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

#201

Post by forumSliding » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:45 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…

Your account is 8 months old, with only a handful of comments made in the past month.

I'm not saying that it's certain that you're a suspicious commenter, but I can say I'm uncertain about enough to raise an eyebrow at this particular comment, granted that it's just absolutely gushing praise and amounts to little more than hearsay.

It's nice that you read and enjoyed a technical document, but we're talking about a really big company with a lot riding on this plane, deep pockets, and a motive to throw some weight behind tactics to reassure the public and engender trust, especially among geeks where much shade has been thrown at the technical aspects of MCAS and the way Boeing handled the classification of the 737 MAX as just a newer, better 737.

The 787 is its flagship commercial product, so it's probably pretty good, but it's kinda weird to see new accounts acting like this. I'd have preferred that there be someone with more HN user history backing this praise.

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

#202

Post by gthtjtkt » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:47 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…

> 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.

Well... some completely random stranger with no credibility and no supporting documentation said it on the internet, so it must be true.

The 787 is the greatest technical achievement of mankind, bar none!

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

#203

Post by 51Cards » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:49 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.

My cell phone GPS works at cruise on an airplane. I can't attest to how location accurate it is but the altitude and speed are usually right on with what the infotainment system says.

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

#204

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:51 AM UTC

jquery wrote: post #167

FDSGSG wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That one was stupidity-related.

I was always irrationally nervous flying into SFO, worried about precisely what ended up happening. We should all be glad the plane mostly held together through the cartwheel, saving many lives.

I can confidently assert that no airframe is designed with cartwheeling in mind. Nor hitting trees/buildings/cliffs.

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

#205

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

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"

Keeping it closed is pretty much the default behavior.

One problem with opening the source code is then Boeing would have to dedicate a team of engineers to deal with every armchair crank claiming the software is going to crash the airplane.

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

#206

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

passivepinetree wrote: post #60

volkk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dont think i know of any airline company that prides themselves on the code they wrote?

I used to work for an airline as a software engineer (different from a company that makes airplanes, but you brought up airlines, so I think it's valid). We definitely attempted to write the best code as we could given the circumstances, but we had issues doing so: * airline margins are razor thin, so salaries are comparatively low, which means * the best employees frequently left for other opportunities, causing * m…

> I used to work for an airline as a software engineer (different from a company that makes airplanes, but you brought up airlines, so I think it's valid).

Airframe software is a totally different ballgame than airline operations management software.

When I worked on the 757 on flight critical systems (stab trim) the engineers I worked with took great pride in making the designs as good as possible. Nobody wanted to sign off on a design that they'd get a phone call on years later as being the cause of a pile of dead bodies.

I personally am proud that none of the stuff I worked on or any of the guys I knew worked on has been a factor in any incidents I've ever heard of.

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

#207

Post by AmericanChopper » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 2:06 AM UTC

mark-r wrote: post #188

AmericanChopper wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that seems to be what their attitude is. I have a couple of major issues with that though.

1. Relying on segmentation to protect vulnerable components is not a reasonable standard operating procedure. Segmentation is supposed to be an additional layer of protection, you’re also supposed to secure individual components.

2. It seems as though the researcher believed there may have been a way to bypass some of the segmentation (the segmentation between the medium-sensitive network and the highly-sensitive network). The article kinda implies that they didn’t test that layer of segmentation, that they only tested the most external layer (the segmentation between the non-sensitive network and the medium-sensitive network).

The whole response comes across as dismissive spin, that they hope will be consumed by people who don’t have a particularly sophisticated understanding of network/application security.

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

#208

Post by Rediscover » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

skissane wrote: post #160

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.)

Yes. I worked on some of what is being discussed (main thread), and there were many extra pieces of documentation that I had to prepare declaring ITAR concerns.

(ex-Boeing, OS+support code for embedded LRUs)

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

#209

Post by scrollaway » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 3:00 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…

> My estimate was the the document alone would have cost multiple millions of dollars to write

I get that technical documentation can be incredibly good, but even picturing the most thorough and well-written documentation book I can, what could possibly make it worth "millions of dollars to write" when writing an actual book hardly can top $100k even by going all out on expenses?

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

#210

Post by mayneack » Thu, Aug 08, 2019, 3:19 AM UTC

petee wrote: post #196

ummonk wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that airplanes haven’t been hacked yet, security by obscurity seems to have been working...

Survivorship bias? Only having just learned that term, it sure seems to apply...of all the planes that have returned and landed safely, none seem to have been hacked; but there is no proof that a hack couldn't have already brought down a plane

Well, the complete set of modern crashes is relatively small, and the set of crashes with unknown causes is very small, so the number of crashes tied to hacks is probably even smaller.