RE: JLR reaffirms 'commitment to vehicle security'

[youngsyr]

CarlosSainz100 said:

I don't have much sympathy for Land Rover when it comes to their cars security; but when you see online that the thieves are nicking the latest Range Rovers by peeling a nice hole in the boot lid so they can presumably access some wiring, you do have to wonder just what they can do to stop it if the thieves are going to go to those lengths.....

Maybe they should fit every car with a version of a Ghost immobilizer....

Maybe requiring the key to be present before allowing the car to be driven off would be a good start?

[youngsyr]

honda_exige said:

Funkstar De Luxe said:

I'd suggest something like a uniquely cut piece of small metal that has to be physically inserted into the vehicle before allowing ignition.

I'm a bit weird though.

Go watch LockPickingLawyer on YouTube and realise why this doesn't solve much.

Can he pick immobilisers too then?

[CarlosSainz100]

youngsyr said:

Maybe requiring the key to be present before allowing the car to be driven off would be a good start?

But the thieves access the canbus via the peeled bootlid to fool the car into thinking the keys there don't they? At least on the latest models

But yeah, they absolutely should be doing more. The security on the older models in particular is atrocious.

[youngsyr]

CarlosSainz100 said:

youngsyr said:

Maybe requiring the key to be present before allowing the car to be driven off would be a good start?

But the thieves access the canbus via the peeled bootlid to fool the car into thinking the keys there don't they? At least on the latest models

But yeah, they absolutely should be doing more. The security on the older models in particular is atrocious.

The technology that enables a car to determine whether the actual physical key is present in the car was fitted to cars as early as 30 years ago, it's the basis of old school immobilisers.

Didn't matter if you had a direct connection to the ECU, without the key, the car was driving nowhere.

[LooneyTunes]

youngsyr said:

CarlosSainz100 said:

youngsyr said:

Maybe requiring the key to be present before allowing the car to be driven off would be a good start?

But the thieves access the canbus via the peeled bootlid to fool the car into thinking the keys there don't they? At least on the latest models

But yeah, they absolutely should be doing more. The security on the older models in particular is atrocious.

The technology that enables a car to determine whether the actual physical key is present in the car was fitted to cars as early as 30 years ago, it's the basis of old school immobilisers.

Didn't matter if you had a direct connection to the ECU, without the key, the car was driving nowhere.

The whole issue stems from being able to convince the vehicle that its required authentication process (what ever that may be) has been complied with.

If there is a system/software/network vulnerability that allows you to achieve this then the vehicle can be stolen. Such vulnerabilities are most likely to be exploitable in the ECU or whatever module is used for authentication. If the automotive bus systems can allow easy access to connected modules then you’re looking for weak points to that network, which is what people have surprised.

Yes it could be better, but JLR almost certainly are not 30 years behind the curve.

[GianiCakes]

Any thieves interested in my Tesla please let me know. I’ll make sure it’s fully charged, washed with a couple of bottles of water and some snacks inside.

[fatsams]

How absolutely ridiculous, I can see it, head of development comes to the table and says, “Wow, got a great idea, will save you 2 seconds to get the car started, don’t need to put the key in the door or ignition”. Why no-one in the highly paid room did bot say, “Woops, not so cleaver, makes it easier to steal” with the marketing dept. Saying “Great marketing idea”. The manufacturers must now make them safe, they decided to make them that way. There is something called “The Lemon Law”, looks to me to be the ideal candidate for a class action!

[N.A.R.T Spyder]

I remember when all these keyless thefts started as I was in the Police at the time. The senior management reckoned the owners were forgetting to lock their cars and that was how the thieves were getting in. This was up until my sgt ordered a device on ebay and demonstrated it on an X5 parked outside the nick !! (He was a massive petrol head and had set up a very good BMW forum before his sad passing).

[cobra kid]

LunarOne said:

gizard said:

tr3a said:

• Cough*Tesla.

I have a friend who's Tesla

I very much doubt it. He's been dead since January 1943.

Who says he is THAT Tesla? He may be a distant relative.

[GianiCakes]

Those bemoaning the loss of the physical key are forgetting about the 80’s when you could steal a Ford with nothing more than a Lolly stick. My mates XR2 was stolen 5 times in one year.

[Limpet]

GianiCakes said:

Those bemoaning the loss of the physical key are forgetting about the 80’s when you could steal a Ford with nothing more than a Lolly stick. My mates XR2 was stolen 5 times in one year.

I was about to say the same thing. Most cars could be driven away in less than a minute with a screwdriver and a short length of scaffold tube. And even a failed attempt would leave you with a damaged door skin and smashed steering column shroud.

I think what has changed is that in the 80s, most cars were stolen by kids wanting a bit of fun. Nowadays it seems to be for export or for parts. It has a much more organised, and arguably more sinister feel to it now than it had back then.

[Louis Balfour]

GianiCakes said:

Those bemoaning the loss of the physical key are forgetting about the 80’s when you could steal a Ford with nothing more than a Lolly stick. My mates XR2 was stolen 5 times in one year.

The "don't forget in the 70s you could hotwire a car" is a line that a JLR executive actually fed me once, when I was an early victim of keyless theft. It's a bogus argument. Go back far enough and you could steal a car simply by climbing in and driving away. But times move on, and a modern physical key is still a better idea than keyless for the purposes of avoiding theft.

Another stupid marketing driven move that JLR made was the rotary gear selector and paddle shift. It simply doesn't work off road.

It appears that JLR's focus groups consist of school run mums. After all, that's where the money has been for quite a long time.

[Diderot]

cobra kid said:

LunarOne said:

gizard said:

tr3a said:

• Cough*Tesla.

I have a friend who's Tesla

I very much doubt it. He's been dead since January 1943.

Who says he is THAT Tesla? He may be a distant relative.

[Cold]

The metal key thing being the cure all is nonsense. Such a conclusion suggests that thefts of ancient rusty Defenders has never been a problem.

The most effective way to prevent LR cars from being stolen would be to make them undesirable. The only reason why they're being targeted so much is because there is a demand for them rather than some LR specific vulnerability. Their security is no better or worse than some other marques.

Design them to be unattractive to customers and they become unattractive to thieves. Not sure what such a ploy would do to their long term future as a manufacturer though.

[Fetchez la vache]

JLR said:

Our investment of more than £10 million demonstrates our ongoing commitment to tackling this issue.

article said:

reducing thefts of its cars by up to 40 per cent in some cases

£10m is a piffling amount in the scheme of things... imagine what % decrease they might have seen if they had spent some serious money - arguably what's required given the state of their security reputation.

[LunarOne]

Cold said:

The metal key thing being the cure all is nonsense. Such a conclusion suggests that thefts of ancient rusty Defenders has never been a problem.

The most effective way to prevent LR cars from being stolen would be to make them undesirable. The only reason why they're being targeted so much is because there is a demand for them rather than some LR specific vulnerability. Their security is no better or worse than some other marques.

Design them to be unattractive to customers and they become unattractive to thieves. Not sure what such a ploy would do to their long term future as a manufacturer though.

Take that a step further and make them un-stealable by not making them in the first place. Problem solved.

[PorkerHam]

Is it in the manufacturer's interests to make them un-stealable?

Every time one is nicked, a replacement is ordered......

[Geoffcapes]

This is probably as good a place as any to ask, has anyone who has bought a faraday box, have a link to where they bought it?

And also, how do you know it works?

[GianiCakes]

I’ve been involved in motor insurance since the 90’s and in that time seem many different types of anti theft solution, both physical (steering locks etc) and electronic (number pads to enter a code, after market immobilisers) and the thieves find a way around all of them eventually; actually quite quickly. A jagged piece of metal does not solve the problem and never did.

Solving the problem by not making cars seems to be the approach the Jaguar part of the group are pursuing.

[Cold]

LunarOne said:

Cold said:

The metal key thing being the cure all is nonsense. Such a conclusion suggests that thefts of ancient rusty Defenders has never been a problem.

The most effective way to prevent LR cars from being stolen would be to make them undesirable. The only reason why they're being targeted so much is because there is a demand for them rather than some LR specific vulnerability. Their security is no better or worse than some other marques.

Design them to be unattractive to customers and they become unattractive to thieves. Not sure what such a ploy would do to their long term future as a manufacturer though.

Take that a step further and make them un-stealable by not making them in the first place. Problem solved.

Take that even further and stop women from giving birth to thieves. It's the crims who are causing the issue here so let's stop it at source.