Slashdot Mirror
Trojan-Infected Computer Linked To 2008 Spanair Crash
An anonymous reader writes "Two years ago, Spanair flight JK-5022 crashed shortly after takeoff in Madrid, killing 154 of its 172 passengers and crew. El Pais online newspaper reports that the ground computer responsible for triggering an alarm after three failures are reported in a plane failed to do so. The computer was infected with trojans (Google translation of Spanish original)."
Holy Safety-critical system running Windows and apparently not adequately air-gapped, batman!
Just wondering what operating system those computers used, and how they contracted a virus from the outside network (when they probably shouldn't have been connected at all)??
At the bottom of the article, it states the computer system did not alarm when the pilots failed to use the flaps properly on takeoff. That pilot should have had his license revoked.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
wiki link
Beyond the translated Spanish article I can't find anything else about this idea of an alerting system being infected with malware. Typically such systems are simple, embedded and not interfaced in ways which could cause them to run software they are not meant to.
This bit from wikipedia is interesting:
The MD-80 Advanced was to incorporate the advanced flight deck of the MD-88, including a choice of reference systems, with an inertial reference system as standard fitting and optional attitude-heading equipment. It was to be equipped with an electronic flight instrument system (EFIS), an optional second flight management system (FMS), light emitting diode (LED) dot matrix electronic engine and system displays. A Honeywell windshear computer and provision for an optional traffic-alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) were also to be included. A new interior would have a 12% increase in overhead baggage space and stowage compartment lights that come on when the door opens, as well as new video system featuring drop-down LCD monitors above.[4]
link
Apparently this upgrade got dropped in 1991, so the system still in use must be pretty low tech.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
No, but this computer was running the old version of Flight Simulator.
Who puts Windows on anything even remotely mission critical? If you could blame someone, it should be the person deciding that.
HTTP/1.1 400
Here is your complimentary guide to trolling this story: 1. Pretend only windows can get infected with trojans. 2. If you can't do 1. adequately, then pretend Windows is some how easier to infect with trojans than other OSes. 3. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being paid off. 4. Make thoughtless absolutists statements like Windows has no security model, and is not a networking OS. 5. Mention chair throwing as proof that MS personnel are unstable, but never mention wife murdering linux developers. 6. Repeat other MS bashers without researching what they're saying. 7. Mention "640k ought to be enough for anyone" as much as possible without giving thought to the brain dead simple idea that MS had nothing to do with the addressable memory limit of the 8086. Following this guide is sure to get you modded up and liked by many other slashdotters, so be sure to follow it closely!
"...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
Or possibly TSA?
1970s:
"I'm sorry, our computers are down." (Reality: our employees are playing NET TREK and DUNGEON on a Friday afternoon.)
2000s:
"I'm sorry, our computer has a trojan." (Reality: our employees finally found an "unused" machine to surf porn, got loaded up with Russian malware, and now it's nobody's fault.)
Futurist Traditionalism
Whoever modded up the above post - you've missed the point. There may have been a fault in the on-board management system - or human error failing to heed a warning - but nothing in TFA suggests that malware was in any way involved on the flight deck.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Does the 'War on Trojanists', begin? But seriously, someone wrote that virus. That means that someone, somewhere (probably Estonia), is guilty of killing 154 people.
But, the problem that was supposed to be logged was reportedly an overheated pitot tube. That was not the cause of the crash: the report says that the pilots did not set the flaps correctly and a warning alarm did not go off. This was not related to the problem with the computer being used by mechanics.
The article appears to be trying to link two independent events: a separate problem with the plane and an error by the pilots. Or maybe it's just the broken English translation.
Yup, the holes in the cheese certainly lined up that day. None of these, by itself, would have caused the crash.
The Spanish article cited in the summary does not allege any cause-and-effect relationship between the computer, the trojans, and the crash.
Nearly all crash investigations reveal factoids that cause suspicion and which invite people to jump to conclusions. Sometimes, the premature public debate on such issues cause emotional harm to victims, their families and other people involved.
I realize that I'm pissing into the wind to raise this topic. I's human nature to gossip. Slashdot is no different than any other public forum in this regard. It just frustrates me to see this happen again and again.
That pilot should have had his license revoked.
Well, I think the crash took care of that.
Unless the pilot was Captain Orr from Catch-22 . . . then he and all the other passengers would be frolicking in Sweden for the rest of the war . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
and they want to have networked auto drive cars some day as well.
I hope that the windows based car navigation and sound system is not hooked to the drive part at all or even better no windows at all.
I would find it very difficult to navigate in a car lacking windows.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
In any case the malware author could be charged with 154 cases of second degree murder. Or will it be mass murder?
It would be interesting to see that in court.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Pop one of these AKDL1's on it, and the machine is immune to trojans.
And I would dearly love to see it in court. However I would imagine it would fit more under manslaughter rather than common law type murder, as I would imagine the trojan writer wasn't out to kill people. Though I would imagine you could argue malice is involved in writing trojans. I'm not a lawyer so don't take notice of anything I say. Though going by the poorly translated article there was more going on then just the trojans, the trojan computer may of been more of a contributing factor rather than the primary reason for the crash, due to reasons stated in the article.
The computer, located at the headquarters of the airline in Palma de Mallorca, emits an alarm signal on the monitor when you register three similar technical problems in the same device
Pardon me if something got lost in translation, but why the hell was was there not a computer on board that could have registered a series of failures and alerted the crew? It seems that would have been useful information for them to have.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Hate to rain on the IT parade here, but the investigation revealed that the aircrew had the aircraft on "in-flight" mode, leading to erroneous indications (forcing the first abort), and then excluding the no flaps/no slats pre-takeoff configuration error warning. The crew also called for the flaps/slats settings to be proper without actually checking them. In effect, they were able to defeat three separate safety measures to prevent exactly this kind of mishap from happening.
It does not appear that an infection of the mainframe maintenance computer is anything more than a side note in this particular mishap. It may, however, be something for airline maintenance personnel to be aware of to prevent future incidents.
The real question is why the aircrew are allowed to override a weight-on-wheels (WOW) sensor, when that is primary used for troubleshooting by ground crews. Putting the aircraft into "flight" mode while on the ground requires special attention to actions/procedures (as in when a USAF F-4 shot up a maintenance truck when the WOW switch was in override and the weapons crew performed an ops check on the gun system--ops check good, BTW).
Impetuous! Homeric!
A computer controlling in-flight operations infected with trojans translates to a computer running MS windows. Why the fuck would anyone even think of this? This is like building a suspension bridge using legos and 6 year olds doing the assembly.
So when I fly, is my life really dependent on a tinker toy OS? That's fucked up! Someone should be beaten to death for this idea.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
http://www.java.com/en/download/license.jsp
I really like that part of the Java EULA.
Even if the infected computer did directly cause the crash of the plane, Microsoft should put something similar in their EULA. Having this kind of disclaimer will remind people that they probably shouldn't use Windows in a system that may have lives depending on it. Its about using the right tool for the right job.
Maybe I wasn't clear, the mainframe in maintenance has nothing to do directly with inflight operations. The computers on board are completely independent of those in the maintenance system. Now, if there are wireless connections, allowing the maintenance mainframe and the aircraft to share information, it MAY be possible for a virus to gain access to the aircraft, but I am pretty sure this has not happened yet, possibly to the security in place, or possibly no one has really tried to infect an aircraft with a virus.
Indirectly, the maintenance mainframe's failure to alert on related system faults MAY be a factor in future mishaps, but it does not appear that the infected mainframe had anything to do with this one.
Impetuous! Homeric!