[AceJohnny2]

Some very interesting stuff in there... that's bound to make some manufacturers very unhappy. I remember a couple years ago when some Tesla forum geeks got access to the Linux system running the infotainment dashboard of the model ... and got a nice (seriously) message from Tesla engineers to the amount of "good job... but please stop there".

Many folks have mentioned how the Tesla Model S at least is more of a supercomputing cluster on wheels than a car with some ECUs. I don't know how armored their CAN bus(es) are, but I'm sure the "Attacking ECUs and other embedded systems" is giving some safety engineers white hair.

(of course, everything I've said about Tesla is just about equally applicable to other high-end vehicles. It's just that Tesla are a bit more connected to the traditional software world)

[shiggerino]

>I'm sure the "Attacking ECUs and other embedded systems" is giving some safety engineers white hairs.

If the systems were properly documented for the owners I seriously doubt there would be a problem. Give people a USB stick with docs, sources and signing keys and those who can make sense of them are probably smart enough to hack responsibly.

[AceJohnny2]

> those who can make sense of them are probably smart enough to hack responsibly

Ahahahaaa!

It only takes one jerk to ruin it for everyone.

[kw71]

No way. The carmaker cannot guarantee emissions, safety or its operation if tampering is permitted. I think they should stop at voiding the warranty, though, and not move on to making threats or legal actions.

[jandrese]

If someone can make a Tesla Roadster fail emissions with a software patch I will be impressed.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Brake non-driving wheels and apply power to at least one drive wheel. Result: lots of smoke!

[freehunter]

Many programmers want to be responsible. They still end up writing bugs and making mistakes.

[fnordfnordfnord]

Just ask Toyota, right? If you can't do as good a job as that, then you should be prevented from trying, eh?