Coin-sized device can hack a Boeing 737
wired.com
wired.com
You already trust them (as well as the pilots) every time with your flight.
Unfortunately, that is unlikely to get media coverage because the solution would be to respect and pay workers more, a severe crime in a late-stage capitalistic society.
Not to worry, they're furiously working on an alternative which will ensure no worker must ever be respected or paid ever again!
They're already quite well-paid (and so are pilots). In fact the operating margins of airlines are infamously thin, so unless you want plane tickets to be several times their current price, it won't work.
That trust was what led to this incident where someone just walked into the airplane dressed as a maintainence worker and nobody stopped him.
Also pilot suicide isn't something new and the aviation world has tried to come up with several regulations to ensure it doesn't happen even though we completely trust pilots on a normalative basis.
O, it can be even worse, when you realize its a 30 year old problem ...
During the 1998 television show Schalkse Ruiters, presenters Bart De Pauw and Tom Lenaerts dressed in fake pilot uniforms. They bypassed security at Brussels Airport (Zaventem), entered a Boeing cockpit, and left undetected to expose safety flaws
The TV show got cancelled not long after this incident because of pollical backlash.
The show had a reputation of finding security flaws (like being able to transfer money from people bank accounts) and other issues, but the airport one was the end of the show.
People loved the show, as it forced companies, ... make changes to their processes that they normally never did. They even did follow-up episodes to see if the companies actually made changes.
Bit of public shaming to fix security issues... worked great. Until the show was cancelled. The number one rated show of the country ... Yea, there was absolute no correlation between its cancellation and the airport incident. Really ;)
I'm sorry, what now? Did an LLM tell you that?
Airfields are expected to be secure areas. If you can walk through a hole in a fence there's issues.
Remember a guy stole an entire airplane a few years ago (RIP Sky King). Airplanes don't have ignition keys.
Sooooooome private jets actually bother to slap a Medeco on the external doors, at least, but that's still the only control keeping you grounded.
As AI171 has shown, turning the engines off on rotation does it reliably and there’s nothing that the other pilot or regulations can do to prevent it.
I wonder of such regulations are in fact counterproductive if it means people don't seek out help when they can and let the problem escalate instead (since you presumably don't go from healthy to murder-suicidal in one day, and early intervention could resolve the problem).
Air travel is weird in the sense that pilots do have an immense amount of power and the fact that there have been so few pilot suicide cases shows that regulations for that are somewhat working.
Indeed I wonder how much of aviation-related security theatre is more for the perception of safety than any measurable safety improvements.
> there have been so few pilot suicide cases
I'm not sure it's conclusively possible to attribute this to regulations without a "control case" of a different profession lacking such regulations and that has a higher rate of murder-suicide-by-vehicle. It could just be that the low rates are because there just aren't that many suicidal people willing to kill innocent bystanders in the process.
To be clear I'm not arguing for less regulations as I'm not qualified and don't have all the facts, but bringing up a counterpoint that the current regulations might cause people to conceal their mental health troubles until they escalate (and the current low - but non-zero - rates of incidents are in spite of the regulations rather than because).
Wait until they find out your mechanic has unfettered access to your car's OBD port when you hand them the keys. They could install a COIN SIZED device on the CAN bus and you'd never know.
Some people do this voluntarily in exchange for a discount on their insurance.
There's literally millions of people driving newfangled EVs where the car manufacturer has full remote access to their vehicle and can upload software however and whenever they like.
I forgot only the nefarious ones wear yellow reflective vests and earmuffs.
This part has been beyond baffling to me. The last thing I want, is to hit the brakes in my car, and suddenly they're less/more sensitive, due to an update the night before, and it really does matter especially on snow/ice. And such updates happen.
I also don't want a perfectly good, 100% working car to suddenly degrade in experience because "Wups! Sorry! Last update broke <whatever>, we'll update within the month to fix!". It's just pure, unbridled dumb.
I recently bought a car, and the dealer tried to sell me an extended warranty. What? It's under a full warranty right now, and yes, my region has very strong warranty and anti-lemon laws. But my point is, they kept saying "there's a lot of complex and expensive electronics in this car, you're going to need an extended warranty".
Um, what? Hello? You just explained that the car breaks down a lot because it's complex? So complex that there are more frequent, highly expensive issues?
How is that a plus?
If a car is "too complex" to roll out the assembly line, without needing updates to modules on a monthly basis for years, it's the opposite of positive. I've had multiple BCM(body control module) updates, updates to every single module in the car. There shouldn't be enough code to cause issues here, it should be simple, simple, simple.
But it's not.
It's complex and difficult to make bug free.
And that makes me oh so very comfortable as I drive down the road.
A dealer will never let a buying customer leave, so 3 years later my car still can't connect to the Internet.
Most people don't think about it when buying a car, or they have no practical way to evaluate it. So it is one of these things you probably need to fix with legislation, except the legislators love the idea too because sensor-rich, always-online cars give them more tools to police the society.
I don't really know what to do with that, short of going neo-Luddite. People often see the excesses of ad tech as a failure of capitalism, but in a sense, we're seeing a tech-driven failure mode for free, democratic societies. In a world where your online presence is tied to your identity and always under the watchful eye of a large language model, and where you can't move from A to B without leaving a digital trail, it's not gonna be fun if you become a thorn in the government's side.
I've got another car that's 13 years old and has got 126 000 miles / 202 000 km and that is 13 years old. In the 8 years I've had this one, my "green" doctor buddy changed four times his car.
Who's consuming the most? My ecological doctor friend who changes car every two years, my 13 years old daily or my 38 years car? (most cars have long been destroyed after 38 years)
Sure, the 38 old Porsche is a bit of a gas guzzler but the thing still runs strong. One Bosch Motronic electronic board for the fuel injection and that's it: no OTA updates, fully mechanical dashboard (which looks gorgeous btw).
Who's really the consumerist here? Me or my doctor buddy who buys a new EV every two years?
And if instead of an old Porsche I was using an old Toyota with much better mpg, then the equation is even better.
I'm not against switching to an EV but I don't want any of this OTA updates and 24/7 connected bullshit: give me an EV that doesn't phone home and I may listen.
Things however don't seem to be heading that way so I think I'll be driving used cars for a very long time.
As of right now, my bets on which cars will be running 30 more years from now are:
Dodge: yes
Toyota: maybe
Benz: no
I have a concept of a plan to combine the "maybe" and "no" vehicles into a single Frankenstein's monster which will undoubtedly be a "yes". It involves eliminating all the electronic controls.
I don't see how these proprietary, point-in-time hardware/software systems can possibly be maintainable long term. In 20 years there will only be 50yo ECUs available to replace my current ones.
Contrast that with any 1970s era vehicles you can buy today. So long as the rust isn't too bad, you can 100% definitely restore it mechanically.
There are a handful of aftermarket ECUs to do fuel injection and electronic ignition. Initial configuration is a bit of a bear and I dunno if you'll be able to find a shop to do it, but if your model runs out of working pulls, it's an option. My 1981 van has a Bosch electronic fuel injection system and if it fails (which seems rare), most people can find a replacement module from a van that was crashed or rusted out; some people put carbuerators on it; a couple people put a microsquirt. The air flow meter might be a bigger issue, they have mechanical wear and I haven't seen anything about refurbishing them (but maybe I missed it)
1. Controllers. Absolutely must be open software and hardware, no compromises.
2. Actuators. If not open hardware, they must be documented sufficiently to facilitate adapting a suitable replacement in the future.
3. Sensors. Same constraints as actuators.
Unfortunately even mega/microsquirt systems don't quite get us there yet.
[edit] One example that informs my hardline stance here is reading ECU codes. On the Toyota's ECU there's an open interface for reading fault codes documented in the factory shop manual. You jump a couple pins on a connector in the engine compartment with a test light and read the number of flashes. The Benz, by contrast, is completely proprietary and "secret". It does have an OBD2 port, but almost none of the modules are accessible. To read and clear codes you need to use a round 38pin connector and software that knows how to speak their protocols. There are aftermarket systems which are somewhat unreliable but function almost "good enough". The most reliable option for an end user is to buy a counterfeit Star Diagnostics System multiplexer and a sketchy pirated version of Mercedes-Benz's diagnostics software and run it on an air gapped laptop. Or you can purchase the official Star Diagnostics System for like $20k.
So even routine maintenance is borderline impossible, let alone replacing components. Without the proprietary software, variant coding is impossible for example.
Obviously it would be even better to keep one EV longer (hard to say how much better, they do displace ICE vehicles in the used market) but they're almost certainly consuming less than you.
Certainly he creates some demand for new cars and you make a good point about reducing consumption.
Otherwise the car is still connected and very likely broadcasting telemetry anyway (and the "account" part is handled entirely on the backend). Refusing to set up or use the app is merely a placebo.
Surprise! “They” did find this out and UN155/156 regulate a bunch of protections against local “attackers,” often to the detriment of right to repair.
Just as with computers, as the saying goes, if you have physical access to the device then all bets are off. The tricky part is getting that physical access in the first place...
Much simpler just to instruct to physically secure the conduit around... Even better if that is already approved and demanded process.
Fair to say that everything has tradeoffs, even expensive hardware.
Every component is analyzed from a cyber security perspective. Many components needs tampering protection - while others need not. This includes replacing components with malicious ones.
It is not logical at all and a stupid regulation. But it is not as simple as you can do what you want if you have physical access.
It’s still worth doing because the vast, vast majority of people will fail at a or b without even reaching c.
That’s sort of less so with planes, though. You don’t generally decide to take out a plane without being dedicated at the very least.
Paying for a horsepower upgrade chip is something very few people have any interest in doing. Mostly irresponsible assholes who are a danger to others, maybe a few people who need it to pull trailers or something.
The above statement sounded way more edgy than intended lol
This is far less true than it used to be, though, and it seems reasonable to expect that aircraft become as secure as Macs.
This was pretty standard for most staff - once you’re airside, there were not many restrictions about getting down under the ramp or anywhere around an aircraft on a stand.
Never was this illustrated better than the final homecoming of a BA Concorde in late 2003, when a whole load of staff from different roles across the airport all piled out onto the edge of the apron to wave it home.
A junior IT bod in a high-vis touching something on the outside of an aircraft ? Wouldn’t stand out to anyone watching a CCTV feed. Maybe the other ramp staff would notice, but if you timed it right…
What I’m trying to say is that physical access to aeroplanes even at a place like LHR was pretty much open to anyone who holds an airside pass.
The question is more - how hard is it to get airside without a pass?
I once went in through the main arrivals exit doors at Heathrow. I'd forgotten something so I went in, got it, came out again.
It was a stupid thing to do, but I wasn't arrested, stopped, or anythinged.
This was before 9/11 so I doubt you could do it today. But even so.
Depends. Did you fly in with a random unlocked Cessna from a remote field?
Really funny when you see a random rural airport with an unattended gate with a sign on it telling you the code is "SQUAWK VFR" and you just look at the crusty keypad and slap 1200 in like everyone else before you did on the rubbed-off 1, 2, and 0 keys.
Another question on my mind is - how hard is it to land a job with an airside pass nowadays if your intention is to just get physical access to an aeroplane ? Pretty easy back then. Not sure about now…
It occurred to me that the catastrophe I could have caused simply by ripping out as many cables as I could see would have been … if not a mini-recession, certainly the sort of thing that moved markets.
Yeah yeah, redundancy and backups. I knew the infrastructure. It wouldn't have worked, not for weeks anyway.
To be in said room, I had undergone a cursory police check.
I say "apparently" as I had Gemini identify the port from the image.
The OMC provides direct access to key avionics data networks, including the ARINC 429 buses that link the pilot's Flight Management Computer (FMC) to the Multi-Function Control and Display Unit (MCDU).
If you can safely disable the port completely, that implies the port is not needed to begin with. Is that really true? What's the purpose for it?
Bro. You put “429 interceptor” on the PCB. You’re just fucking on the ARINC 429 bus.
Also, this exists as a commercial product (in some ways): https://www.astronics.com/wireless-electronic-flight-bags-we...
There's already a dongle on the market hooked in some 737s that gives you WiFi access to the 429 and 717 busses through the same port...
EDIT (again): Oh come on, the paper says they went into the Open Maintenance Connector through the E&E bay through the nose gear. C'moooon.
Double-triple edit: Also - ARINC 429 is kinda fun. You can do things like take old glass cockpit hardware and work it into your flight simulator by just feeding the cockpit hardware simulated 429 messages over the wire from your flight sim.
Here's some 737 instruments being driven from FSX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtTJiU-vArs
ARINC defines a series of standards for Avionics Systems and Communications - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC
ARINC 429 is the most widely used data bus standard for aviation. Electrical and data format characteristics are defined for a two-wire serial bus with one transmitter and up to 20 receivers. The bus is capable of operating at a speed of 100 kbit/s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARINC_429
Boeing commercial airplanes are constantly updated. As long as the airplane is in service, Boeing retains a team of engineers that update parts as needed. If FAA review is needed, this will of course take longer.
BTW, anyone with access to the internals of an airplane could potentially sabotage it. Sadly, all people with access need to undergo a security check.
HN should have a rule like what does some reddit subs do.
Either outright ban paywalled articles, or if not then either an archived link should be posted alongside, or the whole text of the article should be copy pasted as a comment
It's akin somewhat to the open-source crowd demanding features (and security updates) all without donating to the project.
Did you know that video game piracy enhances video game sales? That's because if someone pirates a game and likes it, they might buy it, recommend it to friends, or buy the next one.
You are putting words in my mouth I've never said. I don't "expect in-depth articles", HN would be perfectly fine without paywalled content.
At every level of quality, there is more journalism than there was before.
> In 1990 we had one daily news(paper) journalist for every 4,490 Americans. Now (or 2019 to be exact), we have one such reporter per 14,250.
https://www.reportforamerica.org/2021/06/28/the-journalist-p...
You appear to be confusing the health of a certain class of employment with the health of the product people in that class used to produce.
Do you think that journalism can't exist outside of a newspaper?
I personally loves the way HN pages are served as they are loading very fast even on not-high end devices, and volunteers contributes to the content (comments).
Paywall are annoying and there’s always someone that post an archive link to circumvent it but I’m not sure about the ethic of a rule requiring to do so.
HN readers are also free to pass on an article they can't read. Sometimes I do this when a US website has a complete block on Europe.
Paying for all the publications that get articles on the HN front page would be very expensive. Only a minority of people reading HN would have subscribed to any one publication. The result is that paywalled articles can only be properly discussed by a minority people. It also encourages discussion of the headline instead of the article.
Are paywalls ok?
It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic. More here.
So "We don't expect hackers to figure it out"
People