I'm not sure why you would be calling ME names, but All I was saying there was that if you had explained what you did in that paragraph at the beginning of the thread, we wouldn't be arguing the point... as much.

Not in the context I was using it. Try to keep up with the conversation.

:facepalm:

I'm not going to lose sleep over not being able to use the app, but it would have been nice to hook up the "early adapters".

+1 Well said, couldnt agree more :thumbup:

I don't get why this is so important to some people in this thread. Most of you have probably had several vehicles in the past that never had this feature. Why is it all of a sudden something that you have to have in your Camaro? I got two keys for mine and guess what they can lock, unlock, remote start, open the trunk, and even beep the horn. Why would I even need my phone to do that? I bought my car in 2009 knowing that the next year's models would most likely have better options. I sat in a 2011 with HUD and it was awesome, but I'd never expect GM to upgrade my 2010 to have HUD just because they now sell 2011s with that feature. So why then would I expect them to make my 2010 compatible with a smartphone just because the 2011s are?

Well said.

This is not the first time this has happened. The 93 Camaro for example, while it had an LT1, had a different setup than the 94+, so when mod time comes around everyone built stuff for 94+ cars and many mods are not available for the 93 (this is a really general explanation theres far more to it, but its just an example). Is it really THAT big of a deal? No. The car still does whats advertised, and you can still do everything to your 2010 you can do to a 2011, its just missing one feature. They aren't retrofitting HUDs and backup sensors into 2LTs and 2SSs either, maybe everyone can bitch about that too :facepalm:

I agree.. I think this is the same point I have been making from the start, some people just don't get it.;)

I think you have confused your wall with your mirror.

Who's the bigger "Whiner"? The Whiner or the whiner who whines about them instead of simply ignoring them?

You called my writing "incoherent" by inferring my most recent post with the only thing which was.

If you had not jumped in the middle of the discussion you would have understood, which is your responsibility.

The context in which you used the term is completely inappropriate for this application. Try and keep up with technology.

Coincidentally, this article recently came out. It links to a rather long study done be some college students which is potentially too technical for the laypersons in this topic to understand, however it basically proves what I have been saying about software all along.

http://gizmodo.com/5540029/no-kiddin...ely-controlled

Essentially, these kids were able to hack into their cars. They were able to compromise the entire cars computer system because they are all interconnected and can pass messages back and forth. They hacked the car (GM) and were able to make the car do multiple dangerous things (from disabling the brakes to changing the readouts on the 'gages' to shutting off the engine). They did this completely via software that simulated the command messages and they inserted them through the OBDII connector. (Yes, they made a device to plug in and send the messages but their conclusions show that any connected system on the bus (including the Radio and OnStar and Bluetooth modules) could easily be used to compromise the system and cause the car to do an almost unlimited number of things.

This essentially shows that a car with no remote start could be commanded to start, or a car could be made to lock/unlock, or slam on it's brakes, or open close the power windows, etc. and all this is done by using a small bit of software that is not complex or memory intensive. They don't even use authentication fields in their messages.

They even discuss how all the systems use 16-bit keys, which can be "brute force" atacked in less than a week. (Explaining why Tuners come out so quickly for these cars).

An interesting read, for the technically minded... with the side benefit of proving I was right.

As I said before. This is just a refusal to update our software.

I guess I just don't get your snarky attitude. No you don't get to say that you don't have a snarky attitude... that's my opinion.

We obviously disagree with some things that each of us has said, and that's fine- but I want to pause and say something before we continue down a road of insults and harsh words, which we don't need. I don't feel that I was trying to attack your position, even though it may have come accross that way (just trying to prove you wrong, I guess.) At times we were talking towards two different issues. Fact is that, even though we both have knowledge of some of this stuff, some in more areas than others, for each of us, NOBODY outside of OnStar/GM knows for sure what the reasoning is behind the decision, but until some other info comes out, that's all we've got. At this point, I don't really see the point of arguing back and forth without all of the facts. - one camp is not going to convince the other without more proof or evidence, one way or the other. So, I will continue to think that it is remotely possible that they could put out an app that does what current OnStar operators can do, but it's no certainty; and if it were a certainty, no guarantee that they'd develop it- weather that be due to resources, market confusion over a half-baked remote solution, or some other reason. You may continue to think that they've screwed you on purpose, and don't care about your business. That's your right.



On edit, after your last reply... how dare you generalize everyone in this thread as a non technical layperson. You have no idea who we are in this thread. Perhaps we don't all know eactly as much as you, but we may indeed know other things than you.

Further, what you talk about in that article is indeed intresting. However, just because a car can be hacked doesn't say anything about weather or not the Onstar boxes in the 2010's are capable of these commands... but I'm going to leave it at that, I don't want to get sucked back into this.

You mentioned the students not using authentication keys....could it be that they need to physically upgrade the modules in the 2011 cars to make this new feature secure.

I still don't believe this is a simple software issue. It doesn't explain why they haven't made this feature available across the entire 2011 line, let alone past models.

I was talking about several things. I didn't want to say it too loudly so as to come off as overly critical but these students basically hammered the car for lack of any sort of authentication on the messages. There were able to simply inject phony messages on the CAN bus and make the car do anything they could think of. They were very critical of the lack of security and the ease at which they were able to do things.

The point I want to make is that these students did this from the perspective of someone who has no inside knowledge. The GM engineers have access to all the specs and documentation so they should be able to make the software do the same things only easier.

It appears that there are ways to do any function the car can do from any computer on the CAN bus. They actually talk about ways to use the radio (via a firmware update) to do something malicious and then have the code erase itself. It's actually a little frightening.

I bet it won't be long before one of these "Crime Drama" shows has someone get murdered with a hacked car (instead of the cut brake line).

I really don't want to worry about firewall updates when I buy my synthetic oil...:facepalm:

Sweet! I just got a DroidX and am looking into getting a 2011 Camaro. This just makes me want it even more!

Wow way to twist that story to support your theory. We know the OnStar Module can command the car to do anything, hence the ability to CALL THEM and have them unlock your doors etc.

This has nothing to do with your cellphone connecting to the OnStar Module.

You just keep going and going making us all even doubt your knowledge we believed you had about how these systems work. Seriously you must think everyone on this forum is really dumb to not see completely through this.

PS I can't believe I'm responding to this guy yet again but I just couldn't let this steaming pile of dung he posted go....