NYT: Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?

The New York Times
March 13, 2005

Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN

Illus:
http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
Caption:
Computer cooties and the car

A VIRUS can wreak havoc on computer files, hard drives and networks, but its
malicious effects tend to be measured in wasted time, lost sales and the
occasional unfinished novel that evaporates into the digital ozone. But what
if viruses, worms or other forms of malware penetrated the computers that
control ever more crucial functions in the car?

Could you find yourself at the wheel of two tons of rolling steel that has
malevolent code coursing through its electronic veins?

That frightening prospect has had Internet message boards buzzing this year,
amid rumors that a virus had infected Lexus cars and S.U.V.'s. The virus
supposedly entered the cars over the Bluetooth wireless link that lets
drivers use their cellphones to carry on hands-free conversations through
the cars' microphones and speakers.

The prospect is not so implausible. A handful of real if fairly benign
cellphone viruses have already been observed, in antivirus industry
parlance, "in the wild."

Still, a virus in a cellphone might muck up an address book or, at worst,
quietly dial Vanuatu during peak hours. But malicious code in cars, which
rely on computers for functions as benign as seat adjustment and as crucial
as antiskid systems that seize control of the brakes and throttle to prevent
a crash, could do far more harm.

The Lexus tale, based on murky reporting and a speculative statement by
Kaspersky Labs, a Moscow antivirus company, seems to have been unfounded.
"Lexus and its parent companies, Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. and Toyota
Motor Corporation in Japan, have investigated this rumor," the carmaker said
in a statement last month, "and have determined it to be without
foundation."

But the question lingers: Could a car be infected by a virus passed along
from, say, your cellphone or hand-held computer? Or worse, by a hacker with
a Bluetooth device within range of the car's antennas?

The short answer is, not yet.

"Right now this is a lot of hype rather than reality, the idea that cars
could be turning against us," said Thilo Koslowski, a vice president and
lead analyst for auto-based information and communication technologies at
Gartner G2, a technology research firm. "We won't see John Carpenter's
'Christine' becoming a reality anytime soon."

But Mr. Koslowski and others are quick to point out that the elements for
mischief are slowly falling into place:

First, vehicles are increasingly controlled by electronics - to the point
that even the simple mechanical link between the gas pedal and engine
throttle is giving way to "drive by wire" systems.

Second, more data is being exchanged with outside sources, including
cellphones and real-time traffic reports.

Finally, the interlinking of car electronics opens up the possibility that
automotive worms could burrow into a memory storage area in ways that
engineers never imagined.

Since the early 1990's, the various computers that manage a car's engine,
transmission, brakes, air bags and entertainment systems have been
increasingly linked in networks much like the ones that offices use to let
workers share printers, scanners and backup storage drives. Benefits of
interconnecting the electronic devices include less wiring - a luxury car
can contain miles of copper cables - and reduced weight, an important factor
in improving performance and fuel economy.

Less obvious are the advantages of having the components communicate: an
antiskid system, designed to help keep a car from spinning out of control,
links sensors in the steering, brakes and throttle, and can effectively
seize control from the driver.

Other systems in which computers essentially take over, if only for a
second, include emergency-brake assist, which provides maximum braking force
when sensors detect the need for a panic stop, and "active steering," a
feature now exclusive to BMW in which computers can compensate for a
driver's recklessness.

The latest versions of in-car information systems, known as telematics,
include the ability to diagnose vehicle maladies. General Motors' OnStar can
forward readings from sensors throughout the car for troubleshooting, a
process called remote diagnostics. (All G.M. cars will include OnStar by the
end of 2007.)

The data, read from the engine-control computer, is transmitted over the
OnStar cellphone link. Several automakers have discussed plans to use this
conduit to update a vehicle's software or even perform electronic repairs,
though no automaker is currently doing this regularly. Microsoft has entered
this business, too, having recently signed a deal to provide software for a
telematics and diagnostics system to be installed in all Fiats, starting
this year.

By design, the various controls are not isolated from other in-car
processors, since they need to share information to operate effectively and
avoid the need for redundant sensors, wiring and microprocessors. Also,
automakers have begun to share in-car processing power and memory capacity
over the network, said Paul Hansen, the publisher of an industry newsletter,
The Hansen Report on Automotive Electronics.

In a car with a stand-alone cellphone installation there would be no pathway
for pernicious computer code to enter the vital electronic systems. But as
automakers work to take advantage of linked processors, ready exchanges of
data - and malware - become possible.

Possible does not, however, mean easy. Unlike the anonymous and remote world
of PC viruses delivered over the Internet, a ne'er-do-well would need, in
most cases, a few moments alone with a car to impregnate it with malware -
for now.

Marko Wolf, a research associate at Ruhr-Universität in Bochum, Germany, and
co-author of a recent study of security in automotive networks, said a rogue
mechanic with under-the-hood access could make short work of planting
malicious code. And as internal networking reaches the exposed extremities
of a car - its side mirrors, say, or its lights - the number of potential
access points increases.

"Cars have extended their bus wires and controllers even into their
electronic mirrors" and to receivers for global-positioning signals, Mr.
Wolf said, conjuring a "Mission: Impossible" plot: "One can easily hack into
the internal communication system just by breaking away that outside part
and connecting the bare bus wires with a P.D.A. or laptop." (A bus is
essentially a collection of wires linking one part of a computer - or a car
- to another.)

Looking ahead, a proliferation of remote access points - OnStar-type
services, for instance, or short-range Bluetooth connections - will raise
the odds that virus writers will eventually try to beam a bug across the
ether. Just as such services let the car send data to the outside world,
malware writers could try to use those wireless conduits to send destructive
payloads into cars.

Systems like OnStar, known for providing emergency assistance or concierge
services (its operators will make restaurant reservations for you), in fact
hold deep conversations with the car's networks. Besides the ability to
provide engine diagnostics and unlock the doors by remote to rescue
forgotten keys, an advanced level of OnStar - now on about a dozen G.M.
models - will report detailed data about a collision to emergency medical
personnel.

Navigation systems, which have used only a time signal from satellites to
determine a car's location, are adding traffic information. The Acura RL is
the first with this service; updates about congestion or construction delays
are sent to the car and displayed on the navigation screen.

Despite these potential pathways, creating a virus that would spread within
the car would be no small feat. In the Windows-dominated PC universe, "the
programmer only has to know the PC processor" to do damage, said Egil
Juliussen of Telematics Research Group of Minnetonka, Minn., a firm that
tracks the rise of in-car networking.

"The auto is a very different environment," he said. "The infotainment
system may have multiple processors and operating systems. The navigation
system has one processor or operating system, the telematics system may have
another one and the radio may have a third one."

Getting a virus to propagate from one system to another would be akin to
designing malware that could pass from a Windows environment to a Macintosh
system and on to a Linux machine - infecting them all.

"The point is that the virus writer needs to expand his knowledge by a
factor of 10 or more over the PC world," Mr. Juliussen said. Even then, he
said, with operating systems - particularly those that control crucial
mechanical systems - remaining varied and proprietary, a successful virus
could function in only a small fraction of cars.

"It's feasible," Mr. Juliussen said, "just a lot harder."

Whether virus writers can overcome the hurdles remains an open question, but
evidence from the PC world suggests that as on-board networking becomes more
widespread and standardized, they will certainly try. Early speculation,
like the Lexus rumors, may help focus attention on the potential problem
before car malware has a chance to flourish.

"I am very happy to see as many rumors of that sort as believable as
possible as soon as possible," said Peter B. Ladkin, a professor of computer
networks and distributed systems at the University of Bielefeld in Germany.
"Because it means that more automakers will pay attention to what they're
doing."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/au...es/13AUTO.html

"sufaud" > wrote in message
...
> The New York Times
> March 13, 2005
>
> Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
> By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN
>
> Illus:
> http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
> Caption:
> Computer cooties and the car
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/au...es/13AUTO.html

Some of the many reasons why I stick to cars over 35 years old. I don't want
anything that can "seize control" from me, or can in any way have any affect
on my throttle, steering, or especially brakes. Hell, I don't even
particularly like power steering, and I hate power brakes. They both reduce
road feel, giving you a more 'detached' sense while driving. I like to have
feedback from the car, to know what's going on around me and to be able to
feel and hear what the car is doing.

All this hogwash about viruses in cars, well I suppose in theory it could be
possible. I doubt that any manufacturers allow the computers memory to be
flashed over the bluetooth link though. Most likely the bluetooth goes down
when the programming is flashed. In any case, I don't ahve to worry aobut
that stuff. I'll stick to cars that I know. They have personalities, but not
a mind of their own and they certainly can never take control of
themselves... I'll keep it that way thank you very much!

Cory

It sounds like a scene out of a movie where the robots take control and
leave the humans helpless. While not entirely plausible, I'm not sure
this isn't too far off into the future.

sufaud wrote:
> The New York Times
> March 13, 2005
>
> Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
> By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN


What a ridiculous non-story. I guess that's what you can except from
the NYT these days.

Reminds me of the idiots who thought airplanes were going to fall out
of the sky and power plants fail at midnight of 1/1/00

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:34:02 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
> >> By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN
> >>
> >> Illus:
> >> http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
> >> Caption:
> >> Computer cooties and the car
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/au...es/13AUTO.html
> >
> >Some of the many reasons why I stick to cars over 35 years old.
>
> Avoiding newer cars because they might be infected with a virus is
> like moving off-planet because you think the sun is about to go nova.


My main reasons are the ludicrous price (look at a new car vs a 5-10 year
old car) and the fact that you can't get them without all the luxury and
safety 'features'. I like cars that I drive, not the car takes control of
some things. I don't like things like power windows and power brakes, 8
million-way adjustable seats, or lights, dingers and buzzers that alert me
to every little thing I either already know about or don't care about. I
alos like to be able to work on my own car easily. I prefer not to have to
deal with emissions stuff. Hell, I probably wouldn't mind an EGR valve on my
daily driver, but when you look under the hood and can't see the engine for
all the vacuum lines and emissions/electronic hardware it's ridiculous. I
must say though, that lately I'm not intimidated by modern automotive
technology, and quite enjoy working on otehr people's modern cars. It's an
interesting learning experience. Not my cup of tea though.

Too much fluff on new cars that you can't get rid of. I'll stick to old cars
Nothing newer than the early '70s for me, thank you very much (though I have
considered a fox Mustang as a possible daily driver (carbureted of course).
I think it would be a fun and rather 'peppy' car with a 302 and 5 speed, not
to mention fuel efficient (30-40 MPG highway is attainable). Actually the
fuel efficiency would be the main reason those cars interest me. The
interior is ugly, and the exterior is only non-offensive. I suppose they are
'cute' in their own way though.

I suppose it's kind of like Win2k vs. WinXP. WinXP has too much fluff. All
that junk for people who don't know computers. It's a resource hog, and is
unnecessary. I'll run Win2k until 64 bit becomes mainstream, then when I get
an AMD64 CPU I'll have to run WinXP or whatever else there is. Hell, maybe
I'll make the plunge and make my main machine Linux based. I don't want to
have to call Microsoft every time I change my system's hardware, I just want
a comptuer that performs nicely, is easy to work on, and I can dow whatever
I please with. I paid for teh hardware, I paid for the software. It's mine,
my right to use my license however I want on my own computer. So there you
have the two big issue for me with WinXP. The licensing (call MS for every
'significant' hardware change) and the overall bloatedness, sluggishness and
annoyingness of WinXP (too much 'fluff' that is not needed... Win2k does
everything WinXP does, but uses less resources).

Cory

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:02 +0000, sufaud wrote:

> The New York Times
> March 13, 2005
>
> Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
> By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN
>
> Illus:
> http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
> Caption:
> Computer cooties and the car

The car itself is the virus

Phuoc

Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
>
> My main reasons are the ludicrous price (look at a new car vs a 5-10
year
> old car) and the fact that you can't get them without all the luxury
and
> safety 'features'. I like cars that I drive, not the car takes
control of
> some things. I don't like things like power windows and power brakes,
8
> million-way adjustable seats, or lights, dingers and buzzers that
alert me
> to every little thing I either already know about or don't care
about. I
> alos like to be able to work on my own car easily. I prefer not to
have to
> deal with emissions stuff. Hell, I probably wouldn't mind an EGR
valve on my
> daily driver, but when you look under the hood and can't see the
engine for
> all the vacuum lines and emissions/electronic hardware it's
ridiculous. I
> must say though, that lately I'm not intimidated by modern automotive
> technology, and quite enjoy working on otehr people's modern cars.
It's an
> interesting learning experience. Not my cup of tea though.
>
> Too much fluff on new cars that you can't get rid of. I'll stick to
old cars
> Nothing newer than the early '70s for me, thank you very much (though
I have
> considered a fox Mustang as a possible daily driver (carbureted of
course).
> I think it would be a fun and rather 'peppy' car with a 302 and 5
speed, not
> to mention fuel efficient (30-40 MPG highway is attainable). Actually
the
> fuel efficiency would be the main reason those cars interest me. The
> interior is ugly, and the exterior is only non-offensive. I suppose
they are
> 'cute' in their own way though.
>
> I suppose it's kind of like Win2k vs. WinXP. WinXP has too much
fluff. All
> that junk for people who don't know computers. It's a resource hog,
and is
> unnecessary. I'll run Win2k until 64 bit becomes mainstream, then
when I get
> an AMD64 CPU I'll have to run WinXP or whatever else there is. Hell,
maybe
> I'll make the plunge and make my main machine Linux based. I don't
want to
> have to call Microsoft every time I change my system's hardware, I
just want
> a comptuer that performs nicely, is easy to work on, and I can dow
whatever
> I please with. I paid for teh hardware, I paid for the software. It's
mine,
> my right to use my license however I want on my own computer. So
there you
> have the two big issue for me with WinXP. The licensing (call MS for
every
> 'significant' hardware change) and the overall bloatedness,
sluggishness and
> annoyingness of WinXP (too much 'fluff' that is not needed... Win2k
does
> everything WinXP does, but uses less resources).
>
> Cory

Car makers and computer makers do the same thing. They add all sorts of
expensive frills to "help" the consumer. That's a monopoly for you.

You are reposting this because...?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Phuoc Nghuy wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:42:02 +0000, sufaud wrote:
>
> > The New York Times
> > March 13, 2005
> >
> > Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
> > By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN
> >
> > Illus:
> > http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
> > Caption:
> > Computer cooties and the car
>
> The car itself is the virus
>
> Phuoc
>

On 17 Mar 2005 16:41:44 GMT, "Cory Dunkle" > wrote:

>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:34:02 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Can a Virus Hitch a Ride in Your Car?
>> >> By TOM ZELLER Jr. and NORMAN MAYERSOHN
>> >>
>> >> Illus:
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/48bt7
>> >> Caption:
>> >> Computer cooties and the car
>> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/au...es/13AUTO.html
>> >
>> >Some of the many reasons why I stick to cars over 35 years old.
>>
>> Avoiding newer cars because they might be infected with a virus is
>> like moving off-planet because you think the sun is about to go nova.
>
>
>My main reasons are the ludicrous price (look at a new car vs a 5-10 year
>old car) and the fact that you can't get them without all the luxury and
>safety 'features'. I like cars that I drive, not the car takes control of
>some things. I don't like things like power windows and power brakes, 8
>million-way adjustable seats, or lights, dingers and buzzers that alert me
>to every little thing I either already know about or don't care about.

To each their own, but the only complaint I have about my car which
has all of the above (almost - my seat is only 1 million-way
adjustable) is that I have idiot lights for a few things rather than
actual gauges.

I would love to have a sensor that monitored and reported the air
pressure in my tires.


> I
>alos like to be able to work on my own car easily. I prefer not to have to
>deal with emissions stuff. Hell, I probably wouldn't mind an EGR valve on my
>daily driver, but when you look under the hood and can't see the engine for
>all the vacuum lines and emissions/electronic hardware it's ridiculous. I
>must say though, that lately I'm not intimidated by modern automotive
>technology, and quite enjoy working on otehr people's modern cars. It's an
>interesting learning experience. Not my cup of tea though.

I've thought about getting an old classic of some sort, but I lack the
knowledge and the tools to work on it and to get to the point where I
could, I'd have to spend a lot of time learning and probably more than
a little money on tools and parts.

While that could be rewarding, I have other things to do with my time.

>
>Too much fluff on new cars that you can't get rid of.

such as???


>I'll stick to old cars
>Nothing newer than the early '70s for me, thank you very much (though I have
>considered a fox Mustang as a possible daily driver (carbureted of course).
>I think it would be a fun and rather 'peppy' car with a 302 and 5 speed, not
>to mention fuel efficient (30-40 MPG highway is attainable). Actually the
>fuel efficiency would be the main reason those cars interest me. The
>interior is ugly, and the exterior is only non-offensive. I suppose they are
>'cute' in their own way though.
>
>I suppose it's kind of like Win2k vs. WinXP. WinXP has too much fluff

Not much more fluff than earlier versions of Windows and in the case
of XP it crashes much less.

>. All
>that junk for people who don't know computers. It's a resource hog, and is
>unnecessary. I'll run Win2k until 64 bit becomes mainstream, then when I get
>an AMD64 CPU I'll have to run WinXP or whatever else there is. Hell, maybe
>I'll make the plunge and make my main machine Linux based. I don't want to
>have to call Microsoft every time I change my system's hardware, I just want
>a comptuer that performs nicely, is easy to work on, and I can dow whatever
>I please with. I paid for teh hardware, I paid for the software. It's mine,
>my right to use my license however I want on my own computer. So there you
>have the two big issue for me with WinXP. The licensing (call MS for every
>'significant' hardware change)

How often do you do something like that? I assume you mean something
more significant than replacing a disk, power supply or memory. You
certainly don't have to call MS to do any of those things.


> and the overall bloatedness, sluggishness and
>annoyingness of WinXP (too much 'fluff' that is not needed... Win2k does
>everything WinXP does, but uses less resources).
>
> Cory

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 04:52:49 -0800, Scott in the ArkLaTex
> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:53:34 -0700, Cartlon Shew
> wrote:
>
>>I would love to have a sensor that monitored and reported the air
>>pressure in my tires.
>
>Buy an RX-8.

That's not the only car on the market with such a feature, is it?