3 ms·
Let's presume for a moment that some sort of interference which could be generated by a box the size of a laptop might have a non-trivial risk to passenger safe
by ShabbyDoo 15y ago
Let's presume for a moment that some sort of interference which could be generated by a box the size of a laptop might have a non-trivial risk to passenger safety. Now, think as a terrorist might. How about sending your minions onto planes with devices which look like standard consumer electronics devices but are capable of generating high levels of interference? Around the holidays in the US, someone checking or carrying on what appears to be an A/V receiver in a box would not raise suspicion -- just a gift for a relative. Now, inside that "receiver" is a battery and a transmitter (I'm not an electrical engineering sort of guy, so substitute the appropriate components) which emits what signals the terrorists hope will interfere with onboard avionics. Via a remote switch, the terrorist turns on the device during take-off and landing. If the plane crashes, is forced to make multiple attempts at a landing, etc., then the terrorists know they're onto something. They will refine their techniques until they can make plans fall out of the sky. If not, they try other experiments -- different frequencies, etc. Could such experiments even be carried out through transmitters on vans which could be temporarily parked on highways near airports? What if the terrorists could purchase airplane components with which to conduct their own testing and refine their "weapons"? Surely such an avenue of attack, if feasible, would be less effort than training your minions to fly an airplane, even if learning to land was not required? That no known terrorist attacks via this vector have been reported suggests it implausible. A problem with most terrorism "experiments" is that, if the experiment fails, the experimenter ends up imprisoned and thus incapable of further experimentation. Given the obvious recruiting issues the likely outcomes of either imprisonment or death present, terrorists ought to take like ducks to water toward techniques which allow repeated experimentation and refinement. That no incidents have been reported due to avionics malfunction suggests the near impossibility of actual passenger risk. QED?
- marshray 15y agoNo. There's still a human pilot flying the plane. Even an arc welder (probably) won't magically make it go in to a nosedive. What could happen however is that certain navigation systems become unreliable during landing. Add that to bad weather, bad information, human error, and bad luck and you have a potential disaster. But it doesn't seem likely that a terrorist would find such a plan worthwhile to pursue. After all, they want to be the star of the show right? Would they martyr themselves so some pilot gets the blame for landing on the wrong runway during a thunderstorm?
- ShabbyDoo 15y agoHmmm.....could the terrorists cryptographically encode their flight schedules along with techniques, drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people? This way, they could prove their involvement. Your point about the compound nature of risk is valid, but doesn't it also suggest that the actual risk of allowing electronics during takeoff/landing is quite low as well?
- marshray 15y agoThe thing that 'accidents' has in its favor over 'terrorist' is volume. Many thousands of takeoffs and landings and millions of passengers with electronic devices every day. Even a small additional risk is guaranteed to line up with the right mix of other factors occasionally. Terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare, and they typically expend their resources with each attempt so they want a high probability of success. There are far better avenues for a technically sophisticated attacker these days than getting on a plane and emitting harmful radiofrequency interference in excess of FCC guidelines. > drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people I'm far from an expert on the mindset of terrorists, but I really don't think that's going to check the box for those aspiring to martyrdom. Edit: It's an interesting thought experiment though. Let's say the next time an Air France crashes mysteriously into the ocean, the next day some group sends a private key to the media which decrypts a file from Google Cache containing the flight number and their religious slogan of choice. How would the media around the world report that? A "hoax terrorist" could also encrypt and upload files for _all_ the flight numbers, or perhaps have a smaller set of files that decrypt differently with different keys. If they used CBC mode, they could even choose part of the plaintext when they disclosed the IV. You'd have to trust a cryptographer to know how reliable of an indicator that actually is. Or a counter-hoax-terrorist could do that to discredit you. Would kinda suck to martyr yourself and have no one believe you about it later. If the CIA were smart, they would be doing just that, in advance.
- tlrobinson 15y agoCouldn't an EMP disrupt the fly-by-wire systems used in all the big commercial jets these days? I'm not sure how big the EMP would need to be though. Probably too big to make it past security.