That doesn't sound like the same vulnerability at all. Cutting brake lines no longer results in someone's death [1], and they'd know at the time they first try to brake, when they'll probably be at low speed anyway.
The Chrysler exploit, by contrast, allows you to silently take control of the vehicle in ways that don't reveal your position until much later (if at all), due to the sound system not being firewalled from the brakes.
That seems fundamentally different from "hey, gangbangers might shoot at you while driving".
Why is it fundamental different? What is the fundamental difference?
I'm asking because I'm genuinely not sure. I agree it seems different. It does feel like chrysler should be responsible for securing the system from remote exploitation. But are they? And why?
Because a lot of immature assholes on the internet who would be too cowardly to confront you physically wouldn't bat an eyelash to disabling your car remotely as a prank. See: swatting.
The Chrysler exploit, by contrast, allows you to silently take control of the vehicle in ways that don't reveal your position until much later (if at all), due to the sound system not being firewalled from the brakes.
That seems fundamentally different from "hey, gangbangers might shoot at you while driving".
[1] http://www.quora.com/Is-cutting-someones-brake-line-prior-to...