191–200 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying.... rewrite it in Rust?
Or, Ada, no? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ironically, I recall reading about a mid-flight incident where the procedure to bring things back involved turning the entire plane off and on again.
In a critical situation this is impossible, though.
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…
Do you have the knowledge required in order to judge that?
> 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.
Have you compared it to the other Boeing airplanes? To Airbus airplanes? Bombardier? Embraer? The new Mitsubishi airplane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drake owns a 767 [1], and the founders of Google own one [2]. A couple members of the Saudi Arabian royal family are reported to own 777s [3]. It's not inconceivable that an individual could own a 787, though I can't find any reference to one yet. I think, though, that the sort of person who owns one doesn't tend to want to tinker with it. You just hire someone to fly it, and know that it's always available. The diff…
>Likewise, I don't know anyone who owns a car who has loaned it to a researcher to analyze it for design flaws Oh, tons of people! There's a whole industry around hacking cars, most of those people aren't the kind of researchers that do con talks though.
(I'm an automotive enthusiast myself, although I'm more into the "old school" non-computer-controlled stuff. Mostly because it's simpler and inherently resistant to remote hackers.)
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…
We have Teslas that don't have anywhere near this kind of security or redundancy "autopiloting" themselves right now on highways.
People seem to be ok with that because it's a car and not a plane. But the way I see it, there's thousands of those cars on the roads, and a software bug across the fleet could cause just as much damage as a plane crash.
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"
Given that airplanes haven’t been hacked yet, security by obscurity seems to have been working...
If I owned a 787, would I be likely to have the rights to lend it to security researchers to test the exploits, or would it be prohibited through a contract that Boeing requires customers to agree to? Is there a reason that an individual would own a 787 for personal use— eg - is it a plane that people change the interior layout for use as a private jet, or are these planes all tied up in commercial use? If I owned on…
It would require recertifications
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"
There is more than 1 company that sells planes and writes plane software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A statement like that would also be corporate suicide. Imagine the lawsuits.
Would it really be worse than having a government agency forcibly ground your planes for safety reasons?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm in the USA. This particular incident happened in Washington, DC. I also saw a driver do this once in Palo Alto in Silicon Valley. Anyways, even if lights are too big to climb up you can put on a yellow vest and get a flashing light on your van and people wouldn't really think twice. Here's some photo evidence from Palo Alto, CA, USA: https://imgur.com/a/NxmphG6
Traffic lights here are nothing like that.