
McLaren needs Compaq laptops with bespoke CA cards to maintain the remaining F1s - mstats
http://jalopnik.com/this-ancient-laptop-is-the-only-key-to-the-most-valuabl-1773662267
======
hannob
This is a glimpse into what we'll see much more in the IoT-future. And while
for a superexpensive car someone will take care, the same is not necessarily
true for your home control system, washing machine, (insert other technology
with lifetimes far beyond normal IT cycles), which may rely on an ancient app
that doesn't run on any modern system any more.

~~~
toyg
Glimpse? It's already here: see what happened to Nest. The last episode of the
Bad Voltage podcast basically features a long discussion on what IoT devices
should be able to do when they lose the "I" for one reason or another.

Tbh, I think we'll eventually need laws: something saying "companies should
guarantee serviceability and functioning of advanced devices for 10 years,
rain or shine (bar nuclear holocaust)". For all the loathing this idea gets,
it's the only way to tell the market to "not be stupid". Once businesses start
planning for extended serviceability, they'll work on things like durable
interfaces that can be easily implemented on newer patforms, offline modes etc
etc, which will be innovative and will greatly benefit consumers. As these
sort of systems become routine, the 10-year window will naturally extend
itself.

~~~
dcposch
> For all the loathing this idea gets, it's the only way to tell the market to
> "not be stupid".

No, the market will be just fine.

IoT is a fad. Much of it is just taking things that were simple and reliable
and making them complex and flaky, in order to market as "smart" or "advanced"
or "high tech".

Fire alarms that inexplicably run Linux. Thermostats that brick themselves one
morning after an auto update. "Smart fridges" with a big touch screen that
nobody will actually use. [1]

Buyers will get burned. IoT will lose its "wow" factor and all this will be
seen, in hindsight, as comically unnecessary and embarassingly tacky. Consumer
Reports will give out a bunch of black circles. The market will correct.

[1]: [https://twitter.com/internetofshit](https://twitter.com/internetofshit)
[http://favstar.fm/users/internetofshit](http://favstar.fm/users/internetofshit)

~~~
sneak
Telephones worked a lot better before the internet. They still haven't
recovered.

I assume the same thing will happen here. Most people do not research.
Reliability will fall and, while it may recover a bit, will not recover fully.

~~~
thaumasiotes
To the extent that telephones are worse now than they were before (I'm not
actually sure what you're thinking of?), I'd attribute it first to the
cratering demand for telephones.

~~~
extra88
On POTS, call quality was arguably better, calls didn't get dropped, a handset
and physical dialpad are ergonomically better, and the system in a region was
less likely to go down because of a power outage. There many ways in which
POTS is worse but there is no inherent reason why the good things about it had
to be lost.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Has any of that changed? The fact that people aren't using telephones doesn't
mean they've gotten worse. What was better before the internet and is worse
now?

~~~
extra88
I was mainly comparing landlines to cell phones and VOIP but even the
traditional landlines may be a bit worse as they've gone from a switched to
packetized infrastructure.

~~~
ambulancechaser
Well, comparing cell phones to landlines and calling it worse seems to miss
the addition of a key feature: mobility. It's kinda like comparing a home
kitchen to one in an airplane and finding the airplane version woeful and
without any improvement over what the microwave brought us in the 50's, all
while neglecting to mention that one version is able to fly...

------
sandworm101
Don't single out McLaren. Countless much more important systems can only be
accessed through ancient tech. The Stealth bomber (the b-2) is a product of
the same technological era as the F1. Would anyone here be surprised if the
new ran a story about them being grounded because that one last laptop capable
of talking to their systems finally gave up the DOS ghost?

~~~
adanto6840
I guess I'd expect that it could be virtualized. Or, at the very least, that
the hardware-specific API was somewhat-generalized or at least generalizable,
so that it could be updated or used via a VM with a similar (even if dated)
piece of hardware. Is it a lack of familiarity and developers for the code, or
is it just not well-engineered?

At those dollar amounts, it seems like any proven-solved "problem" is solvable
again, likely "easier" due to the technology improvements...

~~~
PaulRobinson
Do you seriously think virtualisation was a thing in the 1980s when the B-2
was being designed and built? It wasn't even a thing when the F-35 was being
designed and initially built.

It will be single-threaded apps running natively and talking directly to
various bus adapters.

The most advanced processor available to them was a M68020, maybe. Multi-
tasking was still hard, Linux and Windows 3.0 were still a decade away when
the systems engineers were designing the B-2.

And that's assuming they were able to change the hardware platform in the
1980s - the designs would have been drawn up in the 1970s.

There is absolutely no way on Earth that anybody would have thought "what we
need here is a VM". I'd be amazed if it even had a Hardware Abstraction Layer,
and that had a bit of historical form, albeit not in real-time operating
systems yet.

~~~
barrkel
The first commercial computers were not PCs. You sound like you don't know
anything about the history of computing. Almost every system technology we use
was invented in the 60s and 70s.

~~~
PaulRobinson
You think they were sticking mainframes into the B-2?

------
koenigdavidmj
Whodathunkit? "CA card" isn't exactly a Google-friendly phrase, even with the
quotes. Which means this article doesn't say much.

~~~
jonah
From the Jalopnik comments[1] it appears to be the docking port which
connected to an optional "Automobile Adapter" #4 in this image[2].

[1] [http://jalopnik.com/it-s-a-completely-proprietary-
interface-...](http://jalopnik.com/it-s-a-completely-proprietary-interface-
that-s-used-to-1773687753)

[2] [https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-
media/image/upload/xazddfqwsv...](https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-
media/image/upload/xazddfqwsvuxfbfxjgwj.png)

~~~
EvanAnderson
While I don't doubt that the dock connector is in play, the "automobile
adapter" is a charging accessory (per pages 12 and 13 of the manual:
[http://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/edwin/laptops/Compaq/Compaq%20...](http://www.elhvb.com/mobokive/edwin/laptops/Compaq/Compaq%20LTE/Compaq%20LTE%20Elite.pdf)).

~~~
jonah
Aahh. Good info. But, yeah some sort of proprietary connector/accessory.

------
kirrent
If it ain't broke don't fix it. Especially when the computers are relatively
cheap compared to the bespoke hardware. My favourite example of this was the
school district which used an Amiga to control the district's HVAC systems.
Replacing parts occasionally on a 30 year old computer is far cheaper than an
entirely new and unproved system.

[http://hackaday.com/2015/07/23/this-little-amiga-still-
runs-...](http://hackaday.com/2015/07/23/this-little-amiga-still-runs-school-
districts-hvac/)

~~~
mseebach
But it _is_ broken. This is not about rewriting a working server component in
Rust just because or chasing the latest Javascript framework-du-jour.

What will it cost McLaren to renege on their maintenance obligations on those
cars if one of these laptops are dropped or broken or stolen or just bite the
dust (they are "getting less and less reliable"), and they can't source a
working one?

~~~
ams6110
The article does state that they are working on an interface compatible with
modern laptops.

------
jpalomaki
From IT perspective nice to see hat McLaren still continues to provide support
for this old consumer product with only a hundred running installations. They
could have just issued sn end of life statement and ask customers to upgrade
to newer version.

~~~
07d046
Yeah, but that's one hundred installations worth $10M+ each. It's worth being
in the business of supporting them when repair bills can top one million
dollars.

[http://jalopnik.com/5982805/rowan-mr-bean-atkinsons-
insuranc...](http://jalopnik.com/5982805/rowan-mr-bean-atkinsons-insurance-
company-dropped-14-million-to-repair-his-mclaren-f1)

------
asimuvPR
I have a friend who owns a 2007 BMW 745. The car is an electronics nightmare
and needs BMW's service software to keep it running properly. For example,
installing a new battery requires a system reset through the service software.
Problem is that the software runs on an old laptop that dual boots into a
custom image of windows xp or some Linux based system. The machine needs an
rs-232 port, which is not rare itself yet, but you also need a special OBDII
to ethernet to rs-232 adapter. The maintenance software is a nightmare to work
with and requires constant restarts to get the network connection to close in
order to run some other test. You can get the computer on ebay with the
software and additional hardware but they are they are getting rare and old.

~~~
Unklejoe
You are probably referring to the BMW INPA software, which can be executed on
any Windows 7 machine. It is hard to set up, which is why the usual solution
is to just use a complete image of an OS (with the necessary software already
installed) inside of a VM.

I personally use it all the time. The only issue I've encountered so far is
that I need to use older versions of the RS232 to USB driver. The current ones
don't work.

~~~
asimuvPR
Not only INPA, but the whole suite of programs for the 745.

------
pjc50
A while ago I met someone with a side business in maintaining the Aston Martin
Lagonda's high-tech dashboard. It's a set of CRTs driven by proprietary 70s 6v
logic, and he claimed to be the only person still in business who knew how it
worked.

~~~
PaulRobinson
Given they are widely considered to never have really worked, and they almost
bankrupted AM, I suspect he may have just re-engineered them somewhat.

------
colordrops
Sorry for being picky, but is there any context where the word "bespoke"
provides more information than "custom"?

~~~
DanBC
Custom implies customised - a standard product which is modified.

Bespoke implies, especially around tailoring, something created from scratch.

~~~
gaur
> Custom implies customised - a standard product which is modified.

No, not really:

> 1\. Created under particular specifications, specially to fit one's needs:
> specialized, unique, custom-made

> 2\. Own, personal, not standard or premade

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/custom](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/custom)

------
stefano
> but MSO’s team understands that they can only remain the most desirable
> modern supercars ever made if they work on keeping them functional, drivable
> and just as fast as they were back in 1992.

JavaScript frameworks could learn something from this. In the frontend web
development world, backward compatibility and stability are severely
underrated.

~~~
sangnoir
> JavaScript frameworks could learn something from this. In the frontend web
> development world, backward compatibility and stability are severely
> underrated.

I'll play the devil's advocate for the HN's favorite whipping boy: anyone's
decision to keep up with the latest and greatest JS libraries is entirely
voluntary. It's like complaining that fashion magazines keep declaring new
"colors for the season" every summer when you can keep wearing jeans and white
tees from 4 years back.

The "web development world" is fashion driven (aesthetically), and currently
"flat" is in. A site that looks like it's from the 90's is a signal that the
site is stale (and hence less current), or sometimes an overt signal by owner
to say "we don't care about aesthetics, we provide overwhelming value in other
areas" (HN and craigslist come to mind). The web is immature compared to
automobiles: the standards are always evolving to keep up with real-world
usage. 'border-radius' is an improvement on background images from the 90's
(which still work, btw).

Browsers cannot be accused of not being backward compatible - that is why
websites from 1992 still render correctly in modern browsers, sans <blink>
(thank goodness)

------
cisstrd
Sorry since this is not exactly "on-topic", but wanted to share my favourite
video about the F1 "Ferrari Enzo versus Mclaren F1 - Fifth Gear"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kLlmxUAB5A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kLlmxUAB5A)

I absolutely love this car. Definitely built for a purpose, not much hand-
holding, just the sight of this manual switchboard, the position of the seat,
the minimalistic dashboard, ... <3

~~~
dang
Maybe not exactly on-topic, but this is the kind of digression we welcome
here: specific and intellectually curious.

It's only the generic, predictable discussions (typically flamewars) that we
try to weed out. Tangents that go someplace interesting are fine, and weirder
is usually better.

------
dredmorbius
What does "CA" mean in this context?

~~~
reactor
Conditional Access

------
throwaway20161
Our control system at work needs a DOS program to perform diagnostics on the
modems controlling communication to our subsea wells. (System made in the mid
90s).

Now when we service these modems the OEM vendor comes with DOS running in a VM
on a normal pc. When you know what we we rent this PC for (few $K per month),
I just can't help but laugh. This PC was also not possible to purchase from
the OEM.

#oil

~~~
driverdan
Next time you rent it copy the VM. Problem solved.

~~~
throwaway20161
Yeah that's obvious, but we (operator) aren't legally qualified or allowed to
touch this software or communications network. Only the OEM is allowed to use
it. So even if we had the VM, we would be legally not be able to use it. We
rent the ability for an OEM technician to use the laptop when we send the
technician to our site. An added irony is that the protocol is just serial
comms over a standard rs232 port.

But then on the other hand, you type the wrong thing and you can lose
communication with a non trivial amount of a countries oil production (2,5%).

------
Theodores
I think we have expectations that hi-tech cars from the likes of McLaren are
'hi-tech' through and through - they are not!!!

The McLaren F1 is a car for the track, the few examples that exist do go out
and race. Over a race weekend I imagine the car is taken apart and put back
together again in a multitude of ways, e.g. wheels taken off and different
ones put on. Note how those wheels are held on with just the one big bolt that
has to be tightened massively. That is not 'hi-tech', that is using the
appropriate race-grade technology for the job.

I have only stared into the bowels of a McLaren F1 once, but I bet that beyond
the gold there are lots of things held together with nuts, bolts and clips
that look crude compared to bicycle technology with bearings that really are
cruder than on a bicycle. Yet these parts can be swapped in and out and
adjusted easily.

My point being that high-end race cars are not entirely high tech, under the
hood there is stuff that is 'bits of bent tin'.

~~~
anoother
The F1 was never designed to race. It was built as a road car from the outset.

The GTR (racing) programme was spurred on by a customer, subsequent to the
release of the road-going F1.

------
hanief
A lot of banks still run mainly on FORTRAN or COBOL. I guess it's "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it" attitude.

~~~
icelancer
I've worked at a financial place that ran COBOL for back-end services. Worked
great. Maintenance sucked. But it was pretty impressive.

------
manigandham
Serious question - why isnt this stuff, including today's manufacturing, using
easily interchangeable modules with standard interfaces? Why doesn't
everything just fit into a single box that can then be replaced with box v2 in
a few years, adding more features and performance and removing this
maintenance nightmare?

~~~
LoSboccacc
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-
board_diagnostics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics) OBD-II
was made mandatory shortly after this car was built specifically for this
reason, manufacturers wanted to maintain their lock in so in the interest of
the customer regulations had to be mandate.

~~~
manigandham
Sure, but that's more industry wide.

Why don't manufacturers just do this themselves so that they can easily
replace their own components in the future?

------
EvanAnderson
It sounds like McLaren didn't get very good documentation from whoever
designed the interface and management software (and now the information may be
lost). Spending more money on that documentation up front would have likely
left them in a lot better situation today.

~~~
pjc50
"We'd like documentation on this proprietary interface. How much does that
cost?"

"No."

"What do you mean?"

"That's our proprietary IP and not for sale."

~~~
gaius
I've been in this situation. You arrange for a law firm to hold a copy of the
code in escrow, to be released to the customer only if the company ceases to
exist. Pointless of course IMHO since they'd also need a complete replica of
your build environment etc etc but many customers insisted on it anyway, and
we billed them for it, everyone's a winner!

~~~
pjc50
Indeed, the required knowledge usually extends far beyond the code. How does
escrow work in the event of acquishutdown ?

~~~
gaius
I'm sure the lawyers billed sufficient hours to cover all eventualities - but
when we were acquired, our product replaced the acquiring-company's product in
the same space, and all our customers came with us, so it was never needed in
the end.

------
fsaneq2
So what? I'm sure they could replace them if they felt like it was worth it.
Clearly they don't.

------
Grazester
Just about any aftermarket engine control unit would be able to take the place
of the system in the F1

------
marban
Meanwhile, millions of people receive their paycheque compiled on a 70s
Tandem.

------
hoodoof
The price of failing to keep your technology up to date.

------
milesf
Why can't the system be emulated? Am I missing something?

~~~
SixSigma
If it has a custom ASIC in the connector card then it would be rather
difficult. Possibly "grid the top off the chip and recreate the mask"
difficult.

~~~
stevetrewick
In theory, absolutely. In practice I've seen ASIC based challenge/response
systems on industrial software implemented in such a way that they could be
sufficiently 'emulated' simply by knowing a handful of challenge/response
tuples. Believe it or not, this behaviour is (was?) actually specified in many
dongle OEM's implementation guides. Basically they say : chuck out a bunch of
fairly random challenges and more or less ignore the responses and only really
check at a few critical points in the program flow.

This gives an insight into the threat model dongles are supposed to protect
against. If you have access to the running system, the dongle and a halfway
decent interactive debugger/disassembler cracking dongles is simply a matter
of time.[0]

I've seen as low as 12 distinct challenges and a single significant response.
This was in software for designing systems orders of magnitude more
complicated and expensive than an F1.

[0] And if you don't have access to the dongle, it's mainly a question of more
time and maybe a bit of code patching - but do you _really_ want to patch the
code that runs your chemical plant?

~~~
SixSigma
I can only imagine that they _must_ be clever enough to have tried this,
surely.

Or perhaps they are so full of recent comp sci and aero graduates that have
never busted out a logic analyser that no-one ever said "we should just sniff
the protocol, how hard can it be"

~~~
stevetrewick
I make no comment as to the difficulty of their specific case. They (or more
likely the consultants they hire) may well try/have tried this and find they
have a more complex problem set. But bear in mind that 'sniffing the protocol'
will require reverse engineering the encryption in use between the software
and the driver and the whole deal requires someone who is both comfortable
working at disassembler level and familiar with the platform and APIs and with
the device driver model. Because it's not enough just to sniff the protocol,
you must also locate the response checks in what might be a large piece of
complex software - especially when you're looking at it disassembled.

And of course, you have to know all of this before you even know the right
questions to ask, or what kind of skill set you need to buy in.

To those of us who grew up with +Orc, fravia and woodman, sure, this is like
the first thing we'd try, but even for that generation this is a relatively
esoteric skill set.

There's not enough info in the article to get anywhere near assuming this
protection model applies in this specific case and I'm absolutely not
suggesting that it does, only that I have encountered legacy or orphaned
software systems which have been protected in this way and been able to
successfully transition them away from legacy hardware keys.

~~~
SixSigma
Yes, I was agreeing with you and you went to the effort of explaining why :)

There a quite a few people ITT saying "just emulate it" and I imagine they
have never lifted a soldering iron. Getting the thing to run when you designed
it yourself can be had enough, let alone one that is hostile to analysis!

