Subject: Re: [its] does MANET or ITS scope extend to EV charging stations

From: Alison Chaiken <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:38:57 -0700

Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> writes:
> Yes, I knew if bad guy could access it physically, the bad guy has won,
> which is why I'm surprised to learn that some plug-in cables have CAN
> according to the slides you posted.

Plug-in cables must have access to CAN in order to read state-of-charge,
temperature, etc., but there's no reason that data couldn't come from a
websocket via a server reading SQLite as opposed to a hard connection.
The scary exploits on CAN are not plug-in though: check the
software-defined-radio hacks via wireless tire-pressure monitor, FM radio,
CDROM and keyless entry fob at autosec.org.

> Did Tesla explain why they didn't use that plug?

Like Steve Jobs, Elon Musk doesn't often feel the need to explain.

> The stock/legacy signaling protocol seems to be based upon switching
> resistors... ick.

Talking on CAN involves pulling down the HI signal on one of the two (often
twisted-pair) wires of the bus, although more advanced protocols (e.g.
TTCAN, FlexRay, etc.) exist.   From the point of view of IETF, the main
point is that the end points of the communication are not at all secure.
If a large aftermarket develops for 802.11p radios, then quite ancient
legacy protocols will represent nodes on the V2X network.

-- 
Alison Chaiken                           [email-masked]
650-279-5600                            http://{she-devel.com,
exerciseforthereader.org}
The intermediary between the head and the hands must be the heart.    --
Thea von Harbou