Are car alarms with a dialogue code vulnerable?

Question

Information Security

Actually, the question is in the title.
Are signals with a dialogue code vulnerable or not?
As I understand it, each session (opened-closed) has a new generated hash. It can be intercepted, but brute force does not make sense, because. it takes time, and the session is quite short, well, a couple of days at most if the car is used. On the other hand, if, for example, the security forces use a network of distributed computing, then the hash can be brute-forced quite quickly. They also told me the following:

The means of the security forces are good, you can be sure. Security forces can exploit hardware and software bugs, vulnerabilities in protocols and their implementation. The same key generation mechanism can be implemented using a pseudo-random sequence generator, knowing the principle of which the attacker can generate the necessary keys. This mechanism uses the Pixie Dust attack on WiFi hotspots.

Which looks like the truth. What do you think? Vulnerable, it turns out, everything and only its own non-serial signaling, based on a microcomputer such as Rpi or esp8266 and its cryptography can save?

Answer 1

only its author's non-serial signaling, based on a microcomputer such as Rpi or esp8266 and its cryptography can save?

provided that you trust
a. MK hardware (the tab can be at the hardware level)
b. compiler for MK (what prevents you from adding a bookmark to the code when compiling?)
c. compiler runtime

Answer 2

If we talk about Pandora , then this system is invulnerable to code grabbers and interceptions.