FBI: researcher admitted to hacking plane in-flight, causing it to “climb”

originally posted by: roadgravel

Hard to know what to believe.

Belive this:

“While these systems receive position data and have communication links, the design isolates them from the other systems on airplanes performing critical and essential functions.”

And:

“The claim that the Thrust Management System mode was changed without a command from the pilot through the mode control panel, or while coupled to the Flight Management System is inconceivable,

www.runwaygirlnetwork.com...

From Zaphod58's post.

Because what is stated above is design requirements for certification of transport category airplanes.

That hacker guy is talking out of his arse.

It's one thing to hack into the plane's systems, it's another thing entirely to actually change the course of the flight.

I bet all he ends up getting charged with is mischief.

“While these systems receive position data and have communication links, the design isolates them from the other systems on airplanes performing critical and essential functions.”

The very fact that they can communicate means there may be the possibility of bypassing that isolation.

originally posted by: roadgravel

“While these systems receive position data and have communication links, the design isolates them from the other systems on airplanes performing critical and essential functions.”

The very fact that they can communicate means there may be the possibility of bypassing that isolation.

There's not on any Boeing, it's a one way street, like the speedometer in your car. Information only.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Chadwickus

So this is possible if the person is on board,ok so why then is it not possible to do the same hack wireless from the ground,or from say a satellite above ?

Not a hack but there is equipment to take control of an airliner from the ground to take control of an out of control airliner.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: roadgravel

Who is Ars Technica or ABPT? I never heard of either of them. I don't consider either of these sites valid sources. Therefore, I think the article is BS.

Consider the source.

Ars Technica has been around for nearly 20 years and their staff writers tend to be well educated in their fields. They might not compare against a professional journal full of peer-reviewed articles, but they're one of the better sources for technical information in an easy-reading format.

originally posted by: Ivar_Karlsen

originally posted by: roadgravel

“While these systems receive position data and have communication links, the design isolates them from the other systems on airplanes performing critical and essential functions.”

The very fact that they can communicate means there may be the possibility of bypassing that isolation.

There's not on any Boeing, it's a one way street, like the speedometer in your car. Information only.

I was curious about that aspect. Whether it just sends data with no need to be concerned with it getting there so it is one way. Your response answers that one.

An independant source comes from Cambridge University England, almost three years ago in late May 2012.

In a paper that has been published in draft form online and seen by the Guardian, researchers Sergei Skorobogatov of Cambridge University and Chris Woods of Quo Vadis Labs say that they have discovered a method that a hacker can use to connect to the internals of a chip made by Actel, a US manufacturer.

"An attacker can disable all the security on the chip, reprogram cryptographic and access keys … or permanently damage the device," they noted.

Woods told the Guardian that they have offered all the necessary information about how the hack can be done to government agencies – but that their response is classified.

"The real issue is the level of security that can be compromised through any back door, and how easy they are to find and exploit," Woods said.

The back door may have been inserted by Actel itself, whose ProASIC3 chip is used in medical, automotive, communications and consumer products, as well as military use.

Woods said that "a back door is an additional undocumented featured deliberately inserted into a device for extra functionality" – in effect, a secret way to get into the chip and control it.

Crucially, in this case it exists as part of the design of the silicon chip – meaning that it cannot be removed because it is inherent in how the chip reacts to certain inputs. He suggested that it may have been put there by design by Actel, because there are some traces of the existence of such a back door in the system files of Actel development software.

Actel did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.


www.theguardian.com...

So their take on it is that the chip itself has an irreversible built-in back door, but nobody is talking on it other than the findings, and they say that the government feedback is classified.
So for the skeptics here we have yet more carrot pullers, from a far off land, who are not FAA, GAO, NIST, blah blah, but who are also talking shiite on the exact same thing, with perhaps a little more detail...aren't they?
My thinking is that the GAO is being more than properly cautious, and they may know even more that they are saying publicly, but unlike Ivar_Karlsen, I do not ask anyone to belive me, just for people to go and do a bit of digging on their own, you never know what you may find. I am done here.
Their draft on pdf,

www.cl.cam.ac.uk...

a reply to: smurfy

You left out a little.

Connecting to the chips would be comparatively easy over the internet if the chip is wired to an internet-enabled controller, he said. Normally a special cryptographic key would be needed, but the back door does not need an encrypted channel.

They would need to be able to access something that uses the chip to be able to use the backdoor.

But let's say they do. They manage to connect to the back door of this chip and reprogram it and take over the plane. And then one pilot stands up, walks to the breaker panel, pulls a breaker, problem solved.

I think the man is purposely misleading to continue his attempt to raise concerns over aircraft systems. The next question might be how much is ego and how much is concern.

This guy didn't hack a thing. He hacked a test network and then tapped into an in-flight entertainment network. You've got to chuckle at the "overwrote thrust management code". People are way too gullible.

a reply to: roadgravel

You're right to frame it in those terms. These infosec professionals are absolutely desperate for attention. It's a very hardcore nerd-ego driven industry.

originally posted by: Guidance.Is.Internal
a reply to: roadgravel

You're right to frame it in those terms. These infosec professionals are absolutely desperate for attention. It's a very hardcore nerd-ego driven industry.

The government pays big money in our new world of security of the state. Wouldn't be surprised if he is trying get his company hooked into the money. As usual, in that field it is often about income, not the security.

a reply to: greencmpand that is why bg75 survived no networked systems really why even have an entertainment and avionics system networks even linked?

a reply to: proteus33

The IFE system has to report health to the cockpit among other things. The SwissAir 111 fire started in the entertainment system.

A video from 2012 shows him at a conference where he claims he adjusted the temperature on the ISS, and "thought about taking the Mars Rover for a spin".

www.popsci.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

I saw that and it added to my thought that the man is much more talk then actual action with this. No doubt he has knowledge and skills but I think he is going with a quite a bit of 'literary leeway'.

If 10% of the people who claim to be hackers really were doing something destructive then the internet and most businesses would be ka-put.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Zaphod, going with a hypothetical that it did happen, how likely is it that the pilots reported and/or made a log entry that the plane's engine did this? Meaning there is a record of it.

a reply to: roadgravel

They almost certainly logged it. That's something you'd want other pilots and maintenance aware of. It's also possible that the aircraft itself reported it if it happened.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: roadgravel

They almost certainly logged it. That's something you'd want other pilots and maintenance aware of. It's also possible that the aircraft itself reported it if it happened.

That means it should be pretty straight forward. The airline could say it did or didn't happen. But, saying it did happen is covered by the scare people and lose business rule, I suppose. Personally, I don't think that many of the people who fly a lot would be overly worried. I could be wrong on that last point.