5 ms·

I fly A330-340 and with current popular models like 320 or 737 the flight computers are not directly conected to any network. They are conected to the acars a m

I fly A330-340 and with current popular models like 320 or 737 the flight computers are not directly conected to any network. They are conected to the acars a messaging computer (with a very limited protocol) that we use to ask for weather, company messages like how many wheel chairs we have onboard , delay expected , etc... There is also the CPDLC that it's used to send messages to control in the oceanic zones (but is going to be implemented for all flights) Both systems can receive basic flight plan data that we can accept and include in our flight computers (like new way points, wind speeds, etc..) but I guess the comunication protocol is so basic that no mayor owning can happen. This systems are connected via vhf data channels (dedicated ground stations), or satellite data link. Even if they manage to crash the flight computer (they sometimes crash on their own) you only have to take manual control and reset everything. But they could never gain control of the autopilot or anything of that kind. They can only (if very very good) manage to impersonate ground controllers, but we are checking via radio comms all the time, so if something doesn't make sense we just have to call to check. The latest models have more integrated computer systems, like you can open a valve using a trackball in the cockpit (like in the flight simulator) But I don't think they have more connection to the exterior world than older models. Even wifi access via the inflight entertainment system is going to find a very limited number of ports or protocols to attack. It's not something that makes even the top 100 things we worry about. We worry more about birds or drones, or dogs running in the runway. This could change if they keep trying to make more "interactive" the newer models though.

Neracked 9y ago
> This could change if they keep trying to make more "interactive" the newer models though. The airline wants to transfer equipment health data as soon as possible to its headquarters using air/ground communication systems (satcom, cellular, airport wifi...) to plan for maintenance and delays. Pilots want to use their iPad to browse their mail and the logbook listing the history of system failures and displaying the current state of the aircraft to know if it is flyable. The centralized maintenance system that provides these information to the airline and the pilots has to be connected to all avionic equipments to collect health data. Now, everything is connected [1]. [1]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/12/28/E7-25075/special-conditions-boeing-model-787-8-airplane-systems-and-data-networks-security-protection-of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/12/28/E7-2507...
- omegant 9y ago
  True, I didn't remember the telemetry system. We have no information about it, as far as I know it could be using the same satcom uplink, as it only sends limited error codes, not a complete status of the plane. Current systems can not be updated remotely, just send information. But this could be changing very fast.
gaius 9y ago
Are the systems that transmit telemetry from the engines vulnerable? As I understand it they have an always-on network connection via satellites?
louthy 9y ago
> They can only (if very very good) manage to impersonate ground controllers, but we are checking via radio comms all the time, so if something doesn't make sense we just have to call to check. A vision of Die Hard 2 just jumped into my mind. I assume that's just fairy tale stuff and there's no risk that the impersonation of ground controllers could lead to false assumptions?
coderjames 9y ago
I write the software in the ACARS box. > but I guess the comunication protocol is so basic that no mayor owning can happen. This would be ideal, but unfortunately even simple communications protocols have room for error in their implementations. I crashed my company's Flight Management System via the software in my ACARS unit by accidentally sending badly-formatted MCDU screens. The FMS has a buffer overflow wherein it doesn't sufficiently validate that the display coordinates are actually within the screen, so I was overwriting "constants" like Vmax and max-turn-angle. If it turns out there's also an implementation error in our ACARS-to-radio protocol, then it would be possible to remotely exploit the FMS without getting anywhere near the aircraft. I expect this is possible and has already happened.
- omegant 9y ago
  Very interesting, thank you.

Neracked 9y ago

> This could change if they keep trying to make more "interactive" the newer models though. The airline wants to transfer equipment health data as soon as possible to its headquarters using air/ground communication systems (satcom, cellular, airport wifi...) to plan for maintenance and delays. Pilots want to use their iPad to browse their mail and the logbook listing the history of system failures and displaying the current state of the aircraft to know if it is flyable. The centralized maintenance system that provides these information to the airline and the pilots has to be connected to all avionic equipments to collect health data. Now, everything is connected [1]. [1]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/12/28/E7-25075/special-conditions-boeing-model-787-8-airplane-systems-and-data-networks-security-protection-of https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/12/28/E7-2507...

omegant 9y ago
True, I didn't remember the telemetry system. We have no information about it, as far as I know it could be using the same satcom uplink, as it only sends limited error codes, not a complete status of the plane. Current systems can not be updated remotely, just send information. But this could be changing very fast.

gaius 9y ago

Are the systems that transmit telemetry from the engines vulnerable? As I understand it they have an always-on network connection via satellites?

louthy 9y ago

> They can only (if very very good) manage to impersonate ground controllers, but we are checking via radio comms all the time, so if something doesn't make sense we just have to call to check. A vision of Die Hard 2 just jumped into my mind. I assume that's just fairy tale stuff and there's no risk that the impersonation of ground controllers could lead to false assumptions?

coderjames 9y ago

I write the software in the ACARS box. > but I guess the comunication protocol is so basic that no mayor owning can happen. This would be ideal, but unfortunately even simple communications protocols have room for error in their implementations. I crashed my company's Flight Management System via the software in my ACARS unit by accidentally sending badly-formatted MCDU screens. The FMS has a buffer overflow wherein it doesn't sufficiently validate that the display coordinates are actually within the screen, so I was overwriting "constants" like Vmax and max-turn-angle. If it turns out there's also an implementation error in our ACARS-to-radio protocol, then it would be possible to remotely exploit the FMS without getting anywhere near the aircraft. I expect this is possible and has already happened.

omegant 9y ago
Very interesting, thank you.