Oregon governor signs nation’s first right-to-repair bill that bans parts pairing
Oregon governor signs nation’s first right-to-repair bill that bans parts pairing
Starting in 2025, devices can't block repair parts with software-pairing checks.
You're viewing a single thread.
Parts pairing is prohibited only on devices sold in 2025 and later. And there are carve-outs for certain kinds of electronics and devices, including video game consoles, medical devices, HVAC systems, motor vehicles, and—as with other states—"electric toothbrushes."
What’s a good-faith argument for exempting these devices? Or was it simply successful lobbying in protecting corporate interests.
I could see an argument about medical devices, HVAC, and vehicles... But I don't think I'd agree with them. Except maybe medical.
Consoles and toothbrushes though? What the fuck?
I guess console because they want the whole thing intact to enforce DRM?
Exactly.
I don't see any argument for vehicles, tbh. HVAC tinkering is almost exclusively high voltage so that makes just a little sense, don't want people swapping a 350 volt AC capacitor with a 250 volt DC capacitor and having it blow up, but Vehicles means a manufacturer can do everything imaginable to limit part availability and kill aftermarket parts purely for profits.
I do for things like ECUs that are programmed to the vin to prevent theft or tampering that would allow an attack vector for the vehicle.
Vehicles need it because the keyless entry radio needs to pair with the engine start. Otherwise a thief can steel a car in a few minutes by bringing their own computers.
I guarantee you keyless start cars aren't more secure because of paired parts. The encryption for the fob's signal isn't the result of a paired part.
Particularly as a lot of newer thefts just use an amplifier to boost the key signal, and fake the key being in the car. Part pairing wouldn't help at all there.
Define more secure. More secure than what? A non-keyless entry car of the same year and model? A car from ten years ago that doesn't have parts and modules that do a handshake and will immobilize the vehicle if the system is tampered with?
I'm not arguing that it is more secure. That's what others said. I'm arguing it is a non-factor in security. Nearly unbreakable encryption methods exist without any reliance on physical part-pairing. The only benefit from it is the manufacturer profiting more off of it as users become more reliant on the manufacturer in case of device failure and replacement.
I think the immobilization is key here and not something I would trust from any third party. If a third party has access to the encryption method, so does a hacker with the right tools.
Additionally, it's configured to the VIN specifically so you can't steal or buy genuine parts with a key you have access to and swap them into a vehicle that those parts don't belong to. Chop shops have the ability to do this in the event that these modules aren't configured properly and don't require the right validation from other modules.
Encryption can be done purely between first and second party if you want to rely on the manufacturer for some reason, or if you're really the complete owner you should have full access to the vehicle's systems via physical connection and credentials. There is no need for third parties, for a comparison you don't just give out your email account access or computer password do you?
The government doesn't as heavily regulate your email password or computer. The government does regulate automakers and the vehicles they produce. Included safety and security regulations.
Otherwise a thief can steel a car in a few minutes by bringing their own computers.
.....you mean like they do currently?
Which is why manufactures are now putting those pairs in so you cannot do that anymore.
If the security was so bad that removing part pairing would crash this, then it wasn't secure to begin with. Same argument as apple pairing the fingerprint sensor, the emsensor is only doing the reading, not the authentication.
They're right though. The security in newer cars and anti-theft features require that a couple of different modules talk to and validate each other. That's how it's designed to work to prevent theft or hacking. When your ECU talks to your keyless entry module or what have you they perform a handshake. That ECU and keyless entry module talk to the vehicle's starting system to validate that yes the correct key at the correct range is being used to send the signal to start the vehicle.
Again, if you're so deep in the car that this matters, this is not the part that's going to stop you, unless the car is so poorly built that the keyless entry module is readily available without taking apart the entire car. This is a non-problem.
It isn't just one module. That's what I'm trying to tell you. There's a handshake. So replacing the Electronics control module or the Powertrain control module those modules have to be configured to the Vin. In my mother's escape the PCM is in the wheel well behind a liner held in by plastic clips. None of those parts can be replaced without being configured to the VIN.
As for poorly designed cars, yeah. They've been making them for years and security has been evolving. Doesn't mean we should set ourselves back in that arena because Joe wants to swap out his PCM with one from the junk yard.
CAN network injection can be achieved through the headlight well on some cars.
https://www.autoblog.com/2023/04/18/vehicle-headlight-can-bus-injection-theft-method-update/
I know that it isn't just one module. What is the handshake achieving exactly? Because it's not additional security from an attacker trying to replace the keyless entry module with a hacked one, and if it is doing that then this is a terrible security design and the actual solution is not to get to keep using this 'security' threat model.
According to the diagram I'm looking at? The front door handle receives the entry signal from the key that's in proximity to the vehicle (I think it's something like within three feet). That signal is sent to a BCM (ECU), that then talks to other PAssive entry antennas on the vehicle to unlock the door. Simultaneously it talks to the PCM and IPC through the Gateway module, sending a Passive Entry enable signal. Those modules talk to the ignition switch allowing the vehicle to be started. Looks like this happens on what's called the High Speed CAN network. So the question is, if I can access this network via something like the PCM and the PCM isn't properly configured to prevent this, can I override the network without having the key with sufficient tech? That's problematic for a lot of reasons. So no. I don't think you should be able to go to a junkyard or pick and pull and buy a module that could compromise your network and I don't understand why anyone would want that. You absolutely can buy a module from the manufacturer and get a shop (not even a dealership, just an independent shop with the right tools) to configure a module.
You don't have to have paired parts for secure authentication. You just need parts that have been set up and authenticated beforehand. That is not the same as part pairing.
What's to stop me from going to a junk yard, paying for a key and the modules in question, attaching them to a different car and stealing that car?
Literally nothing stops you from doing that with paired parts. Nothing. Keyless cars get hacked, stolen, dismantled, and rebuilt all the time, just like any other car.
Encryption and authentication are equally secure with or without physical part pairing.
That's not true. The paired parts are attached to the VIN. Literally programmed with the VIN of the car and a lot of them are single use for specifically this reason. You don't know and you're very insistent.
Good thing part pairing doesn't exist for the Switch.
Mine is the Ship of Theseus at that point.
For toothbrushes, are they worried repair won't re-seal it effectively so make it unsuitable for use in the wet environment?
Which is dumb, because there's nothing stopping anyone from replacing the seals/glue when they put it back together. And at least in the USA manufactures have been covered for damages/harm resulting from a flawed consumer-based repair since since 1975.
I hope you're right and this isn't about them getting ready to DRM brush handles to brush heads. Sonicare brush heads are ridiculously overpriced compared to the knock offs
Even HVAC, WTF?
I mean, I don't want the thing supplying the air I'm breathing to accidentally not burn all the gas and lead to carbon monoxide poisoning etc.... Things like the ductwork and shit, for sure, but not like, a burner.
The great irony is it's frequently the "ductwork" that's the problem: plugged or badly installed exhaust pipes, which the manufacture has no control over. The rest are the appliance itself wearing out or failing with no warning.
I've repaired furnaces myself several times including replacing burners and exhaust fans -- it isn't rocket science. It's no different than working on any other "dangerous" thing like a car. If someone somehow manages to fuck up so badly it hurts or kills someone that's on them.
Yeah that's totally valid. Agreed.
But I also wouldn't really trust third party parts for the appliance itself. I think once you do, that immediately becomes a possible problem. If it was in my house, I'd only buy from the manufacturer for something like that.
But on the other hand, Idk that it's necessarily wrong to legislate forcing these companies to allow it. I generally believe consumers should have the option on their own, but some things are too dangerous. I'd pretty much be against medical devices but HVAC is a little more uncertain to me.
So you want to be stuck with the same thermostat forever? Imagine it comes with one of those Amazon ones with a persistent camera and microphone in it that you can't opt out of.
A thermostat doesn't have refrigerants/gasses in them. It's nothing more than a complicated on off switch
Yet, a WiFi thermostat that stops getting updates is an extreme risk to that system if an attacker can access it. They could easily create a situation that causes a fire or a gas leak.
Proof or GTFO
What... The.. Fuck?
If your thermostat could cause a fire or gas leak, your HVAC system is flawed. This is entirely a fabricated concern. If anything, I'd chalk it up as reasons why maybe right to repair the HVAC isn't a great idea. A properly setup HVAC wont let anything tell it to do that.
You can overheat the furnace and then short cycle it repeatedly, same with the a/c. You could shut off the furnace and cause the pipes to burst. Run the a/c in the winter.
Firstly, I said this one was iffy to me.
Second, the subtopic was HVAC and thermostats are like, the electronics that control the HVAC which I wouldn't even really necessarily bucket into HVAC. It's like HVAC adjacent.
Third, this whole topic is about right to repair, not right to replace. So the on topic argument is "you want to be able to repair the same thermostat with off brand parts", to which I say, yes? Probably? I don't see how that's a problem.
And fourth, who the fuck would buy an Amazon thermostat, lmao.
It's about parts pairing. HVAC companies could pair the thermostat to the system and you wouldn't be able to replace it with one of your choosing. People are buying smart TVs with Amazon and Google crap in them that came be removed or even bypassed in certain cases. Google owns nest, the most popular smart thermostat brand. Amazon has their own smart thermostat. People wouldn't think twice about having that included with their new HVAC system. It would be a selling point, just like smart TVs and all the other crap out there that will stop getting updates in 5 years.
That's more "device" pairing than "parts" pairing. The thermostat to HVAC communication is a standard. Sure, if someone started forcing that, that'd be bad. But that's more akin to Apple's "iOS only works with MacBooks" type shit with Airdrop and such than it is to their "you can't replace the camera in your phone unless it's from us". They're both problems, but the one you're describing is both not happening and a different issue. I'm not saying it won't happen but it's a different topic.
I believe most mini split systems have built in thermostat/remote control.
You need some sort of licensing to do most HVAC work anyways. Theres no point in forcing companies to make all the parts available to the average joe when the average joe can't legally do the work anyways.
The goal of the bill was to get something with teeth passed. Fighting every lobby at once would be impossible, so they leave those devices out of it and will now be able to work on different laws for those things. At least that’s what I read they’re doing for the John Deere stuff at least. The legislators know it’s going to be a difficult battle, so they segmented the law to make it so that a failure in one spot wouldn’t cause a loss everywhere.
Heh. Teeth.