[higherpurpose]

> The recall doesn’t actually require Chrysler owners to bring their cars, trucks and SUVs to a dealer. Instead, they’ll be sent a USB drive with a software update they can install through the port on their vehicle’s dashboard.

http://www.wired.com/2015/07/jeep-hack-chrysler-recalls-1-4m...

> Chrysler says it’s also taken steps to block the digital attack Miller and Valasek demonstrated with “network-level security measures”—presumably security tools that detect and block the attack on Sprint’s network, the cellular carrier that connect Chrysler’s vehicles to the Internet.

Oh great, they'll install an antivirus and think they've fixed the problem.

[justizin]

> Instead, they’ll be sent a USB drive with a software update they can install through the port on their vehicle’s dashboard.

So, if I'm in someone's Fiat Chryslermobile, and they're pumping gas, I can flash the vehicle's firmware from the passenger seat?

This seems a lot easier than rooting it over the air.

[freehunter]

That's how I get updates on my car. A signed executable from Fiat. It hardly ever works right, and it takes longer than the time you need to fill up with gas. And the car has to remain stationary.

[UnoriginalGuy]

> Oh great, they'll install an antivirus and think they've fixed the problem.

This is a super strange thing to say after your first quote. They've blocked it on the cell network AND are sending out updates to car owners.

So how you ignore your own first quote to criticise them for "only" blocking it at the network level is bizarre, it is like you didn't read your own post...

[fineman]

The post isn't complaining they'll only block it at the network level, it's complaining that they're trying that at all. The issue is vulnerable cars - not the lack of a firewall between the net and those vulnerable cars.

Any network fix is useless smoke and mirrors.