# Computers everywhere, but nary a byte of sense!



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

For those (_me_, included) who think computers are _"...taking over..." _the world, here's a listing of the *14* _different_ "programmable" items in our Cruzes (in alphabetical order): 

1) *BCM* - Body Control Module.
2)* EBCM *- Electronic Brake Control Module.
3) *ECC* - Remote Heater and Air Condition Control Module.
4a) *ECM *- Engine Control Module (Automatic).
4b)* ECM* - Engine Control Module (Manual).
5) *EPS *- Electronic Power Steering.
6) *FPCM *- Fuel Pump Control Module.
7)* HVSMF* - Front Seat Heating Control Module.
8) *IPC* - Instrument Cluster.
9a) *ONS *- Mobile Telephone Communications Interface Control Module.
9b)* ONSA* - OnStar™ Activation.
10) *PDIM *- Multimedia Player Interface Module.
11) *RAD *- Radio.
12)* SDM* - Inflatable Restraint Sensing & Diagnostic Module.
13)* TCM* - Transmission Control Module.
14)* UPA* - Parking Assist Control Module.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

Not only is the car an example of distributed computing, but the cars themselves are distributed all over the planet. Can anyone say "Skynet?"


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

I would not at all mind being able to program my radio...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

XtremeRevolution said:


> I would not at all mind being able to program my radio...


Agree - I'd really like to get the full AUX function via BlueTooth.


----------



## 115 (Nov 12, 2010)

RAD and IPC are the ones I would like to have access to...


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

I'd like to have access to *EBCM* to reduce the stabilitrak sensitivity.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...how do we entice *Stacy* to pass these comments back up to GM without getting in the 'way' of her _primary_ *Customer Service "*directive"?


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...how do we entice *Stacy* to pass these comments back up to GM without getting in the 'way' of her _primary_ *Customer Service "*directive"?




70AARCUDA,
I would be happy to pass along any information that you guys would like me to. I am here to help you guys in any way that I can! Please excuse my ignorance to this topic; but what specific information would you like me to pass along for you? I look forward to hearing back from you. 
Thank you,
Stacy Chevrolet Customer Service


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Chevy Customer Service said:


> 70AARCUDA,
> I would be happy to pass along any information that you guys would like me to. I am here to help you guys in any way that I can! Please excuse my ignorance to this topic; but what specific information would you like me to pass along for you? I look forward to hearing back from you.
> Thank you,
> Stacy Chevrolet Customer Service


There are various modules inside the car that are programmed to perform certain functions. The programming or customization of these modules is limited to firmware updates that can only be done by an individual who

A. has access to the firmware updates via a GM site
B. has a Tech2 tool with which to hook up to the car to flash the new firmware

My (and many other peoples') biggest concern is the fact that the door chime volume cannot be reduced. On the factory radio, this is fine, but those of us who have opted to upgrade our sound systems (and within very good reason, the stock radio is terrible) end up with a very loud door chime and turn signal clicker. A few more customization options in the radio certainly would not hurt.


----------



## stodge (Jul 20, 2012)

Ask the GM engineers to make sure that these computers are secure and cannot be hacked from outside the vehicle!


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

stodge said:


> Ask the GM engineers to make sure that these computers are secure and cannot be hacked from outside the vehicle!


Good point - it's coming. Unfortunately, based on the last round of reports I read about this, it appears all the car manufacturers are failing on this front. Granted, those reports were written by the big anti-malware players trying to drum up more business, but history suggests that computer systems, other than Multics, are never secured until after they're hacked.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...sorta like there's _"...no *need* for have a *fire-extinguisher*, until there's an actual *FIRE*..." _-- uh,huh, yeah, sure!

...also, morbidly nicknamed _"...Tombstone Mentality..."_


----------



## Chevy Customer Care (Oct 29, 2011)

Thank you for clarifying what it is that you are looking for. I will take the information that you all have provided to me and I will pass this along to my internal resources. If anyone has any other questions, comments or concerns please feel free to contact me at any time.
Thank you,
Stacy Chevrolet Customer Service


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

stodge said:


> Ask the GM engineers to make sure that these computers are secure and cannot be hacked from outside the vehicle!


Can't be done while remaining practical. Any system anywhere can be hacked; all we can do is make it not worth a potential hacker's time and effort.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

coinneach said:


> Can't be done while remaining practical. Any system anywhere can be hacked; all we can do is make it not worth a potential hacker's time and effort.


...*military* computers & hardware are _routinely_ equipped with either (a) high-strength encryption, (b) tamper resistant, tamper-evident, or self-destructing code, or (c) all the above.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

coinneach said:


> Can't be done while remaining practical. Any system anywhere can be hacked; all we can do is make it not worth a potential hacker's time and effort.


As a software engineer I have to disagree. There are a lot of simple coding practices that can and should be employed in any software system to prevent attacks from succeeding. Most of these are based on simply not trusting any input to the code, even in interfaces between software components. Does this make the code run slightly slower, yes, but our hardware has gotten so fast that even in real-time environments this is almost never a concern. In the case of a car, this means that anything that can come in via radio waves such as XM, OnStar, FM, AM, Bluetooth must be validated and sanitized before it gets processed. In addition, inputs from the vehicle's sensors must also be validated before using them in the vehicle operations. 

Since I made my post I ran across an article about Intel doing just this type of research for automotive purposes. The article also noted that Ford and Toyota also have on-going safe computing efforts for their vehicles. I would be very surprised if GM wasn't doing this as well.

As for your statement that any system can be hacked - OpenVMS was entered in a black hat conference/competition and was the only system not broken into or crashed. In fact, the conference rules were changes after that year to only allow Intel x86/x64 based systems, which prevented OpenVMS from appearing again. Denial of Service (DOS) attacks via overloading public interfaces doesn't apply to a car as the critical interfaces are all hard wired to the car. (TPMS isn't critical to driving a car.) The only way to DOS a modern car is to overload the electronics with an Electro Magnetic Pulse that literally fries the electronics in the car.


----------



## coinneach (Apr 10, 2012)

70AARCUDA said:


> ...*military* computers & hardware are _routinely_ equipped with either (a) high-strength encryption, (b) tamper resistant, tamper-evident, or self-destructing code, or (c) all the above.


And mil-spec hardware is extremely impractical for daily civilian use (says the guy who has supported and used both).



> Since I made my post I ran across an article about Intel doing just this type of research for automotive purposes. The article also noted that Ford and Toyota also have on-going safe computing efforts for their vehicles. I would be very surprised if GM wasn't doing this as well.


Yeah, great. All the major hardware manufacturers have been struggling for literally decades to come up with truly robust, 100% reliable kit. None of them have succeeded. As for your comment about OpenVMS, you're misunderstanding what I said: anything CAN be hacked. That nobody has hacked VAX boxen YET doesn't mean they CAN'T. Being a software guy, you should know about the eternal arms race between the white and black hats. Me being hardware, I've seen way too many supposedly fail-proof systems fail in totally unforeseen ways that the manufacturers absolutely refuse to admit can happen.


----------



## 70AARCUDA (Nov 14, 2010)

...well, looks like another 'consolidated' computer acronym for 2014 GM products: New Chassis Control Module Name for 2014 Model Year


----------



## rmass09 (Apr 17, 2011)

I have enough acronyms to know at work.... Also the security issues make me glad I'm on the hardware side of things....


----------



## titan2782 (Nov 4, 2011)

obermd said:


> Not only is the car an example of distributed computing, but the cars themselves are distributed all over the planet. Can anyone say "Skynet?"


Disagree with this. 

Hardware:
To be considered distributed computing, the units would need to be processing information that goes back to a central point (also known as farming). The data being processed is the car's own data and used for it's own purposes. The cars are not controlled by a remote entity. This is not to say that commands cannot be sent to the car to do certain things such as unlocking the door, start, etc but that does not make the system distributed. 

Software:
Each unit has a specific job and will communicate with the other units via a specified interface. There are single units with no redundancy (in terms of scaling, not fail safe/back up systems). This would be more like SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) instead of distributed architecture. Even still, the units are hosted in the same environment. If, for hypothetical example, my Cruze needed to compute the engine load and asked the engine load module for the value but my engine load module was offline or busy, it would then ask the engine load module of my neighbors Cruze to compute it, that would be distributed.

So, in summary, these cars are a great example of a static, tightly coupled yet cohesive system.

Mobile != Distributed

Maybe you can elaborate on your statement if I'm off.


----------



## scha7530 (Apr 15, 2012)

obermd said:


> I'd like to have access to *EBCM* to reduce the stabilitrak sensitivity.


Considering I work at a company that does this...sensitivity is not as easy as you'd think...the code in these things are crazy complex, and they spend thousands of hours tuning it. 

I'd suggest using the "OFF" mode if you think its being too sensitive at times. Hit the traction control button and then push and hold. I turn mine off all the time for autocrossing.


----------

