Firmware 8.1

[HankLloydRight]

A lot of people seem to be having problems with PIN reset/recovery on EV-FW.com and the recovery messages which are sent to TMC.

I've now added the ability to add your email address to your EV-FW account. See the link at the top of the home page.

https://ev-fw.com/addemail.php

Once you've added a recovery email address, all PIN reset/recovery notices will be sent via email instead of TMC message.

Of course, you need to be logged in first before setting your email address. But once set, the recovery messages will have a better chance of reaching you. Due to posting limitations on TMC, not all recovery notices are sent out.

 

[boaterva]

Is this old news that I missed or something that never made it here? I assume all cars did get the same options?

version 2017.28.4 cf44833 gave us Passive Entry • r/teslamotors

17.28.... 833 seems to have added a way to turn off 'automatic entry' (passive entry, Tesla calls it), which is supposed to block one of the ways the cars are getting stolen.

I've not seen this discussed at all, but there is a lot of volume!

EDIT: TL;DR version: you use the fob to unlock/open the door: double-click

Personally, I like this option, but I I wish it was like my current BMW and worked by you touching the car with the fob 'nearby'. But I understand how they implemented it.

 

[MP3Mike]

Personally, I like this option, but I I wish it was like my current BMW and worked by you touching the car with the fob 'nearby'. But I understand how they implemented it.

But wouldn't that still count as "passive entry"? I.e. If they use a repeater to make it look like your fob was nearby they could still get in and steal your car.

 

[boaterva]

I only know what I read. Seriously, they added the option to the cars, no? Do y'all that have 833 have this or is it a scam? I'm wondering if it works finally like my BMW fob does and 'knows' where the physical fob is. Beats me how that radio signal is different from any other radio signal. Radio combined with some sort of proximity device would work, but I know the S and X fobs don't have that or it would work like my BMW does, and not allow you to leave it outside on the roof.

Anyone want to first confirm that 833+ cars actually have this option on the Settings/Doors & Locks?
I was suspicious that this wasn't all over TMC!

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I only know what I read. Seriously, they added the option to the cars, no? Do y'all that have 833 have this or is it a scam? I'm wondering if it works finally like my BMW fob does and 'knows' where the physical fob is. Beats me how that radio signal is different from any other radio signal. Radio combined with some sort of proximity device would work, but I know the S and X fobs don't have that or it would work like my BMW does, and not allow you to leave it outside on the roof.

Anyone want to first confirm that 833+ cars actually have this option on the Settings/Doors & Locks?
I was suspicious that this wasn't all over TMC!

View attachment 243494

I got 2017.32.6ca28227 on Tuesday and it shows the Passive Entry option. I haven't tested it out yet.

 

[boaterva]

I got 17.32.6ca28227 on Monday and it shows the Passive Entry option. I haven't tested it out yet.

Thanks, David, so, at least it's real!

I've love for some proof on how the theory is supposed to work, but at least now we have the option to unlock the car manually if we are of the mind to control it by hand.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

I'm

Thanks, David, so, at least it's real!

I've love for some proof on how the theory is supposed to work, but at least now we have the option to unlock the car manually if we are of the mind to control it by hand.

Taking the dog on a walk now and will try it out when I get back.

 

[MP3Mike]

I've love for some proof on how the theory is supposed to work, but at least now we have the option to unlock the car manually if we are of the mind to control it by hand.

It seemed pretty simple to me. "Passive Entry" being ON is how the Model S/X have been from the beginning. Turning "Passive Entry" off means that you have to unlock the car by actually pressing the button on the fob, or in the app, before you can open the car. So the handles won't present, in an S or the door open automatically in an X, when you walk up to the car with the fob in your pocket.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Trees

It seemed pretty simple to me. "Passive Entry" being ON is how the Model S/X have been from the beginning. Turning "Passive Entry" off means that you have to unlock the car by actually pressing the button on the fob, or in the app, before you can open the car. So the handles won't present, in an S or the door open automatically in an X, when you walk up to the car with the fob in your pocket.

I tested it out and it works just as you have described.

 

[boaterva]

It seemed pretty simple to me. "Passive Entry" being ON is how the Model S/X have been from the beginning. Turning "Passive Entry" off means that you have to unlock the car by actually pressing the button on the fob, or in the app, before you can open the car. So the handles won't present, in an S or the door open automatically in an X, when you walk up to the car with the fob in your pocket.

So how this fixes the spoofers is that normally your fob is always giving off the signal and the car automatically unlocks when you are close. If they can 'repeat' your signal from far to near, then they can open your car and also drive it.

With the new setting, that doesn't do anything as you also need to double-click the fob to unlock the car. So, the repeater does nothing to help steal your car.

Do I have this right?

 

[MP3Mike]

With the new setting, that doesn't do anything as you also need to double-click the fob to unlock the car. So, the repeater does nothing to help steal your car.

Do I have this right?

Exactly.

 

[Cyclone]

So how this fixes the spoofers is that normally your fob is always giving off the signal and the car automatically unlocks when you are close. If they can 'repeat' your signal from far to near, then they can open your car and also drive it.

With the new setting, that doesn't do anything as you also need to double-click the fob to unlock the car. So, the repeater does nothing to help steal your car.

Do I have this right?

Exactly.

Could it potentially be the other way around (I don't know)? Your keyfob is always listening. When the car is in passive entry mode, it is always sending a signal for the keyfob to reply back to. When passive entry is off, the car never initiates the request and double-clicking the keyfob generated an open request even if there was no signal sensed from the car.

Again, I am not saying this is how it works, since I don't know, but could it be a possibility.

The reason why I say this is because there used to be reports that leaving your keyfob in the car would make its battery drain quickly since it stays in active communication with the car while in range. I would imagine that in the quoted behavior, that wouldn't make a difference since the keyfob would always be transmitting even if nowhere close to the car.

 

[boaterva]

For a demo of Passive Entry disabled, see Erik and David's video (start at 6:00, the first part is the Referral Program carryon...):

 

[boaterva]

And now we have a new version? With yet another numbering format? A period between the version and the hash? WTF Tesla...

I was all ready to say, let's call these things (20)17.32 and (20)17.32.6 (since the hash is unique and irrelevant). And now they go (back) to the 17 format and add the period to make it clearer that the hash is by itself. I give up...

So this is 17.32.17....

 

[HankLloydRight]

And now we have a new version? With yet another numbering format? A period between the version and the hash? WTF Tesla...

That's just how EV-FW formatted a new, user submitted FW version. When we have visual comfirmation of the actual FW version, I'll update it. I'm guessing that format is actually: 2017.32.17 722130c to match the other recent versions.

Also, if you remove the hash codes, here are the current FW versions -- notice the first release within a week ("28" or "32") has no dot release number:

2017.32.17
2017.32.6
2017.32
2017.28.4
2017.28

 

[Claude274]

Sorry if it was answered but if I have a non AP S85, do I get updates or they don't occur? Service center updated to 2017.28 c528869 but I didn't get anything on OTA and connected to wi-fi in garage.

 

[boaterva]

That's just how EV-FW formatted a new, user submitted FW version. When we have visual comfirmation of the actual FW version, I'll update it. I'm guessing that format is actually: 2017.32.17 722130c to match the other recent versions.

Also, if you remove the hash codes, here are the current FW versions -- notice the first release within a week ("28" or "32") has no dot release number:

2017.32.17
2017.32.6
2017.32
2017.28.4
2017.28

Thanks, Hank! I thought it was auto formatted from what came from the car... and would always fix the new scheme. My bad!

And as you say, we should ignore the hash, it doesn't add anything, and in the new format with the hashes, the first one for the week has no 'extension', which is new.

 

[HankLloydRight]

And as you say, we should ignore the hash, it doesn't add anything,

I agree that the hash doesn't add anything significant. But based on watching people add their Firmware versions to EV-FW, people will still add it if the pulldown selector doesn't match exactly what's on their touchscreen.

Even when I had the selector as: "17.32.6.ca28227" -- people would still not select that and enter "2017.32.6 ca28227" as a new FW version. So even if we ignore the hash part, people are still going to try and select/enter it. (Someone even added the note "Yes, this is probably the same as the other similar ones, but it is the punctuation on my screen")

I fixed that now by showing the actual full version in the dropdown (but storing internally different). I still may tweak it to avoid further user error(s).

 

[HankLloydRight]

Teslafi.com just confirmed that the actual version is: 2017.32.17 722130c as I suspected.

 

[boaterva]

I agree that the hash doesn't add anything significant. But based on watching people add their Firmware versions to EV-FW, people will still add it if the pulldown selector doesn't match exactly what's on their touchscreen.

Even when I had the selector as: "17.32.6.ca28227" -- people would still not select that and enter "2017.32.6 ca28227" as a new FW version. So even if we ignore the hash part, people are still going to try and select/enter it. (Someone even added the note "Yes, this is probably the same as the other similar ones, but it is the punctuation on my screen")

I fixed that now by showing the actual full version in the dropdown (but storing internally different). I still may tweak it to avoid further user error(s).

People sometimes type in the data? Well, that explains the issue. But, I thought they used the 'upload from car' button. How quaint!