[metellus]

Did you read the article? Here are two quotes:

"Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."

"WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."

[yellowapple]

> "Second, Miller and Valasek have been sharing their research with Chrysler for nearly nine months, enabling the company to quietly release a patch ahead of the Black Hat conference."

I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.

> "WIRED has learned that senators Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal plan to introduce an automotive security bill today to set new digital security standards for cars and trucks, first sparked when Markey took note of Miller and Valasek’s work in 2013."

If you read further, you'll see the paragraphs on Markey's letters to auto makers regarding the 2013 findings; Markey's own findings only reinforce my point further.

Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).

[metellus]

> I did admittedly miss the "nine months" portion of that, but that's still only one company out of many.

Yes, it's the company that owns Jeep. The company that has a demonstrated the security flaw. How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.

> Also, note that my point - that auto makers mostly ignored Miller and Valasek, according to the article - would not include senators (unless said senators build cars, of course).

Senators may not build cars, but they can (and are trying to) force auto makers to take security seriously.

The argument in this comment chain has been whether this problem could get the attention it needed without such a dangerous publicity stunt. The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.

[yellowapple]

> How different automakers responded to different security issues isn't related to this article or discussion.

It is related to the article when the article discusses those responses.

> The fact that automaker and lawmakers were convinced to take action by less dangerous demonstrations shows that this stunt was not necessary.

One automaker (even this is dubious; Chrysler seriously expects people to believe that the only way to patch a bug that allows total control over a car's transmission and brakes - let alone the rest of the car - is via a USB stick, and that over-the-air patching isn't an option? Please.) and two senators. There are dozens more automakers and 98 more senators to convince. Hopefully the demo helps make that a better situation.

Meanwhile, a bunch of Dodges and Chryslers are driving around America totally susceptible to UConnect bugs, and a very large number of new cars on the road don't even have the most basic safety precautions (like, you know, not connecting the brakes and transmission to the Internet willy-nilly).

The convincing so far has been negligible. Hopefully that'll change soon, before someone with less-benevolent motives follows in Miller's and Valasek's footsteps.