MH370 missing (Part 2)

Mission-critical satellite communications relied on by Western militaries and international aeronautics and maritime systems are susceptible to interception, tampering, or blocking by attackers who exploit easy-to-find backdoors, software bugs, and similar high-risk vulnerabilities, a researcher warned Thursday.

Ground-, sea-, and air-based satellite terminals from a broad spectrum of manufacturers—including Iridium, Cobham, Hughes, Harris, and Thuraya—can be hijacked by adversaries who send them booby-trapped SMS text messages and use other techniques, according to a 25-page white paper published by penetration testing firm IOActive. Once a malicious hacker has remotely gained control of the devices, which are used to communicate with satellites orbiting in space, the adversary can completely disrupt mission-critical satellite communications (SATCOM). Other malicious actions include reporting false emergencies or misleading geographic locations of ships, planes, or ground crews; suppressing reports of actual emergencies; or obtaining the coordinates of devices and other potentially confidential information.
...
Santamarta said that every single one of the terminals he audited contained one or more weaknesses that hackers could exploit to gain remote access. When he completed his review in December, he worked with the CERT Coordination Center to alert each manufacturer to the security holes he discovered and suggested improvements to close them. To date, Santamarta said, the only company to respond was Iridium.

More at Link

Use with INMARSAT is mentioned at some manufacturers (see link) mentioned in article. Wondering when hacking hits the sky, or has it already.

a reply to: roadgravel

gee sound familiar???

ignored like usual.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:14 PM

a reply to: roadgravel

We know that the data from the engines which was send to MAS or RR didn't made much sense because it showed a descent of 40.000ft within a minute.
That off course is impossible, but where did it get the faulty data from that was send?
There are witnesses from the Marang area, 8 people lodged police reports claiming they had heard a loud noise on Saturday night coming from the direction of Pulau Kapas.

One of the villagers, Alias Salleh, 36, told The Star newspaper that he and some friends were on a bench about 400m from the Marang beach at 1.20am when they heard a loud and frightening noise which sounded like the fan of a jet engine.

'The loud and frightening noise came from the north east of Pulau Kapas,' said Mr Alias.

MH370 was north-east of Pulau Kapas, but unless the flight history on FR24 is wrong, it was already miles away from the coast and near IGARI.
But if FR24 cannot be trusted, the aircraft was not where it should have been which makes a crash in the Gulf of Thailand or the South China Sea all the more likely.
If not, they might have tried to return to either KL or Langkawi but were unable to do so.

Anyway, i really have a feeling that they created a story based on a blip from the military radar near Pulau Perak and witnesses near Kota Bharu, but because there was an aircraft flying towards and pasing by Bachok i tend to think that they indeed saw an aircraft at the time they claim, but it was not MH370.

While it fits the stories, it came from the north, a bearing of 343 degrees, and at 01:33 it was passing by Bachok, they claim it was flying lower than it should have been, "touching the clouds", while FR24 shows it was flying at 37.000ft.

More importantly, they do not talk about a turn, only that it was heading towards Bachok or flying towards international waters.
If they had seen MH370 surely they would have said it was flying toward or made a turn towards Penang like the Malaysian authorities claimed it did.
The most credible witnesses are the people in the Marang area because only MH370 could have been there at that time and off course Mike Mckay who was on the oil rig when he spotted something burning in the sky.

a reply to: BobAthome

Two different vector for hacks at planes that people have investigated and published. How many more might there be.

Software failing also, to boot.

Murphy's Law

a reply to: earthling42

There are going to be a bunch of red faces if the plane is one day found in the Gulf of Thailand or the South China Sea.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yes indeed

A few images which displays the ocean surface currents.

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: roadgravel

gee sound familiar???

ignored like usual.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:14 PM

I remember your post from the original thread. I went back again today and read it again. Sure enough the "experts" deny this as being possible. I think that a major cover-up is in the works. Boeing, the U.S. and Malaysian governments. The conversation between MH370 and Air Traffic Control that Malaysia has said is sealed evidence probably contains the pilots telling the ATC that they have lost control of the aircraft and it's not responding to their inputs.

Just as the American auto makers Ford and General Motors refused to recall their faulty products, Boeing refuses to admit their overly computerized products are vulnerable to remote hacking. In their view it would be too costly to admit there is a problem. As a result there is the cover up of what happened to MH370. If this fact was revealed it would cripple the airline industry, so instead they call it a matter of national security that must be kept secret!

originally posted by: BobAthome
a reply to: roadgravel

ignored like usual.

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 02:14 PM

Your upset because I went and found an article to back up your post?

a reply to: Mikeultra

Boeing refuses to admit their overly computerized products are vulnerable to remote hacking. In their view it would be too costly to admit there is a problem.

With all respect, if it is possible, it is intended.

originally posted by: earthling42

Mikeultra
Boeing refuses to admit their overly computerized products are vulnerable to remote hacking. In their view it would be too costly to admit there is a problem.

With all respect, if it is possible, it is intended.

Serious security 'seems' to have been overlooked. It would seem to be one end of the spectrum or the other.

originally posted by: earthling42
a reply to: Mikeultra

Boeing refuses to admit their overly computerized products are vulnerable to remote hacking. In their view it would be too costly to admit there is a problem.

With all respect, if it is possible, it is intended.

And that brings us back to the pre/post 911 situation, where a solution to hijacked aircraft had to be perfected. Which leads to the Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot. Which "doesn't exist" because the experts haven't told the public of its existence. It's like classified information, strictly on a need to know basis. The public doesn't need to know that big brother can take control of the aircraft you're flying in and do with it whatever they want. Thanks Boeing!

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: BobAthome---> How many more might there be.

Software failing also, to boot.

Murphy's Law

None, as the software for the flight control computers are kept on eproms.
Unless you have been fortunate enaugh to smuggle an eprom burner onboard (and personell to connect it) it's not a damn thing you can do.

Uneducated people seems to belive that hacking in to ACARS can be used as a remote control, IT CAN'T.
Whatever comes trough ACARS needs to be verified and executed by pilots, then again pilots have to load it into the FMC and execute it to make the autopilot (and the flight director follow it), so no it din't happen.

New guidelines There are currently 220 Boeing 777s, with Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines, in operation. The planes are used by 11 airlines and British Airways owns 15. A Boeing spokeswoman confirmed it had issued a set of guidelines for pilots to prevent long-term build-up of ice and these procedures had been approved by the regulatory bodies. But the NTSB report said: "While the procedures may reduce the risk of a rollback in one or both engines due to ice blockage, they add complexity to flight crew operations, and the level of risk reduction is not well established."

An AAIB spokesman said it had not called for the planes to be grounded and neither had its US counterpart. It joined the NTSB in recommending that Rolls-Royce should develop changes which prevent ice from causing restriction to the fuel flow. "Operators have put in place procedures to prevent this causing another safety incident," the spokesman added.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Maybe Malaysian Airlines is not following the procedures recommended by Rolls Royce and Boeing? Why is there water in the jet fuel anyway? These procedures are not the solution to an engineering mistake. Boeing junk aircraft!

originally posted by: Mikeultra___>Why is there water in the jet fuel anyway? These procedures are not the solution to an engineering mistake. Boeing junk aircraft!

There's always a certain amount of water in jet fuel.
Go ahead and google B777 water scavenge pumps.
If somethings still unlear i'll explain it to you.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: Mikeultra___>Why is there water in the jet fuel anyway? These procedures are not the solution to an engineering mistake. Boeing junk aircraft!

There's always a certain amount of water in jet fuel.
Go ahead and google B777 water scavenge pumps.
If somethings still unlcear i'll explain it to you.

a reply to: Ivar_Karlsen

The aircraft is equipped with a centre tank fuel scavenge system, which increases the amount of useable fuel in this tank. The system uses jet pumps, provided with motive flow from the boost pumps, to draw fuel from the lowest part of the centre tank and feed it into both main fuel tanks. A float valve mounted in the centre tank turns on the motive flow when the centre tank content is below 15,800 kg. Float valves mounted in each of the main fuel tanks prevent fuel scavenge when the contents of these tanks are above 12,500 kg.

www.aaib.gov.uk.../Interim%20Report%20-%20Boeing%20777-236ER,%20G-YMMM.pdf

Well this is too technical for me. I'll stick with making wild guesses about what happened. My gut feeling is that there was sabotage to the flight computer via hacking. I have a pdf from somewhere warning about it. I will find it and re-post it. I have noticed our down under friends are very silent lately. Morale is hitting a low point I assume as it becomes apparent that the aircraft is no closer to being found.

a reply to: Mikeultra

Well this is too technical for me.

And still you don't hasitate a second calling us line pilots liars. (Just had to say it)

The aircraft is equipped with a centre tank fuel scavenge system, which increases the amount of useable fuel in this tank. The system uses jet pumps, provided with motive flow from the boost pumps, to draw fuel from the lowest part of the centre tank and feed it into both main fuel tanks. A float valve mounted in the centre tank turns on the motive flow when the centre tank content is below 15,800 kg. Float valves mounted in each of the main fuel tanks prevent fuel scavenge when the contents of these tanks are above 12,500 kg.

a reply to: Mikeultra
It brings the water to the surface where the filters can catch it.
That's it and that's that.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: BobAthome---> How many more might there be.

Software failing also, to boot.

Murphy's Law

None, as the software for the flight control computers are kept on eproms.
Unless you have been fortunate enaugh to smuggle an eprom burner onboard (and personell to connect it) it's not a damn thing you can do.

Uneducated people seems to belive that hacking in to ACARS can be used as a remote control, IT CAN'T.
Whatever comes trough ACARS needs to be verified and executed by pilots, then again pilots have to load it into the FMC and execute it to make the autopilot (and the flight director follow it), so no it din't happen.

There are more paths than just ACARS data. If the pilot must actually move data into the flight computer that helps but may not be a total preventive measure. Similar to a person loading a web page and have the system altered with malware.

Some of hacking involves sending crafted data to existing software to cause a specific failure path to gain control based on how the processor reacts.

What about bugs in Boeing software.

Any piece of equipment that accepts data and is attached to the computer buses is suspect to attack.

Given the complexity, I doubt anyone can say an absolute no.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen
a reply to: Mikeultra

Well this is too technical for me.

And still you don't hasitate a second calling us line pilots liars. (Just had to say it)

I never called anyone a liar. I was saying the experts claim that some things are not possible. I don't know if the "expert" is a pilot or not. Let me find the warning about the Boeing vulnerability to hacking. It was in the federal register.