3 ms·

There's no chance these systems share a bus with something critical. Critical systems are separated by way of an air gap. There's no way they'd meet regulatory

There's no chance these systems share a bus with something critical. Critical systems are separated by way of an air gap. There's no way they'd meet regulatory safety standards set by the FAA or EASA standards if they didn't.

jacquesm 11y ago
You keep saying that but it has already been proven not to be the case. Wired article related to this: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/possible-passengers-hack-commercial-aircraft/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/possible-passengers-hack-commer... States that there is a connection but it is supposedly one-way only. So no airgap. The article then goes on to note that a 777 uses a two-way bus but requires further authentication.
- notzorbo2 11y ago
  You keep quoting this article, but .. The sources are dubious (wired and telegraph). Experts quoted in the article claim its impossible, including the lead engineer of the boeing thrust management system: > Whether it’s possible to create this condition by issuing a command from a passenger seat is a different matter, however. Soucie and others who WIRED spoke to agree with Boeing that this isn’t possible. But unlike Boeing, they provided clearer details explaining why. > >Peter Lemme, who was a lead engineer on Boeing’s thrust-management system for eight years until 1989, says the system provides the auto-throttle function that actually controls the engine thrust, and doesn’t allow the throttles for the engines to operate independently of one another. You claim it's been "proven not to be the case". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far I've seen nothing from this Roberts guy. Sounds like he's just full of shit.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Agreed on the Roberts guy being full of shit. But there is this passage in the wired piece: "A connection between the avionics system and the IFE does exist. But there’s a caveat. Soucie and Lemme say the connection allows for one-way data communication only. The systems are connected through an ARINC 429 data bus that feeds information from the avionics to the IFE about the plane’s latitude, longitude and speed. The IFE uses this to populate the animated map passenger’s can use to track the plane’s movement. “On every airplane it’s done a little differently and is done in a proprietary way,” Lemme says. But in each case, the ARINC 429 is an output-only hub that allows data to flow out from the avionics system but not back to it, he says. To talk back would require a second input bus. “I can’t think of why there would ever be an interface like this. If it’s out there, I haven’t heard of it.” This would seem to be what Boeing was describing in its statement when it said that although inflight systems “receive position data and have communication links” to other systems on the plane, they are “isolated” from systems that perform critical functions." So there is a link. An airgap simply means this: the two systems are not connected. Not in any way, no physical connection exists between the two and any output from the one goes through an optical bridge into the other. The only way air-gapped systems are possibly connected is via power rails but presumably those do not carry data nor do they have the possibility to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 Suggests it is an electrical bus, not optically insulated.
- pascal_cuoq 11y ago
  If there existed any possibility of an influence of the entertainment system over the controls of that model of plane, an EAD would have been published by now. EADs are public: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/continued_operation/ad/type_pub/type_emerg/ http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/continued_operation/ad/... . Where is the EAD that signals what would be a design failure of the highest level and grounds that model of aircraft until the design has been revised? If it was not extremely obvious that such an influence cannot exist with the law of physics that we understand, an investigation would be ongoing. The word “investigation” does not appear in the WIRED article, and “investigators” in the Telegraph article only refers to FBI. The FBI is not qualified to tell whether an aircraft is so obviously immune to the defects that Roberts claim to have exploited that the investigation is an open-and-shut case. They don't like it when people plug into things they aren't supposed to plug into, and this is what they are accusing him of.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Agreed that there likely was no risk. I'm just very much surprised that the two systems are connected in any way shape or form at all, I'd have expected a much more rigorous segmentation (as in: no connection at all between the two systems, including the 'flight information display'). Call me paranoid. That this guy was able to access the system at all is already quite a surprise.
pfortuny 11y ago
You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think.

jacquesm 11y ago

You keep saying that but it has already been proven not to be the case. Wired article related to this: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/possible-passengers-hack-commercial-aircraft/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/possible-passengers-hack-commer... States that there is a connection but it is supposedly one-way only. So no airgap. The article then goes on to note that a 777 uses a two-way bus but requires further authentication.

notzorbo2 11y ago
You keep quoting this article, but .. The sources are dubious (wired and telegraph). Experts quoted in the article claim its impossible, including the lead engineer of the boeing thrust management system: > Whether it’s possible to create this condition by issuing a command from a passenger seat is a different matter, however. Soucie and others who WIRED spoke to agree with Boeing that this isn’t possible. But unlike Boeing, they provided clearer details explaining why. > >Peter Lemme, who was a lead engineer on Boeing’s thrust-management system for eight years until 1989, says the system provides the auto-throttle function that actually controls the engine thrust, and doesn’t allow the throttles for the engines to operate independently of one another. You claim it's been "proven not to be the case". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far I've seen nothing from this Roberts guy. Sounds like he's just full of shit.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Agreed on the Roberts guy being full of shit. But there is this passage in the wired piece: "A connection between the avionics system and the IFE does exist. But there’s a caveat. Soucie and Lemme say the connection allows for one-way data communication only. The systems are connected through an ARINC 429 data bus that feeds information from the avionics to the IFE about the plane’s latitude, longitude and speed. The IFE uses this to populate the animated map passenger’s can use to track the plane’s movement. “On every airplane it’s done a little differently and is done in a proprietary way,” Lemme says. But in each case, the ARINC 429 is an output-only hub that allows data to flow out from the avionics system but not back to it, he says. To talk back would require a second input bus. “I can’t think of why there would ever be an interface like this. If it’s out there, I haven’t heard of it.” This would seem to be what Boeing was describing in its statement when it said that although inflight systems “receive position data and have communication links” to other systems on the plane, they are “isolated” from systems that perform critical functions." So there is a link. An airgap simply means this: the two systems are not connected. Not in any way, no physical connection exists between the two and any output from the one goes through an optical bridge into the other. The only way air-gapped systems are possibly connected is via power rails but presumably those do not carry data nor do they have the possibility to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 Suggests it is an electrical bus, not optically insulated.
pascal_cuoq 11y ago
If there existed any possibility of an influence of the entertainment system over the controls of that model of plane, an EAD would have been published by now. EADs are public: http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/continued_operation/ad/type_pub/type_emerg/ http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/continued_operation/ad/... . Where is the EAD that signals what would be a design failure of the highest level and grounds that model of aircraft until the design has been revised? If it was not extremely obvious that such an influence cannot exist with the law of physics that we understand, an investigation would be ongoing. The word “investigation” does not appear in the WIRED article, and “investigators” in the Telegraph article only refers to FBI. The FBI is not qualified to tell whether an aircraft is so obviously immune to the defects that Roberts claim to have exploited that the investigation is an open-and-shut case. They don't like it when people plug into things they aren't supposed to plug into, and this is what they are accusing him of.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Agreed that there likely was no risk. I'm just very much surprised that the two systems are connected in any way shape or form at all, I'd have expected a much more rigorous segmentation (as in: no connection at all between the two systems, including the 'flight information display'). Call me paranoid. That this guy was able to access the system at all is already quite a surprise.

pfortuny 11y ago

You keep using that word... I don't think it means what you think.