11 ms·

Hacker told FBI he made plane fly sideways after cracking entertainment system

61 points by johnnycarcin 11y ago

johnnycarcin 11y ago
Another article with some additional follow-up: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-comm...
- dang 11y ago
  It was discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9554841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9554841. The story seems to be of greater interest than that thread satisfied, so perhaps we won't bury this one as a duplicate.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
maerF0x0 11y ago
seems to me united wanted to be hacked: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contact/bugbounty.aspx https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contact/bugbounty.a...
jauer 11y ago
If the allegations are true, he deserves prison, for reckless endangerment more than computer trespass. There's no excuse for risking the lives of passengers and crew.
- efnx 11y ago
  Unless he's trying to raise awareness and force the manufacturer to fix their defective, dangerous aircraft.
  - meowface 11y ago
    What? That's still not an excuse to attempt it on a live passenger plane in the air. You're potentially endangering not only your life but the lives of hundreds of strangers. In an empty plane you're piloting alone, or a simulation, sure, but there's clearly a non-zero chance that the navigation hijacking could disrupt the plane enough to force an emergency landing or even cause it to crash. Even if you think you know what you're doing, there could be lots of unintended side effects from forcing the plane to make certain maneuvers.
    - userbinator 11y ago
      It says that he had been telling people about these security holes for years and without effect, so he probably felt that actually doing it on a real plane would. If his statements are true, then it would be far better him doing it and potentially endangering people, causing manufacturers to fix their planes very quickly, than a terrorist doing it and actually causing some serious damage.
    - efnx 11y ago
      The article states that he had tried telling the manufacturers for years about these vulnerabilities. That means every time one of these planes flies all passengers are at risk. If he has to pull a stunt like this to raise awareness in order for the vulnerabilities to be fixed, who is putting more people at risk? This is an ethics question and it's a hard one. There are no direct analogies. This is pretty much par for the course with security researchers and big corporations. It usually takes some big negative publicity and a public scare for a manufacturer to do a recall, which makes sense because recalls are expensive.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        There are two tracks on a railroad. An unguarded lever allows someone to switch which rail the track leads to. A fellow has told the train company to secure the lever so that only their qualified individuals can pull it. They've ignored this fellow for years. The fellow see two trains are approaching on the separate tracks. They decide to pull the lever - temporarily placing the lives of everyone on each train at risk of a collision. Before the trains are in danger of switching tracks, they pull the lever again. A bunch of people were scared, but no real harm was done. One day, a malicious person could be the one that pulls the lever and kills hundreds of people. The company has been putting lives at risk for years - but only after receiving bad press regarding the insecure lever have they decided to invest in its security. The end.
verelo 11y ago
I would be very surprised and disappointed if there is any connection between flight systems and the entertainment system. As someone holds a private pilot license, I feel like the first thing that you're taught is about the various systems and how they are separated physically. It feels shocking that the entertainment system would even be on the same network. Having said that, I once worked with a guy who used to work for Boeing. Given the work he produced while we worked together, nothing would surprise me. I hope this just turns out to be a vocal series of lies, but I also hope it's fully investigated.
- unoti 11y ago
  Even the Battlestar Galactica had a ban on netowrk connectivity of the computer systems! http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54734/making-sense-of-battlestar-galacticas-network-ban http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54734/making-sense-...
  - flexd 11y ago
    Luckily for us; there is a low risk of Cylons for the foreseeable future!
mirimir 11y ago
He bragged about his hacking skills to the FBI? Really? But maybe they asked him point blank if he had ever pwned a real plane in flight. And he didn't didn't want to risk lying to an FBI agent. Tough call.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  Connecting his laptop to an Ethernet port (not intended for passenger use) is enough for the FBI to consider prosecuting him, even if he didn't actually do anything else.
  - asadlionpk 11y ago
    I think I have seen ethernet ports intended for passenger's use in some airlines.
  - jack9 11y ago
    Only if you can actually access the flight systems from the entertainment console, which you can't. We would have already heard of a massive undertaking of securing against this vulnerability on every 747, which didn't happen. Either the airlines have been negligent or the FBI has made up a story for a fishing expedition (most likely).
- lawnchair_larry 11y ago
  You'll notice that interview with the FBI happened in February, after he gave a talk on airplane security, and this incident was in May. Apparently, whatever he said during that interview wasn't enough to get him in any trouble.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Right, but that helped to justify the warrant. Even if he's never charged, he's lost a bunch of gear. Even if he gets it back, it will not be trustable. And any plaintext information therein may hurt him.
rdtsc 11y ago
I can't believe Boeing would connect the entertainment system to the avionics system. But the article mentions this: """ After news broke about a report from the Government Accountability Office revealing that passenger Wi-Fi networks on some Boeing and Airbus planes could allow an attacker to gain access to avionics systems and commandeer a flight, """ Anyone could find that report? I see mention about the report on other news sites, but not the report itself. EDIT: I think I found the report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-370 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-370
- teraflop 11y ago
  Yeah, that report was widely cited as saying that Wi-Fi and avionics systems were connected, but as far as I can tell, it says nothing of the sort. The only point at which it mentions Boeing or Airbus at all is in the context of the FAA issuing "Special Conditions" requiring them to restrict network connectivity, and it doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Wi-Fi. It looks to me like Wired literally made the whole thing up and a bunch of other sites took it as gospel.
userbinator 11y ago
It's oft-repeated that avionics and other non-flight-critical systems like IFE are isolated from each other, so... - If he was just lying, this must be one of the stupidest publicity stunts I've seen, and planes are still as resistant to hacking as they've always been. - If he was telling the truth, there could be some serious effects and perhaps it was his way of imparting momentum to finally fix the vulnerabilities that he claims have been around for years; if that were the case, whatever happens to him, his "sacrifice" could even be considered heroic. I'd really like to believe it's the former, but something about the latter still feels plausible. Roberts is the founder of One World Labs Incidentally, not to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneworld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneworld
- na85 11y ago
  It likely depends heavily on which aircraft we're talking about. The new 787 is highly computerized. It would not surprise me to learn everything is on the same network and only segmented in software.
  - sukilot 11y ago
    The FAA would be deeply surprised that such a thing evaded their notice, if true.
  - neurotech1 11y ago
    The 787 uses multiple isolated networks. The In-Flight Entertainment network is regular Ethernet, and Flight Management System is a different format (ARINC 664/AFDX) which provides deterministic real-time connectivity. There is a device called a Network Extension Device (NED) which is a one-way gateway between the FMS and the IFE for showing the progress of the flight to passengers.
    - koonsolo 11y ago
      First you say it uses isolated networks, but then you say NED connects the two? How does it enforce the 'one-way'?
redwards510 11y ago
I believe this is a big misunderstanding that has snowballed recently. I think what he actually claimed was that he did all of these outrageous stunts in a network simulation that he had, not a live aircraft. That is why he has not been arrested. He wants publicity for the issue of security of aircraft computers and that's why he isn't rushing to squash these "I made the airplane do a barrel roll" stories. What's better for raising consciousness about a potentially fatal flaw that by making people think that lives were at risk when they weren't?
- dennisnedry 11y ago
  Also the idea that the plane went "sideways" could have been a weird coincidence. Maybe they went through turbulence when he allegedly sent the command?
  - matmann2001 11y ago
    Planes don't even move sideways.
    - bootload 11y ago
      Be specific. The Boeing AV-8B Harrier II (Hawker Harrier) does. VIFF: "Vectoring in Forward Flight" ~ https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y more examples: ~ https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E inflight movement and shipbourne TO/L ~ https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c
    - verystealthy 11y ago
      Oh, they sure do. https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - fleeno 11y ago
      Pitch, roll, and yaw. Yaw is sideways.
verystealthy 11y ago
It's important to put things to the test, but I tend to listed to people who are actually qualified and know what they're talking about. Even that RenderMan talk at DEFCON 20 came with a bunch of caveats. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, the TL;DW version is: Boeing and Airbus are not stupid, a 787 is not a D-Link wireless router and you pretty much can't get to the flight controls from the in-flight entertainment system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3nXXZgqmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3nXXZgqmg
- neurotech1 11y ago
  As explained in the linked video above (from DEFCON 22), there is a device called a Network Extension Device (NED) which is a one-way gateway between the FMS and the IFE for showing the progress of the flight to passengers.
  - verystealthy 11y ago
    Yeah, but I think that the main message is that there are pilots in the cockpit who can easily override any weird input. Even if it is theoretically possible (hey, you never know, right?) to impersonate avionics and mess up with the FMS/ECU/EICAS, there's no such thing as a pilot going "holy crap! the plane is going sideways and there's nothing I can do!". I'm pretty comfortable calling this whole "hacking the engines from the in-flight entertainment system" fiction.
  - x0054 11y ago
    Why on earth would you need more than a simple one way API between the FMS and IFE to be able to show inflight progress. For that matter, why would it be more complicated than a simple serial cable with just the O pin on the FMS side, and just the I pin on the IFE side to feed information at regular intervals to the IFE. I have no idea how exactly the systems are setup, but off the top of my head I can come up with several VERY simple methods of insuring that the communication between the FMS and IFE is in deed unidirectional. If this story is true, I would be highly disappointed in Boeing!
    - 11y ago
DanBC 11y ago
If true I'm kind of surprised that "they" have not banned all computers from planes. It only took one incompetent shoe-bomber to cause many fliers to have to remove their shoes for a decade.
- vidarh 11y ago
  You should have seen the screener at Gatwick that almost freaked out a few years ago when my then 3 year old son had to send his shoes through and he could see electronics in the heel. They were the kind of shoes that lit up when he put his feet down, and the guy had clearly not seen them before - he looked at the other screeners with this terrified look on his face. Thankfully one of them reassured him that it was safe quickly enough. Never mind that I regularly forget water bottles and/or electronics in my carry on that they either never spot or can't be bothered to do anything about.
tfe 11y ago
I wonder why they didn't just track down the pilots of that flight and ask if they had an uncommanded increase in thrust on one engine.
- digdigdag 11y ago
  None of this really adds up for me. The in-flight entertainment system should run completely separate from the RTOS that governs thrust, navigation, control surfaces, etc. I highly doubt these mission-critical systems would somehow be directly connected to the back-seat infotainment systems that regularly crash after a few flicks of the finger.
twblalock 11y ago
If this is really true, it takes some balls to push code to the system that is running the plane that you yourself are flying in. I mean, I've released bugs to production before, but they have never put my life at risk...
- dennisnedry 11y ago
  Or...maybe he's just THAT confident. Nah, I chalk that up to a "who would be THAT dumb to allow plane controls through the entertainment system".
- whyenot 11y ago
  > have never put my life at risk... If true, he also risked the lives of everyone else on that plane. That's not ballsy, it's selfish and dangerous. If proven true, what he needs is a "timeout" at one of our country's many penal institutions.
- verystealthy 11y ago
  Airliners are not a Heroku dyno that you can "push code" into. There aren't APIs you can call, pull requests or Docker containers. We're not talking about a webserver or a couple of rails apps. We're talking about stuff being physically separated, non TCP, non IP, non Ethernet, uni-directional connectivity. Your OSI model doesn't apply here. Your API command list doesn't apply here. Your very notion of networking doesn't apply here. This is not about releasing early and iterating. We're talking about systems with a lot of redundancy and actual physical backups where efficiency is not an issue. The devops mentality does not work in this case.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deepnet 11y ago
The FBI are liars and their informants are liars. The real secret the security services are trying to hide is their complete ineffectiveness, total waste of money and hijacking for political and public manipulation. I really don't believe any of this piddling feargeddon media manipulation nonsense - spies are jerks. Reprinting propaganda does not count as journalism or news.
wsha 11y ago
Whether or not the allegations are true (as most people are questioning here), this article is really poorly researched. There's no indication that any attempt was made to get Roberts' side of the story or to check with any other security researcher about the plausibility of the accusations. Several people have suggested that Roberts' goal is to raise awareness about airplane safety, so perhaps he actually wanted the article published like this even if inaccurate, though it still reflects poorly on the author.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Interesting if true, it will once again put wind behind the push to get Professional Engineer status for software engineers.

61 points by johnnycarcin 11y ago

Another article with some additional follow-up: http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-commandeered-plane/ http://www.wired.com/2015/05/feds-say-banned-researcher-comm...

dang 11y ago
It was discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9554841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9554841. The story seems to be of greater interest than that thread satisfied, so perhaps we won't bury this one as a duplicate.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

maerF0x0 11y ago

seems to me united wanted to be hacked: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contact/bugbounty.aspx https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/Contact/bugbounty.a...

jauer 11y ago

If the allegations are true, he deserves prison, for reckless endangerment more than computer trespass. There's no excuse for risking the lives of passengers and crew.

efnx 11y ago
Unless he's trying to raise awareness and force the manufacturer to fix their defective, dangerous aircraft.
- meowface 11y ago
  What? That's still not an excuse to attempt it on a live passenger plane in the air. You're potentially endangering not only your life but the lives of hundreds of strangers. In an empty plane you're piloting alone, or a simulation, sure, but there's clearly a non-zero chance that the navigation hijacking could disrupt the plane enough to force an emergency landing or even cause it to crash. Even if you think you know what you're doing, there could be lots of unintended side effects from forcing the plane to make certain maneuvers.
  - userbinator 11y ago
    It says that he had been telling people about these security holes for years and without effect, so he probably felt that actually doing it on a real plane would. If his statements are true, then it would be far better him doing it and potentially endangering people, causing manufacturers to fix their planes very quickly, than a terrorist doing it and actually causing some serious damage.
  - efnx 11y ago
    The article states that he had tried telling the manufacturers for years about these vulnerabilities. That means every time one of these planes flies all passengers are at risk. If he has to pull a stunt like this to raise awareness in order for the vulnerabilities to be fixed, who is putting more people at risk? This is an ethics question and it's a hard one. There are no direct analogies. This is pretty much par for the course with security researchers and big corporations. It usually takes some big negative publicity and a public scare for a manufacturer to do a recall, which makes sense because recalls are expensive.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      There are two tracks on a railroad. An unguarded lever allows someone to switch which rail the track leads to. A fellow has told the train company to secure the lever so that only their qualified individuals can pull it. They've ignored this fellow for years. The fellow see two trains are approaching on the separate tracks. They decide to pull the lever - temporarily placing the lives of everyone on each train at risk of a collision. Before the trains are in danger of switching tracks, they pull the lever again. A bunch of people were scared, but no real harm was done. One day, a malicious person could be the one that pulls the lever and kills hundreds of people. The company has been putting lives at risk for years - but only after receiving bad press regarding the insecure lever have they decided to invest in its security. The end.

verelo 11y ago

I would be very surprised and disappointed if there is any connection between flight systems and the entertainment system. As someone holds a private pilot license, I feel like the first thing that you're taught is about the various systems and how they are separated physically. It feels shocking that the entertainment system would even be on the same network. Having said that, I once worked with a guy who used to work for Boeing. Given the work he produced while we worked together, nothing would surprise me. I hope this just turns out to be a vocal series of lies, but I also hope it's fully investigated.

unoti 11y ago
Even the Battlestar Galactica had a ban on netowrk connectivity of the computer systems! http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54734/making-sense-of-battlestar-galacticas-network-ban http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/54734/making-sense-...
- flexd 11y ago
  Luckily for us; there is a low risk of Cylons for the foreseeable future!

mirimir 11y ago

He bragged about his hacking skills to the FBI? Really? But maybe they asked him point blank if he had ever pwned a real plane in flight. And he didn't didn't want to risk lying to an FBI agent. Tough call.

neurotech1 11y ago
Connecting his laptop to an Ethernet port (not intended for passenger use) is enough for the FBI to consider prosecuting him, even if he didn't actually do anything else.
- asadlionpk 11y ago
  I think I have seen ethernet ports intended for passenger's use in some airlines.
- jack9 11y ago
  Only if you can actually access the flight systems from the entertainment console, which you can't. We would have already heard of a massive undertaking of securing against this vulnerability on every 747, which didn't happen. Either the airlines have been negligent or the FBI has made up a story for a fishing expedition (most likely).
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
You'll notice that interview with the FBI happened in February, after he gave a talk on airplane security, and this incident was in May. Apparently, whatever he said during that interview wasn't enough to get him in any trouble.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Right, but that helped to justify the warrant. Even if he's never charged, he's lost a bunch of gear. Even if he gets it back, it will not be trustable. And any plaintext information therein may hurt him.

rdtsc 11y ago

I can't believe Boeing would connect the entertainment system to the avionics system. But the article mentions this: """ After news broke about a report from the Government Accountability Office revealing that passenger Wi-Fi networks on some Boeing and Airbus planes could allow an attacker to gain access to avionics systems and commandeer a flight, """ Anyone could find that report? I see mention about the report on other news sites, but not the report itself. EDIT: I think I found the report: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-370 http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-370

teraflop 11y ago
Yeah, that report was widely cited as saying that Wi-Fi and avionics systems were connected, but as far as I can tell, it says nothing of the sort. The only point at which it mentions Boeing or Airbus at all is in the context of the FAA issuing "Special Conditions" requiring them to restrict network connectivity, and it doesn't make any reference whatsoever to Wi-Fi. It looks to me like Wired literally made the whole thing up and a bunch of other sites took it as gospel.

userbinator 11y ago

It's oft-repeated that avionics and other non-flight-critical systems like IFE are isolated from each other, so... - If he was just lying, this must be one of the stupidest publicity stunts I've seen, and planes are still as resistant to hacking as they've always been. - If he was telling the truth, there could be some serious effects and perhaps it was his way of imparting momentum to finally fix the vulnerabilities that he claims have been around for years; if that were the case, whatever happens to him, his "sacrifice" could even be considered heroic. I'd really like to believe it's the former, but something about the latter still feels plausible. Roberts is the founder of One World Labs Incidentally, not to be confused with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneworld http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneworld

na85 11y ago
It likely depends heavily on which aircraft we're talking about. The new 787 is highly computerized. It would not surprise me to learn everything is on the same network and only segmented in software.
- sukilot 11y ago
  The FAA would be deeply surprised that such a thing evaded their notice, if true.
- neurotech1 11y ago
  The 787 uses multiple isolated networks. The In-Flight Entertainment network is regular Ethernet, and Flight Management System is a different format (ARINC 664/AFDX) which provides deterministic real-time connectivity. There is a device called a Network Extension Device (NED) which is a one-way gateway between the FMS and the IFE for showing the progress of the flight to passengers.
  - koonsolo 11y ago
    First you say it uses isolated networks, but then you say NED connects the two? How does it enforce the 'one-way'?

redwards510 11y ago

I believe this is a big misunderstanding that has snowballed recently. I think what he actually claimed was that he did all of these outrageous stunts in a network simulation that he had, not a live aircraft. That is why he has not been arrested. He wants publicity for the issue of security of aircraft computers and that's why he isn't rushing to squash these "I made the airplane do a barrel roll" stories. What's better for raising consciousness about a potentially fatal flaw that by making people think that lives were at risk when they weren't?

dennisnedry 11y ago
Also the idea that the plane went "sideways" could have been a weird coincidence. Maybe they went through turbulence when he allegedly sent the command?
- matmann2001 11y ago
  Planes don't even move sideways.
  - bootload 11y ago
    Be specific. The Boeing AV-8B Harrier II (Hawker Harrier) does. VIFF: "Vectoring in Forward Flight" ~ https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y https://youtu.be/8UE9i82Kc_Y more examples: ~ https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E https://youtu.be/YiPOyee_V0E inflight movement and shipbourne TO/L ~ https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c https://youtu.be/4Sf6LQ50V2c
  - verystealthy 11y ago
    Oh, they sure do. https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk https://youtu.be/mMvLuUJFHYk
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - fleeno 11y ago
    Pitch, roll, and yaw. Yaw is sideways.

verystealthy 11y ago

It's important to put things to the test, but I tend to listed to people who are actually qualified and know what they're talking about. Even that RenderMan talk at DEFCON 20 came with a bunch of caveats. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, the TL;DW version is: Boeing and Airbus are not stupid, a 787 is not a D-Link wireless router and you pretty much can't get to the flight controls from the in-flight entertainment system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3nXXZgqmg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3nXXZgqmg

neurotech1 11y ago
As explained in the linked video above (from DEFCON 22), there is a device called a Network Extension Device (NED) which is a one-way gateway between the FMS and the IFE for showing the progress of the flight to passengers.
- verystealthy 11y ago
  Yeah, but I think that the main message is that there are pilots in the cockpit who can easily override any weird input. Even if it is theoretically possible (hey, you never know, right?) to impersonate avionics and mess up with the FMS/ECU/EICAS, there's no such thing as a pilot going "holy crap! the plane is going sideways and there's nothing I can do!". I'm pretty comfortable calling this whole "hacking the engines from the in-flight entertainment system" fiction.
- x0054 11y ago
  Why on earth would you need more than a simple one way API between the FMS and IFE to be able to show inflight progress. For that matter, why would it be more complicated than a simple serial cable with just the O pin on the FMS side, and just the I pin on the IFE side to feed information at regular intervals to the IFE. I have no idea how exactly the systems are setup, but off the top of my head I can come up with several VERY simple methods of insuring that the communication between the FMS and IFE is in deed unidirectional. If this story is true, I would be highly disappointed in Boeing!
  - 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

If true I'm kind of surprised that "they" have not banned all computers from planes. It only took one incompetent shoe-bomber to cause many fliers to have to remove their shoes for a decade.

vidarh 11y ago
You should have seen the screener at Gatwick that almost freaked out a few years ago when my then 3 year old son had to send his shoes through and he could see electronics in the heel. They were the kind of shoes that lit up when he put his feet down, and the guy had clearly not seen them before - he looked at the other screeners with this terrified look on his face. Thankfully one of them reassured him that it was safe quickly enough. Never mind that I regularly forget water bottles and/or electronics in my carry on that they either never spot or can't be bothered to do anything about.

tfe 11y ago

I wonder why they didn't just track down the pilots of that flight and ask if they had an uncommanded increase in thrust on one engine.

digdigdag 11y ago
None of this really adds up for me. The in-flight entertainment system should run completely separate from the RTOS that governs thrust, navigation, control surfaces, etc. I highly doubt these mission-critical systems would somehow be directly connected to the back-seat infotainment systems that regularly crash after a few flicks of the finger.

twblalock 11y ago

If this is really true, it takes some balls to push code to the system that is running the plane that you yourself are flying in. I mean, I've released bugs to production before, but they have never put my life at risk...

dennisnedry 11y ago
Or...maybe he's just THAT confident. Nah, I chalk that up to a "who would be THAT dumb to allow plane controls through the entertainment system".
whyenot 11y ago
> have never put my life at risk... If true, he also risked the lives of everyone else on that plane. That's not ballsy, it's selfish and dangerous. If proven true, what he needs is a "timeout" at one of our country's many penal institutions.
verystealthy 11y ago
Airliners are not a Heroku dyno that you can "push code" into. There aren't APIs you can call, pull requests or Docker containers. We're not talking about a webserver or a couple of rails apps. We're talking about stuff being physically separated, non TCP, non IP, non Ethernet, uni-directional connectivity. Your OSI model doesn't apply here. Your API command list doesn't apply here. Your very notion of networking doesn't apply here. This is not about releasing early and iterating. We're talking about systems with a lot of redundancy and actual physical backups where efficiency is not an issue. The devops mentality does not work in this case.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deepnet 11y ago

The FBI are liars and their informants are liars. The real secret the security services are trying to hide is their complete ineffectiveness, total waste of money and hijacking for political and public manipulation. I really don't believe any of this piddling feargeddon media manipulation nonsense - spies are jerks. Reprinting propaganda does not count as journalism or news.

wsha 11y ago

Whether or not the allegations are true (as most people are questioning here), this article is really poorly researched. There's no indication that any attempt was made to get Roberts' side of the story or to check with any other security researcher about the plausibility of the accusations. Several people have suggested that Roberts' goal is to raise awareness about airplane safety, so perhaps he actually wanted the article published like this even if inaccurate, though it still reflects poorly on the author.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Interesting if true, it will once again put wind behind the push to get Professional Engineer status for software engineers.