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

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.

wrote in message


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.

I recently saw a similar error displayed on a parking garage ticket
dispenser.

What input device would the would-be hacker use? Was there a touch-screen
keyboard available? Some other input device accessible?

"Someone might" try hacking *any* system. A computer's mere existence is
enough of a challenge for some folks. Are you suggesting that the ATM should
not be "connected" to another system because it represents a security
vulnerability (which was the premise that started this thread)?

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

John T wrote:
wrote in message


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.

I recently saw a similar error displayed on a parking garage ticket
dispenser.

What input device would the would-be hacker use? Was there a touch-screen
keyboard available? Some other input device accessible?

There is also a keypad on those ATMS.

Who knows what it's functionality is; one would hope none and neither
the touch screen nor the keypad do anything until the system is reset
from the inside, but as I didn't design the system, I can't say if that's
how it works.

"Someone might" try hacking *any* system. A computer's mere existence is
enough of a challenge for some folks. Are you suggesting that the ATM should
not be "connected" to another system because it represents a security
vulnerability (which was the premise that started this thread)?

Ummm, no.

While physical separation of systems is one of the better deterents to
hacking, it isn't the only method to prevent it.

Systems that are interconnected can be designed to be secure.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message


While physical separation of systems is one of the better deterents to
hacking, it isn't the only method to prevent it.

Systems that are interconnected can be designed to be secure.

Agreed.

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

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.

On Jan 7, 1:53 pm, Some Other Guy wrote:

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.

We are talking about the flight systems of an aircraft with, as I
suspect you're aware, two pilots who are there and are trained for
such an eventuality.
Autopilots falling over or going awry for a time are not unknown.
As a bye most ISPs handle hundreds, thousands and sometimes hundreds
of thousands of contacts per minute without falling over.
500 passengers wanting to watch the same movie isn't going to crash
the system

george writes:

We are talking about the flight systems of an aircraft with, as I
suspect you're aware, two pilots who are there and are trained for
such an eventuality.

They have not been trained for this, and in any case, in a fly-by-wire system,
there's not much that they can do if the computer is hacked.