Supposedly the newest update fixes that, but I haven’t taken the time to test that out.
But WiFi is shocking my fragile on these wall connectors, I’ve had a lot of trouble keeping it connected to my home network over the years.
Too many problems to count:
- High voltage and low voltage wiring should generally be kept separated for safety reasons. Light sockets could probably be moved to low-voltage-only to power just LED bulbs but this wouldn't work for wall outlets which need to be 120-240V. Plus I like having the option to install 120V halogen bulbs wherever color rendering really matters!
- We'd also have to "normalize" having a separate network just for IoT stuff that only communicated in/out of its own LAN boundary via an actually-secure gateway with generic open protocols. (Pipe dream without government enforced standards similar to or piggy-backing on building codes)
- (Most) electricians notoriously suck at understanding low-voltage wiring.
- Probably more that I'm too lazy to think about but these two are already show stoppers for the next 10-30 years.
It creates a wifi access point in your garage that you cannot turn off:
TeslaWallConnector_<unique-id>
I would love to be able to hack any firmware to disable that.
I also read that a connected tesla car can force an over-the-air firmware update maybe through the charging cable or wifi, but I haven't verified that.
because it hasn't gone away after configuring the setup stuff (amps, etc)
In the UK, for example 10 million EVs all pulling 7kw would overwhelm the roughly 70GW potential of the grid. Even a million EVs charging at an inconvenient time could add a 7GW draw which is enough cause a problem.
Modern grids have batteries to manage instantaneous spikes of demand so there’d be a race.
Large ISP outages that affect millions of people are not uncommon on a decade by decade basis, and I suspect an uncomfortable number of UK EV chargers are in some way linked to eu-west-2.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1467/regulation/7/m...
I've had both setups and whether the full amperage charger is worth it or not depends on your use case. If you're just going to plug it in overnight, it doesn't matter. It's about an hour's difference for a top up. If you're going to wait for your car to charge and unplug it because you share the charger or have to run an extension over a public sidewalk, then the faster speed is worth it.
An owner voluntarily downgrading firmware to gain control of your hardware IS NOT A HACK.
And if an adversary is doing this, then they have already breached yoir physical security.
For example, if I am able to gain root access to a WiFi access point I own, even though the vendor has tried to prevent it, then yes, I would call it a hack. To me, it doesn't matter why or who is doing the steps.
In fact, I believe I have never before heard someone combine the meaning of the word to be related to the ownership of the device being hacked.
I suspect the number of people understanding the word in your way is a minority. Redefining terms doesn't help build mutual understanding: here we are taking a word some think has negative connotations and then remove the thing they think should be cool and ok, and then suggest that this is actually the real meaning of the word. Personally I don't think this is how words should be wielded.
Ownership implies authorization, and using the term "hacking" exclusively to refer to gaining unauthorized access to someone else's computer is a common usage that you must surely have encountered before.
While hacking is used to to refer to illicit activities, I do actually believe that the same activities can also be performed e.g. on your own devices, or with permission, and still be called hacking. So in my view, I do not believe legality is the defining term, but the actual things you do; oftentimes useful for illegal activities.
But I must assume there is a group of people who consider the term to be loaded with that exclusion, so I should take this into account.
However, to me "hacking your own devices" as a concept seems crystal clear, and is not a contradictory term.
Yep. The owner of the device can sue you.
You know what isn't vulnerable? A "dumb" offline charger. You know what doesn't make any money or turn the consumer into another product? A "dumb" offline charger.
If it were about physical security, the suggested fix would be to remove the communication from the port entirely.
Companies shouldn't get to make something simple and secure into something inherently insecure and then iterate security into it. Like drive by wire steering, or brakes. Nobody asked for these things and if you ask ANYONE who works on, builds, or actually enjoys cars the consensus is NOBODY wants it.
But there are enough sophomoric, pedestrian car owners out there who gawk at the senseless overdeployment of technology and think "this is so convinient" and don't see it as 1) regulatory barrier building and gatekeeping 2) enabling vendor lock in 3) overcoming right to repair legislation. So the knowledgeable and enthusiastic voices of reason who care about cars get drowned out by the hoard of pedestrian geeks who couldn't imagine operating a car without at least a 16 inch touchscreen.
In security, the best defense is not introducing a vulnerability at all. There is value in having less code. For example, if your PaaS doesn't collect user SSNs... then it can't lose SSNs in a breach.
The question here should not be "why is this not secure." The question should be "why does this even need to be secure in the first place?" We have a very simple task to do and we've complicated it so much we've introduced vulnerability that didn't exist previously.
> If it were about physical security, the suggested fix would be to remove the communication from the port entirely.
You can’t charge without negotiating charging rates. Communication is a requirement. Every EV does this. Heck, every cell phone does this.
> Like drive by wire steering, or brakes. Nobody asked for these things and if you ask ANYONE who works on, builds, or actually enjoys cars the consensus is NOBODY wants it.
Every hybrid and EV for the past 20 years has brake by wire. That’s how regenerative braking works.
Or just for the spirit of actually owning the shit you pay for.
I thought tesla even made a j1772 native wall connector.