Hacker says he hijacked passenger jet midair

[dutchroll]

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/airlines-sceptical-commercial-planes-can-be-hacked-20150517-gh3qdf.html

 

I think Mr Roberts is buying publicity for himself, or just deluded.

 

Just for a start, there is not a physical, wireless, or any communications link at all, between an IFE (inflight entertainment) system and a thrust management computer. Why on earth would there be?

 

Secondly, even hacking into a thrust management system cannot "cause a plane to move sideways" as he alleges he did.

 

The FBI is right to investigate, as even an attempt to hack into an IFE system is still interference with an aircraft, though I suspect the only thing he may have been able to do is download the inflight movie database - and he is welcome to it.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The media

 

 

[KRviator]

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/airlines-sceptical-commercial-planes-can-be-hacked-20150517-gh3qdf.htmlI think Mr Roberts is buying publicity for himself, or just deluded.

 

Just for a start, there is not a physical, wireless, or any communications link at all, between an IFE (inflight entertainment) system and a thrust management computer. Why on earth would there be?

 

Secondly, even hacking into a thrust management system cannot "cause a plane to move sideways" as he alleges he did.

 

The FBI is right to investigate, as even an attempt to hack into an IFE system is still interference with an aircraft, though I suspect the only thing he may have been able to do is download the inflight movie database - and he is welcome to it.

If you can trick the FADEC or other relevant computer into thinking the temperature is higher than it really is, it'll need to produce more power to meet the demanded thrust. In turn, this'll yaw the aircraft. "Moving sideways" is just what the media calls it...Whether or not this bloke actually did it or not, it is more than likely possible. The IFE does source some data from the air data and navigation systems, how else does it know OAT, ETE, altitude and the flight planned route? Even when Captain Fourbars comes on and says "ATC asked us to slow down, so we're going to head down to Wollongong before we get to Sydney" if you look at the map page, it'll show the dogleg. It does have a link to the FMS. Everything can be hacked, eventually. If you Google the ARINC label list you'll find an awful lot of things publicly accessible and in some cases, with an explanation of how they're used.

 

 

[dutchroll]

If you can trick the FADEC or other relevant computer into thinking the temperature is higher than it really is, it'll need to produce more power to meet the demanded thrust. In turn, this'll yaw the aircraft. "Moving sideways" is just what the media calls it...Whether or not this bloke actually did it or not, it is more than likely possible. The IFE does source some data from the air data and navigation systems, how else does it know OAT, ETE, altitude and the flight planned route? Even when Captain Fourbars comes on and says "ATC asked us to slow down, so we're going to head down to Wollongong before we get to Sydney" if you look at the map page, it'll show the dogleg. It does have a link to the FMS. Everything can be hacked, eventually. If you Google the ARINC label list you'll find an awful lot of things publicly accessible and in some cases, with an explanation of how they're used.

The moving map display in the IFE does get some limited data from the navigation system, but it's a one way street.

You can and do limit what transmits data and what receives data. It's common even with simple setups in amateur built aircraft, such as the connection between GPS units and engine management displays or EFIS screens.

 

However it (the IFE) is still not connected to the thrust management computer either way. I still think he's having a bit of a fantasy.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Dutchy

 

I believe that at a systems level they are probably well separated...at a network level they may well share a comms backbone......I doubt Boeing/Airbus would be at all keen to run multiple cables/fibres if they can reduce them and the associated weight by sharing them. At a network link layer there is probably commonality....A hacker just needs to penetrate to the appropriate layer of the network drivers..

 

You'll remember that at defence certain systems were simply airgapped because no one can hand on heart guarantee that it wont be possible at some stage in the future to bypass security in place at the time....System cant be airgapped if there is data from the nav system. Sure at system level its only one way, but delve down into the network layer and it may not be...

 

This is all supposition on my part, I don't have access to wiring diagrams that could be used to prove if technically feasible or not. You make the point "You can and do limit what transmits data and what receives data. It's common even with simple setups in amateur built aircraft, such as the connection between GPS units and engine management displays or EFIS screens" which is true except on home built and smaller aircraft the connections between things aren't networked TCPIP connections but rather dedicated RS232, or Nmea or any other of the millions of bespoke signalling protocols that exist. But as with the internet, just on a smaller scale, when you have hundreds of systems interacting I doubt that there would be 100's of separate protocols, rather something as simple as the ubiquitous IP V4 or IP V6 gives a common connectivity solution where there isn't a compute based system alive these days that hasn't the appropriate H/W and driver support to participate in an IP connection.

 

I personally wouldn't writeit off as impossible... the fact that inflight entertainment systems now are wireless connected is something to consider........people suggest that "Oh surely they wouldn't overlook something as important as that...... To which I point to ADSB....no security easily spoofed.....what were they thinking!!!

 

Andy

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

sorry last paragraph, change would to wouldn't just 3 characters but the change is vast

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Most of those USB ports are straight 5volt outlets...

 

 

[facthunter]

Both aircraft manufacturers use the same supplier Honeywell. It's not an identical product. Most people I know think the version Boeing use is more user friendly. I don't freak out flying in an airbus. I'm NOT a fan of the Dreamliner though. Nev