A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
1–10 of 277 posts
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#2Who thought that having any communication path from the passenger entertainment system to flight control was a good idea?
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#3It seems insane that all this code isn't just open source by default. No one's going to be able to rip off airlines by stealing it, you still need to have a company that, you know, sells planes.
Keeping it closed seems like a full admission that "there are probably a bunch of bugs in here and we don't want people to see them"
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#4I feel like this is the kind of thing that would've been completely ignored by everybody except for a handful of concerned hackers had it not been for the recent media outrage against Boeing (and in my opinion absolutely deserved).
I guess the question is how bad is it (from the article it's hard to tell exactly, but it sure doesn't sound great)? And another question is how many of our systems that we rely on, from bridges to airplanes to traffic lights, are just actually very insecure but either nobody notices or nobody exploits them?
That said, Boeing's abysmal PR and completely blanket "it's not our fault" statements make me assume the worst here. I have no idea how that company will ever earn back my trust. But maybe they have enough regulatory capture, much like Equifax, that they just don't care.
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#5Who thought that having any communication path from the passenger entertainment system to flight control was a good idea?
Connecting entertainment systems to flight control sounds very wrong. Connecting entertainment systems to flight management would be common; it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers.
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#6Who thought that having any communication path from the passenger entertainment system to flight control was a good idea?
Connecting entertainment systems to flight control sounds very wrong. Connecting entertainment systems to flight management would be common; it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers.
> it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers.
Would you agree that this logical boundary should be physically enforced? Such as an opto-isolator?
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Connecting entertainment systems to flight control sounds very wrong. Connecting entertainment systems to flight management would be common; it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers.
> it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers. Would you agree that this logical boundary should be physically enforced? Such as an opto-isolator?
No fancy circuitry is needed. Just use one fiber. I suspect that 100BASE-T can pull this off with one pair and some hackery. RS232 should work work only one direction connected.
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers. Would you agree that this logical boundary should be physically enforced? Such as an opto-isolator?
No fancy circuitry is needed. Just use one fiber. I suspect that 100BASE-T can pull this off with one pair and some hackery. RS232 should work work only one direction connected.
[deleted]
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Connecting entertainment systems to flight control sounds very wrong. Connecting entertainment systems to flight management would be common; it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers.
> it should be one-way communication (entertainment can only read FMS data, not send any), for the purpose of driving the moving map displays for passengers. Would you agree that this logical boundary should be physically enforced? Such as an opto-isolator?
Used to be done with a literal diode.
Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts
#10Who thought that having any communication path from the passenger entertainment system to flight control was a good idea?
Article feels like it's focused on breaching the critical systems rather than just trying to kernel panic/overflow/etc them. My concern would be that if you could mess with the ODN such that it could crash or disrupt the data flow of either the other two systems I suppose you might brick the plane (because they refer to a "bridge")? Who know though, maybe there are redundant systems that can handle multiple critical failures, article is so light on details.