So why were the researchers willing to publish a redacted version now, but were not willing to publish the redacted version 3 years ago when they were researching the issue?
I am actually curious because this is the only part of this whole thing that does not make sense to me. Even if I disagree with Volkswagon's decision to not notify existing owners that there was a vulnerability known or eventually provide them with a fix, the decision at least makes sense because it probably was deemed more profitable for VW.
"The scientists wanted to publish their paper at the well-respected Usenix Security Symposium in Washington DC in August, but the court has imposed an interim injunction. Volkswagen had asked the scientists to publish a redacted version of their paper – Dismantling Megamos Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobiliser – without the codes, but they declined."
I am actually curious because this is the only part of this whole thing that does not make sense to me. Even if I disagree with Volkswagon's decision to not notify existing owners that there was a vulnerability known or eventually provide them with a fix, the decision at least makes sense because it probably was deemed more profitable for VW.
"The scientists wanted to publish their paper at the well-respected Usenix Security Symposium in Washington DC in August, but the court has imposed an interim injunction. Volkswagen had asked the scientists to publish a redacted version of their paper – Dismantling Megamos Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobiliser – without the codes, but they declined."
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/scientist-...