jvanbrecht

I have not read all the details, but it appears that MB has added the ability for those running the Mbrace2, to get remote code updates to the system.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04...tware-remotely

This may or may not occur without notification to the owner of the vehicle..

I'm sure more details will come out in the future.. but just something to keep in mind for now.

propain

Your car is a rolling computer with Sat uplinks. They have always had this ability. You dont need Mbrace either. Its easy enough to disable.

I like this reply...

jvanbrecht

Yeah.. some of the /. crowd are a little off their rockers.. but the comments are always amusing.

Also, while we have always had Sat access, it is via GPS, and was downlink only (read only for a lack of a better term). There was no two way communication, until Mbrace/Onstar/etc came along, however those use cellular over Sat.

The biggest issue with updates, is that you really need 2 way communication to be successful. It can be done via just download, but you lose sanity checks and notifications in the event of a failure.

Also, our vehicles only have 2 Sat communication types, XM/Sirius and GPS, neither of those networks have the bandwidth to provide 2 way communications in mass, let alone hundreds of thousands of vehicles worldwide.

From my standpoint, I have no issues with remote updates, however, pushing them without user intervention is an issue to me. The new version of Mbrace, allowing that communications could be fun, but the ability intercept and manipulate, or completely bypass and hack the crap out of it, would be even more fun for me (I work in IT security).. I see a talk coming up at maybe Blackhat or Defcon next year

Sheep

Just don't be a terrorist or on the wrong side of the law and you will be fine.

Sheep

Car drvr

This type of thing (which will rely on slow cellular wireless connection) will be used for minor things, such as updates to built-in apps (part of mbrace2), minor updates for compatibility with future cellphone models, and so on. Of course, it will also be used for "remote diagnostic" type of thing, so it does have a potential to transmit various diagnostic info (error codes, sensor data, etc.) to MB, though it is likely that it will not do it automatically and will require the user to initiate the connection to MBrace support center.




There's no such thing in non-modified cars.

propain

Ummm what?

Car drvr

...how do you think a non-modified car can have a "Sat uplink"? Through one-way GPS receiver?

propain

Hmmm... I thought it was two way communication. Onstar is two way communication. Mbrace isnt?

Car drvr

Onstar doesn't use satellite uplink... It's the same as Mbrace, they both use cellular network connection (Onstar uses CDMA, don't know what Mbrace uses). Same goes for BMW's Assist (or whatever they call it).

propain

Gotcha. I see what you mean. I meant two way communication. I used "Sat uplink" the wrong way.

Sat for the GPS. Cell service for the communication. In any event... using cell service you can easily push data and receive data from the vehicle at any time. Including the GPS data being sent via Cell communication.

jvanbrecht

FYI, you can receive data from satellites, this is how directv updates it's receivers.
There is a data channel that can be broadcast over the GPS network, but it is very small, and would be extremely slow, and of course you would need the US military/gov approval before sending any data. But this is only receiving, not sending from the vehicle.

But MB could use the sirius satellite network to push out data updates... The problem with that is that it is a broadcast mechanism, meaning all cars would get the same thing, and would not be custom to each vehicle. Obviously their would be some security built in to prevent non Mbrace devices from utilizing the signal, but it is just not efficient, and would make no sense in todays world of high speed cellular.

Onstar used to use Nextel type network, now I am guessing it is just regular sprint network, or voip via ptt (push to talk) protocol that is similar to the old iden network (what nextel uses), but with a heavy delay since it is IP based now.

Most likely what Mbrace is using, is ATT (more so than Tmobile, since Tmobile US uses an odd frequency band range for its HSPA/UMTS networks, although they use the standard ranges for basic GSM/Edge service), which has had their HSPA network up for a while, and has been deploying LTE (I have an LTE phone, I get around 50mbit/sec down, 25mbit/sec up.. if you do not know what that is... lets just say it is faster then my 35/35 FIOS Service which is fiber to the home). Verizon has also been deploying it, but their devices would only work in the US, no where else, and it would make no sense for MB to develop a Mbrace2 unit for the US market, and another for the rest of the world, so it would be in their best interest to develop 1 unit that would work everywhere (although I guess they could use a cellular module that could be swapped in an out based on country/location). ATT is the only US provider whos phones will work on 3G networks in other countries (the LTE will not, nor will ATT's LTE work on Verizons LTE due to the pissing matches they like to have, as well as the business model of US cellular providers locking devices to their networks through simlocks and incompatible frequency ranges).