Sometimes overlapping, but they are not the same thing.
Wouldn’t it be better if your phone/devices would pair directly with the car, exchange keys, and have the company cloud only function as a proxy.
On holiday a guests BMW didn’t want to “start” anymore because it couldn’t phone home because of lack of phone reception. They had to contact the dealer at home and move heaven and earth to get some dealer code to allow the car to start again for a while. Why is this even allowed?
It's a shame. I will continue to purchase vehicles with as internet connected and touch screen features as possible. My 2025 Toyota has knobs and a physical key still. Terrified what will be left on the market when I have to get a new vehicle in (hopefully over) 15 years.
Surely there's more to this story? AFAIK last time I heard about something like this, it was because the guy's car was parked 5 stories underground, and didn't carry his car keys, because he was using his phone to unlock all the time.
I hope you aren't suggesting that set of details makes this okay. I should be able to park in a faraday cage 2 miles underground and still start it the same as I can on the surface. Including with my phone, if it's equipped with phone-as-key.
The phone-as-key shouldn't only work when online and shouldn't require the car to be online, either. And this is a problem trivially solved with proper use of cryptography.
The reason for this is that if the car gives people the ability to start a trip with a phone, it's dangerous to assume they'll always carry a keyfob as a backup. Just like I don't carry two car keys.
How's this any different than say, not bringing your wallet with you, because 95% of the time apple pay works, and then getting mad at the shop/credit card company/apple when the payment terminal randomly decides to not accept apple pay? Not to mention there are plenty of other ways a phone can fail. It can fall into a toilet, you can drop it and the screen cracks, etc. By not carrying the keys, you're rolling the dice every time.
>Just like I don't carry two car keys.
That all depends on your risk appetite. I normally wouldn't carry money in my socks, but if I'm in a foreign country I very well might. Likewise if I'm going on a road trip where I might be days away from home, I very well might bring a second key, in case i accidentally lock one in the car or whatever.
Apple Pay involves at least a third party (your bank) as a part of its function. This entity has to be reachable.
Unlocking my car needs me, and my car.
> when the payment terminal randomly decides to not accept apple pay?
I would be justified in being mad if, randomly, my BMW car would decide to not accept a BMW key (virtualized or otherwise).
> Not to mention there are plenty of other ways a phone can fail. It can [...]
"I will not accept this Euro bank note. You could have dropped it into the gutter on your way here, so it's strange for you to be mad at me if you don't have a backup."
I do keep a card key in my wallet just in case.
Disabling data collection shouldn’t disable entire major features like lane centering and navigation. Even tech giant spyware companies like Google offer offline maps.
> November 10, 2025: No response, followed up.
> November 17, 2025: No response, followed up and copied some additional people on the thread.
> November 20, 2025: It was no longer possible to access any of the internal APIs. The primary vulnerability was now fixed.
> July 27, 2026: Published
Quite the generous timeline on this person's behalf.
if the vendor doesnt want to coordinate, there's no sense in doing a coordinated disclosure timeline.