A Boeing Code Leak Exposes Security Flaws Deep in a 787's Guts • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by brokenmachine » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

Lukeas14 wrote: post #97

usrusr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moving map could easily be fed from a separated consumer grade GPS. Same for all other metrics that the median passenger would care about (height, speed over ground), except for the ever-impressive outside temperature.

Consumer grade GPS actually won't work at 30,000+ feet at speeds the plane would be flying. This is to prevent someone from using the GPS system to steer a ballistic missile.

Clearly an exception could be made in this case. Systems that are part of a passenger jet could hardly be called consumer grade.

Incidentally, my GPS watch (Garmin) was working last time I was on a plane. It was bang on 700kph the whole time IIRC.

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

#182

Post by henvic » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:43 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #134

MegaButts wrote: post #4

I 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 b…

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…

I live near a big avenue that has 12 lanes (6 for each direction). There are two local lanes (that you can enter or exit only on a few places).

It has been this way probably for longer than I'm alive (30 years). There is a huge traffic light for the central lanes with a visual timer (like all others in this avenue: green horizontal lines that fade one by one when the signal is closing soon) and a smaller one for the local south lanes on a given crossing.

After some road paving, pedestrian crossings were made accessible, but for some stupid reason changed the behavior of the local traffic to a deadly combination. The speed limit is 60km/h for both central and local lanes (but people drive from anything between 50-100km/h).

Previously for 30+ years: everything turned green/red at the very same time. Since around some date before 1 January: central lanes turn green first. Smaller traffic light for the local lanes turns green after 10 seconds. Local lanes turn red a few seconds after the central too. In some places, it might create an incentive for you to swift to local and back (while hitting the gas pedal) after 30s-1min if you see traffic ahead and that you can't make it in the central lanes - not sure if I consider this a feature or a safety risk.

First time I passed by after the change I didn't stop (5.a.m. new year's eve) because I was watching the central lane semaphore and it was too late when I noticed they changed it. A second time, I had to hit the breaks.

During the first weeks after the changes, I saw a dozen or more cars either running the red light without stopping or after waiting for the [central] lane bright traffic lights go green.

Six months afterward, a reckless military driver killed a disabled woman in a wheelchair nearby. Probably unrelated but I'd be surprised if a related road design fault played a role.

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

#183

Post by ken » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:44 AM UTC

avgDev wrote: post #24

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"

Because by keeping it closed, it is safer. /s Most executives care about profits, security is simply not important. Even if an engineer explains that he needs more time to properly secure something, he will be asked to cut corners. Then, when shit hits the fan the executive will make a "pikachu face" and engineer will get fired for not properly implementing security.

From everything I've heard, this changed around 1997-2001 when Boeing merged with McDonnell Douglas and moved their headquarters 2000 miles away from their engineers. Old Boeing (the first 80 years) was run by aerospace engineers. New Boeing is not.

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

#184

Post by jakeogh » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 12:44 AM UTC

MFLoon wrote: post #155

3JPLW wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The ones who would benefit from it being open sourced are the passengers and plots. Your excuse is mitigatiable, release it picewise, starting with the customer facing code to trusted outside groups.

Ultimately your argument applies to all life or death code, even code we put inside our bodies, which as you mentioned, is also highly specific and specalized.

Because the bar is higher there should be less review is a contradiction.

APT (often not a State) conversations are pointless where plausible deniability is ignored as a desirable property.

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

#185

Post by jiggawatts » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

My $0.02: I came across Boeing's documentation for their "Boeing Update" solution. (think Windows Update, but for 787s).

It described in detail how the planes are updated with new firmware for the avionics, entertainment system, and the engines. I was shocked to learn that the 787 uses a lot of COTS kit internally, such as standard WiFi and Ethernet connections. There's an RJ-45 jack at the front landing gear accessible from the outside of the plane at any time!

It was by far the best technical document I have ever read, of any type, ever by at least a factor of ten. It was so good I read it like a novel. Twice. The security design was amazing. The PKI was amazing. The patch management was amazing. The network design was amazing. The documentation was amazing. My estimate was the the document alone would have cost multiple millions of dollars to write, not including any of the engineering work that went into the solution itself.

Boeing's engineers thought of everything. EVERYTHING. This scenario was catered for:

  - The plane is rented, not owned.
  - The IT department is outsourced.
  - Aircraft maintenance is outsourced.
  - The plane is currently on the ground in a country that is hostile.
  - A critical update has been released, without which the plane is unsafe to fly.

This is one of the scenarios that is literally spelled out, in plain English, and you're left completely certain that the update will be safe and secure despite all of that.

The security is just nuts. Everything uses explicit, hardcoded whitelists. TLS is bidirectional (clients are verified by the servers too). Patches must be quadruple signed by Boing, the parts manufacturer, the FAA, and the airline at a minimum to be acceptable. There are physical connection breakers and PIN codes on top of that. There are two nested VPNs on top of the already encrypted WiFi. It just goes on and on.

No part of it left me thinking they could have done better. I've used that document as a template for my own work, and it's the better for it.

Since then, I've insisted on flying 787s whenever possible, because I'm certain that the engineering effort that has gone into those things is about as good as humanly possible.

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

#186

Post by userbinator » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:07 AM UTC

blunte wrote: post #88

SilasX wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says “control” but doesn’t have a lot of specifics. In any case, for bad dudes that are pursuing you when people aren’t around, being able to shut down your car is just as bad as being able to control it.

Considering that cars are becoming more drive-by-wire, it's only a matter of time before a hacker will be able to actually steer a car or activate (or prevent activation of!) the brakes.

it's only a matter of time before a hacker will be able to actually steer a car or activate (or prevent activation of!) the brakes.

A Tesla is the perfect example. The fact that it has self-driving---I mean, "assisted cruise control"---naturally means a computer can take over the controls entirely.

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

#187

Post by profile53 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

jiggawatts wrote: post #185

My $0.02: I came across Boeing's documentation for their "Boeing Update" solution. (think Windows Update, but for 787s). It described in detail how the planes are updated with new firmware for the avionics, entertainment system, and the engines. I was shocked to learn that the 787 uses a lot of COTS kit internally, such as standard WiFi and Ethernet connections. There's an RJ-45 jack at the front landing gear accessi…

That sounds like a fascinating read -- do you happen to have a link to the document (or even a title for it) if it's publicly available? A preliminary Google search turned up nothing

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

#188

Post by mark-r » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #56

msbarnett wrote: post #23

> But Boeing counters that it has both "additional protection mechanisms" in the CIS/MS that would prevent its bugs from being exploited from the ODN, and another hardware device between the semi-sensitive IDN—where the CIS/MS is located—and the highly sensitive CDN. That second barrier, the company argues, allows only data to pass from one part of the network to the other, rather than the executable commands that wo…

Every exploit payload is comprised entirely of data, so I think you’re even giving them too much credit there... The thing that triggered me the most was that they got the engineers who wrote the code to test it, and report back that their own code was fine. From the sound of it they didn’t even test the vulnerability, they just did an external test, without specifically testing the segmentation controls or the compo…

They probably rely on network segmentation to keep the various components separated. If they consider the segmentation to be 100% effective, there'd be no need to do the kind of in-depth testing you advocate. I don't think it's justifiable to assume that segmentation doesn't have its own bugs that could be exploited.

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

#189

Post by akira2501 » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:10 AM UTC

jdavis703 wrote: post #134

MegaButts wrote: post #4

I 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 b…

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…

> I can tell you traffic lights are extremely insecure.

All municipal infrastructure tends to be. It's usually implemented to a cost and security considerations are completely absent.

You can bet that in any given city, all those street light control cabinets are keyed alike and the city has no true idea who has keys and who doesn't.

This exact problem applies to so many domains it's literally for lack of effort that they haven't been exploited yet.

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

#190

Post by brokenmachine » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:11 AM UTC

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 ?

The larger problem that the FAA doesn't have the capability to actually check Boeing's safety claims, so are forced to take their word for it.

Funding hasn't dramatically changed for the FAA, so won't it just be more of the same? "We've fixed the AOA sensor problems (again). Trust us, our engineers have deemed it safe!"