No. It means that farmers will be able to repair their own equipment. It means the won’t loose valuable work time waiting for repairs that may not be able to be performed locally and be able to save money by doing the work themselves. They can keep parts and diagnostic tools on hand and make repairs or perform maintenance in the field if needed.
lol. Perhaps. Mostly it means farmers can service their equipment without paying the manufacturer or their licensed vendors to be able to access electronic functions- which on modern farm equipment even things like replacing parts or changing the oil can require access to the computer system.
It also means that farmers may not have to accept software updates that modify the performance of their equipment if they don’t want to just to be able to use or service it, and it theoretically opens the door for independent businesses to offer their own tools and other services and become competitive options for farmers seeking a service pro. Lastly- yes, it does indeed open a more feasible path to souping your tractors. Wether those are farmers or third party companies modifying the factory settings to try and improve efficiency, increase power, add features etc. just as with cars, sometimes a feature a more expensive machine or option package has, is just a simple software lock that could…
.. be toggled if one had the ability to access the system. There is also the possibility for aftermarket parts companies to now produce their own modified parts designs with accompanying software to allow or optimize the use of new hardware that the factory settings aren’t ideal for.
Of course- like anything there are two sides to every story. It’s easy to hate big companies and assume they are just trying to gouge people. They often are- and they are certainly profit motivated and have little incentive or regulation not to attempt to gain profit wherever or however they can with “low hanging fruit.” That said- there are legitimate reasonings to things like this that do run counter to “right to repair” advocacy. Modern machines- even farm equipment- can be quite complex. Many pieces of farm equipment cost as much or more than super cars or hyper cars- that tractor could cost as much as a Ferrari. So it’s a purpose built complex machine that the factory has done rigorous and lengthy development and testing on. Because they have tested their exact machine, they can offer guarantees and warranties as well as structure things like labor costs and diagnosis costs because they generally can know how much effort is involved in solving an issue and have a “cheat sheet”…
.. of problems and fixes that tend to fix most problems. When you start modifying the machine- they can’t really know what your exact machine is like. It starts to raise questions like is a problem theor fault? Is it your fault or the installer or the company that made your parts or tune? The Deer technician or engineer know Deer, not “farm tech” or whoever made the aftermarket parts. As for warranty- it may have been 10,000 hours or more and hundreds of thousand of dollars or more to test and prove that the Deer configuration didn’t cause issues- so when you modify your equipment or have someone who isn’t certified work on it- how does one prove that wouldn’t cause an issue? Some things are obvious generally- changing to a different steering wheel shouldn’t cause the emissions system to fail for example- others less so.
So there are certainly some points to be made for restricting access to devices- or at least to an agreement that if one is confident enough to take responsibility for repair or modification that one is creating a new machine of their own design and any warranty would then need to be from whoever did the changes. Of course if work and parts etc. are fit to factory specifications- there shouldn’t be an issue with warranty as there isn’t a functional difference. That’s part of why publishing factory repair processes and criteria etc. is important.
Uhh, what does this do for that fleet of John Deere tractors which Russian invasion forces procured back near the start of war in Ukraine? .. @guest_ ?
Well… hard to say as I lack the expertise on the equipment and do not have sufficient intelligence. As of this writing, I don’t know that the farm equipment taken is even still intact. Last I knew it was sitting and those within Russia/Chechnya were attempting to override the security of the equipment- but they could have began dismantling the equipment to sell as parts or scrap or for use as spares etc.
I am not sure enough in how the Deer software and systems work to say with any expertise- based on my knowledge of other security systems in machines I can speculate. It is possible this crack might allow the bypass of the remote lock pits preventing use of the equipment or lead to a bypass. That said- in most systems I am familiar with that are similar, even factory level access to the software won’t allow bypassing fundamental security systems.
In my experience, the security system is either a separate but linked system and/or the security system is at a root level where any major tampering requires one to essentially not change, but create an entirely new programming from scratch. Not a small task.
Where such systems are bypassed is usually though “loopholes.” Cars are a good example- security transponders in keys communicate with the power train control module. But a car is an “everyday” consumer good so most manufacturers compromise absolute security in the name of customer experience. That is to say that these keys can have significant costs and inconvenience in their replacement. So manufacturers often compromise absolute security to increase the ability to provide replacements or ways for a consumer to gain remedy in cases like lost keys or malfunction without major inconvenience or down time. Farm equipment is I imagine a bit different of a beast being specialized and all.
So if Deer doesn’t implement these sorts of “half measures” to make it easier/faster/cheaper to restore operation when security features are tripped by “innocent circumstance,” then there may not be the common loop holes in the system to exploit like those that allow so many automotive systems to be “gamed” by hackers and thieves. My gut inclination is that the Deer security system won’t be impacted by this- BUT, I don’t know enough about the Deer system or this crack to say definitively. I’ll also add that there is essentially no security, software or otherwise, that is more than a deterrent. It is usually simply a matter of making it impractical for the “average” person to access something and “not worth it” for even those of great skill to bother- but where someone is truly determined and possesses ingenuity, luck, and/or skill, there is probably no security system that cannot be overcome. Tor was not invincible. I doubt block chain is either. Time and drive are all it takes.
So my initial assessment based on incomplete facts is that this probably won’t be a major factor in that situation. I cannot rule out that it could be, and I also believe that if the Russians want to use that equipment bad enough- with enough time they will.
If this situation became common enough or a concern enough, I would probably advise the implementation of a sort of “self destruct” system- digital and mechanical, in which either a set of conditions or a deliberate remote command could/would cause the vehicle to operate itself in a manner which would render it effectively useless- such as blowing its engine/drivetrain etc. through controlled operation beyond design parameters, followed by some sort of digital or even physical erasure or corruption of data.
It also means that farmers may not have to accept software updates that modify the performance of their equipment if they don’t want to just to be able to use or service it, and it theoretically opens the door for independent businesses to offer their own tools and other services and become competitive options for farmers seeking a service pro. Lastly- yes, it does indeed open a more feasible path to souping your tractors. Wether those are farmers or third party companies modifying the factory settings to try and improve efficiency, increase power, add features etc. just as with cars, sometimes a feature a more expensive machine or option package has, is just a simple software lock that could…
I am not sure enough in how the Deer software and systems work to say with any expertise- based on my knowledge of other security systems in machines I can speculate. It is possible this crack might allow the bypass of the remote lock pits preventing use of the equipment or lead to a bypass. That said- in most systems I am familiar with that are similar, even factory level access to the software won’t allow bypassing fundamental security systems.
Where such systems are bypassed is usually though “loopholes.” Cars are a good example- security transponders in keys communicate with the power train control module. But a car is an “everyday” consumer good so most manufacturers compromise absolute security in the name of customer experience. That is to say that these keys can have significant costs and inconvenience in their replacement. So manufacturers often compromise absolute security to increase the ability to provide replacements or ways for a consumer to gain remedy in cases like lost keys or malfunction without major inconvenience or down time. Farm equipment is I imagine a bit different of a beast being specialized and all.
If this situation became common enough or a concern enough, I would probably advise the implementation of a sort of “self destruct” system- digital and mechanical, in which either a set of conditions or a deliberate remote command could/would cause the vehicle to operate itself in a manner which would render it effectively useless- such as blowing its engine/drivetrain etc. through controlled operation beyond design parameters, followed by some sort of digital or even physical erasure or corruption of data.