requires another hack get it. Contact your local representative and demand full access to the so

      • Technically upon that basis you can sue them for vandalism, it spoils the appearance of your home screen and invasion of privacy.

        Good luck, dreamer, if you think you can sue and win against a corporation that has a paper value of 300b. Or "demand" anything from them.

      • Would you try these "demands" of Ford or Toyota, or just reserve all this outrage and purple piss for Tesla? And do you think your demands would be met from literally any automotive manufacturer, ever?

        I think we all know the answer already.

    • DOS games were written by third party publishers, who were independent from the company that wrote the operating system, which was independent from the company that wrote the BIOS, which was independent from the company that manufactured the hardware for the PC.

      now imagine one company does all of that, and it also makes the games.

      you are beginning the path of turning the automobile industry from a PC style ecosystem into a Console style ecosystem.

      now consoles are great..... but they are terrible for innovat

    • 1. because Tesla
      2. because misplaced outrage
      3. because the provider of the mod fucking lies on their page saying it's undetectable remotely, when that clearly is horseshit:

      IMPACT ON THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY

      The Boost 50 module is undetectable remotely. However, when visiting a Service Center or when a technician visits your home, it is recommended that you remove the device beforehand. Installation and removal takes only a few minutes. Any purchaser or user of the Boost 50 module releases Technologies Ingenext and all its related companies from any responsibility regarding the full or partial validity of the manufacturer's warranty following the use of this equipment. We are not responsible for any modifications the manufacturer could do to your car (ex: turning off some features etc.).

    • It is special insofar as we are talking about a car here, not a 'pure' software product. Cars are sold, software is licensed under a contract. Now those two legally distinct concepts are merging in interesting ways. For modifying cars we have an established legal framework in most industrial countries: Usually the after-market parts have to be certified to conform to certain standards, and there are general regulations as to what constitutes a roadworthy vehicle. Within these limitations the manufacturer up

  • This will be an important fightEveryt (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @10:20PM (#60486602) Homepage Journal

    So many pieces of hardware are coming out with the "software as a service" mentality that it's going to be a huge fight in the future between vendor control and consumer freedom. Where software is forcing you to pay extra for access to features the hardware is already capable of, then I have a severe problem. Everyone thinks RMS is a zealot, but this is the real fight for freedom that we are all going to have. Manufacturers have been waiting for the technology for "hardware as a service" forever, and Tesla is championing this right now.

    This will not get solved without consumer protection laws. Now is the time to have that fight, before too many other people are on the bandwagon and lobbying to keep government out of their cash cows.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CaptQuark ( 2706165 )
      This fight was lost long ago with the cable companies. Modifying your cable box or using a third-party filter to receive premium pay channels was deemed "Theft of services". The argument that the signals were already in your house and you were just looking at the signals in a unique way didn't absolve the person for theft of services. Another example of theft of services might be using a blue box to make long distance calls on a pay phone. (1960s) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      This issue is similar

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Twinbee ( 767046 )
      It's not a "service" if it's a one off fee to buy the hardware upgrade.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      Winning is still losing. If it's not legal to put all the bells and whistles in and then switch them off, then manufacturers will stop putting those capabilities in the hardware unless they're paid for up front. Otherwise they're just handing you a heavily wrapped package and expecting you not to open it.

      In no case do I see this outcome being to the benefit of the end user. Heads they win, tails you lose.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by asylumx ( 881307 )
        Isn't that how it works with every other car on the market?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          It's not the car model they're employing, it's the IBM AS/400 model. Put two processors on the backplane but only enable one. When the client needed more speed, a tech hooked up the second processor by adding or removing a jumper wire. If this functionality was never purchased, then the second processor might just end up used as a "fix" to extend the service life if the first one fails -- just jumper it up a little different. Yes, people could do this hack themselves, and many did once the cost of a service

  • In a word.... No (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @10:32PM (#60486656)
    Yes, we should have right-to-repair and right-to-modify. However, for some reason people think that this should also include "freedom-from-consequences". No. No. No. No. and No again. Here's a hard dose of reality - libertarian freedoms cut BOTH WAYS. "Right to repair and modify" DOES NOT MEAN "I should be able to do whatever I want with my product and afterwards I can force the company to cater to my every whim and bail me out no matter how badly I fricked things up".

    When you purchased your Tesla/iDevice/tractor/car/toaster/pizza, the company spelled-out certain guarantees and/or levels of service at certain levels of cost. Here's the deal: YOU DO NOT GET TO DICTATE THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. The company offers the terms at the point of purchase. If you don't like them, you are free to walk away. If you purchase, it means that YOU ACCEPT THE MANUFACTURERS TERMS. If you purchase and then voluntarily break the terms of the warranty, that's fine, but that means the MANUFACTURER IS ABSOLVED OF RESPONSIBILITY TO YOU. It..... cuts... both.... ways.

    Therefore, you do not get to jailbreak your Tesla, blow it up along with several of your fingers and half your face, and expect the company to foot the bill for the replacement Tesla AND the cybernetic replacements for your face and part of your skull. Buddy, that's all on you. Furthermore, Tesla was providing certain services to your car that you might not qualify for anymore. Sucks for you.

    If, at the point of purchase, Tesla says that installation of 3rd party wall-breaker devices or services voids their warranty, then Tesla is NOT responsible for your car once you go that route. If you do, you're in the wild, wild west baby and you're gonna have to take care of your own horse.

    • Re:In a word.... No (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday September 08, 2020 @10:47PM (#60486676)

      I agree: someone who modifies their car (or anything else) loses their right to have it fixed under warranty. What's not okay is the car nagging you about it without you being able to clear the message. It should say "WE SEE YOU INSTALLED AN UNAUTHORIZED MODULE. PRESS YES TO AGREE TO VOID THE WARRANTY, OR REMOVE THE MODULE". If you press yes, it should disappear forever, because you've chosen to assume the responsibility.

      Also, what's slightly disturbing is buying a car with features artificially locked by the firmware. But I guess the practice isn't new. Still, I find it a bti infuriating.

      • Why is that infuriating? Because itâ(TM)s instead of Tesla building a completely different motor and charging you for it? It used to be that if you could get a car that was made with two engine variants and you bought the V6, the way you upgraded to the V8 model was by buying another car or sourcing a new engine and replacing the whole shebang, at your own cost. Now you can decide you want the V6-equivalent and later upgrade to the V8-equivalent by the power of software. Thatâ(TM)s pretty neat.

        But

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Ok you Tesla Shill. I'm calling you out because your argument doesn't make sense and it's in favor of Tesla.

          Here's how it currently works:
          You bought the car. It has 100% capability. But you're only getting, say, 80% out of it. That extra 20% you're not getting, but already payed for? Yea, that's an extra $2,000 just because.

          It's the equivalent of buying an 8-cylinder engine and getting 6 cylinders out of it. You can pay $2,000 to use the extra 2 cylinders.

          Go to the store, buy all your groceries. The store c

          • Microsoft produces one Windows binary. You pay more for a 'key' to unlock Windows Pro on your computer that came with Windows Home, which enables features in the software that could not be run but that were present, and taking up space on your hard drive.

            Everybody seems to find this acceptable.

          • Re: In a word.... No (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @02:17AM (#60487026) Journal

            Here's how it currently works:
            You bought the car. It has 100% capability. But you're only getting, say, 80% out of it. That extra 20% you're not getting, but already payed for? Yea, that's an extra $2,000 just because.

            False. You didn't pay for it. But you can, retroactively, for $2000, and have it added to your car instantly.

            You already received exactly what you paid for - you did not pay for the performance upgrade, and you did not receive the performance upgrade.

            Your other examples are just as stupid, and fall to the same logic - you bought a product with stated specifications, and those specifications were delivered unto you. Now all of a sudden you want something else for free, which wasn't agreed upon.

      • modifies their car = non dealer oil change nag screen we do not need that.

      • Or how about:
        System checksum fault detected: 0x30.F8.1C.D9.00.00.00.01
        To clear this message:
        - Remove detected module(s).
        - Initiate full restart by pressing [here]
        - If fault persists, schedule a systems check* at your service center

        *service charges may apply

        That would seem to be the only reasonable request, liability-wise.

      • I think its more nuanced than that.

        Lets say your mod allows the auto pilot to follow cars really really closely. Should Tesla allow you to employ that mod?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by N1AK ( 864906 )
          It's a different point from warranty based on change of engine performance but it's an interesting one; my guess is that this type of functionality won't be adjustable in the same way, but the legal liability ramifications especially as we move to full autonomy could be complex.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That would be illegal here. It only voids your warranty if Tesla can prove that the modification was the cause of the fault.

        Otherwise manufacturers would claim that putting 3rd party mats in your car would void the warranty. You'd see an "unauthorized bumper stick, warranty void" message on your dash.

      • I understand you not liking it but it's been a standard practice for a long time. It's similar to CPU binning: If you bought a Core XXX whose specs say it has 4 CPU cores you could be getting a Core XYZ with 6 cores but 2 of them disabled. You can't then complain that you should be able to activate the 6 cores since you only paid for 4.
        The analogy is not exact since in the case of the Tesla you know 100% the hardware is capable of more but if you bought a model with X features for Y price and someone bough

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Twinbee ( 767046 )
      What I would say in response to that is what's legally correct is not necessarily ethically correct.

      If I replace the stock LED bulbs with more powerful ones to make to the trunk a bit brighter (which I have done), then voiding the warranty, preventing me from supercharging, nagging me on the screen about it every time I drive, or even preventing me from driving the car may be legally okay, but it's not ethically okay. (Thankfully none of these have occurred, but you get my point).

    • Modify your vehicle as you like. YOU signed the contract with Tesla.

      Then sell if. To anyone else, like your wife, your buddy, your kid, your LLC.

      The new buyer has no contract with Tesla, and the warranties remain in full force.
      If Tesla won't honor that, lawsuits and losses will ensue for them.

      E

    • Too simple.

      You pay for a working car, the manufacturer owes you one. If your modification breaks it, then ok, you lose warranty. But if your modification performs within parameters defined by the manufacturer, then they should still be liable.

      If a bit flip is/does essentially the same as if Tesla would have done it, they're in for it. It would but different if, say, peformance cars would have an extra set of coolers for the battery, or a substantially different battery management software module to accomoda

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      No, the manufacturer cannot force you to agree to whatever terms it likes, that's why we have consumer rights laws setting out things like minimum warranty terms and on what basis that warranty must be honoured. Otherwise all car manufacturers would offer the same standard 5 minute warranty, no unauthorized oil changes, no 3rd party diagnostics etc.

      Obviously if you blow your Tesla up that's on you. But these guys are just turning on features that Tesla themselves built into the car and disabled via software

  • Any car that does over-the-air updates is assumed to be able to tell that you've hacked its OS. Why is this even a question?

  • they have demonstrated that many of the people in their highest levels of management would prefer if nobody fixed their own Tesla, let alone modify it.

    people think Apple is bad.... oy vey.

  • According to him, the issue with many non-OEM aftermarket parts is that they don't undergo the same level of testing as OEM parts. Specifically, the issue is that the manufacturer performs system level testing in order meet statutory and regulatory performance and safety standards (modulo VW emissions testing shenanigans). Furthermore, automobiles are often tested by third-party entities (e.g. Consumer Reports, NHTSA) in the OEM configurations. Performance parts that you buy from the OEM (e.g. MOPAR) are a
  • So let me get this straight. If I read this correctly, he pad $1498 for a hack instead of paying $2000 to the car manufacturer for a sanctioned upgrade. Seems idiotic to me.
    • Buying a car that is artifically limited because you don't want to pay them more than you had to doesn't seem like the smartest move in the first place to me.

  • I recall the storage guys where I work purchasing 48 port FC switches and licensing 24 ports. How would you all feel about finding a way to activate the other ports on the switch? Is it different because it is the company's money and not mine.

    Honestly I am split on the issue and having a hard time reconciling what I feel is right, I know that it should be your hardware but those features are not what you purchased.

    Same with ilo or idrac enterprise version, is using the same key across all your servers OK?

    • If they are going to give you 48 ports but not let you use 24 of them because you didn't pay enough and they don't want to make a seperate 24 port thing then fuck them. If you can get those other ones on yourself they are basically free.

  • Did they hire Apple Engineers (Score:3)

    by kot-begemot-uk ( 6104030 ) on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @03:24AM (#60487096) Homepage
    This is soooo iPhone. Welcome to your iVehicle.

  • I buy car; I own car (Score:3)

    by SciCom Luke ( 2739317 ) on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @04:03AM (#60487144)
    If I buy a car, it is my thingy, and within the law I can do with it what I want. If a car manufacturer disagrees, I will simply not buy their rubbish.

    • You can. No one is denying this to you. Just don't expect the manufacturer to take any interest when you go crying to them for a warranty claim.

  • this is why i will never buy a tesla (Score:3)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @06:11AM (#60487314)
    i refuse to own a car that uses software to extort money from me to perform as a better car,

    "you want to go fast enough to pass the slower cars?" that will be an extra 5 thousand dollars, you see the slippery slope this leads to, i think consumers should avoid this sort of shenanigans,

  • This is a stupid battle to make against Tesla. If "We" win, then Tesla just stops selling the models with limitations, only having the expensive version on market.

    Then we lose, because:

    1. 1. There are no longer any limitations to circumvent.
    2. 2. There are no longer any cheaper versions of the big cars.

    Alternatively, Tesla will stop making easy upgrades and will build separate models for each tier - thereby effectively locking you to a tier and it will bring up the prices for all models because of increased cos

  • Sigh. (Score:2)

    by ledow ( 319597 )

    Next stage - they encrypt or isolate all internal communications and you only get a read-only OBD.

    Like almost every other car has/should do.

    Why you think you can tinker in the internals of a device without consequence, "just because you own it" I can't really fathom. Especially where it can impact on other systems, safety, etc.

    As far as I'm concerned this is no different to modding your car's ECU, and then expecting Ford to continue supporting your modded ECU. It was game over as soon as you replaced it.

    I

  • When you buy a car, you buy the car (Score:3)

    by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Wednesday September 09, 2020 @08:09AM (#60487548)
    I bought my Model 3 (LR AWD) over a year ago. The feature set it had at the time was what I bought it for and expected. The fact that subsequent free OTAs have boosted battery range by 5%, given me one-pedal driving, and various entertainment and QOL improvements, I feel I have come out ahead on the deal.

    I have yet to need an additional 0.5 secs of 0-60, so I haven't purchased the Acceleration Boost as I have other immediate uses for $2000.

    I can see a modification barring me from future software updates. Most cars don't get updates after you drive off the lot, and if they do have them, they're usually not free. I can also see a modification voiding a warranty, as would be the case for any other vehicle.

    I draw the line at superchargers, though. Even with CHAdeMO DC fast chargers peppered around the US, you absolutely need access to the supercharger network to make any time-effective roadtrips in a Tesla. L2 chargers are just way too slow. Tesla should never revoke access to supercharging.
  • Add this to a long list of bad ideas that came out of Silicon Valley like open office concept, software as a service, or beta testing on live. No surprise that Tesla "for SV by SV" suffers from all the common pathologies that are by now cultural in a large segment of tech population.
  • But you donâ(TM)t have the right to warranty coverage after using unapproved parts that nah damage the vehicle/systems in unknown ways.

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Close