FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


How naïve of Bowing to think that there computer is not hackable:

I missed the part where Boeing claimed the computers were not
hackable, but your document did reveal "Boeing has been working on
the issue with the FAA for a number of years already." Seems to be
hardly a headline - unless the reader is an Airbus fan.

As a professional in the computer business, you should know that there
are virtually no computer systems that are not vulnerable to security
compromise.

The fact that computers are on the plane in and of itself is a "security
vulnerability" by your definition.

Connecting the cabin entertainment computer system to the
flight control computer is just plane ignorant.

The article you quoted had no specifics on the connections so I have no data
to judge the nature of the vulnerability. Please update us if you have those
specifics. Otherwise, you're just fanning anti-Boeing flames via ignorance.

Please cite a credible reason why the
in-flight entertainment computer system can't be isolated, and not
connected to other systems aboard the aircraft. There is none.

That must be why Boeing has been working with the FAA to correct the issue.

...speaks volumes about
Bowing management's cluelessness.

Pot. Kettle. Come back with facts rather than press releases and we'll have
something to discuss. Until then, you're just floundering in ignorance.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

John T writes:

The fact that computers are on the plane in and of itself is a "security
vulnerability" by your definition.

By the definitions of many, in fact, but for different reasons.

The article you quoted had no specifics on the connections so I have no data
to judge the nature of the vulnerability. Please update us if you have those
specifics. Otherwise, you're just fanning anti-Boeing flames via ignorance.

If the networks have a physical connection between them, they are vulnerable.

That must be why Boeing has been working with the FAA to correct the issue.

The FAA knows nothing about resolving this type of issue, and apparently
Boeing doesn't, either (or it doesn't want to spend the time and money to do
it right).

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John T writes:

The fact that computers are on the plane in and of itself is a
"security vulnerability" by your definition.

By the definitions of many, in fact, but for different reasons.

The article you quoted had no specifics on the connections so I have
no data to judge the nature of the vulnerability. Please update us if
you have those specifics. Otherwise, you're just fanning anti-Boeing
flames via ignorance.

If the networks have a physical connection between them, they are
vulnerable.

That must be why Boeing has been working with the FAA to correct the
issue.

The FAA knows nothing about resolving this type of issue, and
apparently Boeing doesn't, either (or it doesn't want to spend the
time and money to do it right).



Again, wrong

Bertie

On Jan 6, 1:09 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

If the networks have a physical connection between them, they are vulnerable.


Surprise for you.
Aircraft have had computer systems for quite q while now.
maybe you should complain to Microsoft for not putting redundant
systems in your toy

george writes:

Surprise for you.
Aircraft have had computer systems for quite q while now.

But they haven't been accessible to passengers up to now. With everything on
the same network, anyone could hack into the control network from the
passenger network. That's what is alarming in this case. It would have been
much easier and safer to just install two physically independent networks.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
george writes:

Surprise for you.
Aircraft have had computer systems for quite q while now.

But they haven't been accessible to passengers up to now.

Wrong again


Bertie

On Jan 7, 2:26 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
Surprise for you.
Aircraft have had computer systems for quite q while now.

But they haven't been accessible to passengers up to now. With everything on
the same network, anyone could hack into the control network from the
passenger network. That's what is alarming in this case. It would have been
much easier and safer to just install two physically independent networks.

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.
A touch screen that allows you to select a film channel, audio channel
or Air phone is scarcely going to go any further than that !
I built networks.
In one building the server ran an Office network, a Student network
and our Tech network.
We could see everything on the other networks.
The students could only see their own network.
The Office staff could only see their own network.

It would appear that your knowledge of computers and IT is right up
there with your knowledge of aviation !

george wrote:
On Jan 7, 2:26 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes:
Surprise for you.
Aircraft have had computer systems for quite q while now.

But they haven't been accessible to passengers up to now. With everything on
the same network, anyone could hack into the control network from the
passenger network. That's what is alarming in this case. It would have been
much easier and safer to just install two physically independent networks.

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.
A touch screen that allows you to select a film channel, audio channel
or Air phone is scarcely going to go any further than that !

Maybe.

My bank's ATMS have touch screens.

One day recently I walked up to them and one clearly had a Microsoft
BSOD.

I didn't try to hack in, but someone might.

Whether or not they are successful depends on how well the system
was designed.

I built networks.
In one building the server ran an Office network, a Student network
and our Tech network.
We could see everything on the other networks.
The students could only see their own network.
The Office staff could only see their own network.

Yes, such is quite common in the real world.

It would appear that your knowledge of computers and IT is right up
there with your knowledge of aviation !

Is that surprising?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

george wrote:

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.
A touch screen that allows you to select a film channel, audio channel
or Air phone is scarcely going to go any further than that !
I built networks.
In one building the server ran an Office network, a Student network
and our Tech network.
We could see everything on the other networks.
The students could only see their own network.
The Office staff could only see their own network.

So you have hundreds of passenger devices on the network. Due to a bug, one
or many may malfunction and cause a packet storm, either bringing down the
network or causing unacceptable latency. High latency can cause autopilot
oscillation and loss of control. Oops.

You do NOT put noncritical devices on the same physical network as critical
ones. You just don't. You don't even bridge them together, because
problems on one side of the bridge might crash the bridge itself, affecting
the critical network.

george writes:

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.

The passengers will have laptops.

It would appear that your knowledge of computers and IT is right up
there with your knowledge of aviation !

I note that there's often a reverse relationship between self-confidence and
quick answers and experience.