Crashing an In-Flight Entertainment System

rabblerouzer writes "Hugh Thompson, who was interviewed by Slashdot on the dangers of e-voting, now has a cool blog entry on how he was able to bring down the gaming/movie console on an airplane. He calls it one of the most interesting examples of a software 'abuse case' he has ever seen." Fortunately the IFE system is totally disjoint from the avionics.

Comments

Re:There is a NAME for the bug...

[AndroidCat]

And when you compile the code in release, where is your friend now?

Re:Err

[iocat]

It sounds good. Too good in fact. In fact, it sounds like BS. It basically reads like an urban myth. Also, given that the max value was 4, its unlikely the field size onscreen would have been big enough to display a 3 digit number. I also can't think of any domestic carrier in 2005 that had a combo touch screen / telephone thingee in the back of every seat. The only one I can think of now is Thai in their Royal Thai section.

Can anyone intuit the airline? Because without an airline name, I call bullshit on this story. I would guess it had to be business class, and probably a foriegn carrier, if the story is to be believed.

Re:Avionics programmers

[Voice of Meson]

Interesting stuff this critical code. When I started out as a grad at a large Aerospace company we were given shiploads of Flight Control Computer code to unit test for a new(ish) fighter aircraft. Most of the stuff we worked with was what you have described as 'Level A' code but I didn't really understand what it all meant at the time.

Anyway, the level of testing required was very, very high. I say that even though we were grads working on it, because it was not our choice what to test and what to leave, and they were done multiple times with different people, the the branches, lines run etc compared. It was the lowest level of the software tests and everything was in modules about 30 lines long that needed 100% coverage, every logical combination tested out etc. Plus the languages they used (ADA95, fortran(77?) and assembly) were cut down to remove anything too untestable. I think 'while' loops were out because, as opposed to 'for's, there is a chance of a infinite loop. That sort of stuff. Would be a nightmare to code in.

In not sure how other FCC's usually are, but interestingly this one had 4 CPU's with a fifth 'controlling' one or something and basically each calculation would be performed on all 4 then the results correlated and the majority answer taken. I guess to protect it from a freakish glitch or maybe some deliberate interferance? Not sure, but surely accurate.

Fly-By-Wire - It's not just the software that crashes.