The discussion / debate about the use of software that allows modifying vehicle pollution characteristics cannot be ignored by anyone.
I came across a very interesting debate over the radio which addressed the entire vehicle manufacturing chain with the integration of “smart” external components. The question addressed in this debate was: “Can we call into question the equipment supplier that integrates software to control it or what is its use to engage customers?”
The thesis defended by the supplier is very simple. We have provided a Hardware/Software product with hundreds or thousands of parameters. The client must set the different values in compliance with the regulatory constraints. He gave an example of the misuse of a drill as a weapon.(I think he has seen too many horror films). The thesis is very simple and clear but let us address the below questions:
1. Which ratio or part of generic components (Software and Hardware) contains a solution and based on that which part of responsibility is it engaging for the supplier regarding to the bad uses voluntary or not?
2. Is software life cycle suitable and secured enough to ensure strict use in a dedicated context? Thus, the share of investment in a brand or several brands which leads to whole areas of common software components can be the starting point of an software epidemic?
3. Don’t implementations of systems create a risk of non-mastery of the final product or service with exploitable vulnerabilities?
The answers to these questions are not simple and require a lot of thinking about the importance of the intelligence which we apply in all the physical objects for everyday use.
In highly supervised and sensitive programs the attention to any piece of software is known as a key success factor but it’s not yet completely the case in daily life “smart object”.