750
Canada declares Flipper Zero public enemy No. 1 in car-theft crackdown
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
750 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59710 readers
2005 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So, rather than hold automakers accountable for not having proper and effective security practices you focus on a tool designed for security professionals.
This take is so unbelievably brain dead I'm surprised these people are able to breathe without machine assistance
Auto makers are really bad about it. CAN Injection has been a thing for a while now. Cars are going IoT, and a flipper will be the least of the vulnerabilities as things progress.
I’ve just had premonitions of cars crashing into each other in car parks when the ‘self parking’ mode is hacked…
As things progress, security should improve. Keyword SHOULD. But they don't because good security ain't cheap.
Direct quote from https://flipperzero.one/:
Pentester or penetration tester is a cybersecurity professional that can be located on red team (offence) or blue team (defence) and works to determine potential vectors for attack that need to be rectified or exploited, depending on who they're working for and what their goals are for their employer.
I mean of course the official website isn't going to say "it's a great tool for hackers and car thieves"
A tool is just that, a tool.
Just because what you consider immoral or moral individuals use it doesn't change the inherent nature of the tool to be used for specific circumstances. You'll also notice I didn't put any deterministic language when describing a penetration tester, because regardless of what side of the law they're on they're still cybersecurity professionals, it's just that one side happens to pay better.
A knife can be used to dissect as well as it can be used to mutilate or even vivisect. How a tool is used is determined by the user not the creator.
Complaining that a few people use the item for nefarious purposes when the majority of problematic cases are issues at the developer level for the items being affected (i.e. vehicles) is extremely short sighted. Are you going to restrict all PC's because they can be used for network intrusion?
Are you going to limit access to the internet because the freely available information can teach anyone to create a dirty bomb?
The premise of your outlook is inherently erroneous in my opinion.
I'm not talking about the uses for the tool, I'm talking about how you used the company's own website as a point of reference for the tool's capabilities. They have a profit motive so of course they're not going to advertise unsavory uses for their product, just like your knife companies aren't going to advertise that their product can be used for mutilation.
But go on with your pedantry I guess.
The irony of you saying I am the one being pedantic is seriously hilarious.
You should probably work on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.
The entire premise of your argument is 'only criminals use this tool' or 'the majority of users of this tool are criminals' when that is fundamentally and objectively incorrect.
You clearly lack any serious experience in computer science, let alone cybersecurity, and it shows.