Flipper Zero has been under scrutiny since Canadian officials last month claimed the company was to blame for a rise in car thefts in the country and proposed a ban on the popular (and cheap) penetration testing device.
This week, developers of multi-tools issue a statement argue on their website that they are unfairly singled out as the hacking boogeymen behind Canada’s car theft problem.They also urged internet users Sign the petition Condemned the proposed Flipper ban. “We believe proposals like this are harmful to security and slow down technological progress,” the post reads. “They are often made by people who don’t truly understand how security works and will do nothing to solve the problem of car theft.”
In February, the Office of the Minister of Public Safety of Canada Said it would investigate “All avenues for devices that steal vehicles by replicating remote keyless entry wireless signals, such as the Flipper Zero, are prohibited.” The statement comes after a summit focused on “finding solutions to Canada’s growing auto theft challenge.” solution”. Canadian officials maintain that Flipper is one of the ringleaders of keyless car thefts in the country.
Meanwhile, Alex Kulagin, chief operating officer of Flipper Devices, claimed that the devices “cannot be used to hijack any car.” The developers of Flipper note on their blog that there are tools specifically designed to break into keyless car systems (so-called “signal repeaters”) that you can buy for free online. Such tools would intercept the signal sent by the car’s key fob and forward it to the hacker’s device, allowing remote entry and starting of the vehicle. Developers argue that Flipper, on the contrary, does not have the same computing power as these devices and is a less practical tool choice for such an endeavor.
Developers also emphasized an argument they have made before that government officials should be more interested in regulating the technology industry and making widely used software more secure rather than punishing those who poke holes in the industry’s defenses.
“These vulnerabilities must be fixed, not banned,” the statement read. “The cybersecurity industry has long recognized that bans do not fix insecure systems and only cause problems for people who have already discovered them.” creating a false impression that appropriate measures were taken, thereby causing further problems.”
