22 September 2025

Could your electric car be hacked? Canberra’s new cyber centre aims to find out

| By James Coleman
Join the conversation
72
EV battery

An EV battery at CIT. Photo: James Coleman.

Canberra’s new $5 million Cyber Security Centre of Excellence will look into the safety of connected cars – after concerns were raised Chinese-made electric vehicles could effectively be used as weapons on Australia’s roads.

The centre, launched this week at CIT Woden by Federal Skills Minister Andrew Giles and ACT counterpart Michael Pettersson, will train students in cyber defence, data protection and supply chain security – but it will also work alongside CIT’s existing Electric Vehicle Centre of Excellence to examine cyber risks in cars.

A CIT spokesperson said cyber awareness was already a key part of its EV training programs.

“This relates to all EV types, regardless of where they are manufactured,” the spokesperson told Region.

“Cyber security awareness is embedded in EV training, including safe diagnostics practices, understanding connected systems, and recognising the importance of secure updates.”

READ ALSO Electric planes could make Sydney-Canberra flights almost as cheap as the bus

The comments come after Alastair MacGibbon, chief strategy officer at CyberCX and a cyber security adviser to former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, warned that Chinese vehicles could be used to spy on drivers – or even be remotely sabotaged.

“Those cars … are listening devices, and they’re surveillance devices in terms of cameras,” Mr MacGibbon said during a panel at the Australian Financial Review Cyber Summit.

Mr MacGibbon warned the cars could one day be used as a form of guerrilla warfare, and even urged public officials not to ride in them.

“Let’s talk potential scenarios. Take off the safety features of household batteries so that they overcharge. Take off those same safety features for electric vehicles. Just turn them off from the manufacturer so that those vehicles explode. Degrade their ability to drive at peak hour in select cities.”

man in a suit with his arms crossed

CyberCX chief strategy officer Alastair MacGibbon. Photo: CyberCX.

The risk to national security posed by Chinese tech was first officially recognised in September 2024, when the US and its ”Five Eyes” intelligence partners (including Australia) disrupted two large Beijing-sponsored hacking operations from targeting more than 200,000 home computers, internet routers and web cameras worldwide.

At the time, then-US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Chinese cars’ built-in cameras, microphones and GPS could easily be exploited in the same way.

“It doesn’t take much imagination to understand how a foreign adversary with access to this information could pose a serious risk to both our national security and the privacy of citizens,” she said.

“You can imagine the most catastrophic outcome theoretically if you had a couple million cars on the road and the software were disabled.”

Liberal senator James Paterson added Australia should “look closely” at whether to ban Chinese-made EVs, but added there were other options, such as requiring minimum cyber standards.

“For example, you can impose minimum cybersecurity standards that would lift the bar that all internet devices like that have to meet, not just cars but other devices connected to the internet,” he said.

So far, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said Australia will “closely monitor” the situation.

“The United States makes its own decisions, of course. We make our own decisions based upon our own advice,” he said.

At this week’s CIT launch, ACT Skills Minister Michael Pettersson said he would not speculate on security concerns, but acknowledged more investigation was needed.

“There’s an interesting conversation as our vehicles become more advanced, more connected, more online, the possible vulnerabilities that might exist for that technology,” he said.

electric cars

BYD has overtaken Tesla as the best-selling EV company in Australia. Photo: James Coleman.

Last month, four Chinese brands – BYD, GWM, MG and Chery – entered the national top 10 by sales for the first time, according to data from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI).

A total of 20,070 Chinese-made vehicles were sold in August, 67 per cent higher than August 2024. And since 2019, 265,080 Chinese-made EVs and hybrids have been sold in Australia.

The car industry maintains that Australia’s current safety standards are enough to protect buyers.

FCAI chief executive Tony Weber told Region all cars sold locally must already meet strict national standards for safety, emissions and cyber security.

A spokesperson for Chery Australia also said the company was “committed to upholding the highest standards of safety and transparency”.

“All products exported to Australia comply with the relevant regulations and safety standards in Australia,” the spokesperson said.

“Furthermore, Chery continues to proactively collaborate with regulators to ensure our technology meets the stringent requirements regarding data security and consumer protection.”

BYD Australia and MG Motor Australia were contacted for comment. MG Motor Australia could not reply by the time of publication.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

72
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

China is hacking western companies and stealing the IP and selling it as their own. Why wouldn’t they also install government backdoors to ensure they get government sanctions for their activities?

Buying an overseas or Australian comes with the risk that if the company supporting it goes out of business or decides not to support it, it becomes a giant paperweight.
How useful is your iphone when apple shuts down the cloud. Realistically, you are trusting the chinese company so you can remotely charge your car.

The FCAI chief executive was misleading. Cybersecurity is not part of the standards.

“Tony Weber told Region all cars sold locally must already meet strict national standards for..cyber security”

Quoting from Matt Watts’ NYT link at bottom of page:

“[In 2021], a United Nations regulation on vehicle cybersecurity came into force, obligating manufacturers to perform various risk assessments and report on intrusion attempts to certify cybersecurity readiness. The regulation will take effect for all vehicles sold in Europe from July 2024 and in Japan and South Korea in 2022.

While the United States is not among the 54 signatories, vehicles sold in America aren’t likely to be built to meet different cybersecurity standards from those in cars sold elsewhere, and vice versa.

‘The U.N. regulation is a global standard, and we have to meet global standards,’ Mr. Tierney of G.M. said.”

Isn’t that a standard? Our standards accept other vehicle standards, and if the cars imported meet it then any local standard not precluding it is irrelevant.

Is this just another antiChinese scare? Any brand of connected device is ultimately vulnerable, not just “Chinese” brands and hackers could be anywhere, even Australia.

“Is this just another antiChinese scare?”

Pretty much.

Australia banned Huawei from our 5G network in 2018, banned TikTok from government devices in 2023, and removed Hikvision and Dahua cameras from government buildings in 2023, all because of security concerns. There are growing security concerns with Chinese cars, so will they be banned from entering government properties sometime soon?

Must be hard to drive whilst clutching your pearls. Complete nonsense of course…by this unsubstantiated, overblown hyperbole any electronic device made not only in China but anywhere outside our control is a risk to our national security.

Huawei and Tiktok bans were about control of user data and not remote control of devices.

Gregg Heldon9:14 am 22 Sep 25

I’m sure there are those savvy enough to stand next to an EV, and with a program on their phone, open it and drive off.
If people can do it with electronic gates and front door locks to get into your house/apartment complex, they can do it to your car.

If they can do that with an EV that can do that with any car with a keyless system.

https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/can-keyless-entry-cars-be-stolen/

The short answer is yes.

With the ‘Internet of Things’ the risk includes the fact that so much of an EV relies on system updates that govern what some colloquially refer to as ‘the edge’.

The vehicle could either be hacked directly via an official systems update (i.e. if the vendor is nefarious), or by a third party that takes advantage of a vulnerability that exist subject to whatever update version one is on at the time.

“The short answer is yes.”

Short answer is actually no. It’s way more complex and difficult do especially without anyone noticing.

I stand by my comment. I explained the parameters that would enable a hack; I never said a hack was inevitable or would not be noticed.

Nothing in your explanation excludes modern ICE vehicles from the same hacking “risk”.

The risk you’re talking about is negligible right up there with hacking a plane. Technically possible as anything connected to the internet could possibly be hacked but in reality not feasible. If it was easy or even possible to do hackers would already be causing chaos across the global.

seano the technical ignorance of your comments is something to behold.

But to help why don’t you contact the nice people at the Australian Cyber Security Centre, they can explain the very real risks in simple terms.

And yet Penfold you haven’t pointed out any said “technical ignorance” in my comments because you can’t, at least no without embarrassing yourself. Once again the whole of your non-comment is to cover your tediously pathetic attempt at insult.

I look forward to your next non-reply as you refuse to point out any flaws because you can’t. Sad.

It is possible, despite varyinf degrees of success of motivation. End of story.

https://auth0.com/blog/car-hacking-and-cybersecurity-in-automotive-industry/

It is possible, despite being difficult and subject to a constant back-and-forth to improve safeguards.

https://auth0.com/blog/car-hacking-and-cybersecurity-in-automotive-industry/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/technology-23443215.amp

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/business/hacking-cars-cybersecurity.html

Nobody says it is certain to happen, so cool your jets.

Did you actually read any of that?

One of your “proofs” is the actual “hackers” sitting in the actual car connecting cables. I mean it’s laughable. That’s just car theft dude, it’s been going on in one form or another since…*checks notes* cars and it’s embarrassing you would try to pass this off as “hacking”.

Yes hacking is technically feasible as connectivity to vehicles gets added, but it’s clearly not limited to EVs and it’s obviously not something that can be ignored going forward.

But as it stands the risk is currently negligible. If it wasn’t the problems would be evident.

“Cool your jets” sure as soon as you stop posting nonsense.

OMG. If the Internet of Things has shifted to wireless, then of course the risk remains. But is pretty clear you haven’t properly read every comment, let alone each article.

I never said EVs were the only susceptible type of vehicle.

As stated, once again, I am merely observing that the hacking is possible, not that it is easy or likely. Your straw man arguments are tiresome.

The “internet of things” wasn’t exactly wireless though in one YOUR “hacking” examples.

Your argument is silly, anything connected to the internet could technically possibly be “hacked” but is it actually feasible or likely? Not even remotely. Refer to YOUR example where the hackers are actually in the car and attaching cables.

These aren’t strawman arguments, you’re talking nonsense.

Nope. Thanks anyway.

Good luck hacking those cars champ might I suggest you practice on fridge…lol “internet of things”….lol.

I won’t be hacking anything, pal. But you already described a few ways that an expert could.

Yeah like sitting in the actual vehicle plugging in cables per your “example” of “hacking”. lmao.

Unbelievable 😀

That test showed the vehicle safeguards aren’t immune to hacking; that is surely a pertinent point. It was a controlled experiment. Unsurprisingly, you lean on that sole example rather than considering the other links I shared. Yet it was a hack.

The fact many cars now use wireless or Wi-Fi for updates means one doesn’t need to plug in as they did in that example.

Here is more information for your edification:

https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2016/PSA160317

At least others are likely to read the link, despite your unwillingness. And once again, I’m not suggesting hacking is easy or limited to EVs.

“That test showed the vehicle safeguards aren’t immune to hacking; ” no it didn’t because they were sitting in the car with cables plugged in. It does not prove anything about hacking at all. But why don’t you post “the internet of things” again…just to add to the hilarity of this nonsensical point.

“The fact many cars now use wireless or Wi-Fi “….but you need to be sitting in them to hack them…ooook….lol.

“Here is more information for your edification:” Lmao you’re not edifying anyone with a spurious, speculative FBI report from 2016….WHERE ARE THE ACTUAL HACKS?

“At least others are likely to read the link, despite your unwillingness.”…no I’m dismissing your link because it’s nonsense. Yes it’s “possible” to hack a car but on that basis it’s equally possible to hack a plane…or a fridge….and yet this is not a significant issue?

Why is that? Because hackers are ethical or hacking random hardware is hard?

Matt you’re banging your head against a solid brick wall. No common sense or worldly views can get through it, despite so much evidence to the contrary.

Biden banned Chinese EVs as one of his last acts as President. This applies to hardware and software, the latter with such trojan horse capabilities that the US had to act.

Here in Australia we’re working it out too. The biggest risk is batteries exploding, but the engines have potential kill switches in there too.

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/is-your-chinese-ev-really-a-ticking-time-bomb-20250917-p5mvq7

And of course the same risks extend to pretty much anything with a chip which China manufactures. You wonder how anyone could be so ignorant in this day and age as to the clear risks.

You have already admitted hacking is possible, despite your obsessive denial.

I have explained the parameters for my stance, including via software updates, and never suggested it was easy.

I suggest you take a deep breath and lie down.

Matt Watts, your links are from 2013, 2016, 2020 and 2021. The last of those discusses new global standards for cyber-security in vehicles, now in force in most countries.

The article is obviously a beat-up to the extent it specifically mentions EVs, hitting something relatively new so not well understood. As you acknowledge, any wireless-enabled vehicle is subject to risk, just like they always were. People no longer break into vehicles by opening the front quarter-vent (there isn’t one) or detaching the horse from the dray.

It is basically a beat-up trading on uncertainty and consequent fears.

A cyber “beat up” Axon. Presumably foreign actor cyber attacks are just a hoax. Goodness me.

The usual hype from Penfold, presenting as facts things which are not facts.

Biden proposed a ban (not “banned”) on **connected** **new** vehicles weighing less than about 4.5 tonnes where the software was not maintained in America. Note all the caveats. Biden did not impose the ban. It was left for Trump to impose it, but he did not. He imposed tariffs to make them uneconomic (like many other things) but is happy for them to be built in the US, which is also where the 4.5 tonne exception came from.

Risk assessment on hardware and software is not proof of a Trojan horse, it is consideration of risk. i know that Penfold always collapses in a faint on sight of a probability so no sense was expected there anyway.

Would Penfold like to guarantee that neither the computer on which he writes, nor the phone he uses, contains any chip manufactured in China, and show traceability to prove it? Careful Penfold, if you have a portable or mobile your Chinese battery will have a China-manufactured BMS and may explode on command; or so you imagine.

One has ceased to wonder about Penfold’s ignorance.

“It is basically a beat-up trading on uncertainty and consequent fears.”

100%.

And very online, technologically challenged, culture warriors love anything that’s anti-Chinese.

Axon, you are allowed to say it is a beat up.

Short answer remains “yes” 🙂

No it doesn’t. It’s like say we can go to Mars….short answer is actually no, it’s not feasible.

Try again Matt.

“Matt you’re banging your head against a solid brick wall. No common sense or worldly views can get through it, despite so much evidence to the contrary.”

Once again Penfold is allowed to lead with a tedious insult, preluding another bad faith comment.

“Biden banned Chinese EVs as one of his last acts as President. This applies to hardware and software, the latter with such trojan horse capabilities that the US had to act.”

Not he didn’t, ref Axion above. And Trump taco’d as well.

It is though quite ironic that you’re on team Biden all of a sudden…lol.

The argument is not whether a paranoid president banned things from China it’s whether it’s actually feasible for the Chinese government to control Chinese made vehicles and batteries remotely. And of course it’s nonsense that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Why would they bother doing this with EVs when 70% of the world’s smart phones are made in China? Why haven’t governments banned those phones?

If China has these magical “hacking” powers, where is the evidence? And of course in this fantasy you and Matt are trying to create why is every intelligence agency in the world largely not paying attention?

“Here in Australia we’re working it out too. The biggest risk is batteries exploding, but the engines have potential kill switches in there too.”

China is our largest trading partner and 37% of their GDP relies on international trade….but sure they’re going to be blowing up batteries in Wodonga…makes perfect sense….lol

“And of course the same risks extend to pretty much anything with a chip which China manufactures. You wonder how anyone could be so ignorant in this day and age as to the clear risks.”

And now completely without evidence you’ve gone full conspiracy. I don’t see how Matt’s vague argument that hacking “could” be possible is helped by smugly postulating an evidence free conspiracy about “the clear risks”.

Where are the risks? Where is the evidence? Why has the vast majority of intelligence agencies done nothing? Why haven’t phones been banned? Why have hackers found these exploits?

As Christopher Hitchens once pointed out “That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

@Matt

“You have already admitted hacking is possible, despite your obsessive denial.”

My argument has been consistent, it may be “possible” to hack a car, but as it stands at the moment it is not practically feasible.

“I have explained the parameters for my stance, including via software updates, and never suggested it was easy”

No you’ve come up with some dated nonsense including claiming the blokes sitting in a car and plugging in cables is an example of hacking vulnerability, you’ll then post something silly like the “internet of things” demonstrating you’re talking nonsense,

I’ll ask you again, where are the hacks?

“I suggest you take a deep breath and lie down”

I’d suggest that your claims hold no water and now you’re stuck.

I wrote: “The article is obviously a beat-up to the extent it specifically mentions EVs, hitting something relatively new so not well understood.”

So where did I write that it was a “cyber beat-up” Penfold? Nowhere. You fail again.

It is a beat up on uncertainty over EVs given they are the newer technology and “EV” was inserted into the title.

How are you going tracing the chips used in your technology products, Penfold?

Matt Watts, the short answer for the non-simplistic is that nothing is different in typical risk or differences between vehicles, but that standards have changed since your selection of old articles, as is noted within them.

Ready to acknowledge those things?

Lookout Axon, you might stumble across supply chain management if you’re not careful. But it sounds like you’re in no danger of stumbling across what’s happening in the real world, where every day China (and Russia) attempt to hack into our commercial, government and military infrastructure.

Here’s Lieutenant General Susan Coyle, who leads Defence’s cyber and space operations:

“I would be naive to get up here and tell you that we’re not in conflict in the cyber domain now. We are as you are, too. Have a look at who’s trying to hack into your networks each and every day,”

https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/china-could-disable-or-detonate-aussie-evs-warns-top-cyber-expert-20250915-p5mv8n

Btw Taiwan produces 90% of thew world’s advanced chips. Why do you think China wants to invade so badly ?

It sounds like you’re in cyber reality denial.

seano – read the links i’ve posted or better still, try Googling about Chinese hacking. Perhaps you’ve never heard of Huawei either. And i’d be pretty certain you haven’t heard of 5 Eyes either, all of who have banned Huawei from being anywhere near 5G networks.

Axon what do you make of this article, which completely disagrees with your “facts” ?

“The US government has announced the complete ban of ‘connected’ Chinese and Russian cars from model year 2027, even if those vehicles are produced in the US.”

Now we know it’s a struggle for some, but the term “connected” refers to internet connectivity, which allows communication with cars over things known as the 4G and 5G wireless networks.

https://insidechinaauto.com/2025/01/16/us-bans-connected-chinese-cars-from-2027/

‘Axon what do you make of this article, which completely disagrees with your “facts” ?

“The US government has announced the complete ban of ‘connected’ Chinese and Russian cars from model year 2027, even if those vehicles are produced in the US.”’

What I make of it is that’s not the argument and either your know that and are once again deliberately trying to derail the debate or you don’t in which case your contribution here is up to it’s usual standard….poor.

Where is the proof that the Chinese government have backdoor exploits into vehicles an EV’s? Why would they do this but not for the 70% of the world’s phones they make that remain unbanned?

Could it because because a the anti-Chinese culture warriors don’t support EVs and batteries but they do us Chinese made phones and computers?

Transparent as always.

Well there’s plenty of evidence seano, but because it doesn’t fit with what you want to think, you reject it.

Perhaps it’s best put this way:

Alastair McGibbon – CyberCX – wrong
Lieutenant General Susan Coyle- Defence’s Cyber and Space- wrong
5 Eyes – Security Alliance – wrong
Gina Raimondo – US Commerce Secretary – wrong
Crowdstrike 2025 Global Threat Report – wrong
Australia Cyber Security Centre – wrong
Mike Rogers – US National Security Agency – wrong

seano – ? – right

Btw do you drive one of these chinese EVs ?

Axon – as I have already mentioned to Seano – I readily accept that is is difficult to hack any vehicle. That wasn’t the question.

Short answer remains “yes”.

Seano doesn’t even understand what hacking means. Cars have been hacked. That is fact.

Standards exist to mitigate the hacking risk, yet not every company abides by those standards. Fact.

Many modern vehicles code those standards via remote upgrades as distinct from hardware protections, which means the adherence to those standards could change with an update. Fact. Anyone who rubbishes my reference to the Internet of Things is ignorant of the technical arrangements.

Do you understand that lkelihood of risk is a different question to that posed in the headline? And are you willing to accept my diffident comments as they are intended, rather than accuse me of blanket commentary or scaremongering?

It seems like some commentators either have a vested interest in these vehicles, and are wailing accordingly, or they need to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.

The world recognises that the short answer to the headline is “yes”, which is why they are seeking certain standards; the world’s response to the risk is clearly not 100% guaranteed. Please stop embarrassing us in front of that world with disingenuous comments.

None of that is evidence that the Chinese government has back doors into hacking EVs and batteries let alone that they can be hacked on any significant scale at all.

Do you know what evidence is? It does not seem so which would explain a lot.

I will ask again, where is the proof that the Chinese government have backdoor exploits into Chinese made vehicles and batteries? Why would they do this but not for the 70% of the world’s phones they make that remain unbanned? Why haven’t these groups come out about the “risk” of Chinese government control for the 70% of smart phones?

“Btw do you drive one of these chinese EVs ?” BTW do you have a Telegram account? Seems like just as relevant a question.

“Short answer remains “yes”.

Seano doesn’t even understand what hacking means. Cars have been hacked. That is fact.”

LMAO It’s clear you don’t understand what hacking is because you seem to think hacking is sitting in cars plugging in cables. lol.

The rest of your post is nonsensical. If the Chinese government has exploits into vehicles and batteries why not the 70% of the smart phones made in China? Why haven’t hackers found these exploits. Why have intelligence agencies sat on their hands and I’ll ask you for the umpteenth time…where are the hacks?

Like going to Mars, whilst technically possible, the short answer is actually in all practicality is “no”.

seano it’s a shame you aren’t so inquisitive about climate change and the lack of any evidence around the supposed impacts, none of which have ever been seen or validated. But what do you make of this article ?

“A team of Chinese security researchers – Samuel LV, Sen Nie, Ling Liu and Wen Lu from Keen Security Lab – were able to target the car wirelessly and remotely in an attack that could cause havoc for any Tesla driver.”

Here’s your favourite source – the Guardian – from nine years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/20/tesla-model-s-chinese-hack-remote-control-brakes

And here’s another shock for you – hacking has improved remarkably in nine years.

“seano it’s a shame you aren’t so inquisitive about climate change and the lack of any evidence around the supposed impacts, none of which have ever been seen or validated. But what do you make of this article ?”

You’re not right on climate change whilst every major scientific body in the world is wrong Penfold. For your pathetic insults are meaningless Penfold, you’d have to have some level of credibility first. lol

You’re now linking the Guardian reporting Chinese bloggers making claims from 2016…LMAO….imagine if we were arguing the opposite cases and I posted this as “proof” (I wouldn’t because I have critical thinking skills). You’d have your first win but alas you don’t because as proof goes that’s laugh out funny.

Not just because of the dubious source but also they’re still doing a controlled test even if what they claim is true (doubtful), it’s only possible if they set up very specific conditions and have control of the car in the first place. You blokes really need to read more widely than Telegram.

But now we come to the big problem here that you have unsurprising not thought through Penfold, where were 2016 Teslas built champ?….LMAO…oh that’s right the good ole USA…so the Chinese government are putting back door exploits in to US made Tesla’s now? LMAO.

Genius stuff as always lol.

Congrats seano, you’ve finally accepted that the Chinese can hack into EVs, even foreign ones !

So imagine what they can do with their own products 🫣

Perhaps now you might apply the same logic to climate issues 🤣

“Congrats seano, you’ve finally accepted that the Chinese can hack into EVs, even foreign ones !”

No I haven’t. As ever when you deliberately misrepresent the position of others…thanks for the win.

“So imagine what they can do with their own products 🫣”

I’d imagine that the Chinese government wasn’t putting exploits into USA made Teslas in 2016…even I’m embarrassed for you Penfold. lol.

“Perhaps now you might apply the same logic to climate issues 🤣”

I’ll keep pointing out to you that you’re not right on climate change whilst every major scientific body in the world is wrong. I look forward to your peer reviewed paper proving the science is wrong.

Genius stuff as always Penfold…lol

Here you go seano, in the spirit of cooperation if Trump can bring peace to Gaza then I can help bring cyber security awareness to you.

https://www.cyber.gov.au/learn-basics

October is Cyber Security Awareness Month so you should spend some quality time with this link. You’re welcome. 😊

All that is proof of Penfold is that you’ve lost yet another argument and are not happy about it. Enjoy.

Seano, the only one relying on his own feels, reckons all other commentators on this topic, and the links they share, are incorrect. Got it 😀

No Matt, I’m sorry mate I specifically pointed out what was wrong with your links. Your inability to respond to those criticisms is why you’ve lost the argument and hence gone down the road of vacuous, Penfoldian smugness.

I ask you again where are the hacks? Note sitting in a car you already control plugging in cables is no more an example of hacking or testing security exploits than smashing a window and climbing in. It’s ridiculous that you put this forward as an example of “hacking” and IT risks. “Internet of things” …just embarrassing.

If these exploits really exist in Chinese made vehicles why are they not banning the 70% of smart phones made in China? Why are the security agencies just sitting on their hands? Why haven’t hackers found any of these exploits?

You can’t answer these questions because your initial premise is silly. Whist it may be technically possible to hack anything with an external IT connection it is not currently practically feasible to do this in any significant way. Bans of some vehicles whilst higher risk/value targets in smart phones remain unbanned are clearly about politics.

As to “feels” I am quite amused that you’ve attached yourself to the Penfold clown car after he in a moment of typical Penfoldian “logic” suggested some Chinese bloggers (super reliable of course) merely claiming (without real proof) that they could remotely control their 2016 made in the USA Telsa as an example of potential for Chinese exploits in EVs….I would have thought even you could have seen through this “argument”.

I have explained all this before, as has Penfold, yet you don’t listen. You clearly don’t understand the tech, because you have actually admitted that hacking has occured.

My comments contained reasonable parameters, and were not designed to create fear. I am sure more readers can see through your straw-man arguments.

I have wasted sufficient time with your wilfully ignorant comments, and anyone is welcome to do their own research with my links, other links, various international standards, even a dictionary, etc.

Enjoy feeling unjustifiably morally superior 😉

“I have explained all this before, as has Penfold”…comically untrue. Attaching yourself to Penfold’s clown car…lmao.

“You clearly don’t understand the tech”…I understand that sitting in a vehicle that you control, plugging in cables is neither hacking or proof of exploits available to hackers. But say “internet of things” again…you know for the laughs.

“My comments contained reasonable parameters, and were not designed to create fear. I am sure more readers can see through your straw-man arguments.”

No they didn’t. Short answer remains “no”….there is no evidence that the Chinese government has exploits into Chinese made vehicles or batteries any more than they have exploits into the 70% of the world’s smart phones that they also make. It’s a nonsense argument.

“I have wasted sufficient time with your wilfully ignorant comments”…no you’ve failed to win the argument and you’re not happy. lol.

“Enjoy feeling unjustifiably morally superior”

No that would be intellectually superior, so you’re wrong that also.

I ask again…”If these exploits really exist in Chinese made vehicles why are they not banning the 70% of smart phones made in China? Why are the security agencies just sitting on their hands? Why haven’t hackers found any of these exploits?”

No smug, self important non-answers, answer the questions.

You can’t.

Thanks for playing.

PS. An example of feeling “morally superior” would be being scornful of someone who point blank refused to condemn the violent actions and rhetoric of actual Nazis.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.