Digital Key setup 2025 Laramie

[skels130]

I was really hoping they'd have this all sorted out by the time I got my truck. I feel like they have to be close to getting it figured out.

 

[RexKwonDo]

I suspect it’s a security thing.

You don’t want just anybody to be able to plop their phone into your charging cradle and turn it into a key to your truck when you’re not looking.

You have to login to the Ram app, and then it probably does something on the back end, talking to a Mopar server, to confirm that you are the owner (or authorized user) of the truck you’re making a key for.

Yep, Kia does the same, and for this exact reason.

Interestingly Kia also has a fingerprint sensor that can be used to start the car, but instead of using the app/sending a code they require both key fobs to be in the vehicle. Would be nice if both options were available so app reliance wasn't required but a backup was available if you lost a fob.

 

[MarkTTU]

Yep, Kia does the same, and for this exact reason.

Interestingly Kia also has a fingerprint sensor that can be used to start the car, but instead of using the app/sending a code they require both key fobs to be in the vehicle. Would be nice if both options were available so app reliance wasn't required but a backup was available if you lost a fob.

That would be a great option! Or make it a key fob and the NFC card that comes with the truck. Or even just the NFC card. Or heck both keys and the NFC card... at this point I'd be happy with any solution

 

[StuartV]

I know this is different but, kind of the same. I know of two separate instances in South Korea of someone using their key fob to open and start a vehicle that was identical to theirs but wasn't theirs. In the second case, the guy was arrested for attempted theft when it was accidental. The first one was accidental also and they realized it wasn't their car because it was cleaner inside so they quickly got out. Car manufacturers should do better.

What brand(s) of cars did that happen to? It seems pretty unlikely that that could happen on an American-made vehicle. At least, that's what I'm going to tell myself...

 

[StuartV]

The security authentication thing makes sense. Seems like a simpler mechanism might be to have you log into your Ram account on the uconnect screen, but I’ll admit I don’t know the technical hurdles they might have with how Apple wants it done.

I think - at least for Apple, I haven't had an Android in a while - that the Apple Wallet itself (which is where I think your digital key will be stored) has some requirement to talk to the back-end server (e.g. a Mopar server) as part of the process of storing the digital key in the wallet.

From what I've seen with how my Apple Wallet works when storing boarding passes for airplane flights, I surmise that the "key" (or credit card or boarding pass or concert ticket or whatever) is stored in such a way that the Wallet can be updated by the provider. The provider (Visa, or Mopar, or American Airlines, or TicketMaster, or whoever) can send updates to the item in the wallet.

I think that means that Mopar could send something to invalidate your digital key in your wallet - say, for example, if you sold your vehicle. Just like AA can update your boarding pass in your wallet if your seat changes. I assume TicketMaster can void a concert ticket in your wallet if you were to login to your TM account and transfer a ticket to another person. They want to make sure two people can't enter the concert using the "same" ticket. My credit cards get automatically updated in my Apple Wallet if I get a replacement card with a new expiration date.

So, I think it makes sense that you have to set up your truck's digital key using the RAM app and not just the Uconnect screen.

 

[StuartV]

Yep, Kia does the same, and for this exact reason.

Interestingly Kia also has a fingerprint sensor that can be used to start the car, but instead of using the app/sending a code they require both key fobs to be in the vehicle. Would be nice if both options were available so app reliance wasn't required but a backup was available if you lost a fob.

That makes no sense, to me. My g/f's Mercedes is similar. We get in. She has the key fob. But, to have it automatically enable her "profile" (i.e. seat memory settings, radio presets, etc.) she has to enter a PIN.

A fingerprint sensor to start and drive the car would be fine if it worked without the key fob present. If the key fob IS present, then why have to do ANYTHING else? I mean, I get in my truck with the key fob in my pocket and I don't have to do anything else to start it and drive it? Why would anybody make a car where you need the key fob AND a fingerprint?

I guess if you were really worried about your car getting stolen by someone that stole your key fob, maybe you would want that. But, in that case, why not just have a fingerprint reader on the door? Use that to unlock the car to get in and then the car should behave the same as if the key fob is present. I mean, you already authenticated yourself. Why would you need a key fob present if you already used your FP to get in? The car knows it's YOU at that point.

Or... maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying that with the Kia you need 2 fobs to be in the vehicle in order to configure the fingerprint setup, but after that you can use just your FP and you don't need any key fobs present? THAT would make sense!

If that's what you meant, well, apologies for my tome....

 

[2025 Ram Limited]

What brand(s) of cars did that happen to? It seems pretty unlikely that that could happen on an American-made vehicle. At least, that's what I'm going to tell myself...

One of I know of was a Chevy SUV (Blazer maybe?). I can't remember the model but obviously built for the Korean community.

 

[2025 Ram Limited]

That makes no sense, to me. My g/f's Mercedes is similar. We get in. She has the key fob. But, to have it automatically enable her "profile" (i.e. seat memory settings, radio presets, etc.) she has to enter a PIN.

A fingerprint sensor to start and drive the car would be fine if it worked without the key fob present. If the key fob IS present, then why have to do ANYTHING else? I mean, I get in my truck with the key fob in my pocket and I don't have to do anything else to start it and drive it? Why would anybody make a car where you need the key fob AND a fingerprint?

I guess if you were really worried about your car getting stolen by someone that stole your key fob, maybe you would want that. But, in that case, why not just have a fingerprint reader on the door? Use that to unlock the car to get in and then the car should behave the same as if the key fob is present. I mean, you already authenticated yourself. Why would you need a key fob present if you already used your FP to get in? The car knows it's YOU at that point.

Or... maybe I misunderstood. Are you saying that with the Kia you need 2 fobs to be in the vehicle in order to configure the fingerprint setup, but after that you can use just your FP and you don't need any key fobs present? THAT would make sense!

If that's what you meant, well, apologies for my tome....

I agree. Too much technology increases chances for things to go wrong. These trucks already have too much technology and if you read this forum regularly, a lot of people are having issues.

 

[MarkTTU]

I think - at least for Apple, I haven't had an Android in a while - that the Apple Wallet itself (which is where I think your digital key will be stored) has some requirement to talk to the back-end server (e.g. a Mopar server) as part of the process of storing the digital key in the wallet.

From what I've seen with how my Apple Wallet works when storing boarding passes for airplane flights, I surmise that the "key" (or credit card or boarding pass or concert ticket or whatever) is stored in such a way that the Wallet can be updated by the provider. The provider (Visa, or Mopar, or American Airlines, or TicketMaster, or whoever) can send updates to the item in the wallet.

I think that means that Mopar could send something to invalidate your digital key in your wallet - say, for example, if you sold your vehicle. Just like AA can update your boarding pass in your wallet if your seat changes. I assume TicketMaster can void a concert ticket in your wallet if you were to login to your TM account and transfer a ticket to another person. They want to make sure two people can't enter the concert using the "same" ticket. My credit cards get automatically updated in my Apple Wallet if I get a replacement card with a new expiration date.

So, I think it makes sense that you have to set up your truck's digital key using the RAM app and not just the Uconnect screen.

The ability to kill a digital key makes sense. I still contend they could have us log in via the uconnect screen and maintain their ability to wipe a key later if the truck is sold or the system is reset to factory defaults, but honestly that really isn't a huge difference in the back end writing of code... or at least shouldn't be. Whatever issues they're having changing it from auth on app to auth on screen probably doesn't help.

 

[StuartV]

The ability to kill a digital key makes sense. I still contend they could have us log in via the uconnect screen and maintain their ability to wipe a key later if the truck is sold or the system is reset to factory defaults, but honestly that really isn't a huge difference in the back end writing of code... or at least shouldn't be. Whatever issues they're having changing it from auth on app to auth on screen probably doesn't help.

Yes, I agree that they probably *could*.

But, it seems likely that using the Apple Wallet infrastructure that already exists is probably a LOT easier than rolling all that themselves.

If I were writing that, I would absolutely NOT want to take responsibility for producing the code to store a digital key and maintain it securely. Not when there is already a commercial product free (presumably) to use that does exactly that. Let Apple have that liability for protecting the key, managing it, preventing its misuse or theft, etc..

It's kind of like when I've written systems to handle accepting credit cards for payments. Do I really want to write that code myself? Or would I rather protect myself (from an accusation of credit card theft/fraud) by never having any of my code even see the credit card info - by using, for example, PayPal to process the transaction so my code only sees an authorization/capture confirmation?