I'm not completely against technological progress, really! But here's an issue I'm willing to bet money a DC-9 isn't susceptible to: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/politics/gao-newer-aircraft-vulnerable-to-hacking/index.html
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
"Airliners", meet "hackers"...
Collapse
X
-
it's only a matter of time. and someone will do it just to prove it can be done. the idea that an airplane needs to be connected to the internet for any purpose whatsoever is simply horseshit. any needed ground to air connections should be on private networks NOT connected to the internet.
in short, cut the friggin hardline and end all the possible scenarios.
-
These new aircraft have very complex internal networks, and yes, there is data sharing between the avionics and the 'user' segments, in a one way direction.
Airbus say this is through a one way diode that only allows information to flow out of the Avionics domain, and not into it.
I have no idea if this is in the format of a software, or hardware device. Not an area I'm expert in.
I would have to say though, there's a few lines in that article that make me seriously wonder if the 'experts', while being experts in data security, have any idea how the aircraft avionics system is set up.
Comment
-
Yeah you definitely have to wonder about the qualifications of the "experts", although the scary thing is almost no matter how good they are at their job, there's probably a hacker or 10 (or 100 or 1000) out there who are better.
Re the firewall, hardware vs. software is a bit of a misnomer as pretty much every "hardware firewall" has a processor in it that's running software, which of course can have flaws.
The only way I can think of to get 100% guaranteed one-way data flow is something I did in my job once. I actually didn't think it would work until I tried it, but the trick was to take an ethernet cable and actually cut the wires that carry data in the backward direction so transmission could only occur from A to B and not B to A.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Postthe idea that an airplane needs to be connected to the internet for any purpose whatsoever is simply horseshit.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Starring Steven Segal...
Originally posted by MCM View PostI would have to say though, there's a few lines in that article that make me seriously wonder if the 'experts', while being experts in data security, have any idea how the aircraft avionics system is set up.
This sounds more like a bored agency with no accountability and very little technical understanding of the issue at hand. In other words, the United States government. (They also thought they could plant democracy in Iraq, so that's what you're dealing with here.)
Comment
-
I found a link to the actual report, it's here: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669627.pdf
I haven't read the whole thing, but to me it seems like it's the fairly common scenario of a report being released saying "it's possible there could be a problem because certain things haven't been examined closely enough" and the press turning that into "OMG we're all going to die!".
As far as I can tell, the report does not state that someone could take control of an airplane directly, but that there are areas of the "NextGen" ATC system that could be hackable, including communications between controllers and pilots (which apparently in the new system can be in text form rather than verbal). If such vulnerabilities exist, it's certainly within the realm of possibility that a hacker could pretend they're ATC and send a message to an airliner telling it to turn toward a mountain or something. And/or manipulate navigational info to make the aircraft/pilot think it's on a course different from what they're really flying. Especially if the A/C is on autopilot, that could have disastrous results.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Interesting report.
As you say elaw, it is a case of the media cherry-picking a few bits for the papers, but ignoring what the audit was actually about.
Sending false messages to an aircraft is certainly within the realms of possibility (and is something that we've seen over voice communications previously), but I think the greater risk is general disruption of ATC services and the huge economic impact that it would have.
Always good to see they're working to improve things!
Comment
-
Originally posted by MCM View PostSending false messages to an aircraft is certainly within the realms of possibility (and is something that we've seen over voice communications previously), but I think the greater risk is general disruption of ATC services and the huge economic impact that it would have.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Postas long as the bad guys don't lower the ILS by 200 feet[/COLOR].
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostTell that to all the people who think they'll die if they're unable to send/receive text messages for more than a few minutes at a time...
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View Post...as long as the bad guys don't lower the ILS by 200 feet.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TeeVee View Posti know ur joking but my point was that the aircraft need not be connected to the internet. sure, have wifi for people like me--i love it!--but the avionics have absolutely no need or business being connected. and there should be zero connections--one way or otherwise--between avionics and the public wifi system.
The "NextGen" ATC system has such a link as part of its design, and there are already other data-based services being used in aircraft like real-time weather info.
If you're going to do that, you need a wide-area network to carry the data between the aircraft and suppliers/consumers of data on the ground. And then you're faced with a choice: use the Internet which is already in place and goes pretty much everywhere, or build your own nationwide or even global network. The second option would be prohibitively expensive.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostWell that hinges around one important question: is or is not it important that the a/c have a real-time datalink to the ground?
The "NextGen" ATC system has such a link as part of its design, and there are already other data-based services being used in aircraft like real-time weather info.
If you're going to do that, you need a wide-area network to carry the data between the aircraft and suppliers/consumers of data on the ground. And then you're faced with a choice: use the Internet which is already in place and goes pretty much everywhere, or build your own nationwide or even global network. The second option would be prohibitively expensive.
this is childishly simple. should we connect the president's "football" to the internet since it is cheaper?
Comment
Comment