1. Welcome To GMTruckClub.com!

    The #1 Chevy Truck Forum Online
    Online since 2004, we are the #1 Chevy Truck & SUV forum and user community. If you have any questions about your Chevy or GMC Truck, SUV or Crossover, or just want to connect with other GM owners and enthusiasts around the world, you've found the best place on the internet to do that.

    Join Today ~ It's Free
    Registering is Free and Easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Onstar Remote Start

Discussion in 'Chevy Truck Talk & GM News' started by DRuben, Jul 22, 2012.

  1. tbplus10

    tbplus10 Super Moderator Staff Member Platinum Contributor 1000 Posts

    I'm not paranoid, I just dont trust anyone, especially our Goverment that has a bad habit of believing they can violate our rights and a simple "Oh were sorry" seems to make it all ok.
    My wife wants her OnStar so thats fine with me, on my truck I choose not to have it.
  2. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member 1000 Posts

    When cell phones used analog circuits, the conversation could be picked up on a scanner. Today's cell phones (including the Onstar phone) and networks are digital, you won"t pick up a conversation on a scanner. Newer cordless phones are the same.

    I agree, the data that is logged is vehicle data. Onstar is using this service as an enhancement to their service portfolio. Their idea was to provide vehicle data "free" to you when you purchases some of their other services. The original intent was not to provide this data to any third party. From your post: "We do not share CPNI information specific to you with third parties for their marketing purposes." However, a year ago, Onstar decided to make this data available to 3rd parties. They decided to make the data available while you had Onstar service activated, and to continue to provide it after Onstar service was deactivated.

    Needless to say, this caused considerable uproar and Onstar decided the possible revenue from 3rd party sales would not match the loss of revenue from service disconnections.

    BTW, when you use Onstar for cell phone calls, the cost of having the phone number assigned to the vehicle is a cost that is billed to Onstar. The end-user (you and me) pays for the minutes used and not for the phone number. The longer Onstar keeps the phone number assigned to the car (after you have terminated your subscription), the more they pay, monthly, for phone service from the phone companies. A lot of front-end loading for data being sold to a 3rd party.


    That might just be the classic definition of paranoia, haha.


    Look guys, the paranoia I am talking about is the fear that someone can listen to the conversations, inside the truck cab, without an actual Onstar call being placed, or received. All I was implying, is that we do not have that fear with our pocket cell phone, why would we have that fear with a car cell phone.
  3. Sierraowner5.3

    Sierraowner5.3 Active Member 1000 Posts

    I activated the 3 month trial period on the 11, just to try it. I wont be renewing it. dont see the point, i have bluetooth for phone calls, and a garmin for directions.

    remote start? mine came with it, why pay onstar for something I already have.

    the vehicle data is easy to live without. nothing i cant check myself.

    Alex
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  4. the phantom

    the phantom Active Member ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    Some interesting reading about how secure the cell phones really are.

    When a cellular user dials a number on their keypad (be it a telephone number, a PIN, or a credit-card number), it is encrypted with CMEA in an attempt to protect the privacy of the user. CMEA is a symmetric cipher that uses a 64-bit key. A 64-bit key is usually considered to be fairly secure. However, flaws in the CMEA algorithm allow an attacker to predict portions of the key, reducing the effective key length to 24 or 32 bits, significantly shorter than the weak cryptography the US government allows for export. Herein lies the problem. A savvy computer user can break a 32-bit key on a typical home computer in a relatively short period of time.
    This is not a new problem. As early as 1992, other researchers, including crypto pioneer Whitfield Diffie, revealed major flaws in the system's voice privacy features. The researchers are blaming broad underlying problems in the design process for the introduction of these flaws.
    When the cellular industry was designing the privacy-enhancing features of the new digital cellular network, it received pressure from the National Security Agency to cripple the encryption capability of that network. The industry responded with an attempt to balance the NSA's concern over national security with consumers' desire for privacy by letting the cellular standards arm of the Telecommunications Industry Association design the architecture. It seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time.
    Unfortunately, the TIA created a poor algorithm, and thousands of digital cellular users are now using it. How much of this is due to direct government intervention is unclear, but David Banisar, attorney for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is ready to place the blame squarely on the NSA. "This is another illustration of how US government efforts to control cryptography threaten the security and privacy of Americans."
    Cellular telephones, particularly the earlier analog models, have never been considered to be especially secure. In January, House Speaker Newt Gingrich learned this lesson the hard way, when a conference call he participated in was intercepted and leaked to the press.
    Like Gingrich's call, most of today's cellular traffic can still be easily intercepted with widely available radio scanners. The new digital system does offer a good deal of protection over the older analog system, especially from casual listeners, but it has now been made clear that a determined eavesdropper with the proper technical expertise and resources can intercept communications on the new system. The losers in this whole debacle are the cellular users. With the old analog system, many users knew that someone could eavesdrop on their conversations. Now, they've been sold on the new, "secure" digital phones, and are using them with a false sense of security. When users believe their conversation are private, they could potentially say something they would not say if they believed it was possible to be intercepted by a third party. It is precisely this scenario that makes poor encryption (which includes weak encryption) more dangerous than no encryption at all.
  5. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member 1000 Posts

    Phantom, most of your data pertains to the old analog networks and the early digital networks.

    The new generation digital network uses 3 security checks to ensure the integrity of the call:

    - a subscriber authentication key

    - a generated ciphering key algorithm

    - and a PIN.

    On top of that:

    - the service provider maintains a data base of handset keys

    - a data base of subscriber keys

    - a data base of the handsets location

    Some of the keys and some of the algorithms are stored in the handset, some on the network and some at the service provider's network office.

    All three must be correct, without dups for the call to be made, or received, and all three must be correct for the call to continue. If there is any duplication from a 4th element (read hacker) the call will drop.

    On top of that, the keys and the authentication can be changed through out the call, especially as the handset moves from tower to tower.

    Yep, anything can be hacked, but, it ain't easy.
  6. the phantom

    the phantom Active Member ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    I realize its not easy, and im not saying that its common practice to be done. My concerns lie more in the areas like Surreal had noted. such as using your vehicle information against you in the event of an accident or something similiar. Possibly even just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It seems that technology is advancing so fast that its making our heads spin and there will be a time when we will no longer be able to either protect ourselves or defend ourselves because of this. The govt. will determine that when you are in your vehicle that is in/on public property that their is/will not be any right to privacy. Therefore requiring this information to be given if requested.. and so on and so on... Look at how the laws have changed in the past 10 years that show this type of trend. Its just hard to imagine 20 years from now when you look back 15 and have seen the change. Maybe Im just getting old.:lol:
  7. RayVoy

    RayVoy Active Member 1000 Posts

    Not much privacy in a lot of urban centers now, a growing number of cities are monitoring sidewalks with cameras, will microphones be next?

    To the op, sorry, we seem to have gotten :sign0018: .
  8. SurrealOne

    SurrealOne Former Member ROTM Winner 1000 Posts

    If you want privacy you can always wear a burka...

Share This Page