Proof Auto Companies Have a Fix For Relay Attacks But Hide It From Public View as Thefts Skyrocket
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 фев 2024
- As all the world suffers from skyrocketing auto theft rates car companies have not offered any "car based" technical solutions. The truth is they've known about relay attacks for over 10 years, have patented solutions, but have failed to bring them to market - here is one of many examples.
Авто/Мото
We have all paid millions more in car insurance as the direct result of "relay attacks" - - Isn't there one lawyer who can build a case? The VW Emission scandal took years to crack this one should be a lot easier.
They don’t want to end car thefts. Fact is, if you get your car stolen, more likely, (if you do get it back) you probably wouldn’t want to keep it.
And if you don’t want to keep your car, you are going to have to buy another one. This all equals more sales.
I know this isn’t end all, be all gospel, but a generalized statement with a high degree of accuracy.
High degree? You mean 100% right - just started a GoFundMe over this so we can get back the money we were charged $130 CDN in increased insurance costs related to auto theft - this is nuts - we're all paying for this - Cheers DM!
This is still done wirelessly, therefore it can still be intercepted
/ bypassed.
Yes it could if an owner was dumb enough to push a button after being told by the car it wants to open. and No - As I state clearly this is a 2 Factor Authentication system so when the car receives the first "relay attack signal" - it doesn't open the door - it sends out a second signal back to the user's fob asking them if it's really them trying to get in the car - if the user indicates yes by selecting a button on the fob as an example the car gets the second authentication and opens - if it doesn't get that signal it stays locked up and the thieves leave
Can you confirm the statute which states that patents must work? As far as I understand, claims are not tested by the patent office.
Granted, it would be bold and risky to go and patent something that you have not had success with reproducing or getting to work, but I believe the patent examiner is ultimately prioritizing that each claim does not infringe upon existing claims from other patents patents more than they are checking that the patent actually works. Granted, I understand examiners will try and verify the claims within each application do not defy man’s understanding of math and science if a claim includes scientific and mathematical references, but even with this, the examiner can only verify so much due to the inability to test such claims and time.
The patent office puts the onus on the applicant that it actually works - they don't build or test anything - the section is
35 U.S. Code § 101. This section outlines the basic requirements for patentability, stating that:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."
This section essentially means that in order for an invention to be granted a utility patent, it must be useful and operative. The invention must have some form of utility and should actually work as described in the patent application. - Cheers from Canada UX!
So far as I know, the only patent that requires demonstration is for perpetual motion machines.
Ahem, this patent is referring to the current system utilizing the RFID pellet in the key. Don't be silly and spreading crap.
What are you smoking? What crap are you referring to? all PKE are RFID type systems. Everyone knows this - my point is they have patented RFID type PKE systems that stop relay attacks and they are NOT using them.
@@carquestions they could easily stop these attacks by using the smart phone NFA to generate a key for everytime the door is unlocked and car started. think of it as 2fa
That's funny you say that - they have patents on that already - Cheers from Canada!@@MrHowzaa