Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

btr.pm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#61

Post by PeachPlum »

All fun and games until someone remembers that there is no air gap on Boeing's in-flight network

> There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places where they are

Boeing's Lori Gunter

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/hackers-commandeer-new-planes-...

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#62

Post by Test2123 »

Beside a scan is good or bad, how would they go about finding the source? There wont be an IT officr at landing collecting logs/mac address from any wireless card. I've scanned those systems many times and nothing ever happened - i am just pointing out to the issue that catching a real attacker it is hard not just technically but in practice

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#63

Post by zero_one_one »

madshiva wrote: post #59
susi22 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

229 dead from an overheated entertainment system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

faulty wiring in the cockpit after the entertainment system started to overheat. electronic device don't start to do arc wiring with a portscan. Stop spreading bad info. Even if in any other dimension it can be possible, it's the responsability of who design the system for protect against this.

Agree with the last line 100% - although the same argument can just as easily be applied to any and all systems in any and all arenas. The fact that the potential exists leaves a margin for error, and a window for trouble, which is what the post is about. If the potential for failure in a system is there, it needs to be addressed and the effects nullified or mitigated.

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#64

Post by willvarfar »

tptacek wrote: post #58
willvarfar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You or I would have completely different sets of wires. Sadly, it seems they usually share wires and are separated by firewalls. There's been lots of CCC and defcon talks about hacking in-flight systems. Googling "panasonic ife hack" gets plenty of hits, as does "Chris Roberts" who is a hacker who has made some pretty big claims about actually really hacking planes in flight and other stupid things. And there are art…

I don't know anyone who believes those claims, which have become a kind of shared joke in the software security community.

Roberts? Yes.

Shared wires? That's fact, right?

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#65

Post by tyingq »

tptacek wrote: post #40
susi22 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

229 dead from an overheated entertainment system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111

Nothing you do to the IFE is going to take down the plane.

I agree it's not likely, but there can be some rare cascading scenarios. Like pilots may update electronic flight bag data via an onboard network which is separate from the entertainment network...but shares bandwidth with the same satellite transciever/antenna. Your port scan hogs the bandwidth somehow, resulting in somewhat less fresh data for tarmac conditions, etc. It's not likely, but it's possible.

And it doesn't have to be a dramatic life threatening situation to incur a boatload of financial liability. See this for example: http://nypost.com/2017/08/30/unruly-passenger-ordered-to-pay...

The other reply regarding the overheated IFE is another unlikely, but possible, scenario.

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#66

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

It's really quite useful. I changed my zsh prompt a while back to show me the status of the internet connection on board, remaining time, flight number and from where to where the plane is going.

https://twitter.com/mitsuhiko/status/867043286128656384

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#67

Post by forapurpose »

bonzini wrote: post #42
S_A_P wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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 o…

> 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.

Is that based on expectation, hope, or knowledge?

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#68

Post by zero_one_one »

There's a lot of posts mentioning that a scan shouldn't cause any trouble, however there's no way of knowing how the services are configured on the other end, or how they are set up to respond to certain packet types, or how the server will respond to certain data within those packets if said data does not conform to expected lengths etc. A lot of assumptions are made that non-conforming data will be ignored in a closed proprietary system, and that the system will handle all packets across all protocols gracefully. Anyone who says sending packets to a port running an unknown service (or implementation of said service) can't cause any issues with the service is throwing quite a wide net. Running a port scan or trying to interface with any of the systems on an aircraft while it's in flight without knowing how the systems operate or interact with each other is incredibly irresponsible, if not downright stupid.

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#69

Post by Neracked »

throwawayjava wrote: post #11
theWatcher37 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what does that say about the wisdom of port scanning a machine your life is currently depending on?

If that plane ever plans to enter US or EU airspace, there is a literal air-gap between the IFE and the flight systems.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued special conditions for the certification of the 787 to deal with the fact that there is no "literal airgap" in recent airliners even though that was initially mandated by the airworthiness standards:

> These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787-8 airplane. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The architecture of the Boeing Model 787-8 computer systems and networks may allow access to external systems and networks

[1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2007/12/28/E7-2507...

Re: Boeing 787 In Flight Entertainment System Security fun

#70

Post by tjr »

forapurpose wrote: post #67
bonzini wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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. Is that based on expectation, hope, or knowledge?

In-flight entertainment would be categorized as DO-178B Level E software and DO-254 Level E hardware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B#Software_level

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-254

By definition, it should have no impact on "safety, aircraft operation, or crew workload".

Mistakes can happen, but this is what is aimed for.

Post reply on HN