4 ms·
>On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :( Why shou
by ryanlol 10y ago
>On the other hand, would doing this open up potential remote vulnerabilities for aircraft systems? That could have long term crappy-ness attached. :(
Why should it?
- justinclift 10y agoIf the software that does the sending has vulnerabilities in it, that would be bad. Although we can all think of approaches to try to minimise/exclude that possibility... reality often has ways of showing up things people didn't think of. :(
- xufi 10y agoWhat software would that be that the flight recorder box is running? I've always wanted to know. I've heard the OS Is some variation of a Linux distro
- pseingatl 10y agoNot in the 1980's.
- PeterisP 10y agoWhy would a transmit-only device expose any vulnerabilities in its software? It shouldn't have the physical capability to receive any remote signals, much less act in any way in response to them.
- justinclift 10y agoDepends on how "transmit only" is done. If it's using the equivalent of UDP and no encryption of the data, then you're likely correct. But if the "transmit only" has anything that receives data - even just ack signals for what's sent, let alone something to negotiate encryption - all bets are off. :(
- PeterisP 10y agoYou're thinking a few OSI layers too high. Any such radio communications from similar systems have one-way broadcast as the physical layer. If you don't include a radio receiver, then there is no capability to receive a single bit, much less negotiate encryption; the system throws out a waveform and the rest of the world may figure out what to do with it if they manage to receive it.
- justinclift 10y agoThanks. :)