247
Rivian says "fat finger" caused software update to brick infotainment systems, physical servicing may be required (driveteslacanada.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Rivian says "fat finger" caused software update to brick infotainment systems, physical servicing may be required::Today’s cars are more like computers on wheels, and even a seemingly routine software update can lead to unexpected consequences. Rivian unfortunately experienced a “fat finger” mishap with their latest software update, bricking infotainment systems [...]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (5 children)

"According to Rivian the glitch occurred when the wrong build with incorrect security certificates was inadvertently sent out. This error resulted in bricking the infotainment systems of an unknown number of vehicles."

I always thought that 'fat finger' revered to having fingers that are too big for buttons, but I guess it means sending out wrong software versions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fat finger in this context typically means that the person knew what they wanted to do, but typed the wrong thing. Their "fat finger" hit the wrong button. Possible that they wanted certificate 123 in the build, but they accidentally typed 133, or something like that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think it's also worth noting that "security certificates" in this context are almost certainly there for the purpose of locking the system away from modification by the vehicle owner, which means they weren't necessary (and indeed, ought to be prohibited by law) to begin with.

    Rivian was hoist on their own consumer-hostile petard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't think so in this context. This is probably more like SSL cert trusting or some private/public key pair.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Based on the fact that the screen is blank, I think @grue was correct. The certificate that tells the system that the infotainment was valid was incorrect, so the infotainment couldn't load. They used the dev-infotainment cert instead of the prod cert.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent