122 pointsby infosecau3 hours ago12 comments
  • ryukopostingan hour ago
    Blue car in the background is a facelifted fifth gen RAV4. Obvious from the shape of the mirrors and headlight. Toyota/Lexus would align with the "both brands" remark.

    White one is harder to tell obviously, but the shape of the mirror looks the same, and you can see the top of the dash has a chamfered shape that looks an awful lot like this pic: https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/toyota/rav4/2022/oem/2022...

    Posting a video demo probably isn't a great idea for this kind of thing. I'm sure some sicko could have figured this out just from the sound the locks make.

    • winny31413 minutes ago
      Keeping information under wraps just encourages more security theater, like people believing that locks actually work to deter skilled attackers, whatsoever. They really don't. They deter casual attackers at best.
    • NamlchakKhandro6 minutes ago
      hah. protip... it's not a 2022 rav4. the bonnet gives it away
  • winny3143 minutes ago
    Just go wrench on your own car, like OP. You'll be amazed at all the funky ways you can gain access without a key. Not really secure, but difficult enough to prevent the casual shenanigans. This stuff predates the automotive IoT crisis too.
  • intuitionistan hour ago
    “Any car” is perhaps too strong a claim. If it is Toyota/Lexus, I will say that I don’t think my 2009 Camry has this issue. I am quite sure that the fourth-generation Hilux my brother has does not.
  • NooneAtAll540 minutes ago
    I think automaker failed security the moment its cars connected to the internet
  • janice19993 hours ago
    Warning: The video in the article contains VERY loud bleeps.
    • infosecau2 hours ago
      Hi - I've fixed this and uploaded a replacement video with less loud beeps. Sorry about that.
      • exodust12 minutes ago
        I can't play the video at all in firefox desktop because the video is encoded as h265 which firefox won't play unless specific extensions are installed.

        h264 is the better choice for short progressive download clips on websites if compatibility matters.

      • netsharc2 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • UqWBcuFx6NV4ran hour ago
          you would do yourself some good to learn to differentiate constructive criticism from this sort of mean vitriol. I have no doubt that this is the explanation for the downvotes. there is truly no need to be so abrasive. it only serves to detract from whatever good-faith intentions you had, if any.
        • Barbingan hour ago

            “Thanks for the nice write-up. Gotta admit the video still irks me. Like, portrait to landscape mid-recording… Since it was only a minute, think re-recording would be well worth it.”
          
          -anti-sloppy non-downvote-magnet comment potential
        • boesboesan hour ago
          [flagged]
  • constantlm2 hours ago
    This is a Rav4
  • AnonHP29 minutes ago
    The byline says “security researcher”, but I didn’t find any mention of disclosure to the platform security team in the blog post. What gives?
    • rafram3 minutes ago
      The companion blog post from Sam Curry says the issues were reported and fixed within hours.
  • quantummagic3 hours ago
    For anyone who is trying to decipher the clunky title, it means "Unlocking vehicles from a major manufacturer, across the globe" The manufacturer is not disclosed.
    • ryandrakean hour ago
      Proper clickbait titles are more like “You wouldn’t believe the car brand we were able to unlock!” And when you click through, the article tells you. What advanced form of clickbait is this where the authors doesn’t even disclose the most important part of the story? Why is he protecting the car company by redacting the brand through the entire article?
      • topspin44 minutes ago
        > Why is he protecting the car company

        He is not protecting the a car company. He is protecting himself.

  • UltraSanean hour ago
    I'm glad I bought a Corolla LE that does have remote start. I still have to insert the key to start the engine. So much more secure.
  • PlaneSploit3 hours ago
    Hyundai
    • defrost3 hours ago
      Not if you take them (there are two security workers behind this) at their word:

        In the past few years, we'd found ways to remotely control vehicles from Honda, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti, Hyundai, Genesis, Ford, Porsche, Kia, and Subaru, but we'd never found a vulnerability that enabled remote access to either an Automaker #1 or Automaker #2 vehicle.
      
      Hacking Two Automakers: ForgeRock Path Confusion, RCE, and Remote Vehicle Access (November 7, 2026) - By Shubham Shah and Sam Curry - https://samcurry.net/forgerock
      • stickfigure2 hours ago
        Combined with the "across both of their brands" comment, and we're restricted to cars available new in Australia in 2023, I'm guessing Toyota/Lexus. Could be Land Rover/Jaguar too.

        Why would they be so circumspect? Presumably the automaker has fixed this by now.

        • defrost2 hours ago
          On the non-Australian side (the Sam Curry blog)

            After we reported the vulnerability, both automakers fixed it within about two hours and rotated the affected credentials. The affected systems served customers in multiple regions; we tested the complete chain only with US accounts and vehicles.
          
          and I suspect there may have been a ninja edit- I swear blind I read a throw away line about why they were keeping the company name suppressed an hour or so ago, now I cannot find it in either article. As I recall, they "normally would disclose" but "times are busy and security folks are hard pressed" (paraphrasing) - they were giving the auto folks a bit of leeway for a bit (likely by request).
        • Nexxxeh2 hours ago
          It probably wouldn't be JLR. They're having to be the insurer of last resort in their home country because some of the high-end Land Rovers are so trivial to steal they're otherwise near effectively uninsurable. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/range-rover-thef...
          • tialaramex2 hours ago
            That article says the big problem was with "old architecture" so it is possible that somebody brave at JLR actually persuaded the Powers That Be that they should invest an hour's time and $10 to do a halfway good job at this and beat the poor state of the art.

            Often when the situation is "Most makers are 1/10, but we're 0/10" a small amount of effort can get you to 4/10 and until the attackers up their game you look stellar, even though in reality you're still doing a poor job, everybody else was much worse

        • gruez2 hours ago
          Defamation/legal risk, even if such legal actions will be spurious
          • 2 hours ago
            undefined
    • miohtama2 hours ago
      [flagged]
    • BatchJob2 hours ago
      The color scheme on the admin panel suggests Toyota.
  • the_real_cher3 hours ago
    Can anybody guess what automaker?
  • anal_reactoran hour ago
    It's extremely difficult to find, hire, and then put into the right position a competent security engineer. Meanwhile competent hackers grow on trees. I understand that mistakes here were silly, but that's not the point. The point is, security is fucking difficult.

    IMO the practical solution to this problem - because telling companies "just do security better" works as much as telling fat people "just eat less" - would be some kind of central registry of car parts. This was already implemented in iPhones back in the day that if a repair wasn't signed off by Apple, you couldn't install a new part to your iPhone. I imagine that if the government had a similar thing but for cars, then thieves would stop stealing cars because each stolen part would eventually be flagged somewhere and the end customer would be upset, never coming back.

    I say "government" because companies cannot be trusted to make a simple interface "log in -> enter part number and car license plate -> ready to install". I assume that outside of the US the "log into government website" part is already solved in one way or another. On the privacy side, it really shouldn't be controversial, assuming that people are already used to the VIN having a repair history tied to it.

    • macintuxan hour ago
      I’m questioning the need for connected cars in the first place. Perhaps we could revisit that trend.
      • joedwin16 minutes ago
        considering cybercab and waymo . That trend is going nowhere
        • macintux13 minutes ago
          Makes perfect sense for fully-automated vehicles that aren’t privately owned. Everything else, I think there’s an argument to be made.

          Not that I expect the argument to go anywhere.