Would FPGAs have saved Volkswagen? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 07:33:07 pm
content: I do not really understand FPGAs. I watch Dave's videos and read some posts related to FPGAs to try and understand them. Right now they are black magic to me.In one post someone says "use a FPGA because it requires less software". Since it was software that VW used to defeat regulations (according to news reports), I was wondering if FPGAs can be more successful to defeat detection of unwanted functions.It seems we have a "black magic' chip (some that have 1,000s of pins and cost $39,000) in the electronics field can be used for nefarious uses because they are so complex. Am I paranoid or not?In other words if VW had used a FPGA would they have been caught (assume using a chip that costs less than the car)? I assume the NSA can understand this chip (or there would be no chip) but I am thinking that even at state levels this chip cannot be understood.Any thoughts?

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 07:35:37 pm
content: They were not caught because someone reversed the ECU software, they were caught because real use data was so much different from the measurement data.Nothing you can do on the hard/software side can prevent that.

author: alexanderbrevig
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 08:12:21 pm
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on September 21, 2015, 07:35:37 pmExcept fixing the "bug" of course

author: Brutte
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 09:16:40 pm
content: I think (I suspect) that law requires proving that VW is guilty of using a"defeat device"purposely. It is not the VW responsibility to prove innocence and as the source code is a closed source, it is close to impossible to prove this was not just a software bug or an act of sabotage.Code:if(here()-nearest_EPA_testing_facility()>10km)do_not_bother_with_emission_rules();Even removing epoxy, reading out flash content and disassembly is not a proof of their unlawful action but merely the proof of manufacturing flaw (IMHO).

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 09:25:22 pm
content: Cars today are so complicated it cost a fortune to fix anything because you need a specialcomputer to tell if a bearing is on its wayor not! In the god ol days e.g 1877 we could just listen to the noise a bearing made during turns and decide if it was time to change!

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 10:35:36 pm
content: Everyone does some form of emmisions shenanigans! Someone even mentioned Honda CBR bikes on hackaday I think. Manufacturers will claim its for product longetivity - oh, we do this thing here that recirculates exhaust gases while EPA test in pro^^^^^^^^engine is cold to make it last longer!!1

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 21, 2015, 11:08:47 pm
content: Quote from: Brutte on September 21, 2015, 09:16:40 pmEh, Eh, nothing else we can saysadly the Truth.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 04:54:48 am
content: Always a Judge may sign an order for forcing to corporation to show your firmware or allow to make reverse engineering

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 07:51:49 am
content: The problem appears to be organisational, not technical. Thus a technical "solution" would not have changed anything.In respect of this topic, there is no conceptual difference whatsoever in using C to program bits in memory that control a processor versus using VHDL to program bits in memory that control gates.So no, FPGAs would not have helped.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 09:31:01 am
content: QuoteAccording to the BBC news this morning VW's US boss appears to have admitted the company was dishonest with the regulators, so reverse engineering is probably a moot point.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34322016

author: Brutte
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 11:31:35 am
content: I can understand that the closed software can or even should include some sort of „defeating device” as the trick improves the sales (their product takes advantage over competing companies). This is not a new subject and as EPA is so stupid they believe closed software has morality then that is their problem, not VW's.The „defeating device” is unlawful only when:a) revealed andb) proved/admitted it was installed purposely.And somehow VW managed screw up both casesa) The EPA standards impose strict measuring methodology, it is only a matter of sophistication of the software that we would learn about Dieselgate close never and not in 2015. Was it that hard to write a decent „defeating device”, Mr. Volkswagen?b)„this kind of behavior (..) is completely inconsistent with our core values.”??When people are caught with pants down, they scapegoat others to avoid responsibility, Mr. Horn.. Was it that difficult to blame a buggy software, phase of the moon or Muslims? DOH..I do not understand the VW action as it seems irrational. The risk they took was unproportional to the advantage they gained. They are not stupid, aren't they?So what is the whole point of a confession?The only rational idea that comes to my mind is that VW wants to avoid the EPA order of revealing the code and binary (+ compilation environment settings) at all costs. If it contained some other nasty tricks or unlicensed code, that would have grounded all their fleet, not only TDI 2.0

author: Scrts
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 11:52:11 am
content: It might be true, that some underwater agreements are going now... Maybe CEO was pushed to admit this software "feature", but save the other hidden things. On the other hand, from the law point of perspective it would be completely obvious to issue a subpoena for VW to reveal everything and do independent expert analysis on the code to check for other hidden things.Let the heads roll down...

author: legacy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 11:58:05 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on September 22, 2015, 07:51:49 ambut you can reverse the ROM content into machine code (e.g. throughIDA, which is a superlative disassembler), while you can't reverse a bitstreamVHDL or Verilog is beyond the RTL, reversing a bitstream you get the fpga interconnect map, which is also chip specific (vendor::family::product), no public information available, every chip has its own mapCPU: the ISA is public, you can read opcodes from the datasheetFPGA: just the synthetizer knows the map, the datasheet doesn't

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:02:03 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on September 21, 2015, 10:35:36 pmThis is the thing. Since 1973 it has been happening and it will continue to happen. Every time someone gets caught, everyone else modifies the way they do what they do. The problem in this case is the prescriptive test environment being easy to detect and work around. It has always been this way and the only way VW got caught is someone decided to run some tests outside of the regulatory test framework. Let the arms race continue.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:08:42 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on September 22, 2015, 09:31:01 amA quote from that BBC article:QuoteMaybe it's not just VW USA that should be worried. This could bite the ENTIRE car industry in the ass.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:24:31 pm
content: Quote from: GNU_Ninja on September 22, 2015, 12:08:42 pmOh, yes indeed.Thatcould be very entertaining, but unfortunately we won't see that play out in public.Another example is that to get the claimed mpg figures, some carmakers remove wing mirrors and tape up all gaps around doors (to reduce the drag).There have been many cases in the computer industry where compiler/hardware manufacturers have been caught detecting that they are compiling a standard benchmark, and have emitted/run unrealistically well-optimised code.

author: Throy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:34:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on September 22, 2015, 12:24:31 pmI've yet to see a car obtain the MPG that is advertised.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:41:14 pm
content: Quote from: Throy on September 22, 2015, 12:34:36 pmMaybe the car industry should contact Batteriser (http://batteriser.com/)800%80% more MPG

author: Throy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 12:50:32 pm
content: Quote from: GNU_Ninja on September 22, 2015, 12:41:14 pm

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 01:33:57 pm
content: QuoteI certainly hope so, I'd be a bit upset if my car's manufacturer hadn't been trying as hard as VW to maximize my driving enjoyment while still meeting the emissions spec.

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 06:34:52 pm
content: Perhaps the sanction to Volkswagen Groups have been a Vendeta by General Motor ,for having broken the omerta in Spain.i go to explain, Volkswagen revealed to Spanish Agency Competency that General Motor and others automotive corporations pacted the car prices at the spanish trade.And this agency imposed to all corporations (less a Volkswagen by snitch ,although they participated) a penalty of 171 Million euros .The most affected were General Motor with 23.87 Millions € and Ford with 20.23 Millions €.http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2015/07/28/actualidad/1438087674_837381.html

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 07:07:29 pm
content: Haha. Chrysler had to pay a 266€ fine in Spain.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 07:21:52 pm
content: Quote from: jancumps on September 22, 2015, 07:07:29 pmProbably they forgot to turn some paperwork in time or something stupid like that.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 07:46:57 pm
content: Quote from: legacy on September 22, 2015, 11:58:05 amMost FPGAs have bitstream encryption options too...

author: linux-works
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 08:07:20 pm
content: benchmarked pc hardware also has a history of 'playing games' (lol) with the numbers.way back in the pci video card days, I remember nvidia and matrox playing some kind of benchmark detection games with their video cards. ethernet cards and scsi cards also could be made to detect when a benchmark is running and then change logic so that an artifical fast-path was routed thru.if a corporation can cheat, it will. welcome to how raw, unfettered capitalism works ;( aka, "all's fair as long as you don't get caught".pathetic, but then again, I stopped trusting large corporations a long LONG time ago.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 08:45:49 pm
content: On the news they just said quote: Martin Wintercorn is fired on Friday!Martin emediately replied quote: I refuse to leave!

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 22, 2015, 10:44:10 pm
content: VW is left with nuclear option at this point, reveal/publicize how others are cheating (and they all are), make EPA either fine everyone, or change testing.

author: Nerull
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 12:03:20 am
content: Quote from: Brutte on September 21, 2015, 09:16:40 pmFor a criminal prosecution, perhaps. For an extremely expensive recall that could do serious damage to their business? No. It doesn't matter why or how it is broken, just that it is broken. It could be that hackers broke into VWs systems and changed the code after production release for the sole purpose of hurting VW and its totally not their fault - the law doesn't give a shit. They'd still be the ones on the line to fix it.If you build a regulated medical device and one of your suppliers slips in counterfeit parts and you don't notice it, you're the one who gets fucked over. You might have a contract that lets you sue your supplier for the losses, but that's after the fact - the recall will be your responsibility. I've seen firsthand supplier-fault counterfeit resistors nearly destroy a company.In the meantime, VW have pretty much admitted they did it on purpose.

author: sasquatch
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 01:16:30 am
content: I suspect every car manufacturer is doing something similar - the difference is the permitted emission levels - something like .031 in the states vs .08 in Europe (never quite understand how they calculate this greenwash). Although I'm sure NO 'murican manufacturer does anything like that - it's so easy to get a 7L V8 to run so cleanly (cough)!I believe the test mode was triggered by a combination of measures such as having the parking sensors/radar/whatever turned off, no movement detected in the steering wheel, one set of wheel running whilst the others remain static (dyno testing), inertial sensors etc. So not rocket science and certainly not a mythical "defeat device". Most cars have multiple ECU maps these days anyway.Perhaps it's time for the regulatory bodies to come up with a realistic set of "real world" tests so consumers get a realistic idea of what they can expect from their vehicles.I'm still striving to get anywhere near the quoted fuel consumption on a 3 month old Vauxhall(GM) car.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 01:17:15 am
content: Quote from: Throy on September 22, 2015, 12:34:36 pmFuel economy is largely in theskillbehaviour of the driver, every car I have driven I have been able to get under the advertised economy figures (although only barely under in a Prius).

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 01:40:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on September 23, 2015, 01:17:15 amDoesn't everyone get UNDER the advertised figures?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 03:55:25 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on September 23, 2015, 01:40:48 amThis country uses volume (litres) per distance (kilometres), so economy is in saving, reducing the consumption figure. To put it in that other language, every car I have driven has been able to run above its MPG rating.

author: Brutte
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 07:44:16 am
content: Quote from: sasquatch on September 23, 2015, 01:16:30 amThe "defeat device" is a legal term defined in EPA emission test rules. It is not technical but ethical entity so you cannot pinpoint it and say it sits in: "line 40 - 43 in misleading.c"It is an attitude, not technology.As for real life testing procedure, that would have been:1. Unrepeatable when compared to existing standardized laboratory procedure2. more expensive as you would have to drag the laboratory with you (on-board)No, thanks.As for the trigger of:Code:do_not_bother_with_emission_rules();it could also be a GPS receiver with EPA laboratory coordinates map or it could be an RTC that knows the EPA tests are only taken on Wednesdays etc. The sophistication of this part has no limits as long as it is a closed source. You can/should include anything one can imagine.I think that VW should have outsourced the "defeat device" to professionals that know EPA better instead of making their amateurish, pathetic version.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 23, 2015, 10:30:22 pm
content: from hackernews:Quote

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 02:07:09 am
content: Quote from: Throy on September 22, 2015, 12:34:36 pmI have driven a Ford, then several different Volkswagen for the last 26 years; in all cases I was able to reach the advised MPG. You have to beverysmooth on the gas pedal and never exceed 95 km/h (60 mph)

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 02:36:46 am
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on September 22, 2015, 07:46:57 pmYes, but the synthesizer is software, too. The organization of the bitmap is just a data definition file, and if its meaning isn't obvious it's not difficult to reverse engineer by the standard methods. Encryption of the stored code is vulnerable. When the FPGA has internal flash, the situation is better, but there was a backdoor discovered in one of those, too.Companies feel safe hiding things in code as long as determined hackers don't see a reason to attack them. But that isn't fundamental security. In this case I guess the code was never examined but was inferred to be guilty from behavior.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 06:01:53 am
content: The "secrets" to getting really high MPG aren't secrets:http://www.romanreign.com/hypermiling.htm

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 06:17:57 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 24, 2015, 06:01:53 amApples and oranges. There's a significant difference between driving like grandma and winding the mixture so lean you get great mileage and huge NOx (petrol - GM lean burn highway mode), or flooding the NOx catalyst and not using the required fuel burst to burn it off (diesel- VW Diesel).In the GM case they were caught before the car hit the market and turned it off in the software. You know the VW story.

author: SaabFAN
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 05:44:17 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on September 24, 2015, 06:01:53 amFrom what I understand so far, the "secret" to the MPG is the high NOx-Emissions: Let the engine burn as lean as possible to maximize Power and minimize fuel consumption with the side-effect that the combustion is VERY hot and therefore produces a large amount of NOx.I guess if they had checked the power-output of the engine in the same test it would have been about half the advertised power or even less.The only way to get NOx-Emission and particle-emissions down while satisfying the customer-needs (90kW, 200+Nm torque, about 5l/100km fuel consumption) is the use of AdBlue-Technology or some similar exhaust-processing system that is already used in trucks and some ships. If I remember correctly, the new cars conforming to Euro-6 have something like that installed and require a refill of the AdBlue-Tank every 5000 to 10.000km.Btw. There is a nice twist to the entire story: This whole scandal blowing up like this could be related to the "Game of Thrones" between Ferdinand Piech and (now ex)-CEO Winterkorn. (Piech attacked Winterkorn earlier this year because of his USA-Strategy and had to resign shortly after that.)

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 06:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: SaabFAN on September 24, 2015, 05:44:17 pmCorrect, my Peugeot 308 has this, however it's not begging for a refill yet (18.000 KM).

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 07:16:31 pm
content: So the PUG definitely is cheating as well, to comply it would suck the blue toilet waster like diesel.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 07:38:23 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on September 24, 2015, 07:16:31 pmI don't know, the instruction manual says that the tank is 17 liters, which is enough for 20.000 KM before the warning message telling you that there is 2400 KM of adblue left.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 07:59:34 pm
content: Just how much does that stuff cost? Dealer price and aftermarket stuff.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 10:24:19 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on September 24, 2015, 07:59:34 pmThe friendly localdealerstealer asks for many hundreds to replace the TWO! additives that are used in a Peugeot 308 and reset the ECU counters at 100,000km intervals, DIY with the right software to hand is still over a hundred just for sourcing the liquid. The adblue is a 20,00km interval and can be hundreds for the official service or dollars if you pull some from the pumps at the service station the heavy vehicles use to refill their urea tanks.

author: PA0PBZ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 10:41:53 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on September 24, 2015, 07:59:34 pmWell, I didn't have to buy it yet, but a quick search tells me that it is between 0.50 to 5.00 euro per liter. Since it is 33% ureum in water I wonder if I could just....

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 06:11:44 am
content: Quote from: PA0PBZ on September 24, 2015, 10:41:53 pm... use lab grade urea from a chemical supplier in distilled water? Yes you can. Don't go using fertiliser grade however as there is potential (note I don't say it absolutely will) for impurities in the urea to damage the catalyst rendering the whole thing pointless and broken. I've read about several systems that can detect that and put the car into limp mode until you fix it.Using a 10 second no-research back of the packet.A quick search shows 5kg of AR grade Urea in a one off purchase goes for about $350 and should make roughly about 15L of fluid (I think... based on a 35/65 mix per weight). 15L at 3% treat rate should do about 500L of diesel and 500L of diesel at 6l/100km should go for about 8,300km.I dunno what the actual fluid goes for, but $23/L sounds steep for a DIY solution.