Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday September 11 2017, @06:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

A trade magazine, http://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/5-myths-about-connected-cars/ ran this article by Shaun Kirby, Cisco Consulting CTO, "5 Myths About Connected Cars". Haven't read anything this funny all year, some clips include:

Myth: Securing connected cars requires breakthroughs in security technology.

Fact: Connected cars are extremely complex, with many sensors, computers, and networks, along with an ever-growing list of features. Fortunately, technologies already exist that have proven effective in securing some of the largest enterprise information technology (IT) infrastructures. Existing technologies are well equipped to keep drivers and their data safe now and into the future.

...and this one, the punch line at the end had me rolling in the aisle:

Myth: Automakers are responsibile for securing connected cars.

Fact: The vehicle manufacturer is just one link in the security chain. Multiple tiers of suppliers, dealerships, developers of aftermarket devices and services, regulatory bodies, and other industries creating devices and services that interact with connected cars are all responsible for keeping cars and drivers safe and secure.

It is especially important for third parties who provide connected car applications to have secure infrastructures. For instance, a mall operator installing vehicle-to-infrastructure units to guide heavy traffic to optimal parking spots will need to ensure that all the proper security controls are in place.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @11:49AM (#566194)

    > the submitter intended this as an "if you're not laughing about this, you'd be crying about this" situation.

    Submitter AC here -- this is the correct interpretation. The original article linked (by the Cisco manager) is written to be perfectly straight. As I read it, the contents struck me as completely unrealistic. The disconnect is what makes it funny.

    Yes, I probably should have added a little more to explain my warped sense of humor, but then again, isn't this why we have editors?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday September 11 2017, @06:58PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday September 11 2017, @06:58PM (#566329)

    Most of us got it.