Good that Pete has contributed but he's just restating the official LR line, for which, read "weasel words".

Questions from me:

1. Why has LR elected to go for the cheaper Thatcham 6 security system instead of the more comprehensive Thatcham 5 standard?

2. Why do LR think it's a good idea to store the key codes needed to program a blank key in the car itself and leave completely unprotected access to those codes via a third-party device connected to the CAN-BUS?

3. Will all security updates, whether hardware or software, be available to all RRS owners free of charge, for the lifetime of the car?

4. Does LR accept that it is negligent in allowing a blank key to be programmed without the need for any additional security?

5. What is LR doing to restrict the access to unprogrammed keys?

I absolutely do not accept that this is an industry-wide problem. It stems from the widespread adoption of CAN-BUS which in turn makes it easier to integrate functions as diverse as rain sensors and engine management units at the lowest cost but which opens to door to unauthorised access. The Japanese have their own approach and I would be surprised if (accepting their more limited high-end presence) they have the same problem.

We're not as litigious in the UK as they are in the US but if this problem exists in the US, they could face a Class Action lawsuit. The stakes and the need to sort it out cannot be over-stated. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

Pete@LandRover wrote:

Hi All,

I can certainly appreciate the concerns this subject has raised.

Land Rover is aware of a rise in the number of thefts of Land Rover products. The current Land Rover line-up continues to meet the insurance industry requirements as tested and agreed with the relevant insurance bodies, nevertheless the company has taken this issue very seriously and our engineering teams have been working in collaboration with insurance bodies and police forces to fully understand the attack risks facing Land Rover models. It is however important to remember that this is an industry-wide issue and not specific to Land Rover vehicles only.

We have released a number of security updates in the last 12 months and have further updates due this year. We are continually updating and improving our security systems to ensure we stay ahead of the criminals and the industry-wide problem which the motor industry in general is tackling on a daily basis.


Many thanks,
Pete

Thanks Rob, it's definitely time for LR to stop the self-congratulation and high-margin rake-off and sort it out. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

If Land rover are "meeting insurance industry requirements" regarding security, why are insurance companies seeking to refuse cover on them? Regards

Malcolm

The whole thing is BS - LR are in denial there's a problem. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

Mark N the continued brains of the forum.... It affects all keyless entry cars of all makes. Because of EU in their infinite wisdom with block excemption, manufacturers aren't allowed to have exclusive access to the ODB port. This results in a big gaping hole in ALL of these vehicles. Go google it, look on youtube, lots of makes and models of cars being stolen in minutes by the same method. Even with special keys before we get the silly comment of get rid of keyless entry to sole all problems. Locks can still be picked altho it's a lot more sophisticated now. The device for this can be bought on eBay.

Anyways from what I have read and heard, no insurance companies are refusing to insure them if you meet the criteria they set. This has been the case with many insurance companies and vehicles for years. In certain areas of Birmingham you cannot insure a high end vehicle of any make unless you have a garage / off street or secure parking. London has those same areas and same requirements. But of course newspapers won't sell if they say it like that.

P.s most stolen car... BMW X5. But of course it's not all cars it's only LR right mark?

Indeed, the OBD port cannot itself be locked by software to allow a level playing field when it comes to maintenance - otherwise, the car manufacturer could hold the users to ransom; it's the same logic which ensures a warranty remains valid providing approved parts are used for servicing, all part of fair competition.

The same would be true if, for example, you had to go to an LR dealer to get a new key cut. If you could not do this anywhere, there would be cries of "unfair" from their competitors.

That's why I floated the idea of including the user in the authentication loop; a challenge and response code using a chip and pin card which involves the user - over the phone if need be - in authenticating the download of the code. Fair for everyone but the owner of the car is authorising the download as part of the process. The user gets the card with the car, has a PIN and possession of the card/knowledge of the pin denotes ownership of the car, just like using an ATM. I do not believe this would fall foul of EU competition legislation.

I floated this idea with LR - I sent an outline to DaveW on this forum - but expect they have binned it. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

One question is: is this a UK issue or a Europe/worldwide issue? If only the UK suffers from toe rags nicking high value cars then I can see why the manufacturers don't see it as an issue. If this happens in every market then they'd be sorting it out. Looks to me like an issue for politicians not manufacturers...

For those who have spent £60-90k on a new RRS, what are you doing to protect it? You know its vulnerable to theft by this route (along with every other new car on the market) so what are you doing about it? Buy a f*cking wheel lock and stop moaning FFS!

It's your vehicle, do something to protect it. Stop expecting everyone else to be responsible on your behalf. Sheesh!  2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

Well in that case, instead of a bunch of flowers or free bottle of bubbly, perhaps JLR and other manufacturers, should leave a wheel lock on on the back seat in the knowledge that it'll be far more useful! It'll save us having to go down to Halfords after lashing out 70k and having to buy thing instead.

RRSTDV8, that's a ridiculous attitude. Of course you have to protect your property but you should be able to rely on the car being secure when locked. You should not have to rely on after market security devices to secure the car. There's a security exposure common to other cars because they use similar architectures. The fact that blank keys can be programmed in the car without any authentication is simply inexcusable, however you look at it. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

peanutbob wrote:

Well in that case, instead of a bunch of flowers or free bottle of bubbly, perhaps JLR and other manufacturers, should leave a wheel lock on on the back seat in the knowledge that it'll be far more useful! It'll save us having to go down to Halfords after lashing out 70k and having to buy thing instead.

The flowers and bubbly aren't free. They're paid for out of that 70k you just gave the dealer...

And yes, a wheel lock would be a bloody lot more use than some stereotypical "flowers for your wife, sir"!

When you buy a house, for several times the price of a new RRS, do you just move in or do you change the locks, update the alarm code etc.? Why is it OK to buy locks for the house but not for the car? 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

... because, when you buy a new car, you take it as read that the security features provided by the manufacturer as standard will be fit for purpose which, in this case, they patently are not. Mark

SVR in Estoril Blue

I have to say that after forking out mega money to buy my way out of what should of been a superb 3 years old sport before it was dropped off ramp by dealer on top of regular problems from new I'm a bit off that I'm now expected to buy and fit a butt ugly steering lock, secure front/rear lights and grille myself plus every visit to a dealer fills me with dread - what a shambles

I expect better than this - I've bought enough after all  Wanted a Series 2 LR since childhood but previously owned MY16 Disco Sport HSE TD4 Auto, MY13 RR Sport Black Edition TDV6 Auto, MY10 RR Sport HSE TDV6 Auto, 2007 Freelander 1 Freestyle TD4 Soft Top, 2009 Freelander 2 GS TD4 Auto, 2007 Freelander 2 GS TD4, 2004 Disco 2 Metropolis Auto, 2002 Disco 2 GS, 2000 Freelander 1 SE TD4 SW

Still hoping for a S2 one day!

Quote:

should be able to rely on the car being secure when locked

A lot of these vehicles aren't locked when they are stolen though, thats the problem, you think you have locked it, but as you know, they are intercepting the signal when you press the remote to lock the vehicle. These vehicles are secure (sort of) when locked. Otherwise they have to be broken into to gain access to the OBC. Care should be taken to lock the vehicle with the door button, and NOT the remote.

Mark_N wrote:

... because, when you buy a new car, you take it as read that the security features provided by the manufacturer as standard will be fit for purpose which, in this case, they patently are not.