Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
    • Title Law
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contact Emails
  • News
  • Links
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

Keyless Theft Techniques

In the UK, keyless vehicle theft, often known as “relay theft,” is a major concern, especially affecting cars with keyless entry systems. This type of theft, alongside related methods like jamming attacks and signal amplification, is said to have become prevalent as car thieves exploit vulnerabilities in electronic key fobs. Manufacturers are being blamed. But:

  • How quickly we forget vehicle manufactures were once the hero of the piece.
  • Has this modern methodology really made the difference being claimed?
  • Is this just anther excuse for law enforcement being able to do nothing, or claiming this to be the case?
  • Is ‘keyless’ the new ‘fishing rod’ explanation enabling less attention to be be paid, marking them down as relatively insignificant?

Identified Techniques

Relay Theft:

    • Process: Relay theft is the most common method. Thieves use two devices that communicate wirelessly. One device is placed near the key fob (often inside the owner’s home), capturing its signal and relaying it to a second device near the vehicle. This second device mimics the key fob, “unlocking” the vehicle and allowing the thief to start it and drive away.
    • Countermeasures: Law enforcement and manufacturers are working to enhance signal encryption and reduce key signal range. Additionally, some manufacturers are updating fobs to enter “sleep mode” when inactive, preventing relay signals.

    Jamming:

      • Process: In jamming attacks, thieves prevent the locking command from reaching the vehicle by using a jamming device, often leaving the car unlocked without the owner’s knowledge. This leaves the vehicle vulnerable for thieves to enter and steal contents or the entire car.
      • Countermeasures: To counteract jamming, some vehicle models now include “locking feedback” that alerts the user if the lock command fails. Additionally, awareness campaigns encourage users to double-check their vehicle’s locks manually.

      CAN Bus Attacks:

        • Process: Thieves physically access the vehicle’s electronic control unit (ECU) through exposed wiring (CAN bus) under the wheel arch or bumper. By sending false signals, they can bypass the ignition, allowing the car to be started without the key.
        • Countermeasures: Law enforcement agencies have emphasised the need for vehicle manufacturers to improve physical security around CAN bus access points. Some manufacturers have reinforced these areas to prevent tampering.

        Combating Keyless Theft

        • Technological Improvements: The National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP) is collaborating with manufacturers to implement advanced anti-theft features like motion sensors in key fobs, secure encryption, and limited signal ranges.
        • Legislation: Discussions are underway to restrict the sale of relay devices and jamming equipment commonly used in keyless thefts. This may include regulations for online marketplaces
        • Public Awareness: Police and crime reduction organisations promote preventive measures, such as storing key fobs in signal-blocking Faraday pouches, manually checking vehicle locks, and installing secondary anti-theft devices like steering locks.

        These combined efforts aim to address vulnerabilities in keyless systems and reduce the incentives for organized crime groups involved in high-value vehicle thefts.

        Recent Posts:

        • Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings
        • Keyless is Meaningless
        • Accusations of Criminality
        • When ‘Sale or Return’ Goes Wrong
        • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
        • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
        • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
        • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
        • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
        • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
        • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
        • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
        • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
        • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
        • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
        • Accuracy & Consistency Required
        • Do we need new legislation?
        • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
        • Which? … What?
        • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
        • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
        • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
        • The Devalued Crime Report
        • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
        • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
        • Vehicle Repatriation
        • Crime Number Devaluation
        • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
        • PNC LoS Report Weeding
        • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
        • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
        • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
        • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
        • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
        • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
        • Police Theft Report Disclosure
        • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
        • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
        • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

        Legal Disclaimer
        The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

        No Legal Advice
        Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

        No Liability
        We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

        External Links & Third-Party Content
        Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

        User Responsibility
        It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

        By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

        © 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme