> Maybe IIHS needs to include "remote hackability" as a criterion in their testing?
I think so but just include hacking in general. Remote hacking is the worst but if someone can get physical access to some part of your car for a brief period of time (maybe the door's are unlocked and they plug something in or maybe they get under the hood and mess with the car's computer) you still have a major problem on your hands.
Granted it's far harder to secure a device when someone has physical access to it but they need to test and harder for this the best they can as well. In my opinion anyway.
I think so but just include hacking in general. Remote hacking is the worst but if someone can get physical access to some part of your car for a brief period of time (maybe the door's are unlocked and they plug something in or maybe they get under the hood and mess with the car's computer) you still have a major problem on your hands.
Granted it's far harder to secure a device when someone has physical access to it but they need to test and harder for this the best they can as well. In my opinion anyway.