Need confirmation of 3rd party internet connectivity

[godfodder0901]

Their official response is that the FREE connectivity option does not have enough bandwidth allocated to it. They charge more for connect+ to get more bandwidth to open those things up, at least that is what they say. But when you funnel those high bandwidth features over over an alternate network source, it costs them NOTHING, not even the base connectivity costs. So their stated reason does not pan out. It is artificially crippled purely to enable monetization of that connect+ feature even though could simply allow it route over alternate wifi connectivity. Understand now?

No, you don't understand. Bandwidth is not the only cost. Rivian pays fees to access things like POI details and satellite imagery from Google. If they allowed everyone to use these features over Wi-Fi for free, they would still have to pay based on usage. How does that make financial sense for Rivian? It doesn't and they should 100% pass those recurring cost on to the customer. Understand now?

Sponsored

 

[tmbm50]

Their official response is that the FREE connectivity option does not have enough bandwidth allocated to it. They charge more for connect+ to get more bandwidth to open those things up, at least that is what they say. But when you funnel those high bandwidth features over over an alternate network source, it costs them NOTHING, not even the base connectivity costs. So their stated reason does not pan out. It is artificially crippled purely to enable monetization of that connect+ feature even though could simply allow it route over alternate wifi connectivity. Understand now?

No one here can answer this because the only way to really have no connectivity back to rivian is rip off the antenna or have it disabled at the SC. https://rivian.com/support/article/can-i-disable-all-data-collection-from-my-vehicle

Buy a different car...rivian is by nature a connected vehical.

 

[getut]

This dude definitely has electrical tape over the camera on his laptop.

It always amazes me how "certain people" latch on to this notion that anything they're doing is worth hiding from, I suppose in this case, a vehicle manufacturer?!?

Just because you don't understand the risk does not mean there is no risk. I don't do anything illegal, but neither do I want my life in anyones control. GM has already been busted TWICE selling user data obtained from vehicles. When you work in IT security you how much stuff in the world is abused by so called "trusted" manufacturers. Let me list just a few.

A specific robotic vacuum cleaner has software that maps the inside of your home. The company was found to have insecure database and organized crime had tapped into it to gain maps of people homes that they then robbed.

The GM issue listed above.

School laptops being used to spy on naked kids at least 8 different school system in the United States and more abroad. When asked if the laptops had software that allowed this 2 of them truthfully answered no they did not, but they failed to realize that admins have the ability to push software, use it, then immediately remove it.

Companies and government are not trustworthy. They do not need this data. People who willingly allow this happen deserve everything they get from it. Being concerned that even having access even if NOT abused currently is something that even one rogue employee with ANY company that has access to this data can abuse. And it happens every day and shows up on security blogs that just dont make it mainstream news because the general public is clueless and has no idea.

 

[forestwalker]

Just because you don't understand the risk does not mean there is no risk. I don't do anything illegal, but neither do I want my life in anyones control. GM has already been busted TWICE selling user data obtained from vehicles. When you work in IT security you how much stuff in the world is abused by so called "trusted" manufacturers. Let me list just a few.

A specific robotic vacuum cleaner has software that maps the inside of your home. The company was found to have insecure database and organized crime had tapped into it to gain maps of people homes that they then robbed.

The GM issue listed above.

School laptops being used to spy on naked kids at least 8 different school system in the United States and more abroad. When asked if the laptops had software that allowed this 2 of them truthfully answered no they did not, but they failed to realize that admins have the ability to push software, use it, then immediately remove it.

Companies and government are not trustworthy. They do not need this data. People who willingly allow this happen deserve everything they get from it. Being concerned that even having access even if NOT abused currently is something that even one rogue employee with ANY company that has access to this data can abuse. And it happens every day and shows up on security blogs that just dont make it mainstream news because the general public is clueless and has no idea.

That is exactly the type of frantic lunacy I was expecting in response.

 

[getut]

No, you don't understand. Bandwidth is not the only cost. Rivian pays fees to access things like POI details and satellite imagery from Google. If they allowed everyone to use these features over Wi-Fi for free, they would still have to pay based on usage. How does that make financial sense for Rivian? It doesn't and they should 100% pass those recurring cost on to the customer. Understand now?

Google map data is free for Rivian users just like it is for GM users. GM does not get charged for its drivers to access google maps and in GM vehicles you can still funnel the Google maps through alternate connectivity. Streaming apps to the infotainment also costs Rivian nothing. I'm not sure what you mean by POI to address that one.

 

[godfodder0901]

Google map data is free for Rivian users just like it is for GM users. GM does not get charged for its drivers to access google maps and in GM vehicles you can still funnel the Google maps through alternate connectivity. Streaming apps to the infotainment also costs Rivian nothing. I'm not sure what you mean by POI to address that one.

Google maps data, sure, but the rich POI (point of interest) results and satellite imagery do cost when used by an enterprise customer, such as Rivian.
https://developers.google.com/maps/billing-and-pricing/pricing

 

[Dark-Fx]

What services that I mentioned are behind the Connect+ paywall and don't cost them money to provide?

Don't argue with stupid.

 

[shamoo]

I want as much connectivity as possible that does not have to pass through the manufacturer’s hands.

I am not a luddite. I work in IT, specifically in security, and that is exactly why this matters to me, and it should matter to everyone. In nearly every other serious security context, people who understand security recognize that zero trust is the correct direction. Buying a product should not permanently tie you to the manufacturer’s infrastructure forever.

I didn’t read every post in the thread, but I wanted to chime in since I work in cybersecurity and IT infrastructure, and have for 25+ years. My previous role was specifically focused on vehicle cybersecurity.

One thing that’s important to understand is that every (all I think?) modern vehicle today is a “connected car.” It’s not just Rivian or Tesla. Even a standard Honda Accord or Hyundai Sonata is heavily connected and transmitting telemetry back to manufacturer systems.

So while people may focus on whether certain Rivian apps or services work through a Connect+ subscription, that has very little to do with the underlying connectivity between the vehicle and the manufacturer’s backend infrastructure. And if you forcibly try to stop it, bad things will happen, and your car will likely not function correctly.

From my experience in the industry, the amount of data collected by modern vehicles is ridiculous. Even lower end vehicles had interior-facing cameras engineers could access when needed for diagnostics or investigations. Location history, parking locations, button presses, occupancy information, system logs, network traffic, and countless telemetry points were all captured and retained in some form. Could they be linked back to individual VINs and personal information? Of course, but naturally (as you know) they are stored in different data stores and encrypted as needed.

That doesn’t mean someone is actively “watching” you drive around every day but they certainly can if they so choose. If manufacturer legal teams receive a legitimate subpoena, you can almost certainly bet they will release the location (and history) of an individual and possibly even disable their vehicle (not while moving).

At the end of the day, if someone wants a truly non-connected vehicle with minimal data collection, they’d need something significantly older.

 

[godfodder0901]

Just because you don't understand the risk does not mean there is no risk. I don't do anything illegal, but neither do I want my life in anyones control. GM has already been busted TWICE selling user data obtained from vehicles. When you work in IT security you how much stuff in the world is abused by so called "trusted" manufacturers. Let me list just a few.

A specific robotic vacuum cleaner has software that maps the inside of your home. The company was found to have insecure database and organized crime had tapped into it to gain maps of people homes that they then robbed.

The GM issue listed above.

School laptops being used to spy on naked kids at least 8 different school system in the United States and more abroad. When asked if the laptops had software that allowed this 2 of them truthfully answered no they did not, but they failed to realize that admins have the ability to push software, use it, then immediately remove it.

Companies and government are not trustworthy. They do not need this data. People who willingly allow this happen deserve everything they get from it. Being concerned that even having access even if NOT abused currently is something that even one rogue employee with ANY company that has access to this data can abuse. And it happens every day and shows up on security blogs that just dont make it mainstream news because the general public is clueless and has no idea.

I am in Cyber as well. Part of understanding the risk is understanding what can be reasonably mitigated and what the ROI is for that mitigation. You will never remove 100% of the risk and have to set your expectations based on appetite.

As an example, the ROI on mitigating the risk of floor plans leaking from an open database is zero since that information is already public information.

 

[Mos Eisley]

Their official response is that the FREE connectivity option does not have enough bandwidth allocated to it. They charge more for connect+ to get more bandwidth to open those things up, at least that is what they say. But when you funnel those high bandwidth features over over an alternate network source, it costs them NOTHING, not even the base connectivity costs. So their stated reason does not pan out. It is artificially crippled purely to enable monetization of that connect+ feature even though could simply allow it route over alternate wifi connectivity. Understand now?

Nothing? That hardware has costs. This is exactly the internet mentality the techbros use to disrupt ad wipe out traditional business models and income streams because they can write a code for that, and make a billion.
maybe try putting a tinfoil hat over the cell antenna and see what you get.

 

[godfodder0901]

Nothing? That hardware has costs. This is exactly the internet mentality the techbros use to disrupt ad wipe out traditional business models and income streams because they can write a code for that, and make a billion.
maybe try putting a tinfoil hat over the cell antenna and see what you get.

That doesn't make sense. The hardware cost was already covered by the customer during vehicle purchase and is non-recurring. It's the recurring service and development fees that we're talking about.

 

[VSG]

Their official response is that the FREE connectivity option does not have enough bandwidth allocated to it.

I have never seen or heard that "official" explanation.

Perhaps that is the gist of what some customer service representative told you, having been filtered through a non-technical support channel, but what it comes down to, as we all have understood and experienced for years, is that it costs Rivian money to provide these services. And while Rivian pays for the basic car connectivity features, anything more than that requires you to either provide your own network or pony up for Connect+. I doubt they're making any money on Connect+. Perhaps only on average - it only takes one prolific streamer to quickly blow through that $14.99 of data and API usage every month.

Google Maps is a great example - Rivian absolutely pays Google for all that mapping usage, and pays more for satellite and points of interest (and pays AT&T for the network access and data usage). Rivian gives owners the basic mapping data for free, because without it you lose vehicle capability. (BTW that's a lifetime commitment to continue to spend money in support of your vehicle.) But Rivian passes part of the cost on to Connect+ subscribers if you want any additional, discretionary data or services.

 

[getut]

I didn’t read every post in the thread, but I wanted to chime in since I work in cybersecurity and IT infrastructure, and have for 25+ years. My previous role was specifically focused on vehicle cybersecurity.

One thing that’s important to understand is that every (all I think?) modern vehicle today is a “connected car.” It’s not just Rivian or Tesla. Even a standard Honda Accord or Hyundai Sonata is heavily connected and transmitting telemetry back to manufacturer systems.

So while people may focus on whether certain Rivian apps or services work through a Connect+ subscription, that has very little to do with the underlying connectivity between the vehicle and the manufacturer’s backend infrastructure. And if you forcibly try to stop it, bad things will happen, and your car will likely not function correctly.

From my experience in the industry, the amount of data collected by modern vehicles is ridiculous. Even lower end vehicles had interior-facing cameras engineers could access when needed for diagnostics or investigations. Location history, parking locations, button presses, occupancy information, system logs, network traffic, and countless telemetry points were all captured and retained in some form. Could they be linked back to individual VINs and personal information? Of course, but naturally (as you know) they are stored in different data stores and encrypted as needed.

That doesn’t mean someone is actively “watching” you drive around every day but they certainly can if they so choose. If manufacturer legal teams receive a legitimate subpoena, you can almost certainly bet they will release the location (and history) of an individual and possibly even disable their vehicle (not while moving).

At the end of the day, if someone wants a truly non-connected vehicle with minimal data collection, they’d need something significantly older.

I agree with everything you wrote except the blind acceptance of it. As vehicles get older the options to buy vehicles without this crap will get less and less unless people see threads like this and pushback starts to happen and/or regulation that enshrines basic abilities of the owner like using zero trust configs to lock out manufacturers in ways that does not cripple the vehicle. I have a good start of that with my wifes Equinox EV. I do exactly what I am trying to figure out will work with a Rivian with that. I run my own 4G hotspot with firewall inside the vehicle, connect the vehicle to that and I have the integrated cellular connectivity in the car capped with a resistor. Everything in the car still works absolutely fine except I have all access to GM and onstar sites blocked. I really want a Rivian but something like that will have to happen before I pull the trigger on one. I have time to continue working on it due to my current truck being locked up in a lemon law lawsuit. But when that finally completes I'll have to make the final decision between Rivian and Silverado EV.

 

[shamoo]

I agree with everything you wrote except the blind acceptance of it. As vehicles get older the options to buy vehicles without this crap will get less and less unless people see threads like this and pushback starts to happen and/or regulation that enshrines basic abilities of the owner like using zero trust configs to lock out manufacturers in ways that does not cripple the vehicle. I have a good start of that with my wifes Equinox EV. I do exactly what I am trying to figure out will work with a Rivian with that. I run my own 4G hotspot with firewall inside the vehicle, connect the vehicle to that and I have the integrated cellular connectivity in the car capped with a resistor. Everything in the car still works absolutely fine except I have all access to GM and onstar sites blocked. I really want a Rivian but something like that will have to happen before I pull the trigger on one. I have time to continue working on it due to my current truck being locked up in a lemon law lawsuit. But when that finally completes I'll have to make the final decision between Rivian and Silverado EV.

Sure, but I can almost guarantee you, Chevy is still getting a ton of telemetry from your vehicle. You may be preventing some general user convenience features like Spotify or delaying some sort of update.

Now I don't have experience in Chevy specifically, but I know other manufacturers. There's little you can do to stop that telemetry. So are you just trying to not allow Rivian to limit your choice for connectivity to apps like Spotify/YouTube/etc?

Or do you not want them to get GPS/location data from you?

Anyway, not trying to argue. I understand your point.

 

[getut]

Sure, but I can almost guarantee you, Chevy is still getting a ton of telemetry from your vehicle. You may be preventing some general user convenience features like Spotify or delaying some sort of update.

Now I don't have experience in Chevy specifically, but I know other manufacturers. There's little you can do to stop that telemetry. So are you just trying to not allow Rivian to limit your choice for connectivity to apps like Spotify/YouTube/etc?

Or do you not want them to get GPS/location data from you?

Anyway, not trying to argue. I understand your point.

I can confirm that there is no communications going to any IP address registered to GM or Onstar. The only way they could pull information about me is by pulling stored data during a service visit. I am running a stateful UTM firewall in-car (pfsense running on a miniPC that has a SIM card slot and wifi) and funneling everything through that. It is running in whitelist mode. Only IP's necessary for google mapping and streaming audio and video are allowed out. The in-vehicle cellular is resistor terminated at the back of the telematics module. Not just a shark fin disconnect which still would let strong signal make a connection. There is nothing making it out that I am not in control of on that vehicle.

I dont want them to have ANYTHING that I dont give them willingly. Camera, GPS, speed, location, Charging, anything at all. But more than that I want no external connectivity in. Best I can tell they have some type of VPN that attempts to establish... actually more than one that once established would then allow bidirectional communication. Those are all blocked by this setup I am using. I do not use any apps or anything like that that requires me to ask permission from services that I dont control to control the thing that I own.

Sponsored