![]() |
![]() |
|
December 21, 2003Passive Surveillance with OnStarOk, well now that its in the news I can finally talk about this. Some people might remember about my talk a couple years ago on hijacking the original OnStar signal and be able to extract information about a motor vehicle, including complete vehicle diagnostics and the ability to unlock/disarm a vehicle. People freaked when I showed the data flowchart for the ignition kill routines. (Imagine driving on the highway and a hacker turning off you car. Not a pretty sight) Most of this was fixed when GM launched the next version of it, which actually made SOME efforts to fix the lax security in the communication protocol. However, the one thing I didn't talk about much was the fact that deep within the OnStar system is a cell signal which OnStar can control... passively. In other words, it is possible for OnStar to listen in on you covertly and without your knowledge at all... or a way to turn it off at will. Of course the FBI learned of this... and decided that this would make the best surveillance wiretap. And now that its out in public, I am informing you. Don't drive a car with OnStar if you are worried about being monitored by big brother. Kinda makes me thankful I don't drive a GM. Posted by SilverStr at December 21, 2003 07:48 AM | TrackBackComments
On Star sucks. I had it (the emergency plan) and didn't have to use it until my SUV had about 65,000 miles on it (so it was out of warranty.) I hit the On Star button, and it connects. I tell them that I need a tow truck. They proceed to tell me that the towing service is provided by your GM warranty, and since I'm out of warranty, I will have to pay. So I ask them what I'm paying hundreds of dollars a year for, and they say its for the convienience of not having to know where I'm at when I call a tow truck. Their GPS can pin point my location for them. Of course I had pulled off the road into a Mc Donalds parking lot, so I had a street address, and a cross road to tell them. I canceled the very next day. Posted by: Rick Lobrecht at December 23, 2003 07:05 AMwelcome to america! read the terms of service aggreement, technically you waive your right to complain about onstar if you do not recognize general motors, the queen, and the right of canada, to be unharmful. technically onstar doesnt have to provide you service that it is not able to for any reason. youre warranty expiring is a pretty good reason. also onstar does not providetows, only the dispatch to aquire themfor you and send them to your location. maybe you arent going to be at mcdonalds when your overridden chev craps the bed. immagine being in traffic on the expressway, youre going to need more than a tow. but youll find the same disclamers in any corperate product. youre a high level consumer. the stuff you want in life comes with strings attached and hidden costs. and right now youre mad that a new $40000 car with all the options is gonna cost you for upkeep after the warranty expires, hellooooo! forgetting the fact that just having onstar pays for itself out of your car insurance if you shop around for the right provider. but are you such a high level buyer that you're savvy enough to balance the numerous luxuries you consume so that they actually improve your quality of living? or are you content to assume they are simply incapable of doing so. you know how to disable onstar? I do. i can disable it so that it will not work at all it will cease to function with the twist of a wrench under the hood. you could have it for weeks and not realize it isnt working and one day i could drive away with your car and legally its not onstars fault that the system couldnt find your car. but youre car theft insurance, if you have any, will still be lower. but can you pay the thousands in the deductable? you may also soon find that the courts are not legally responsible for failing to bring you justice. nor are the police. but you still pay for them. you just dont complain about it because its not something youre willing to cancel. so i suggest instead of cancelling services in spite, cancel them because you dont need them, get back to basics, theres cheaper and better cars out there. with less strings attached.
how many terms-of-service contracts if you can find some of them i suggest you read them instead of skiming over them saying "blah blah blah" because they are invented to aquire you , in a legally binding way, as a registered, powerless, and obediant accessory to the items and services you possess. oh yes, and your car wouldnt work with onstar anyway after 2008, the system is switching to digital and all cars made prior to that date will be rendered obsolete, you see, onstar was planning on quitting you one day anyway. under the terms of service, it's not their fault. its yours. now, if i were the type to come to gradual realizations, i would tell you i think you should consider the quality of the quantum single scource of benefit receivership of the spending in your life. and then id say something confusing, vague, and a little creepy. like maybe youre selling your soul and blaming the devil. oooooh. be safe Posted by: bill at October 8, 2004 08:28 PM |
![]() ![]()
My 5 Favorite Books
Writing Secure Code
Secure Programming Cookbook Security Engineering Secure Coding Principles & Practice Inside the Security Mind ![]()
My 5 Favorite Papers
Smashing the Stack
Penetration Studies Covert Channel Analysis of Trusted Systems DoD Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria NSA Security Recommendation Guides ![]()
Archives
June 2006
May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 ![]() |
|