6 ms·

I wish people wouldn't do shit like this on live systems like this one. Even the port scan could have had bad consequences (especially since this person did -A)

I wish people wouldn't do shit like this on live systems like this one. Even the port scan could have had bad consequences (especially since this person did -A). By all means explore the interesting JSON object that was downloaded and yeah I'd worry about installing random stuff on my machine. I'm not talking about crashing the plane; I'm talking about crashing the IFE and me then having to sit through 10 hours of people who didn't bring a book.

TheRealPomax 9y ago
Out of curiosity, when else would you suggest they do this? Other than "not at all", of course, which is not going to happen.
- uremog 9y ago
  During a pentest?
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    What about this write-up leads you to believe that a pentest ever has (or will (on purpose)) happened??
    - Manouchehri 9y ago
      If there was a penetration test, do you think Boeing would publish unpatched vulnerabilities in their own product?
S_A_P 9y ago
Thank you for this comment. I for one would be pretty pissed if a "hacker" decided to crash my/or my kids entertainment on a long flight. There is definitely a need for this type of work, but doing so in a 50,000 lb brick floating a few miles above the ground isn't an atmosphere I am comfortable with, especially if I am present...
- d_somewhere 9y ago
  You're sitting in a chair in the sky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcAWN5R5-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcAWN5R5-I
- jgrahamc 9y ago
  Oh, I agree. There's definitely a need for this type of thing. The work of white hats is essential.
- bonzini 9y ago
  If anything were to happen, it definitely shouldn't affect the avionics, not even remotely, or the plane would not have had a chance of certification. Data to the less secure IFE had better flow through a unidirectional network ("data diode"), and/or use a separate set of sensors. Even if it brought down the server, it's still nothing that the flight attendants can't solve by "turning it off and back on". This kind of fault happens all the time. More interesting to me is the level of isolation of the network. Could someone exploit my phone through the in-flight WiFi, for example?
  - everdev 9y ago
    Accidents happen. Commenter below referenced Swiss Air 111: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 They cite inadequate safety standards and an overheating entertainment system. It's easy to assume that government or the airlines wouldn't allow a faulty system to fly, but just like software it's those extreme edge cases that cause problems. Somehow I doubt hacking the entertainment system is comprehensively covered in the manufacturers safety check. It's probably a remote chance something bad would happen, but we can't say it's 0.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      This keeps getting cited on this thread. The IFE didn't simply "overheat". It had faulty wiring. The coffee maker could just as easily have caused that accident.
sschueller 9y ago
Swissair flight 111 crashed because of a fire that started in in flight entertainment system. Although isolated it still caused a fire that caused the highest death toll for the MD11 which was considered a very safe aircraft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111
- tptacek 9y ago
  It crashed due to faulty wiring in the IFE, which started an electrical fire. It could just as easily have been the coffee maker.
  - nsxwolf 9y ago
    Well, imagine a fire due to faulty wiring that is accidentally triggered by some hack. Maybe absurd but not impossible. Why mess with any in-flight system?
    - beefield 9y ago
      Why do you assume that it is more likely the hack causes a fire instead of preventing a fire? I mean, I would think that the most likely individual outcome of a hack would be shutdown of the system, which should reduce the likelyhood of weird things happening.
- InTheArena 9y ago
  The MD-11 is considered a safe aircraft, because almost all airliners are very very safe. comparatively to the Airbus and Boeign equivalent, it is not viewed as a particularly safe aircraft, as it was derived from the DC-10 (which had a epically bad reputation). while a lot of the issues with the DC-10 were fixed, there longer length of the plane caused issue.s
  - kakwa_ 9y ago
    Actually, it was not that safe. To reduce fuel consumption, Douglas used a quite small tail for an aircraft that size. Consequently the MD-11 has to land at high speed which makes it prone to catastrophic bounced landing like the 2 Fedex crashes. Also, it was not produced for very long (compared to other aircrafts from Boeing or Airbus) and the fleet was either retired or converted to freighters quickly by airlines.
qubex 9y ago
Maybe he did it as the plane was coming in to land? When else do you think he might have access to such a system?
- sangnoir 9y ago
  He did it during the cruise, according to the flight status JSON he got. Also, takeoff and landing are the most dangerous periods for air travel.
senorprogrammer 9y ago
As someone who used to work in the IFE software field, I can assure you these systems are perfectly capable of crashing themselves in endless loops without any outside help from the likes of us, thank you very much. ;)
Godel_unicode 9y ago
If your software can't handle nmap it has no business being on any network anywhere ever. This mentality is where a lot of our current security problems come from, from IoT to critical infrastructure to ATMs, etc. Developers can't imagine someone would ever do anything nefarious on their "closed" network, so they don't bother doing more than cursory security. Then the internet shames anyone who tries to demonstrate how bad things really are.
- mulmen 9y ago
  That doesn't justify putting other people's lives at risk. Testing on a live system without permission is still irresponsible.
  - dkersten 9y ago
    "lives at risk" is a bit of a stretch. They might take down the IFE and people might be bored, but they won't take the plane down. The telemetry data is read-only (the hardware is physically isolated and transmission one way -- systems that need write access are isolated from the ones that only need read access, and have to go through a slew of certification processes). (I work on IFE and avionics)
    - fpoling 9y ago
      Is this still true with 787? [1] indicates that it uses virtual links that are not physically separated. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429
      - bonzini 9y ago
        The protection lies between that bus and the TCP/IP stack of the IFE. Data can go one way, and several feet of certification documents are there to ensure that.
        mulmen 9y ago

TheRealPomax 9y ago

Out of curiosity, when else would you suggest they do this? Other than "not at all", of course, which is not going to happen.

uremog 9y ago
During a pentest?
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  What about this write-up leads you to believe that a pentest ever has (or will (on purpose)) happened??
  - Manouchehri 9y ago
    If there was a penetration test, do you think Boeing would publish unpatched vulnerabilities in their own product?

S_A_P 9y ago

Thank you for this comment. I for one would be pretty pissed if a "hacker" decided to crash my/or my kids entertainment on a long flight. There is definitely a need for this type of work, but doing so in a 50,000 lb brick floating a few miles above the ground isn't an atmosphere I am comfortable with, especially if I am present...

d_somewhere 9y ago
You're sitting in a chair in the sky. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcAWN5R5-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTcAWN5R5-I
jgrahamc 9y ago
Oh, I agree. There's definitely a need for this type of thing. The work of white hats is essential.
bonzini 9y ago
If anything were to happen, it definitely shouldn't affect the avionics, not even remotely, or the plane would not have had a chance of certification. Data to the less secure IFE had better flow through a unidirectional network ("data diode"), and/or use a separate set of sensors. Even if it brought down the server, it's still nothing that the flight attendants can't solve by "turning it off and back on". This kind of fault happens all the time. More interesting to me is the level of isolation of the network. Could someone exploit my phone through the in-flight WiFi, for example?
- everdev 9y ago
  Accidents happen. Commenter below referenced Swiss Air 111: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 They cite inadequate safety standards and an overheating entertainment system. It's easy to assume that government or the airlines wouldn't allow a faulty system to fly, but just like software it's those extreme edge cases that cause problems. Somehow I doubt hacking the entertainment system is comprehensively covered in the manufacturers safety check. It's probably a remote chance something bad would happen, but we can't say it's 0.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    This keeps getting cited on this thread. The IFE didn't simply "overheat". It had faulty wiring. The coffee maker could just as easily have caused that accident.

sschueller 9y ago

Swissair flight 111 crashed because of a fire that started in in flight entertainment system. Although isolated it still caused a fire that caused the highest death toll for the MD11 which was considered a very safe aircraft. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

tptacek 9y ago
It crashed due to faulty wiring in the IFE, which started an electrical fire. It could just as easily have been the coffee maker.
- nsxwolf 9y ago
  Well, imagine a fire due to faulty wiring that is accidentally triggered by some hack. Maybe absurd but not impossible. Why mess with any in-flight system?
  - beefield 9y ago
    Why do you assume that it is more likely the hack causes a fire instead of preventing a fire? I mean, I would think that the most likely individual outcome of a hack would be shutdown of the system, which should reduce the likelyhood of weird things happening.
InTheArena 9y ago
The MD-11 is considered a safe aircraft, because almost all airliners are very very safe. comparatively to the Airbus and Boeign equivalent, it is not viewed as a particularly safe aircraft, as it was derived from the DC-10 (which had a epically bad reputation). while a lot of the issues with the DC-10 were fixed, there longer length of the plane caused issue.s
- kakwa_ 9y ago
  Actually, it was not that safe. To reduce fuel consumption, Douglas used a quite small tail for an aircraft that size. Consequently the MD-11 has to land at high speed which makes it prone to catastrophic bounced landing like the 2 Fedex crashes. Also, it was not produced for very long (compared to other aircrafts from Boeing or Airbus) and the fleet was either retired or converted to freighters quickly by airlines.

qubex 9y ago

Maybe he did it as the plane was coming in to land? When else do you think he might have access to such a system?

sangnoir 9y ago
He did it during the cruise, according to the flight status JSON he got. Also, takeoff and landing are the most dangerous periods for air travel.

senorprogrammer 9y ago

As someone who used to work in the IFE software field, I can assure you these systems are perfectly capable of crashing themselves in endless loops without any outside help from the likes of us, thank you very much. ;)

Godel_unicode 9y ago

If your software can't handle nmap it has no business being on any network anywhere ever. This mentality is where a lot of our current security problems come from, from IoT to critical infrastructure to ATMs, etc. Developers can't imagine someone would ever do anything nefarious on their "closed" network, so they don't bother doing more than cursory security. Then the internet shames anyone who tries to demonstrate how bad things really are.

mulmen 9y ago
That doesn't justify putting other people's lives at risk. Testing on a live system without permission is still irresponsible.
- dkersten 9y ago
  "lives at risk" is a bit of a stretch. They might take down the IFE and people might be bored, but they won't take the plane down. The telemetry data is read-only (the hardware is physically isolated and transmission one way -- systems that need write access are isolated from the ones that only need read access, and have to go through a slew of certification processes). (I work on IFE and avionics)
  - fpoling 9y ago
    Is this still true with 787? [1] indicates that it uses virtual links that are not physically separated. [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429
    - bonzini 9y ago
      The protection lies between that bus and the TCP/IP stack of the IFE. Data can go one way, and several feet of certification documents are there to ensure that.
      - mulmen 9y ago