Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#91

Post by pyre »

ghshephard wrote: post #86
pyre wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find it surprising whatsoever that United Airlines does not want him flying on their planes. This is more a function of the airlines just being stupid though. There was a case where an Arabic family was taken off of an airplane because on of the teenagers asked how safe it was to sit in a seat next to the wing. The FBI cleared them, but the airline refused to allow them back on a plane.

Robert's exact statement was, "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)" I.E. He was talking about directly interfering with the planes EICAS system. What if he'd joked about running a GPS, or VOR ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range ) jammer during final approach? At what point do the authorities decide they…

The issue is that the authorities did have a talk with him, but the airlines have deemed that the authorities' assurances are inadequate. That was the portion of the example that I was referring to. The airlines have said "FBI says this guy is ok? Screw that, don't let him on anyways!"

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#92

Post by keevie »

ghshephard wrote: post #50
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. I'd bet that a fair number of the people who thoughtfully answer that question give an answer that is calculated to produce the least amount of hassle for themselves, even if they know that their l…

It also has the peripheral advantage of ensuring that you never carry a package for someone else, and that you are leery about carrying luggage/bags packed by someone else.

Really? I would have no problem bringing a wrapped gift from a friend or colleague, the contents of which I do not know on a plane. And lying about packing my bags myself.

In fact, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that...it's a constant and (imo) fair assumption of mine that my friends are not trying to kill me.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#93

Post by pla3rhat3r »

csirac2 wrote: post #2

We live in shitty knee-jerk reactionary times, but did anyone else see his tweet at the time? At best, it seemed in poor taste. At worst, the outcome seems depressingly predictable. I don't know what I'm trying to contribute here, except that whilst I have no problem with EFF working on this, their article here seems overly shrill and over-reactionary at how shrill and over-reactionary the airline was in their respon…

This is the world we live in. Question, detain, and let the courts handle the interpretation of the law. Whether it's the NSA, FBI, CIA, it matters very little to them. After 9/11 we as a country wrote them a blank check. And while this guy shouldn't have taken to twitter to say planes can be hacked pretty easily, it's not shocking to see what happened after he did.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#94

Post by grkvlt »

narsil wrote: post #3

The tweet in question: https://twitter.com/Sidragon1/status/588433855184375808

And the best response to the tweet is from Matt Blaze:

> "I'm on an Amtrak train, which, for the record, I'm pretty sure I can't take over via the wifi." - https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/589153697910935552

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#95

Post by lawnchair_larry »

jhildings wrote: post #24
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't exactly a new phenomenon - even before 9/11, a careless joke at baggage check-in ("Did you pack your own luggage today, Sir?" - "No, my wife probably put a bomb in there.") would often result in the joke not being recognised or treated as such. Said jokester gets taken to one side, scrutinised by the boys in blue, and eventually told that they "will not be flying today, sir." In the age of Twitter, such hi…

The baggage questions is so stupid, IF you wanted to do some evil with things packed, WHY would you say something that isn't the "right" answer to them?

That isn't really the purpose of the question. It's so you can't say "that isn't mine, I have no idea how it got there" when they find contraband.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#96

Post by tripzilch »

Reminds me of this 2012 story about two British tourists being barred from their flights for tweeting they were going to "destroy America" (slang for "having a blast"):

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16810312

I wonder how they connect the tweets to the persons? Do they actually actively search Twitter for keywords, and when they hit they dig into it until they have found a name, which they check against their passengers lists? There's probably some shortcuts they can use, but it still seems weird to me.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#97

Post by [deleted] »

ghshephard wrote: post #50
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Every time they ask me that question - I do a quick mental checklist, always mention that my luggage did leave my control when placed in the boot of the cab - which they always understand is an acceptable loss of control. I'd bet that a fair number of the people who thoughtfully answer that question give an answer that is calculated to produce the least amount of hassle for themselves, even if they know that their l…

It also has the peripheral advantage of ensuring that you never carry a package for someone else, and that you are leery about carrying luggage/bags packed by someone else.

[deleted]

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#98

Post by grkvlt »

keevie wrote: post #92
ghshephard wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also has the peripheral advantage of ensuring that you never carry a package for someone else, and that you are leery about carrying luggage/bags packed by someone else.

Really? I would have no problem bringing a wrapped gift from a friend or colleague, the contents of which I do not know on a plane. And lying about packing my bags myself. In fact, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that...it's a constant and (imo) fair assumption of mine that my friends are not trying to kill me.

Heh. I had a moment of sudden panic when a security agent at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv asked me if I had packed everything myself, and I remembered I had a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah gift from a client in my case. So I said 'No.'

Then, with images of airport holding cells and enhanced interrogation jumping to mind, I hastily explained what I meant. Interestingly, the agent was happy not to unwrap and open the present, and just inspected the rest of the contents...

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#99

Post by freehunter »

tptacek wrote: post #51
droopybuns wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person was an absolute clown. I think the infosec community needs to grow up. We all hate when legislators use the word 'cyber.' Title 18 is a mess. The new computer crime proposals are worse. Every couple of years we get the occasional story about licensing security professionals. It is because of exactly this type of clownish behavior. There are consequences for the attention seeking type of behavior. This idi…

Every response to this I've seen from "the infosec community" (my connection to that community tends sharply towards vulnerability researchers, since that's my background) has been critical of this guy. I can't think of anyone I've seen cheerleading him. I've even seen rare glimmers of people criticizing EFF for trying to make a cause celebre of him. But you're taking things too far by casting aspersions on all of "s…

I've seen a lot of people cheering for him. I've seen the man in person at various cons, and I think he's brilliant. The problem is, what are we supposed to do? Responsible disclosure: companies don't give a shit and will hide it. Full disclosure: you get sued and thrown in jail. Stunt hacking disclosure: people get scared even though it's easy to do. People demand something be done about it. The person who did the disclosure is alternatively viewed as a hero or a villain, but the thing is people are talking about the issue.

What's going to get people talking about security? "Target got hacked" "Oh, what a shame, I'll replace my card then go shopping at Target again". Or what about "I can bring down a plane while it is flying without needing a bomb. I can shut down hydroelectric dams from my living room and flood the entire state of Washington". Now you've got people talking.

"It's not particularly difficult" is the precise problem. It should be difficult. People should be demanding that gaining access to flight control and SCADA systems be made impossible by the general public. Dismissing a hack as "easy" means you're forgetting that it's a hack. It's not supposed to be possible, let alone trivial.

Re: United Airlines Stops Researcher Who Tweeted about Airplane Network Security

#100

Post by grkvlt »

sneak wrote: post #89
loup-vaillant wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In France there is a crime labelled "association de malfaiteurs" (criminal's gathering). Fantasizing about a crime is allowed. But actually laying out plans, watching the neighbourhood, or performing concrete steps towards the crime with the intent of actually performing it… well, that is forbidden. Makes sense to me. Mere thoughts should never be forbidden, but acting on a criminal intent, even if the acts, taken in…

What you are describing is thoughtcrime. Criminal intent is not illegal. Only actions.

Not necessarily. Otherwise it would be impossible to prosecute someone for meticulously planning a terrorist action, who is only stopped when they are just about to purchase the materiel required to carry out the act. No action has tajen place - actual terrorism has not occurred, and there are no physical tools or similar present. But the intent (or Mens Rea, guilty mind) is there, so you can be prosecuted.

And, of coure, there are crimes of "Conspiracy to X" that involve merely the intent to commit a crime.

Post reply on HN