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

A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 277 posts

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#151

Post by hexane360 »

winter_blue wrote: post #133
fdhfqbu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done security auditing of ADA and C avionics code. (including for DAL-A components). As a language, I'd take Rust any day (in terms of security/robustness properties). However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments.

> However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments. I don't know about Rust, but LLVM isn't mature? Nearly ever program running in the Apple ecosystem was compiled using LLVM. Swift is compiled using LLVM. Since Xcode 4.2, Clang is the default compiler. So iOS and macOS apps are built with LLVM. I'd also wager a guess that Apple uses Clang to compile key…

Another factor is that Rust is testing LLVM's codepaths in ways that Clang rarely does. A lot of bugs in LLVM have been uncovered through Rust.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#152

Post by hbosch »

bsaul wrote: post #137

Don't people here think that if boeing ever get over the current set of investigation without collapsing they're going to create the safest plane ever designed ? With the amount of scrutiny they're encountering at the moment i have the feeling every single dark corner is going to be under the spotlight.. Or is the reason too deep, the whole corporate structure too rotten at the core, that there's no hope ?

Well, either that is true or the inherently flawed plane design that has been patched with software kills another 346 human beings. I would personally prefer to sit this experiment out for the rest of my life.

Unfortunately, airlines don't make it easy for me to "opt out" of flying on specific airplanes.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#153

Post by brokenmachine »

mikeash wrote: post #100
jquery wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have no idea how that company will ever earn back my trust Millions of ongoing safe flights? I dunno. I feel like they're getting savaged (which they deserve... to a point... but we will cross that point I am pretty sure, if we haven't already...) The thousands (tens of thousands?) of safe flights per day don't make the news. Boeing has been a pioneer in the safest form of transportation in existence. Mentour Pilo…

Boeing probably doesn’t have the ability to ground their fleet with legal force, but if they said, “these planes aren’t safe, don’t fly them until we can investigate and fix,” most airlines would listen and I don’t think the FAA could somehow block this.

A statement like that would also be corporate suicide. Imagine the lawsuits.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#154

Post by Moru »

jacquesm wrote: post #118
airstrike wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about open sourcing, not ripping off copyrighted code. Would depend on licensing but in any event, once you start showing how the sausage is made others can find inspiration to develop their own code, at which point you can start getting into a costly legal battle over whose idea it originally was, whether certain algorithms are protected, etc... My point is simply that there's no upside for Boeing to o…

You've got that backwards. There is no downside. Software does not an airplane make, even though there are now attempts to use software to fix airplane design issues. You wrote 'Airbus' as though Boeings R&D in their software would somehow magically translate into an advantage for Airbus. But Airbus should also open source their code, and for exactly the same reason. In fact Airplane certification institutions such a…

But Airbus has been doing the computer aided flight longer than Boeing so mabe it would be more push back from airbus to not give Boeing any free code?

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#155

Post by MFLoon »

3JPLW wrote: post #87
jakeogh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad actors (APT's especially) dont want it open sourced.

Said bad actors probably already have access to the source — or could get it if they wanted it.

I don't think this is a realistic depiction of the threat model of people who would hack commercial jets. Sure, state sponsored APTs probably could access it if they wanted, but none of them are in the business of crashing passenger planes. Maybe tracking them or grounding them or stuff like that, but they already have those capabilities through economic or bureaucratic or military power. The "bad actors" of concern here are the same types that have brought down passenger planes before - small, independent groups or lone wolves. And they are the ones who would benefit from the code being open sourced.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#156

Post by johannes1234321 »

winter_blue wrote: post #133
fdhfqbu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done security auditing of ADA and C avionics code. (including for DAL-A components). As a language, I'd take Rust any day (in terms of security/robustness properties). However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments.

> However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments. I don't know about Rust, but LLVM isn't mature? Nearly ever program running in the Apple ecosystem was compiled using LLVM. Swift is compiled using LLVM. Since Xcode 4.2, Clang is the default compiler. So iOS and macOS apps are built with LLVM. I'd also wager a guess that Apple uses Clang to compile key…

MacOS and related don't run the airplane. Pilots have an iPad for some checklists and other things where "have you tried turning it off and on again" works as failure prcedure. If a failure, caused by a compiler bug leading to an overflow in a rare flight situation, happens on an airplane system a reboot is not really the option you want to depend on.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#157

Post by monocasa »

btown wrote: post #135
fdhfqbu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done security auditing of ADA and C avionics code. (including for DAL-A components). As a language, I'd take Rust any day (in terms of security/robustness properties). However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments.

> However, the rust/LLVM compiler pipeline is nowhere near mature enough for use in high-criticality environments. I love Rust, but I wouldn't want it to fly a plane I'm on. For instance, here's a bug in LLVM that Rust developers happened to discover - before they disabled their use of the buggy features, Rust/LLVM was producing _numerically incorrect_ code. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54878#issuecomment…

The Ada compilers have their own cute bugs like this too. That's what happens with a niche language with relatively few users.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#158

Post by johannes1234321 »

brokenmachine wrote: post #148
jdavis703 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you traffic lights are extremely insecure. Last month there was a traffic light that was turned the wrong way, such that it was impossible to tell if the light was green. So I climbed the poll and turned it to the right direction. Another fellow pedastrian thanked me. A bad actor could do anything from a DOS (positioning it the wrong direction) to tampering with the bulbs (for example swapping out all the…

All the traffic lights here in Australia are honking great big metal poles that you'd need some serious equipment to reposition. Swapping bulbs would be a big operation too. What country are you in that has rotatable traffic lights?

Even if the traffic lights can't be rotsteted it's relatively trivial for an bad actor to break it in some way and hanging up your permanent green light at night and then watch the chaos.

As gp said: The amount of such bad actors is low. And gains from an individual hack are low and there's a chance of getting caught.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#159

Post by stefco_ »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #104
jquery wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have no idea how that company will ever earn back my trust Millions of ongoing safe flights? I dunno. I feel like they're getting savaged (which they deserve... to a point... but we will cross that point I am pretty sure, if we haven't already...) The thousands (tens of thousands?) of safe flights per day don't make the news. Boeing has been a pioneer in the safest form of transportation in existence. Mentour Pilo…

If you look at the Top 7 safest airplanes in terms of accidents per hours flown you get: 1) Airbus A340 - No crashes 2) Boeing 777 - 5 crashes, 2 intentional (Malaysia x2), 1 engine-related (Rolls-Royce problem), 2 pilot-error (Asiana/Dubai) - [Thanks fishywang] 3) Boeing 747-8 4) Boeing 737-NG 5) Boeing 767 6) Airbus A320 7) Boeing 757

Also worth pointing out that there are 4 times as many 777s as there are A340s. Doesn’t mean A340 isn’t great, just that the odds of no accidents go up with fewer flight hours.

The popularity of A320 and 737-NG makes their safety records particularly impressive.

Re: A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts

#160

Post by skissane »

sushisource wrote: post #3

It 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"

Would publicly releasing the source code to avionics software for civilian aircraft pose an export control/ITAR issue? (I imagine there must be some degree of overlap between civilian avionics software and military avionics software, and the former may be a good starting point for building the later.)
Post reply on HN