You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Deceneu ago 

I don't think what these guys did to the Tesla was hacking. They just changed the input by "fooling" the car into seeing something that wasn't there.

That definition applies also to SQL Injection which is definitely a computer-technology-malevolent-hacking.

0
0

[–] chirogonemd ago  (edited ago)

Even just a cursory glance made me think I might be using the wrong term for input here. This injection appears to be insertion of malevolent code. But the Tesla guys didn't insert any code. They didn't change the way the computer was interpreting the world...they changed the world.

I guess if we imagined a facial recognition software that permitted only one guy to enter who had a moustache. If somebody without a moustache could trick the sensor by putting electrical tape above his lip, that wouldn't be hacking. Would it? Granted this would be very poor software but it is just an example.

I just don't think every type of trick is also a type of hack.

The whole convo is interesting though. Definitely some philosophical/ethical implications in there.

0
1

[–] Deceneu 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

But the Tesla guys didn't insert any code.

Neither is the case in the SQL Injection attacks.

The inserted part is only a datum, like a picture.

The fact that the application vulnerable to SQL Injection is allowing itself to treat a datum like code (under certain circumstances) is the equivalent of the ML/AI firmware/software in the camera module choosing (of its own volition) to interpret a particular datum (picture) as code meaning to ride at 35mph or 85mph.

In other words, treating the real-world as the indirect storage to your code, was bound to be vulnerable to Injection Attacks.

See my other comment as well: https://voat.co/v/technology/3666526/22591575

0
0

[–] chirogonemd ago 

I am not familiar with this. Will have a look at it today. Thanks.