|
Yeah, I posted and it was moved to Travel News.
I maintain that this is 99.8% pointless fearmongering and hand wringing about "what could happen". Monkeys COULD fly out of my butt, too, but I'm not betting on it. |
Originally Posted by gfunkdave
(Post 24669585)
Yeah, I posted and it was moved to Travel News.
I maintain that this is 99.8% pointless fearmongering and hand wringing about "what could happen". Monkeys COULD fly out of my butt, too, but I'm not betting on it. |
Really I'm not into fearmongering but if what you want is downing an airplane then get an SA-18 and boom! Those things are frighteningly easy to get these days. Much more realistic than hacking into an airplane esp from remote.
I think you could hack into the airplane if you get to the right wires and those are not impossible to get to -- I remember reading how you could get to the satellite transponder from a cabinet close to business class on the MH370 -- but I would think that if someone walks to a cupboard, plugs in a laptop then the FAs will have a word or two with said person... Edt: http://www.wired.com/2015/04/hackers...ssenger-wi-fi/ today. |
"The experts said that if the cabin systems connect to the cockpit avionics systems (e.g., share the same physical wiring harness or router) and use the same networking platform, in this case IP, a user could subvert the firewall and access the cockpit avionics system from the cabin," the report added. An FAA official cited in the report said additional security controls implemented onboard could strengthen the system. |
It may be in the interests of the security experts to overestimate the potential for hacks.
There's also a lot of talk about self-driving cars being hacked and driving controls being used for nefarious purposes too. |
Originally Posted by wco81
(Post 24684283)
It may be in the interests of the security experts to overestimate the potential for hacks.
There's also a lot of talk about self-driving cars being hacked and driving controls being used for nefarious purposes too. |
Speaking of very unrealistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buHaKYL9Jhg
|
Nope, can't happen. As one of thee earlier posters mentioned aircraft systems are not "online". Even if someone was able to hack directly into the e and e bay compartment (avionics/electronic systems) which is below the cockpit, pilots are still able to bypass or disconnect the electronic systems and fly old school. The engine thrust levers on the newer aircraft are fly by wire instead of a direct cable link in the older models, however this system is fully isolated within the engine and isolated from all other equipment.
|
Security researcher barred from UA flight after tweeting joke about hacking the plane:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...united-flight/ Interesting thing is that he has had no takers for his research from the avionics industry. |
Originally Posted by wco81
(Post 24687987)
Security researcher barred from UA flight after tweeting joke about hacking the plane:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...united-flight/ Interesting thing is that he has had no takers for his research from the avionics industry. Amazing overreaction (by the FBI and UA) to unsubstantiated claims by a "security researcher". |
Originally Posted by wco81
(Post 24687987)
Security researcher barred from UA flight after tweeting joke about hacking the plane:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...united-flight/ Interesting thing is that he has had no takers for his research from the avionics industry. If he had meaningful experience in this space, I'm sure Boeing or Airbus would have hired him ages ago. There are a lot of these people out there. Last year we had the same thing, when someone claimed they could have the IFEC satcom systems, but when he was on stage at the event, it turns out all of his crazy claims were just theoretical, and he actually had no idea what he was talking about. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 24688569)
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/researc...--finance.html
Amazing overreaction (by the FBI and UA) to unsubstantiated claims by a "security researcher". There are better ways to get the attention of the aviation industry. Tweeting dumb things is not one of them. |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 24688569)
Amazing overreaction (by the FBI and UA) to unsubstantiated claims by a "security researcher".
From the article that you linked: The Government Accountability Office said last week that some commercial aircraft may be vulnerable to hacking over their onboard wireless networks. "Modern aircraft are increasingly connected to the Internet. This interconnectedness can potentially provide unauthorized remote access to aircraft avionics systems," its report found. |
The plane does not need to be connected to the Internet, while flying...
However command and navigational data is programmed in while on the ground. Flight plans are also programmed in before departure. Garbage in, can produce garbage.. Guess we could go to the needle and ball, and direct reckoning, and track the radio stations.. |
Originally Posted by ScottC
(Post 24688576)
How so? If someone on my plane makes claims that they can hack my plane and trigger systems, I don't want them flying with me. Let them take a bus.
There are better ways to get the attention of the aviation industry. Tweeting dumb things is not one of them. UA and the FBI again overreacted by assuming that exchanges/communications about a hypothetical or realistic possibility to do XYZ is is the same thing as a real intent to do XYZ. It takes a paranoid and/or petty, little Napolelon type to conflate, or pretend to conflate, capability with intent. |
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 24689348)
Was it?
From the article that you linked: |
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 24690916)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottC How so? If someone on my plane makes claims that they can hack my plane and trigger systems, I don't want them flying with me. Let them take a bus. There are better ways to get the attention of the aviation industry. Tweeting dumb things is not one of them. Ability/inability to do XYZ is not the same as willingness to do XYZ. UA and the FBI again overreacted by assuming that exchanges/communications about a hypothetical or realistic possibility to do XYZ is is the same thing as a real intent to do XYZ. It takes a paranoid and/or petty, little Napolelon type to conflate, or pretend to conflate, capability with intent. |
Originally Posted by 747FC
(Post 24690938)
So, would you object to LE response to someone on a plane saying "I bet that I could rush the cockpit when the pilot goes to the bathroom?"
|
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 24690921)
The GAO has how much documented evidence of even the NSA being able to commandeer or crash a commercial plane via the in-flight wi-fi networks? Like zero?
|
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 24691964)
Why don't you read the full GSA report and let us know?
|
Originally Posted by ScottC
(Post 24688573)
Do you really think they don't have their own people? Tweeting "I'm going to hack the IFE box and turn on the Passenger oxygen" doesn't make you an expert. It makes you an idiot.
If he had meaningful experience in this space, I'm sure Boeing or Airbus would have hired him ages ago. There are a lot of these people out there. Last year we had the same thing, when someone claimed they could have the IFEC satcom systems, but when he was on stage at the event, it turns out all of his crazy claims were just theoretical, and he actually had no idea what he was talking about. |
Guy who tweeted jokes about taking control of airliner is in an FBI affidavit application where he claimed to have briefly taken control of a commercial flight:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...g-it-to-climb/ |
So apparently this guy also hacked the ISS. Riiiiiiiggght.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015...ewall-in-2012/ |
A passenger hacking and commandeering the cockpit? Well, how about a non-passenger remotely hacking a car's entertainment and other systems and commandeering a car regardless of the driver's wishes:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/21/tech...chrysler-hack/ . Chrysler recall pending over the matter? |
The most impressive thing about that hack was that it was done over Sprint.
|
Originally Posted by wco81
(Post 25156467)
The most impressive thing about that hack was that it was done over Sprint.
|
Originally Posted by wco81
(Post 25156467)
The most impressive thing about that hack was that it was done over Sprint.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
(Post 25156512)
Chrysler wanted it brought to attention that Sprint -- with its legendary customer service -- may be in a position to minimize hacks like this. :D
That said, Sprint was bad for so long that it will take a long time for people to start considering them again. I wouldn't be surprised if they have to completely change their branding/name once their network upgrades are 100% done. |
Is an airplane, hackable. Yes. It is.
Is it possible based on hacking over WIFI, USB ports and all the garbage that one puts out on the internet, no, it isn't. Unless you know a TON about onboard electronics, there's no way. And even if you have access to the onboard electronics, (which you don't), you'd still REALLY have to know what you're doing. Not posting anything more about this. But this thread caught my attention :) And no, I don't know how. I just know a friend who works for one of the aircraft manufacturers. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.