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

261–270 of 277 posts

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

#261

Post by microcolonel »

isostatic wrote: post #257
microcolonel wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> tampering with the bulbs (for example swapping out all the greens with reds). Traffic authorities use coloured bulbs where you are? Weird. Where I am, as far as I'm aware the colours always come from a gel in front of the lamp. Furthermore, the red lamp holder is larger than the green and amber ones.

Don't you have LED lights?

I think they still use gels on white LEDs for many of them. I've had a look at a few that at least did that. It's possible they've switched to dedicated colour phosphors, or that the majority of them have been that way for a while.

I think many of the lights here are also retrofits from incandescent traffic lights.

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

#262

Post by jdavis703 »

brokenmachine wrote: post #200
jdavis703 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wow, yeah those are super flimsy. Looks like some DIY job with plumbing pipes! Traffic lights here are nothing like that.

I hopped on Google Street view near the central core of Sydney, and it looks like at least in certain areas you all also have lights like that are close to the ground and easily accessible. I'm guessing in more suburban or rural areas the signals are higher up (which makes them easier to see from a distance while driving faster).

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

#263

Post by airstrike »

jacquesm wrote: post #231
Moru wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The whole idea that you could not open source it with such restrictions that a competitor could not use the code is so strange. It is perfectly possible to open source code in such a way that you can't use it for free in your own commercial product without a license.

The whole idea that by open sourcing you will automatically turn their code into code that maximizes social prosperity (safer? cheaper planes? doubtful) is so strange.

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

#264

Post by smileysteve »

kps wrote: post #2

Who thought that having any communication path from the passenger entertainment system to flight control was a good idea?

My thoughts when I realized I had a usb c phone and they had just implemented usb b; or when a device OR a whole row went out. An alcatel tablet and a mount is cheap; these are easily replaceable, etc.

Also, makes upgrades to new processors and better displays easier. Honestly, with an OLED screen, if there was a good mount on the back of the headrest, I'd rather watch movies on my screen.

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

#265

Post by b_tterc_p »

bsg75 wrote: post #72
b_tterc_p wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having met a fair number of top executives I don’t feel this is true. People at the top do care quite a bit, and put personal pride into their company being good. But all low level decisions are made downstream, and middle managers are far less personally invested. Reactions to bad press are reactions. Hard to say whether it reflects anyone’s reality.

Leadership starts at the top. If middle management is making bad decisions, the fault rests with their superiors.

Hmm sounds reasonable but I think not. Management is hard and information is imperfect to all actors. With a god like view you would probably conclude that there’s a variety of people who should be removed from an org for its health and performance. The top may be accountable for things, but I wouldn’t think it’s correct to blame them personally

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

#266

Post by AstralStorm »

taneq wrote: post #239
tyingq wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searched a bit more, and found this from 2018: "Experts are still not sure of the root cause of the malfunction in the data unit, but subsequent software changes by Airbus mean any similar error in the future won’t lead to another terrifying nosedive." https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/terr... Sounds like I guessed right.

Wow, "we don't know what went wrong but we're certain we fixed it!" That's nice and convincing...

Nah. It's more like "we've added a permanent workaround".

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

#267

Post by kaonashi »

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…

They engineered a marketing system that allows Boeing to price discriminate, one which artificially makes the plane worse. That should tell you everything you need to know about what's happened to Boeing's engineering culture and who's running the company.

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

#268

Post by WalterBright »

jquery wrote: post #260
WalterBright wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

True, it's not part of the certification process, but I do know that modern jets airframes are made to be as... um... "flexible"* (? searching for the word here...) as possible in catastrophic situations. An older airframe probably would have disintegrated under the same forces. Luck and good fortune also played a huge role of course. What the pilots did was unconscionably neglectful. CFIT is often (usually?) fatal f…

> as possible in catastrophic situations

That isn't really something engineers can design to. What happens is the aerodynamics group calculates the maximum loads on the airplane. This is increased by 50% and called the "ultimate load", and the parts are all designed to not break up to that load.

Parts stronger than that are overweight, and weight is the enemy of all airplanes.

After parts are designed, they go through an independent "stress" group which verifies that the parts meet the strength requirements.

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

#269

Post by madeofpalk »

taneq wrote: post #239
tyingq wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Searched a bit more, and found this from 2018: "Experts are still not sure of the root cause of the malfunction in the data unit, but subsequent software changes by Airbus mean any similar error in the future won’t lead to another terrifying nosedive." https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/terr... Sounds like I guessed right.

Wow, "we don't know what went wrong but we're certain we fixed it!" That's nice and convincing...

Well I mean, there was two problems with that flight:

1) There was erroneous data

2) The erroneous data caused the plane to suddenly nosedive

2 was fixed - it's known why it dived and they fixed that from happening again. They still don't know what caused 1.

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

#270

Post by blackflame7000 »

gsnedders wrote: post #256
stefco_ wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also the A320/737NG typically fly more shorter segments so spend proportionally more time in the critical phases of flight.

It also speaks highly of the level of engineering and testing required to determine the limitations of each an every part that must be maintained for safe flight.
Post reply on HN