411–420 of 459 posts
Makes you wonder why there were no plane hijacks since 9/11. TSA does not seem a credible prevention mechanism given how easy it is to go around it.
What the US lacks in cybersec, it tends to make up for with IRL pew pews...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you get to sit in the cockpit too?
Yes you could sit in the third seat, the jumper seat, with this. I feel like one could already sneak something malicious through TSA (this already happens and if you attempt it enough times eventually you'll get through), but being able to sit in the freaking cockpit behind the pilots who assume you're another pilot is CRAZY.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "airlines" that are using something like FlyCASS are themselves smaller operations and typically running on razor thin margins (if not just unprofitable and wishfully thinking that money will suddenly appear and make their business viable). Literally everything on their backend is held together with more duct tape than the average small business. You could be an "airline" by purchasing a couple of older airliners…
I'm curious why a small cargo airline would even need to use the KCM system. If they don't fly passengers, then wouldn't their crew access the aircraft from the cargo ramp (with a SIDA badge) and never need to enter the passenger terminal/sterile area?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant. Around here, people are clamoring for a judge to be recalled because she is on top of rights for defendants. A recent one I watched on Zoom was a prosecution motion to revoke bail: Prosecutor: "Because blah blah blah, and in addition the defendant shows no signs of taking responsibility for his actions, we…
People want that judge to be recalled? So not only are people opposed to trial by jury, they also want the judge to be biased towards the prosecution? Why? Just the usual "tough on crime" dogwhistles?
This shows that anyone with the slightest motivation to do harm would have zero difficulty replaying 911. The reason there aren't more terrorist attacks isn't because various security agencies around the world protect us from them. It's because there are extremely few terrorists.
> zero difficulty replaying 911. The attacks of September 11th 2001 are fundamentally not reproducible irrespective of whether there is _any_ security screening at airports. The default assumption before that morning was that a hijacked plane would fly around for a bit, then land. The default assumption afterwards is that it will be crashed if a hijacker is allowed to gain control, so the calculus on passenger interv…
How so? The delay between the hijacking and the crashes in the buildings for both planes were around 40 minutes... even if there were jet fighters ready to go at the time, the lack of knowledge of the hijacking being in progress for much of this time and the short delay make this kind of attack still feasible.
What was actually improved our chances to avoid such attacks are the limited access to the cockpit and processes pilots must follow in case of hijacking.
The measures at the airport are to limit the risks of hijackings to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume by 1948 you mean Israel’s declaration and subsequent war of independence. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote - Britain was the architect of this part of the Middle East and is responsible for every border drawn by all nations there. This was fallout of the Ottoman Empire choosing to go to war against Western Europe and being defeated (after hundreds of years of inco…
Overt U.S. meddling began (and in a very significant way) in 1956 with the Suez Crisis. The US had nothing to do with Israel forming beyond being part of the UN vote True for the U.S. at the government -- but not for the U.S. as a country. One of the earliest major Zionist associations (the Federation of Zionist Societies - a forerunner of the modern ZOA) was formed in New York in 1897. The movement would continue to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the guy that created a simple one-page website to make fake boarding passes, only to get into controlled areas of airports (not to actually fly). 'd
I don't remember any case over the last 5 years or so TSA even asked me for a boarding pass. I think they gave up on that entirely. They do ask for an ID (and take a picture now - looks like bots are better at matching faces than TSA agents) but until you get to the boarding nobody now even looks at the boarding pass, so anything before the gate is freely accessible to anyone with an ID.
The TSA's response here is childish and embarrassing, although perhaps unsurprising given the TSA's institutional disinterest in actual security. It's interesting to see that DHS seemingly (initially) handled the report promptly and professionally, but then failed to maintain top-level authority over the fix and disclosure process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the managers involved here can't understand why this is a huge deal Was it a huge deal though?
It was the most humongous deal if we talk about IT security. SQL injection shouldn't be a thing in today's IT landscapes. And here we are giving everyone and their mother admin access to a database where the attackers can literally get not only on a plane but also in the fucking Cockpit. So yes, big big deal.
You can easily get on a plane, you buy a ticket to board it.
People try and succeed to get weapons through TSA checkpoints. I don't know what the idea is though. If you want to shoot and kill someone, do it at the security checkpoint, as happened at Domodedovo. People hijacked planes because the media covered it. You could also hijack busses. I don't know. What is the threat model?
Bag handlers smuggle drugs. I don't know. Airports are fairly porous.
I don't think this little SQL hack gets you into a cockpit. I suppose I could also buy an ordinary ticket, change in the bathroom into pilot clothes, and then bluff my way in. It should be obvious what personal facts about me make that easier for me than for someone else.
Do you see what I mean? This isn't a big deal. It's fun to be dramatic about that's for sure. IMO the large number of high drama personalities in the "security" field - when you are a customer, and on the other side, the technical person is high drama - is harmful to security goals.