
Tesla Model 3 spoofed off the highway - etimberg
https://www.regulus.com/blog/tesla-model-3-spoofed-off-the-highway-regulus-researches-hack-navigation-system-causing-car-to-steer-off-road/
======
modeless
Misleading headline. They spoofed GPS and caused the car to _safely_ exit the
highway at a different exit than planned. This is hardly an emergency. A human
might easily make the same mistake if their GPS was spoofed.

I don't trust Autopilot myself, I've had too many phantom braking incidents.
But GPS spoofing is not a good reason to criticize Autopilot.

~~~
slg
You have to get pretty deep into the article to get to these two lines:

>Any product or service that uses the public GPS broadcast system can be
affected by GPS spoofing... this research doesn’t demonstrate any Tesla-
specific vulnerabilities

>The effect of GPS spoofing on Tesla cars is minimal and does not pose a
safety risk

It would of course be better if Tesla vehicles weren't vulnerable to this type
of attack, but the headline and much of the article has potential to be very
misleading to someone who doesn't completely understand what is going on here.

EDIT: I stand by the general point of this comment. However I did miss the
context of the quotes I included here. See nirvdrum's comment and my reply.

~~~
nirvdrum
I'm not sure those two lines really support your conclusion. They may, but
they're both taken from Tesla's response to a previous test performed with the
Model S. If you read further on, the researchers take issue with Tesla's
response, particularly the part about it not posing a safety risk:

> The fact that spoofing causes unforeseen results like unintentional
> acceleration and deceleration, as we’ve shown, clearly demonstrates that
> GNSS spoofing raises a safety issue that must be addressed

~~~
slg
You are right that I was mistakenly quoting a quote. I was skimming the
article and was thrown off by the inconsistent formatting. Some of the multi-
paragraph quotes are indented to identify them as block quotes. The sections I
was quoting from just had a quotation mark at the start then three paragraphs
later another quotation mark to end the quote.

------
saulrh
For me, the most interesting part of this article was the casual mention of
"the Black Sea spoofing attack of 2017". Apparently an unknown attacker pretty
thoroughly messed up traffic in the area by making everyone's navigation
systems think they were over a nearby airport. Given that we've had several
major maritime collisions reach the news in the last year with no attacks
involved at all, I could imagine dozens of deaths and potentially billions of
dollars of damages if they'd done this in a major harbor or with hostile
intent. Just spoof an oil tanker into the docks at Corpus Christi (edit: or
mess with stationkeeping on an oil platform) and you'd have an impossible
disaster on your hands.

[https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/mass-gps-
spoof...](https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/mass-gps-spoofing-
attack-in-black-sea)

[https://www.gpsworld.com/spoofing-in-the-black-sea-what-
real...](https://www.gpsworld.com/spoofing-in-the-black-sea-what-really-
happened/)

~~~
nradov
GPS is only a supplement for maritime collision / allision avoidance. All you
actually need are: radar, eyes, horn, flags, lights, VHF radio, and charts. Of
course GPS is certainly helpful as a backup and provides some protection
against human error.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I don’t believe all of those are strictly necessary.

Charts, sextant, and regular visual observations are all strictly necessary.

Some kind of semaphore would probably be handy too.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
All you "need" are the stars and some way to track time (a basic
implementation conveniently provided by the sun). Everything else just
increases accuracy. ;)

~~~
m463
There was an interesting youtube video a while back on the SR-71 that could
navigate via the stars years and years ago.

Of course the SR-71 probably never had cloud cover problems. :)

edit: I think this one:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj9UwKQKE3A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj9UwKQKE3A)

~~~
dreamcompiler
The SR-71 also had an excellent clock on board.

------
ricardobeat
A lot of words here, but the video shows nothing besides the spoofed GPS
location in the onboard screen. In particular, this is missing any kind of
detail:

> Although the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the
> spoofing attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet
> away—abruptly slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a
> sharp turn off the main road. The driver was not prepared for this turn and
> by the time he regained manual control, it was too late to attempt to
> maneuver back to the highway.

So they forced the car to take the wrong exit? They stated just before that
physical navigation/driving has no dependency on GPS. That’s a lot less
dangerous than implied for “veering off road”, but the description is too
fuzzy to know what really happened, and gives the article a suspicious tone.

~~~
fastball
Almost like the authors of the article have a conflict of interest as they are
actively trying to sell a product to "mitigate" these attacks.

In practice, I'm fairly certain that such an attack being highly illegal
(which it already is) would be more than enough deterrent in 99.99% of cases,
just as it is with people throwing rocks onto cars from bridges or shining
lasers into driver's eyes.

~~~
jacquesm
> just as it is with people throwing rocks onto cars from bridges or shining
> lasers into driver's eyes.

Both of which happen with alarming regularity.

~~~
fastball
I wouldn't qualify the frequency of either of those things as statistically
"alarming". In relation to how many people drive, those occurrences are
exceedingly rare.

~~~
jacquesm
Not rare enough that I've had _both_ happen to me.

~~~
fastball
That sucks. Anecdata is a funny thing.

I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles all over the country and never
experienced either.

~~~
jacquesm
> I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles all over the country and never
> experienced either.

Anecdata is a funny thing :)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=stenengooiers+viaduct](https://www.google.com/search?q=stenengooiers+viaduct)

NL is super small, quite dense and the media here tend to report these things
widely so you get a lot of copycat stupidity on top of the first idiot. People
have died here because of this.

------
jaytaylor
> Yonatan Zur, Regulus Cyber CEO and Co-Founder, emphasized this goes way
> beyond Regulus Cyber and Tesla:
    
    
      “We designed a product to protect
      vehicles from GNSS spoofing because
      we believe it is a real threat.
      ..
      By reporting and sharing incidents
      such as this we can ensure the
      autonomous technology will be safe
      and trustworthy.“
    

Regulus is reporting a host of vulnerabilities, and conveniently has already
developed a product to "protect" against the problem (not necessarily solve
it, no details are divulged in TFA).

Regulus could be a good actor, but there is no denying they have incentive to
slant the research and findings in a way favorable to their bottom line -
SALES.

I noticed a lot of fear statements in the article. Appealing to the emotion of
fear is a classic, common sales tactic. Especially when it's difficult to
precisely quantify the risks, likelihood, and full implications of the
negative outcome.

Until the claims are replicated and verified by an independent third party,
best to take this report with a grain of salt. Especially regarding the
Regulus Product purporting to protect against GPS / GNSS spoofing.

\---

An interesting and relevant moral question is:

How many people are killed every day by human drivers? Would it be better if
all motor vehicles switched to autonomous and the death by automobile accident
rate drastically lowered, but was still greater than zero?

Even with exploits like this GPS attack, I suspect the death rate will
probably be substantially lower than it is with humans at the helm. As another
thread points out, human drivers can be blinded with maliciously operated
lasers, yet such events remain rare.

~~~
the_duke
I don't know why you are downvoted, you make very valid points.

This "report" was a very weird read for me.

There is a lot of vague information, it uses language like "mission critical",
"high impact", .... It then mentions that the immediate driving decisions are
not affected, the attack can affect high level routing decisions - like making
the car turn off the highway.

Then it mentions all other car manufacturers as vulnerable, and indeed
conveniently mentions it's product which will protect the car.

There are plenty of concerns one should have about self-driving cars, but this
is blatant self-promotion and obviously a PR piece.

------
Cshelton
Providing internet is not the only reason SpaceX's StarLink [0] is a project
;p

Yes, GNSS spoofing is an industry wide vulnerability, and not to just cars. If
I'm not mistaken, at least in the U.S., it is highly illegal?

[0]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_\(satellite_constellation\)))

~~~
ohazi
Most things that can be described as "shenanigans over RF" are illegal, but
they're difficult to trace. Sure, if you broadcast from your house 24/7, the
FCC will eventually send their direction-finding vans to look for you. But
actual attacks can be localized, low power, and short duration.

~~~
jimmaswell
It's come to my mind that someone could easily cause a small panic
transmitting a fake EAS broadcast about some disaster or attack over FM
stations duting heavy traffic in a city. Never heard of anyone doing it
though. In high school I did play a fake alert from youtube about incoming
nukes through the aux-in of a portable radio and had someone believing it for
a minute.

~~~
Theodores
Next you will be shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)

------
nippoo
As a fair comparison, has anyone tried spoofing a car GPS with a human driver?
If my satnav tried to tell me to exit off the highway (falsely) in 0.2 miles,
you’d probably see me “signalling unnecessarily” and changing lanes at
incorrect locations. After a while, I might distrust the GPS and attempt to
navigate by using road signs instead (and a driverless car could also choose
to disable GPS input in case of significant disagreement) but in both cases, a
motivated attacker could probably convince the driver to navigate somewhere
erroneous.

~~~
reaperducer
_has anyone tried spoofing a car GPS with a human driver_

In some of the more remote parts of America, GPS doesn't work very well,
especially if you're near a military facility. (It's a pretty good indicator
that you're near an "undeclared" military facility in the middle of nowhere.)

I can't count the number of times my GPS map has shown me driving through a
lake, or over flying over a mountain.

~~~
0xffff2
>I can't count the number of times my GPS map has shown me driving through a
lake, or over flying over a mountain.

That's odd because I can count the number of times it's happened to me. It's
0. This despite having actually _been in the military_. Civilian GPS receivers
work fine these days, even on military installations.

>It's a pretty good indicator that you're near an "undeclared" military
facility in the middle of nowhere.

What does that even mean? If it's really "undeclared" (I'm taking the scare
quotes to imply "secret"), how would you actually be able to verify it?

~~~
reaperducer
_If it 's really "undeclared" (I'm taking the scare quotes to imply "secret"),
how would you actually be able to verify it?_

Visually.

~~~
0xffff2
Really? There are a lot of secret military facilities near you that leave
tanks or fighter planes lying around or what? For every military base I've
ever encountered in my career, the fences with "US Property NO TRESPASSING"
signs and giant signs out front warning that you're approaching a military
installation were the identifying features. In other words, they were all very
much declared. If you took all of the signage away, I think it would be
extremely hard to definitively identify most military installations as such
from outside the fence.

Could you give a link to one of these facilities on Google Maps or something?
I'm honestly really curious to see what you're talking about.

~~~
perl4ever
The so called "Area 51" in Nevada has, according to what I've read, a large
buffer zone such that guards will intercept you considerably before you get to
the fence and signs.

I imagine there are other sites like that, where the boundaries are a little
ambiguous.

~~~
0xffff2
Area 51 is a bit of a unique case in how incredibly mythologized it is. I've
never been, so I can't speak from firsthand experience, but my understanding
is that it's not so much that the boundary is ambiguous as that the people
guarding the facility are sometimes overzealous. In any case, those guards,
like the signs, are declaring the presence of a military facility. While the
Air Force might prefer that no one really knows what they do there, there's no
doubt that it's a military facility. It's a perfect example of why the phrase
"undeclared military facility" doesn't make any sense at all.

------
ajross
Can someone help me here? I'm scanning through this and... not really finding
much meat. They used a deliberate radio attack to spoof GPS signals and change
the car's idea about where it was in a fundamentally unrecoverable way, and it
seems the only thing they got the car to do incorrectly was... take a wrong
turn?

I mean, yeah. If you take away someone's maps and compass they might get lost.
What am I missing?

~~~
eridius
Not just lost; you can make them drive exactly where you want them to go. As
long as a human is behind the wheel this won't be terribly effective except as
a disruptive tactic, but once there's nobody behind the wheel you could use
this to hijack any autonomous car and make it drive where you want it to
drive. This might be especially effective when using autonomous vehicles for
long-range shipping, where you could force the truck to drive to a warehouse
under your control where you can then steal its cargo.

~~~
ajross
To be fair, that's not at all what was demonstrated.

But... OK. If you can put a transmitter on top of a vehicle in motion you can
take control and make it drive to your destination? How is that significantly
more damaging or dangerous or "bad" than just grabbing it with a tow truck? Or
hijacking it? Or just stealing the vehicle itself?

I mean... this just doesn't really seem like an indictment of autonomous
driving to me. People were successfully stealing stuff out of horse drawn
carriages (or hell, just stealing the horses) and we all seemed to survive
just fine.

Seriously, this just doesn't seem like a doomsday kind of thing. Needs more
spin.

~~~
eridius
Because this doesn't require putting a transmitter on top of the vehicle. As
the article itself mentioned, this sort of GPS spoofing has already been
demonstrated to be effective at range. For the purposes of Regulus's tests
they didn't need to do it at range, mounting a transmitter on the top of the
car was sufficient to demonstrate that an external spoof is possible

> _The spoofer can easily use an off the shelf high-gain directional antenna
> to get a range of up to a mile. If they add an amplifier, a range of a few
> miles is very much possible. It has already been proven that spoofing can
> even occur across dozens of miles, for example in the Black Sea spoofing
> attack in June 2017._

And literally nobody is saying this is a doomsday. What they are saying is
that autonomous cars need to recognize this attack vector and take steps to
combat it. The fact that stealing or hijacking vehicles has always been
possible doesn't mean we need to deliberately turn a blind eye toward a new
and potentially very effective attack against autonomous vehicles.

~~~
ajross
You can't drive ONE vehicle to steal it with a blanket attack, that's
ridiculous. You'd have to know exactly where that vehicle is, with orientation
and velocity, down to cm-scale precision. And while you could then steal that
vehicle you'd disrupt all the activity around it, so I don't see it.

Like I said, needs more spin. This scenario doesn't really fly.

~~~
eridius
It sounds like you're saying the technology as it currently exists is as far
as it will ever go and nobody will figure out how to refine this attack?

------
rasz
> Although the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the
> spoofing attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet
> away—abruptly slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a
> sharp turn off the main road.

Designer fail, why is navigation system explicitly trusting GPS signal while
the car has multiple sources suitable for dead reckoning(1)? ABS sensors alone
(distance) would tell you something was wrong (being teleported 2.5 miles
forward), then you have accelerometers, compass, cameras supposedly able to
recognize side roads. Tesla needs to work on their kalman filter
implementation.

1) Etak
[https://patents.justia.com/patent/5948043](https://patents.justia.com/patent/5948043)
dead reckoning patents expired by now.

~~~
Waterluvian
I think you're a bit mixed up.

The higher layer that manages strategy was tricked to make the lower layer
safely exit at the wrong exit.

At least that's my reading of it.

~~~
antsar
I think 'rasz is suggesting that a well-designed higher layer should cross-
check its various inputs before doing stupid things. If GPS says we moved but
tire rotation says we didn't, well, maybe don't blindly trust the GPS?

~~~
rasz
Thats not even all that high level, as per Etak patent:

"Based on the previous position of the object, the GPS derived position, the
velocity, the DOP(dilution of precision) and the continuity of satellites for
which data is received, the system determines whether the GPS data is
reliable."

------
Zarathustra_
I guess I'm an interesting blend of geek and luddite. I enjoy tinkering with
computers immensely, but prefer to leave them in their place. I don't like
carrying a phone, don't use social networks, don't play video-games, etc. As
part of this perspective, I have an intense distrust of self-driving cars.
There is a great deal of difference between digitizing analog devices (using
new devices to fill old roles), and creating new roles for tech to fill. I'm
just a little too wary when it comes to driving. I can't stand the idea of a
car grabbing control from me and braking, though some people I know drive such
cars and regard it as a feature.

I don't know if this comes because of a technical background or not. As I have
learned more about software development, assembly, cybersecurity, etc. over
the years, I have become more rather than less accepting of things like self-
driving cars.

This applies to IoT as well. I will never, ever, _ever_ have one of those
glorified wiretaps they call "voice assistants". What do they do, any way? I
don't really care about being able to tell a speaker to order more laundry
detergent. Nor do I want any of these goofy "smart" appliances - why do I care
about my toaster sending me push notifications when my bread is done? Or
mining bitcoin?

I guess I just felt like ranting. I hope one of you can convince me such a
cynical outlook is wrong, as I get a bit sick of viewing new stuff with
negativity.

------
merkaloid
Don't see anywhere in the article that this was _responsibly_ disclosed to
automakers. They're literally publishing how to kill people on the road for
the sake of making a buck (company seems to peddling spoof resistant GNSS).

~~~
pwodhouse
There's nothing to disclose. Tesla and everyone knows their system is
vulnerable, and knows that the solution is that the driver of the car is
responsible for driving the car, which prevents this attack from succeeding.
Also it's not anymore dangerous than Google maps telling you to make a wrong
turn or a map being out of date. Navigation is not a safety feature.

~~~
merkaloid
In the article it says that it makes the car drive recklessly, brake checks in
the middle of the highway and zigzagging across lanes. I'm not sure how you
can equate that to Google maps showing you an out of date map.

Also, even if this isn't new information, that doesn't excuse them from
writing an article with dangerous information, I don't recall getting bomb
making instructions in the New York Times...

~~~
falcolas
Go to your local library and check out the "Anarchists Handbook^wCookbook"
then. It's about as equally available as your average blog post.

~~~
bostonpete
> check out the "Anarchists Handbook"

Cookbook?

------
dheera
I don't get these fears about spoofing autonomous cars to crash. It's already
incredibly easy to spoof a human driver off the highway -- just toss a cadaver
or mannequin into the road from a bridge. It's dangerous, illegal, and
criminal.

Spoofing autonomous cars with willful intent to injure the humans inside
should be treated no differently.

~~~
danhak
Scale is everything.

------
alkonaut
A simpler spoof is to paint new lane markings that just turn off the road and
into a field or a bridge pillar (And I genuinely think handling that should be
part of safety testing for all cars with lane assist tech. Not because it’s
likely but because it’s the worst case outcome of bad markings).

GPS can be wrong whether spoofed or not, and it should only make the car
safely take the wrong exit in the worst case. It must be able to tell if the
exit looks right and could reasonably represent the desired exit.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
So spoof a fairly typical construction zone?

Lanes leading into barriers and whatnot is pretty typical.

~~~
fiftyfifty
AP definitely doesn't handle construction zones well. That's one of the main
differences with human drivers is we look at more than just the road, we can
see a construction zone a half mile ahead and read the signs that warn us when
we get closer. We know the lanes are about to get messed up and we are ready
for it. My wife's Tesla is surprised every time the lanes do something funny.
We drove through a construction zone on the highway last weekend where they
had shifted the road over and left the old lane lines on the road in addition
to the new lines they had just painted, basically turning a 3 lane highway
into 6 mini-lanes. The Tesla lost it's mind trying to figure out what to do
and I had to take over. To a human it was pretty clear as the old lane lines
were faded and the new ones were bright white. As humans the lanes are not our
only point of reference, the lanes just keep the cars organized on the road.
Until we have an autonomous system that can look beyond just the road and
lanes and recognize the environment around the road I'm not sure we'll ever
see fully autonomous driving.

~~~
hathawsh
A few years ago, I was driving home late at night on a wide interstate highway
with a nearly-pristine blanket of snow that fully obscured all the lane lines.
The plows had not reached that section of road yet and no one was ahead of me.
So I made my own path. It was weird, but obviously safe to any human. I wonder
what fully autonomous cars would do in those conditions.

------
stcredzero
_Although the car was three miles away from the planned exit when the spoofing
attack began, the car reacted as if the exit was just 500 feet away—abruptly
slowing down, activating the right turn signal, and making a sharp turn off
the main road._

This could be used in an assassination. To prevent this, motorcades should use
human drivers until self driving cars become smart enough to realize when
they're being spoofed.

~~~
keldaris
This is sarcasm, right? "Self-driving" cars can't handle normal road
conditions in most of the world, the idea that anyone would replace drivers
skilled in offensive/defensive driving under urban combat conditions with an
autopilot system is patently laughable.

------
viburnum
I love all the comments here saying that the hack isn’t a problem because the
car didn’t crash. That’s a pretty low bar.

~~~
rando444
That's literally the best possible result though.

The only alternatives I can think of are using the military's encrypted gps,
or tesla launching their own encrypted GPS satellite network. .. neither of
which seem like realistic options.

If you have a way to navigate cars without GPS, you should probably contact
Tesla so you can make millions of dollars.

~~~
viburnum
The best result is to not claim to have an autopilot at all because they don’t
work.

------
Shivetya
I would hazard a guess that to provide some protection is that the system
would would not permit real time update to existing road structure and using
inertial guidance would rule out any change to its location that would be
impossible to achieve within a set time.

So say you tell the car an exit it has been confirming for sometime is three
miles, any change in that distance based on what the car knows it is doing
should be enough to flag it and require intervention.

Granted a lot of the article is one sided but the cars need to be smart enough
to know where they should be relative to where satellite places them
especially when that information changes to quickly to be valid.

the problem of self driving is fascinating and it just goes to show there is
always someone or something that will throw a wrench into the process

------
gen3
> Even though this research doesn’t demonstrate any Tesla-specific
> vulnerabilities, that hasn’t stopped us from taking steps to introduce
> safeguards in the future which we believe will make our products more secure
> against these kinds of attacks.

What would the solution to this be? Signing GPS signals?

~~~
marcell
Existing laws? Surely intentionally hacking a cars navigation system is a
crime in most (all?) states. Analog would be that I can’t go around laying
nails and thumbtacks on the highway.

~~~
swsieber
Many different methods of hacking are illegal, and yet they still occur. Nails
and thumbtacks less frequently.

------
jedberg
You can shoot a laser into the eyes of a human driver and cause it to veer off
the road too. But that’s illegal and immoral so most people don’t do it.

All of these “attacks on self driving cars” are just different illegal things
that a single person can do against a single car.

But it doesn’t prove they’re any less safe.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
I don't know if you can legally buy dangerous lasers, but anybody can access
code + laptops, right?

~~~
loeg
Literally anyone can buy a dangerous laser from China off ebay, alibaba, or
other mostly legitimate ClearNet sites. They're not even expensive.

------
cr4zy
Related recent research that handles decoy waypoints [1][2]. They use
imitation learning for path planning directly from sensor data, instead of
just using machine learning for perception, tracking, prediction and doing
MPC/LQR for the planner. This allows inferring weird paths, _perhaps_ , like
"run into this narrow pit stop" :)

[1] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06544](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06544)

[2]
[https://sites.google.com/view/imitativeforecastingcontrol](https://sites.google.com/view/imitativeforecastingcontrol)

------
elisto
There should be a lot of concern over stuff like this in the future when
technology is expected to lead the way. Who pays the cost when something an
accident caused by spoofing/etc happens? Who is in charge of checking the
firmware/software to confirm what happened? What does the owner of the car do
while there is an investigation (lease a car with insurance money?) How would
the police find out the perpetrator? What if the perpetrator is out of their
jurisdiction?

------
kevin_thibedeau
Jammer – ADALAM PLUTO $150

Spoofer – Blade RF SDR $400

FCC violation – Priceless

If you're going to test RF spoofing please hardwire the transmitter to the
receiver so nobody else is affected.

~~~
0xffff2
The FCC hands out a lot of violations in Israel, does it? Regardless, I've
never heard of Regulus before but they seem to be a legitimate company, not
just a bunch of people winging it. Presumably they know better than we do
whether they're violating any laws or regulations.

------
mattbeckman
Could you spoof the car to exit and continue thinking you were still on a
freeway? A car being spoofed into thinking it was still on a freeway, while
driving on city streets, might not prioritize certain rules when it approaches
an intersection.

~~~
arwineap
There's two components in the system.

The first component is the autodrive which uses only visual sensors to stay in
the lane, stay away from the car in front of you, and maintain speed.

The second component seems to be the routing which enabled the first component
to use turn signals, and route with maps. This is the piece that uses gps.

Since their attack only affects the cars GPS it does not affect the car's
driving style.

------
xGrill
I wonder if, as self driving technology becomes more prevalent and more of
these "hacks" become dangerous, if some federal laws around spoofing cars and
using objects to influence an autopilot system become major felonies.

~~~
pwodhouse
Vandalism, murder, and hacking are already illegal.

------
howard941
Related submission from yesterday notable for Tesla's snark
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227439)

------
ocdtrekkie
Is there maybe a future possibility of an eventual replacement for GPS being
cryptographically signed in some way, so that we can verify it came from the
United States government or what-have-you?

~~~
dmitrygr
It can be done, but is not as trivial as you might think. To start with, the
actual bitrate of the data is quite low, and adding more bytes to send is not
easy.

------
ausbah
is it worthwhile for big firms like Tesla that produce these critical software
and hardware systems consider hiring independent groups to try and exploit
these critical systems for previously unseen bugs before they go into
production? outside observers never seem to hurt with these sort of things

------
gcb0
> Tesla emphasizes that “in both of these scenarios until truly driverless
> cars are validated and approved by regulators, drivers are responsible for
> and must remain ready to take manual control of their car at all times.”

So, tesla/elon are officially thankful for regulation prevent themselves from
screwing up worse than they are already?

