<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>SoK: Stealing Cars Since Remote Keyless Entry Introduction and How to Defend From It · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2505.02713/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2505.02713/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>SoK: Stealing Cars Since Remote Keyless Entry Introduction and How to Defend From It — mentioned by the_mitsuhiko</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44858209</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2505.02713:44858209</guid><pubDate>Sun, 10 Aug 2025 20:57:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The various algorithmic solutions are simple and common knowledge these days. Honestly I&amp;#x27;m not really sure what you are trying to get to. If you think this is a solved problem, it&amp;#x27;s really not. [1] &amp;gt; The broken and outdated wireless algorithm has nothing to do with the criteria used by the vehicle to decide whether or not someone is authorized to enroll or revoke a key. Tie that to possession of the physical key and problem solved. It has something to do with it in the sense that key pairing that just requires physical presence through the key is susceptible to rolljam type attacks.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2505.02713/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
