Carpokes Porsche Forum

I wasn't expecting this so soon. What a shame and what a lame move by the EU.

Supposedly, the new law was born out of "anti-hacking" concerns but I cannot help but feel that it's another dagger to independance and freedom with laws implementing technology that allows governments everywhere to control everything anyone does. Vehicles with their beloved, historical aura of freedom are under attack, with many of those freedoms being the obvious targets.

Whatever the reason, the diktats killing the 718 ICE along with Macan are saddening. No more mid-engined or entry level Porsches in Euroland now. The same will be true elsewhere - soon it seems. Very disheartening to say the least.

From The Drive & Motor1.com:

"Like the situation that faced the Macan, the 718's cancellation is directly attributable to UN Regulation No. 155 (UN R155), which will take effect on July 1."

https://www.thedrive.com/news/porsche-s ... curity-law#

https://uk.motor1.com/news/713119/porsc ... continued/

Have to wonder if the models will survive in other markets. It is a shame though- many people get their first Porsche in the less expensive models and are so taken with the experience that they gradually buy the higher tier models over time. I think it will hurt Porsche if only the very expensive cars are available.

well the 718's still show up in the US Porsche configurator.

I don't this this is a marketing issues as much as Eurocrats wanting to outlaw anything they deem not fun for themselves. They do know what is good for you. Just ask them

But … how long has Porsche known this is coming? They have been unwilling to invest a dime in updating these platforms for the past 8 years …. and so it goes.

All great comments fellas.

This is why my next fun car would be a kit car in the next 10-20 years.

wow, that's unfortunate. wonder if this has any effect on european delivery?

i gave the regulation a quick read. like most encounters between the legal world and the ~cybersecurity~ world, it kinda struggles to make room for all of: reasonable/defensive practices, "maybe we can enforce the laws with cyber", and C-level gibberish checklists that realistically require the implementer to solve the halting problem (...so, won't actually have impact).

would be kind of nice to see requirements around incident response/transparency, long-tail analysis/maintenance (oh, you have xyz v2x interfaces, they need to be fuzzed in this fashion and/or memory safe, etc), defined boundaries between essential systems and others (automotive is already kind of OK at this) and (dare I dream) a method to disable all/enough connected behavior (think iOS's lockdown mode, but for radio). Plus, just maybe a threat model of specifically what adversaries are expected to be relevant? Because good luck with any targeted state actors, but yes please do something to ensure such things don't scale trivially and remain unfixed.

...Instead there's "make sure you don't get DoS'd on CAN!" and "prevent code injection attacks!!". Sure, ok...

Let's not forget that there *will* be an end of support date for all of this! /rant

anyhow, i suspect the big issue is the development lifecycle requirements - probably Porsche can't meet them post-facto, and redeveloping all of that software in a compliant fashion costs as much as, surprise, developing the next generation. so that's what happens.