* * * OnStar iPhone application - UPDATE * * *

[scritchy]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Careful who and what you call "beyond ignorant". For someone who knows so much about memory and channels you apparently have never heard about "Dual Channel RAM" or "DMA Channels". Look it up.

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

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

It probably costs a bunch of money to get the app certified and meet all the draconian safety and emissions and green energy regulations that cars need to meet these days. The testing of the app to make sure that you cannot remote start it for longer than 2 minutes (polluting) or making sure nobody gets killed by a car starting accidentally (safety) or a hacker opening the doors and stealing your laptop (liability) is probably expensive. They'd rather spend that money on political campaigns and lobby groups than provide the support to 2010 owners.

[mastertypodemon]

Originally Posted by nashstat

I just have to say... the 2010 Camaro non compatibility issue is such a fail for GM. Many buyers here put faith in GM in their darkest hour... and this is how they take care of them!

A car that Ed Welburn said is the latest in technology is outdated just a year after it's release!

MASSIVE FAIL!

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".

[ghazzi1397]

Originally Posted by Toasty

Don't you think that if they could make it work with the 2010's, they would? They'd make more money that way. Like it or not, there certainly can be hardware limitations. The OnStar equipment in the car could simply not have the appropriate memory space for the additional 2 way communications/commands that needs to be added for these extra features. (no, I am not saying that there is not already 2 way communications, of course there is) Last I knew, OnStar as it is cannot send a remote start command to your vehicle. If OnStar corporate can't do it, how would the app do it? OnStar is an evolving product, much like any other electronic item. I equate it to the new crop of 3D capable TV's. Do you think the TV manufacturers can go back and add 3D tech to last year's model? nope. Or for that matter, a Gigabit network switch vs a standard 10/100 network switch. - can you go back to the manufacturer and demand that they upgrade the siwtch because the Gigabit version didnt exist when you bought the 10/100, after all, they still take the same type of data and cable, right? Nope, not gonna happen. there are hardware limitations in the circuitry.

Would it be great if they could add it for the 2010's? yep. Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen, at least not from GM.

it's not 100% the same, since it is a separate install, but Viper has SmartStart that will remote start/unlock/lock your car from an iphone, android phone, OR blackberry, too. it may not have the vehicle details/features of the onstar app, but the big part is there, so that's an option for you.

be upset if you want, but please don't think that GM is out to get you because you can't have it in your car.

+1 Well said, couldnt agree more

[dtm4192]

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?

[Rogue Leader]

Originally Posted by dtm4192

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

[Memphis SS]

Originally Posted by dtm4192

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?

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

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Rogue Leader

I give up... just not worth talking to a wall.... a wall that contradicts itself and believes the other walls are out to knock it over

I think you have confused your wall with your mirror.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by 383ss

what a bunch of WHINERS!!! how many of you are actually hardware or software engineers? seems to be a lot of experts in here who can do it better than GM

grow up and live with it.

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

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Toasty

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.

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.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by scritchy

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

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

[Captain Awesome]

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.

[Toasty]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

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.

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.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

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.

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.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

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).