PDM

This is the Cirque show? There is a lot of knowledge about all aspects of Lexus cars on this forum. There has been at least one instance where someone wrote to Lexus customer relations to ask a question and then posted the same question on here. They got an answer on here before receiving the reply from customer relations, and the reply form customer relations ended up being a copy and paste of the answer from this forum! 🙂 Cheers, Paul

Mike, this will most certainly work... We await confirmation! Paul

Mike, I can see that the title field in your album does. It have the prefix of track number. Try editing so that the track name is the same as the filename. Paul

Mike, Albums are played in ID3 Title alphabetical order. It looks to me you have changed the file names and prefixed those with track numbers. This is fine, and how things used to work on older systems, but I guess you have MM19 on your NX. This uses the ID3 tags of the files rather than the actual file names, so you need to edit the Title field of the ID3 tag in the same way. These are additional pieces of data embedded in each file which includes things like title, track number, ***** number (for a multi CD album), artist etc. On windows I edit this data with this package: https://www.mp3tag.de/en/ It seems to have a Mac version too. Paul

But they would for the recent GSF theft reported on here earlier today which was a relay theft. Better to be protected against both CANbus and relay attack. Assuming Lexus eventually provide the wheel arch reinforcement plate then thieves may go back to relay as the most common method. Paul

Hi Everyone, Very sad to see the number of vehicles being stolen at present. I just read about the stolen GSF. As you may know, other manufacturers have introduced motion sensitive keys that go to sleep after say 30s so that when you put down the keys at home, you are not susceptable to a relay attack. When you pick the keys up, they wake up again. AFAIK, Lexus does not provide this feature. It looks like Ford even offered (at modest cost) to upgrade keys for owners of newer vehicles that were shipped without motion sensitive keys with ones that were motion sensitive. I have just seen this: https://www.keylessdefender.org/ Its a small circuit that wraps around the battery and adds the motion sensitive feature for existing keys. I wanted to know if anyone had tried it? Paul P.S. with the number of thefts recently i wonder if we should have a separate forum just for thefts and security?

Nice idea but I suspect not. Even if there are two different messages that are used for unlock - one for the normal keyless entry and one for button press entry, the thrives should send both these messages and one would still work. If this was a workaround i suspect Lexus would have already suggested it unfortunately. Paul

Very interesting article indeed. I had not realised the device used by the thieves also hacks the CAN physical layer by overwriting the dominant bus low with a recessive bus high. Interesting indeed.

I agree that qualification would be a significant task. I was thinking some simple firewalling from the physically vulnerable wiring loom could be straightforward. Of course it depends on a lot of factors. It would indeed be nice for manufacturers to offer CAN immobilizers at this point. Paul

There are, I believe, 6 separate CANbus networks in the vehicles. How they are segregated is anyone's guess. Dropping frames based on ID is trivial. It surprised me a software fix is not a trivial thing for them to do, so there must be something more detailed I am not aware of, perhaps something limiting in the hardware that came about when the went from 5 to 6 CANbus networks? Priority is easily handled with CAN and set at message level. Bus arbitration is handled by the transceiver and controller loopback. Paul

If it can be fixed with a software update (and the ease of developing this will depend on lots of factors including the hardware architecture) then it will not be one that can be performed over the air. It will be one that requires a dealer visit for the update. There has been no mention from Lexus that they are going to update any software: only that they are trialing a physical barrier. I believe they should do both.... Paul

There seem to be two issues with the Toyota/Lexus vehicles. The first is the physical security to the CANbus wiring is weak, with little vehicle damage necessary to get into the wiring loom in the wheel arch, and this process being very quick. This is the part they may fix with this protection plate they are trailing. The second is that once physical access to the wiring has been obtained, sending the correct sequence of CAN frames allows the thief to tell the ECU to open the doors. I am not sure why the messages on the CAN network that controls the head lights even has messages requesting door unlocking sent to the ECU. These frames should simply be dropped if they are not messages that should emanate from that particular CAN segment. I do not understand why the software cannot be upgraded to stop the "open door" command from being relayed from the headlight CANbus segment (unless of course the door control stuff happens to be on the same CAN segment as the lights....) All modern vehicles use CAN for some features (and have for a long time, although some are moving to ethernet and Flexray, particularly for low latency comms as more and more sensors get added), so it really depends on the level of physical security of the wiring and the security of firewalling between the different CAN segments on those vehicles. I believe a similar attack exists on Range Rovers (from what I have seen on this forum and on the web) but it involves cutting the body work to locate a suitable wiring loom. This is obviously harder, more noisy and more destructive than pulling the wheel arch lining. Paul

That happend to me when i first got the RX. It was cheaper to insure than our 2015 NX... But times have, apparently, changed! A lot... Looks like we should move to Carlisle! Paul

Very interesting, Herbie. We are seeing quite large variations then. Perhaps age of vehicle is playing quite a large role (not that yours is old, just not as new as some of us are getting quotes for...) Paul

Just to let people know I loaded these on the car at the weekend (via usb stick) and all works fine, including speed camera notifications. Paul

There have been a lot of class actions on diesel-gate. Perhaps there will be some on CANbus-gate?

I'd be interested to see what you get now. I just tried LV and it was 4 times what I'm paying this year! I wonder if the prices have only really taken off in the last few weeks? Paul

Hi All, Has anyone had an insurance renewal quote recently on for their gen4 RX? It seems the RX is becoming very expensive to insure. My premium doubled from last year - and the only difference is i have one more year of no claims. Oh, and i guess that hundreds more RX have been stolen in the mean time in the UK. And the punch line: I called Lexus Motor Insurance (who apparently offer a free second stage immobilizer install for RX customers). And they would not even quote on it.... I also tried a price comparison site and tried various addresses from London to the North and the South. It made little difference to the quotes (less than 10 percent). I find this situation totally unacceptable. The car was sold with an alarm and an immobilizer as factory fit. Yet a thief with a CAN invader can get in and drive the car almost as fast as i can with the key. This effectively means the alarm and immobilizer are useless. It would be interesting to know when Toyota first learned of this vulnerability. It was certainly before the last of the 4th gen RX were built and sold. This must also be tanking residual values of our vehicles. And i don't buy the argument about "any vehicle can be stolen so Lexus is not at fault". There has been a clear deficiency in analysis of the vehicle attack surfaces as part of the design. Perhaps we should club together and buy Lexus a copy of this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Car-Hacking-Handbook-Craig-Smith/dp/1593277032?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=b1c0491f-f375-4a65-a8ec-2e51ffbd59e6 Is anyone still feeling they are "experiencing amazing"? It seems to me that "the relentless pursuit of perfection" has completely relented at this point. Paul

I believe the map data is 6 months behind the release, do the actual map data should be 2022 Q3 in this case. Cheers, Paul

I received quite a long, but largely boilerplate, response from customer relations. Look forward to seeing if anything comes back from your snail mail. Paul

I have also written to customer relations. I suggest as many of us who are concerned do the same. Paul

It should be approximately 2.3 times longer. Paul

The way to do this on android 13 is to enable "adaptive charging" and let the phone manage it rather than you trying to balance charge rate and discharge rates. I would not hold your breath for integrated wireless AA (based on my unsuccessful experience of trying to get Lexus to fix basic software bugs). Assume the vehicle has and will continue to have the features it was shipped with and nothing more. If wireless AA eventually gets enabled, then great. I believe the new RX is also not shipping with wireless AA either. You can get a wireless android auto adapter such as AA Wireless: https://www.aawireless.io/ Paul

A ferrous material will detune the Qi transmitter and will likely be detected as a foreign object, causing the charger to turn off. See if the phone charges on another type of Qi pad. I guess the S9 worked ok in the car? Paul

The charger should be compatible to the Qi wireless charging standard. As should be the Pixel phone. One of them clearly is not compatible with the standard or it would be charging properly. Or, one side is broken... or the standard is deficient and somehow allows for incompatibilities. @DoubleVeteranDoes the Pixel 7 charge OK on other Qi certified charging pads? Having paid £42k+ I do think the OP is entitled for the advertised features on the vehicle to work and to work to specification. Of course it may do - and the problem might be with the phone... Paul