Engineer Kicked Off UA Flight Hacked & Flew Plane.

captaincrackers · Sun May 17, 2015 7:26 pm

In Twitter discussions, the usual suspects from the information security community have settled on two likely scenarios:

1) Hacker lying
2) FBI confused

RDUDDJI · Sun May 17, 2015 7:29 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 49):
They may not have even noticed, or found it serious enough to do anything about if they had. If he only did it for a moment (it was said to cause a "lateral movement" which doesn't sound like a continuous thing), it could have almost felt like turbulence. The pilots may not have seen the increase in engine power if it was quick, or may have assumed it was the autopilot compensating for the turbulence.

If a pax could feel it, I'd be quite concerned that the pilots wouldn't notice and report the discrepancy. But thus is still ignoring the fact that a narcissist like Roberts wouldn't actually put his life in danger to test his "hack". Roberts is nothing but a modern day wanna be Nathanial Heatwole. Welcome to the no fly list Mr Roberts!

Quoting JHwk (Reply 45):
Blindly dismissing the potential of a hack is ignorant... There are attacks that target air-gapped networks, using sound, light, heat output/power consumption, etc. as the communication path.

Believing that IFE systems are connected to avionics is ignorant. The potential of a hack is possible...*if* (and only if) you can access the system, which pax can not. Perhaps if he were in (or had been in) the cockpit or avionics bay a remote engine hack would be possible, but not from the IFE bus like he's claiming.

Please provide relevant (i.e. aviation) examples to your air gap hacks. Short of an EMP I doubt you'll find anything.

wjcandee · Sun May 17, 2015 8:25 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 26):
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 7):

I guess the FBI isn't so sure. Read paragraph 18, particularly 18E, of the search warrant

I assume you mean paragraph 19. It merely is a summary of what this dweeb is claiming to have done, not that the FBI necessarily believes him.

Well, although not conclusive, they later summarize what he said he did and then say, "agents and technical specialists with the FBI believed that he may have done just that again or attempted to do so". (para. 32)

bueb0g · Sun May 17, 2015 8:55 pm

Quoting fxramper (Thread starter):
I'm sure this has happened previously, but this guy is trying to let everyone know it's possible to take control of a plane with your phone from your seat.

It has never happened, and nor did it happen in this case.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 10):
Did you read the article in full? This guy was browsing the entire flight system and said he's done it multiple times.

No, he wasn't, and he can say whatever he likes. He didn't hack into the flight controls. It's true that messing with the IFE can actually cause a couple of EICAS messages to pop up, but that's all he could actually manage from his seat.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 49):
(I'm not sure it'd do so asymmetrically, but again, if it was just a momentary thing that happened once, I doubt the pilots would give it much thought.)

It doesn't compensate asymmetrically.

hilram · Sun May 17, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting 1010101 (Reply 36):
I don't know enough to judge the plausiblilty of these specific claims but I can say that the general approach is absolutely how real world security vulnerabilities are found and exploited. I am astounded that there is not an air gap between critical and non-critical systems. I have seen enough "impossible" hacks of systems with read only access, firewalls, etc, that any claims that a network connected system cannot be accessed are meaningless to me.

So true. Trust me, if these systems are networked (for some idiotic reason) they are not safe from being hacked. If they are not connected in any way, then we are safe. The only way to make 100% sure that your computer will never get a virus or malware, is to never bring it online (or insert any media on it, USB, CD-ROM etc.)

Dalmd88 · Sun May 17, 2015 10:56 pm

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 48):
First of all a 738 does not have EICAS. The 738 is a reallly dumb airplane with a very archaic array of Master Caution lights instead. So this idiot claims all sorts of crap when in reality cabin temperature can't even be controlled from the cabin....

So true, this guy is 100% making all this 'I took over control of the airplane' stuff completely up. There is no way to do any of this stuff on a 738. I doubt it even has SATCOM for aircraft performance monitoring. They use the old GTE phone airphone network for WIFI and most likely ACARS VHF transmissions for monitor. IF you could get in through the monitor system it would do no good. All it does is report engine performance. Now on a flyby wire aircraft there may be ways, but not on the 737NG. It is a very simple dumb airplane from a electronics standpoint.

Flighty · Mon May 18, 2015 1:01 am

There was a recent case where a GM (?) car was fully hacked, remotely, from an iPhone with a radio transmitter.

The lineage went like this.

Wireless car starter > authentication > start car > port authentication to car's root > receive packets with additional commands.

The car's entertainment system, lights etc were fully rooted and hacked from many meters away. A car with drive by wire throttle and lane control / distance control can be fully driven remotely if rooted.

Can an Airbus or Boeing be rooted in this way, I doubt it, especially the Boeing, because it is not FBW. But of all the things people assume are un-hackable, the truth is it is 10 times more vulnerable than people believe. That is the nature of moderately complex systems.

Raventech · Mon May 18, 2015 1:30 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 56):
There was a recent case where a GM (?) car was fully hacked, remotely, from an iPhone with a radio transmitter.

The lineage went like this.

Wireless car starter > authentication > start car > port authentication to car's root > receive packets with additional commands.

The car's entertainment system, lights etc were fully rooted and hacked from many meters away. A car with drive by wire throttle and lane control / distance control can be fully driven remotely if rooted.

I believe it was they spoofed an OnStar (or similar type system since the car was not identifed) transmission and successfully reprogrammed the entertainment system. Which then the entertainment system was sending spoofed commands down the bus to the other components. This worked because the car only has one bus that everything shares due to adding thousands of dollars in cost to a new car if done on separate busses. In an aircraft cost is not a problem (at least as far as this goes) so that on top of regulation means it can be done right.

wjcandee · Mon May 18, 2015 1:32 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 54):
The only way to make 100% sure that your computer will never get a virus or malware, is to never bring it online (or insert any media on it, USB, CD-ROM etc.)

Huh. When I said this in the other thread, a lot of very knowledgeable people said essentially that I was an idiot for thinking so. Is there a way to make a bus truly "one-way"?

BTW, there was at least an effort by Boeing to get FAA approval for the IFE and aircraft systems to share a bus on the 777.

cpqi · Mon May 18, 2015 2:57 am

I was having a bad weekend until I came across this thread. Thanks everyone for cheering me up. I have learnt that fly by wire means fly by wifi and that i need to upgrade my ios version if i want to adjust my seat (does this mean i can fully recline in economy ?). Perhaps he tunneled through the electricty wires using blue boxing or nanites ??

Frankly rather than losing any sleep over this, I have laughed so much with some of the comments that I will sleep well tonight.

mandala499 · Mon May 18, 2015 3:00 am

Quoting MHO (Reply 20):
Wouldn't the pilots notice a little thing like that, maybe even mentioning it to controllers, or to anyone after landing? Something just don't smell right here.

The guy's claim stinks...

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 28):
Keep it simple. Flush a dozen packs of Mentos down the toilet and the pressure buildup in the waste tank will cause it to blow, and take out the rest of the airplane with it.

Shove dry ice instead and get a "blue volcano". Old cargo pilot trick.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 33):
the IFE. The part about causing an engine to climb, is the understanding of an FBI agent.. which doesn't make sense. Roberts himself says he put the aircraft from Cruise to Climb mode. That would make more sense, except I don't think there's a Climb mode on an 738.. you've got Flight level change. Climb mode would be an Airbus.

CLB thrust mode... it's just the limit the FADEC would allow, not what FADEC would command. If this happened, it would have been in the Post Flight Report, either reported by the crew, or in the downloaded Post Flight Maintenance Report... Oh, downloaded?

Yeah, so?

Quoting baldwin8 (Reply 38):
If over uncommanded inputs were evident it would be easy to see in the post flight reports.

Yeaps...

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 58):
BTW, there was at least an effort by Boeing to get FAA approval for the IFE and aircraft systems to share a bus on the 777.

This was initiated long before this nuthead made the news...

CO953 · Mon May 18, 2015 4:07 am

The way things are going in the world these days, I guess the answer that passengers would be looking for is, "100%, this could not happen on a 788, 789, 777, A350, A321, A330, A340, 739, 738, 748," etc. The answer probably can't be 100%. But I sure hope that steps could be taken to make it so, and make people believe it. In an era in which we are losing trust in everything due to bad actors, fly-by-hack sounds - to the casual, interested-but-non-insider passenger who reads the story on Drudge - like a plausible, "butterflies-in-the-stomach" return to the days of the Comet.

When will it be time to bring back the remaining 727s, DC-8s etc. and build a business model around a non-hackable airline that tough people willing to board 40+-y.o. frames aren't afraid to fly.

[Edited 2015-05-17 21:09:30]

[Edited 2015-05-17 21:10:52]
(edited several times to keep adding plane types to my admittedly red-meat post!)

[Edited 2015-05-17 21:12:16]

catiii · Mon May 18, 2015 4:08 am

The other thing the general public has no idea of, and the media hasn't had the sense to report, is that there's so much FOQA data coming off the airplane that United knows from pulling the data if anything unusual happened. My sense is that the FBI is restricting what United can and can't say in the press, but messing with the IFE cables under the seat as he has been alleged to do is, in fact, a violation. My worry would be every armchair "hacker" trying to be a copycat. They can't obviously impact the critical systems of the airplane, but every nut job is now going to be trying it.

CALTECH · Mon May 18, 2015 4:36 am

Quoting MeCe (Reply 30):
But I think quite possible access some systems on a 787.

The issue has been deactivated.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 33):
The FAA thinks it is. You should read reply 17.

But no, I don't think he actually had any control of the aircraft at any point. Could he read data? Yes probably.

No he could not. Full of manure. No data flows through the passenger entertainment system underneath your seat. Not even close.

Quoting susej772 (Reply 35):
Even the GAO says this is possible: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/politi...king/

GAO is probably using consultants like Roberts for their report.

Quoting 1010101 (Reply 36):
He claims that he was able to watch network traffic allowing him to get figure out access to a non-critical cabin control system. He claims to have hopped from there to EICAS to a "thrust management system".

No EICAS on a 737-800 aircraft, that should be enough to let it be known he has no clue about what he claims to have done.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 45):
Blindly dismissing the potential of a hack is ignorant... There are attacks that target air-gapped networks, using sound, light, heat output/power consumption, etc. as the communication path.

Roberts account of the Seat Electronics Box is full of manure. It is secured. It does not wiggle off as Roberts puts it. And sure, in this day and age he went under his seat and hooked up a Ethernet Cat6 cable, very laughable claim there, with a modified plug to the seat box, and no reports from Passengers or Flight Attendants about a guy messing with the seat. In this day and age, yeah, sure.

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 48):
First of all a 738 does not have EICAS. The 738 is a reallly dumb airplane with a very archaic array of Master Caution lights instead. So this idiot claims all sorts of crap when in reality cabin temperature can't even be controlled from the cabin....

Hey, it's not that dumb. It has Engine Indicating in it's Common Display System, just no Crew Alerting System. The Master Caution System, six pack, alerts the pilots about faults.

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 49):
They may not have even noticed, or found it serious enough to do anything about if they had. If he only did it for a moment (it was said to cause a "lateral movement" which doesn't sound like a continuous thing), it could have almost felt like turbulence. The pilots may not have seen the increase in engine power if it was quick, or may have assumed it was the autopilot compensating for the turbulence. (I'm not sure it'd do so asymmetrically, but again, if it was just a momentary thing that happened once, I doubt the pilots would give it much thought.)

Wow, you think if a pilot had a aircraft perform a uncommanded action that it would not be reported ? That is almost as bad as the manure Roberts claims.

Quoting wjcandee (Reply 52):
Well, although not conclusive, they later summarize what he said he did and then say, "agents and technical specialists with the FBI believed that he may have done just that again or attempted to do so". (para. 32)

And the FAA, nor 2 major aircraft manufacturers, have not acted upon this potentially serious issue of a hacker commandeering a aircraft from his seat's entertainment system. Wonder why ?

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 60):
The guy's claim stinks...

Industrial Strength Air Freshener can not stop this stink,.....

jeb94 · Mon May 18, 2015 4:47 am

Jet engines do lag quite a bit so if he caused an engine to increase in thrust it would have been longer than a moment. It would've been several seconds. These systems are isolated from one another even on the 787. The control systems have no link at all to the IFE systems. They don't even use the same satellite communications systems and encoding.

Passedv1 · Mon May 18, 2015 6:34 am

Did this guy hack the airplane from his seat. Absolutely-not...for all the reasons stated.

Is it possible to hack into the jet and take over the control of the jet...very improbable. Through the IFE on a 737. No way. The Internet on a 737 is a hacked together after thought to an after-thought. It is not connected in any way to any of the systems he describe. The only thing I could imagine he MIGHT be able to hack-and by hack I mean sniff the packets and take a peak, and if he is as good as he says he is, reinsert his own info for the IFE maps.

Before I flew airplanes I ran computer networks so I do think a lot about vulnerabilities in aviation...none of them involve anything that can be accessed through the IFE.

cpqi · Mon May 18, 2015 11:47 am

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 65):

PassedV1. If he changed the in flight map would the plane follow the new course ??

Im sorry, I couldnt resist !! This is so much fun

twinotter · Thu May 21, 2015 2:39 am

Two things I've learned from airliners.net.

1) Radio transmitters, such as cell phones, existing now or in the future, in any combination, can never, ever affect any aircraft system which exists now or will ever exist. Also, it is not possible for any aircraft system or component to degrade or fail in any fashion which would allow it to be affected by radio transmissions.

2) Aircraft are immune from hackers. Whatever this guy says, it's not possible.

End of discussion.

Eye roll.

[Edited 2015-05-20 19:48:25]

hilram · Thu May 21, 2015 7:55 am

I see that there is a lot of optimism and loyalty present in this trhead. Attitudes that I truly value. Really.

However, neither optimism or loyalty helped the Pentagon, NATO, NASA, or even the FBI from being hacked. Feel free to go on and think that Boeing and Airbus are 100% hacker-proof, and you all feel a little better when you fly on their airplanes. But my Professional opinion is that in principle, every network can be hacked. I would therefore strongly encourage Airlines and manufacturers to have no physical (or Wireless) Connection between the systems that run the plane, and the infotainment systems that every passenger can Access.

Passedv1 · Thu May 21, 2015 11:29 am

Quoting hilram (Reply 68):
However, neither optimism or loyalty helped the Pentagon, NATO, NASA, or even the FBI from being hacked.

I think their are 3 different questions.

1. Did this knucklehead hack a 737 from his seat beyond the IFE System. No.

2. Is it possible to HACK into a jet. Given unlimited access...definitely possible.

3. Is it possible to hack into the jet and take control from your passenger seat from a connection through the IFE System...No.

hilram · Thu May 21, 2015 12:21 pm

At least we agree on 1 & 2.

For nr. 3, my answer would be: Possibly. If the two systems are networked.

We have seen time and time again, that there is always a backdoor wherever a Connection exists between two systems. I do not claim that a hacker can suddenly hijack the plane and steer it from his or her iPad, but what if you could cause a system or computer to reboot? Or provoke an error? Block a feed?

jetblastdubai · Thu May 21, 2015 3:46 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...l-boeing-airliner-disputed-experts

Peter Lemme, chairman of the Ku and Ka satellite communications standards told industry blog Runway Girl Network: “The claim that the thrust management system mode was changed without a command from the pilot through the mode control panel, or while coupled to the flight management system is inconceivable.”

He added that the links between the entertainment system and flight control systems “are not not capable of changing automatic flight control modes”.

MeCe · Thu May 21, 2015 4:21 pm

Hi again,

I forget mention my previous massege, access and control a system two different things. Even a hacker get access a critical aircraft system can only read data. Modify and and give a command like "turn 30 degrees right" not possible due to FBW systems work different than commercially available operating system -or languge whatever you say-

Only possible thing is access a maintenance bus wirelessly and disturb some systems which another member said system is deactivated now.

CALTECH · Thu May 21, 2015 5:23 pm

Quoting hilram (Reply 68):
However, neither optimism or loyalty helped the Pentagon, NATO, NASA, or even the FBI from being hacked. Feel free to go on and think that Boeing and Airbus are 100% hacker-proof, and you all feel a little better when you fly on their airplanes. But my Professional opinion is that in principle, every network can be hacked. I would therefore strongly encourage Airlines and manufacturers to have no physical (or Wireless) Connection between the systems that run the plane, and the infotainment systems that every passenger can Access.

Obviously a 737-800 and it's IFE and other networks and how they work and interact, is not known to you and those others that seem to claim knowledge of a 737-800's networks. A 737-800 can not be hacked from the seat electronics, nor can the engine's data be read from there. Engine data does not go over the IFE wiring, separate wiring bundles. It is two completely separate cable runs, running to their own computers that are not networked together. Even the data coming from the satellite receiver does not run over a 737-800s IFE network.

Quoting PassedV1 (Reply 69):
2. Is it possible to HACK into a jet. Given unlimited access...definitely possible.

Hack into a Jet, think the manufacturers are on top of that. It is why a concern was deactivated on the 787.

Quoting hilram (Reply 70):
For nr. 3, my answer would be: Possibly. If the two systems are networked.

They aren't on most of the aircraft flying today. Even the 787 has different data networks, that do not link with each other. There are hookups for these networks, but they are in areas accessible only to maintenance.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 71):
He added that the links between the entertainment system and flight control systems “are not not capable of changing automatic flight control modes”.

This Roberts guy is a hack himself, maybe a command could be sent to shut him down.

hilram · Thu May 21, 2015 10:12 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 73):
It is two completely separate cable runs, running to their own computers that are not networked together.

And THAT is what I wanted to hear, and this is good and sensible design, that I will deem hacker-proof. Let's hope the manufacturers stick to this approach.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 73):
Hack into a Jet, think the manufacturers are on top of that. It is why a concern was deactivated on the 787.

That is interesting news, indeed!

737tdi · Thu May 21, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 73):
Obviously a 737-800 and it's IFE and other networks and how they work and interact, is not known to you and those others that seem to claim knowledge of a 737-800's networks. A 737-800 can not be hacked from the seat electronics, nor can the engine's data be read from there. Engine data does not go over the IFE wiring, separate wiring bundles. It is two completely separate cable runs, running to their own computers that are not networked together. Even the data coming from the satellite receiver does not run over a 737-800s IFE network.

: CALTECH, we have talked of this some before. I spent many days a few years back doing my small part in the installation design of our current WiFi. I had to physically trace all of the wire installations to verify they were in compliance with standard practices, i.e. 3"s from FQIS wiring. Which means I know where every wire connects and why it is there. There is absolutely no way that you could "hack" one of our aircraft through the WiFi, nothing to connect through or too. There is info. obtained from the WiFi for positioning data so the system knows where to aim the antenna but that's it and it would in no way provide a pathway to any aircraft systems.

I can not speak to other models or operators but I know this to be true of ours.

CALTECH · Fri May 22, 2015 3:41 am

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 75):
: CALTECH, we have talked of this some before. I spent many days a few years back doing my small part in the installation design of our current WiFi. I had to physically trace all of the wire installations to verify they were in compliance with standard practices, i.e. 3"s from FQIS wiring. Which means I know where every wire connects and why it is there. There is absolutely no way that you could "hack" one of our aircraft through the WiFi, nothing to connect through or too. There is info. obtained from the WiFi for positioning data so the system knows where to aim the antenna but that's it and it would in no way provide a pathway to any aircraft systems.

I can not speak to other models or operators but I know this to be true of ours.

We went through the same. Pretty sure all of the carriers go through the same.

billreid · Fri May 22, 2015 3:46 am

Whether or not this is bull or not. I am quite happy that light has been brought on hacking into systems.

Acars, etc is architecture that is in theory hackable. There needs to be work done to ensure nobody gets in who shouldn't.
After all, the US Gov report-ably did get to hack the centrifuges in Iran from the USA which leads to serious questions on what is truly possible in other industries.

We can sit back dumb, fat and happy, and say "Never, Never, Never, oh shit I cant believe that happened!" or we can be proactive and prevent what one day may be possible.

We never thought 9-11 was possible did we?

FlyHossD · Fri May 22, 2015 3:54 am

Quoting 1010101 (Reply 36):
He claims to have hopped from there to EICAS to a "thrust management system".

The 737s don't have an EICAS as defined in the normal sense.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 40):
This Roberts is a whack job trying to make a name for himself, and he succeeded in that. You can bet if anything he claims was true, which I find very hard to believe that he even hooked up to the IFE, there would be immediate Fleet Campaign Directives and Airworthiness Directives addressing this bogus issue. Have seen no Bulletins, ADs or FCDs stating anything a aircraft being flown sideways by a passenger and corrective action to prevent that from happening in the future. This loon Roberts, did bring attention to himself and his company. Sad if takes him as a expert on these matters though.

"Sad if takes him as a expert on these matters though." Hey, it worked for Mary Schiavo.

Quoting Natflyer (Reply 48):
First of all a 738 does not have EICAS. The 738 is a reallly dumb airplane with a very archaic array of Master Caution lights instead. So this idiot claims all sorts of crap when in reality cabin temperature can't even be controlled from the cabin....

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 53):
It's true that messing with the IFE can actually cause a couple of EICAS messages to pop up,

What EICAS? The 737s don't have an EICAS as defined in the normal sense.

737tdi · Fri May 22, 2015 9:27 am

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 78):
The 737s don't have an EICAS as defined in the normal sense.

Hey, Bus, me, underneath. Butt head. Oh well, I will survive. Butt head. Well duh. The whole point of this post was to show you it was stupid. Have a nice day.

[Edited 2015-05-22 02:44:31]

wjcandee · Fri May 22, 2015 9:56 am

Quoting billreid (Reply 77):
We never thought 9-11 was possible did we?

Sure we did. There was even some fiction out there about it before it happened. We certainly knew that the WTC was a target after '93, and that they would be back. The head of corporate security for Morgan Stanley was obsessive about how the WTC was going to be attacked and when, because he knew it was coming, and "by the air" was absolutely a possibility on his radar. He knew what was going on the moment the first plane hit, and he died trying to help others after succesfully evacuating the Morgan Stanley people. (True that other responders and the media didn't know immediately what it was, but a lot of people in the business knew immediately what it was and who likely was behind it. One of those was one of my closest friends who was with the Port Authority police, and who went there knowing what it was when it happened and died evacuating people even though it wasn't his post and wasn't his tour.)

That we failed to defend against it was a failure by a number of people to take the possibility seriously. It wasn't like the flight schools weren't warned to look out for guys like this. It wasn't like htere weren't procedures in place to keep people paying cash at the last minute from getting aboard.

A single airlnie ticket agent could have caused one set of these guys to undergo extra scrutiny and blown the plot wide open, but they got intimidated. A single flight school's report could have blown open the plot, but the dots didn't get connected due to bureaucracy.

This was a high-concept, low-tech plot that wasn't disrupted for a lot of reasons, including a failure of imagination and political correctness.

[Edited 2015-05-22 03:05:25]

CALTECH · Fri May 22, 2015 12:11 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 77):
Whether or not this is bull or not. I am quite happy that light has been brought on hacking into systems.

Acars, etc is architecture that is in theory hackable. There needs to be work done to ensure nobody gets in who shouldn't.
After all, the US Gov report-ably did get to hack the centrifuges in Iran from the USA which leads to serious questions on what is truly possible in other industries.

We can sit back dumb, fat and happy, and say "Never, Never, Never, oh shit I cant believe that happened!" or we can be proactive and prevent what one day may be possible.

Yeah, let us go and waste time and money on something that is not possible, rather then putting the effort into real issues.

BoeingGuy · Fri May 22, 2015 4:22 pm

Quoting N62NA (Reply 9):
I don't remember the other thread a few months ago, but it seems very strange that the IFE system would be connected to the system that actually controls the flight systems. What reason for doing such an obviously dangerous thing would Boeing or Airbus allow such a thing to be done?

It's not connected. This whole thing is B.S.

LAXdude1023 · Fri May 22, 2015 5:57 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 16):
Google the guy, he's done is a lot and it's comical the FBI is just now catching up to this 'threat'. I think they hire specifically people that are good with computers. Guess they aren't hiring as of lately.

He may have said he did it, but he is full of it.

I can say that I flapped my ears and flew to Mars, that doesnt make it true.

golfradio · Fri May 22, 2015 6:42 pm

This guy is a real fruit cake. He is claiming he has hacked into the International Space Station and played with temperature settings. Also he has “investigated” the possibility of taking the Mars Curiosity rover “for a spin.”

He must be smoking some real good stuff.

http://www.popsci.com/alleged-airplane-hacker-also-messed-around-space-station

RDUDDJI · Fri May 22, 2015 8:59 pm

Quoting golfradio (Reply 84):
He must be smoking some real good stuff.

Well, he is from Colorado...

peterinlisbon · Sat May 23, 2015 12:53 am

Probably the worst thing he could do is change the tv channel of the guy sitting in front of him or set playboy tv as the default children's channel. The entertainment system has no reason to be connected to the autopilot or any other flight controls. Perhaps it gets a GPS position and other information about speed, height etc feed from the transponder, but there would be no way to send commands the other way.

cpqi · Wed May 27, 2015 2:44 pm

Quoting golfradio (Reply 84):

The mars rover. I saw that episode of the big bang theory. Hilarious

Btw. I flew FOR to GRU on Avianca yesterday but I couldnt control the flight using my iPhone 6 plus. Can I get a refund or do Avianca need to upgrade their Inflight entertainment system ?

JetBuddy · Wed May 27, 2015 2:49 pm

If the IFE systems aren't connected to the rest of the aircraft in any way. How do they read the altitude, heading, speed, location, outside air temperature and so on?

RDUDDJI · Wed May 27, 2015 5:03 pm

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 88):
If the IFE systems aren't connected to the rest of the aircraft in any way. How do they read the altitude, heading, speed, location, outside air temperature and so on?

Separate GPS and thermometer. Just like a car.

JetBuddy · Wed May 27, 2015 5:32 pm

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 89):
Separate GPS and thermometer. Just like a car.

Are you sure about that? That the IFE readings come from seperate instruments? Not instruments shared with other systems?

VC10er · Wed May 27, 2015 5:42 pm

"If you eliminate everything possible, then the impossible must be true"
-- Mr Spock

That would apply only if the aircraft did actually do the things the engineer said he did.

Of course there could be a Klingon tractor beam that made an airplane increase altitude by adding more thrust to one engine.

glbltrvlr · Wed May 27, 2015 6:21 pm

And if you read the latest story on Wired, they walk the original story back. The idiot ^h^h^h^h Chris Roberts who claimed he hacked the plane now says he was misquoted and Wired says that Robert's "sarcastic" remarks were misinterpreted.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/possibl...ssengers-hack-commercial-aircraft/

reltney · Wed May 27, 2015 10:21 pm

Funniest subject to date. Can't happen... Love to see all the theories about this silly story. Been flying ( not riding) FBW planes for 1/2 my 40 years as a pilot. Can't happen.....

I also selling oceanfront property in Arizona.... Lots of takers in this thread..

Nuffi said..

antoniemey · Fri May 29, 2015 7:50 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 91):
"If you eliminate everything possible, then the impossible must be true"
-- Mr Spock

Actual Quote: "An ancester of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." And that actually tracks back to Sherlock Holmes.

Aquila3 · Fri May 29, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting reltney (Reply 93):
I also selling oceanfront property in Arizona....

Very interesting. Love all those ocean waves in AZ. But why to buy it?
Won´t be enogh to hack your property certificates? You know, I am an IT expert, it can be done.

mandala499 · Sat May 30, 2015 5:31 am

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 88):
If the IFE systems aren't connected to the rest of the aircraft in any way. How do they read the altitude, heading, speed, location, outside air temperature and so on?

You know the answer to that.

We (including you) discussed this already at:
Computer Security Guy Pulled Off Flight By FBI (by nitepilot79 Apr 17 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Some data are streamed out of boxes on the aircraft for various users. ARINC429 (general, non critical use) and ARINC717 (blackboxes), IFE system has a server that reads these streams. That's it. No, you cannot hack the airplane back that way.

From that thread:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 14):
There is an ARINC feed to the IFE system used for the flight map display and other flight details... but that's about it (and that's probably how he can tap into data about the airplane streaming through)... its a one way feed. That goes to the IFE server or designated data bus gateway. From there, the wiring is separate from the essential databus/link for the flight controls and flight management. Even the power cabling is separate... it comes out of the IFE server or power gateway depending on the architecture you use.

Quoting sunilgupta (Reply 26):

If I give you only the TX relative to the source) and GND from an RS-232 cable, then you have a one-way serial feed. ARINC 429 is similar - separate TX and RX sides. Trying to send data on the TX would result in - absolutely nothing at best or temporarily stopping the transmission at worst. And lest you think that shutting down the TX will somehow screw up the airplane, it won't... it only means that you won't be getting data.

And:

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 43):
This. The IFE usually has access to information about location, speed, altitude, outside temperature and so on. So there's really no wonder this guy managed to pick up that data on his laptop by connecting it to the IFE box under the seat. But that doesn't mean the communication goes both ways.

glbltrvlr · Sat May 30, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 96):
Some data are streamed out of boxes on the aircraft for various users. ARINC429 (general, non critical use) and ARINC717 (blackboxes), IFE system has a server that reads these streams. That's it. No, you cannot hack the airplane back that way.

It's a bit like hacking the stock ticker in Times Square and claiming you broke into the stock exchange and changed some of the trade data.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net