News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone. Parent comment

Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by mehrdad on Monday September 30, 2013 @03:52PM (#6471900)
One option would be to borrow someone else's phone and log into the BitLock app and use their phone to lock and unlock. You can technically lock/unlock from your macbook/ipad since both have build-in bluetooth 4. But currently the app only works with iphone and android.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by icebraining on Monday September 30, 2013 @04:04PM (#6471987)
So Bitlock can unlock any bike they want? The key isn't stored locally?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by mehrdad on Monday September 30, 2013 @05:41PM (#6472572)
The key would be only stored locally if you are the owner of the lock, otherwise you have to login to the app and check out a temporary (dynamic key) to unlock
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by th0br0 on Monday September 30, 2013 @06:51PM (#6472891)
which still means that the bitlock server could grant anybody the ability to unlock your lock
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by mehrdad on Monday September 30, 2013 @07:30PM (#6473023)
as the owner of the lock you can manage permissions through the app.

Also you can apply the same argument to Lockitron. They can grant access to anyone to open your door lock and I believe you have more valuable stuff at your house.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitlock replaces your bike key with your phone by krapp on Monday September 30, 2013 @08:40PM (#6473304)
The same argument has been applied to Lockitron... connecting physical locks to the internet is just a bad idea.

More convenient, perhaps, but now in addition to jamming a pen into the lock or cutting the chain with a pair of cutters (or whatever myriad ways to physically assault the lock that there are) you have to worry about potential software exploits enabling remote entry from anywhere in the world. It seems to me that these things are, practically by design, exponentially less secure than their purely 'analog' counterparts.

[ Parent | on HN ]