Slashdot Mirror


FBI Accuses Researcher of Hacking Plane, Seizes Equipment

chicksdaddy writes: The Feds are listening, and they really can't take a joke. That's the apparent moral of security researcher Chris Roberts' legal odyssey on Wednesday, which saw him escorted off a plane in Syracuse by two FBI agents and questioned for four hours over a humorous tweet Roberts posted about his ability to hack into the cabin control systems of the Boeing 737 he was flying. Roberts (aka @sidragon1) joked that he could "start playing with EICAS messages," a reference to the Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System.

Roberts was traveling to Syracuse to give a presentation. He said local law enforcement and FBI agents boarded the plane on the tarmac and escorted him off. He was questioned for four hours, with officers alleging they had evidence he had tampered with in-flight systems on an earlier leg of his flight from Colorado to Chicago. Roberts said the agents questioned him about his tweet and whether he tampered with the systems on the United flight -something he denies doing. Roberts had been approached earlier by the Denver office of the FBI which warned him away from further research on airplanes. The FBI was also looking to approach airplane makers Boeing and Airbus and wanted him to rebuild a virtualized environment he built to test airplane vulnerabilities to verify what he was saying.

Roberts refused, and the FBI seized his encrypted laptop and storage devices and has yet to return them, he said. The agents said they wished to do a forensic analysis of his laptop. Roberts said he declined to provide that information and requested a warrant to search his equipment. As of Friday, Roberts said he has not received a warrant.

52 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Art+Popp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To anyone who has a shred of fear of flying, the game of "screwing with the pilots for laughs" is not fucking funny.

    FTA, "Roberts said he had met with the Denver office of the FBI two months ago and was asked to back off from his research on avionics – a request he said he agreed to."

    So he's scaring people and breaking/threatening-to-break his word, and they're being dicks to him. This may not be statutory justice, but it's poetic.

    On the irrelevant issue of his research turning up vulnerabilities and the manufacturer's response being "shhhhhh, maybe no one will notice," I'd be completely on his side if he wanted to go on TV and talk about it with the world. I would contribute to his legal defense fund if he was in this for the good fight.

    But if his frustration with Boeing and Airbus is going to drive him to be a fear-mongering troll, then any inconvenience caused him by the FBI seems utterly fair.

    1. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by bferrell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope... The "king", at least on parchment, in this country is restrained from this type of behavior.

      Yeah, I know, this is the real world and in fact our (United States) law enforcement (executive branch) officers (and these include the FBI) shoot unarmed people with impunity and pretty well do as they damned well please.

      sigh

    2. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What restraint did the "king" break? They had his twitter post threatening/teasing that he might do something crappy, like drop all the oxygen masks. He was a credible threat because they knew he had the skills. They detained him. They questioned him (actual questions, nothing with a rubber hose), and they let him go.

      Holding onto his laptop to see if they can get a judge to give the a warrant is standard procedure. They held onto my stolen sound system for 4 months in an evidence locker because the DA was pressing charges against the burglar and they needed the evidence. I REALLY hadn't done anything wrong, but that's how that part of the legal system works, if you don't like it, vote to change it.

      So, I can't see how they are breaking the letter of the law and I don't see how they are breaking the spirit of it.

      Are you choosing sides purely on an "us" vs "them" basis?

    3. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For FIVE years he has be stating, as well as others, that there are serious issues with this. For FIVE years. F that. The jokers are the FBI. We don't care about peoples lives, we care about the perception that there is terrorism and that we are receiving the necessary funds to enrich ourselves with. It's funny! Very Funny to me. We spend great sums of money to arrest people who do our work for us, who pose no threat but we do NOT fix the threat. We do not spend any money fixing the threat.

      A real terrorist would not post to twitter until after the plane was down. When are we gong to wake up? When there is another 9/11?

      After they finished with him the FBI should have gone over to Boeing and Airbus and detained the executives and seized their equipment to verify if the allegations were true. If they are true then they should ground all Boeing and Airbus vulnerable airplanes.

      This in not about securing America, this is about terrorizing America so more funds can be spent on protecting Americans. When a plane goes down they can say see we need more funds.

    4. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roberts said he had met with the Denver office of the FBI two months ago and was asked to back off from his research on avionics â" a request he said he agreed to."

      "Don't look behind the curtain" is not security, however much it gives you the warm and fuzzies.


      So he's scaring people and breaking/threatening-to-break his word, and they're being dicks to him. This may not be statutory justice, but it's poetic.

      Unless he "agreed" to it in the context of a consent decree, that conversation has no more legal binding than agreeing to "keep your nose clean and stay out of trouble". Sorry if that scares you, but we all have the right - and in this case, I would dare say a moral obligation, to expose security flaws in commercial air travel.

      If this really bothers you, try venting your ire at Boeing, not at the messenger.

    5. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Granted, they are guilty of some of the worst fear-mongering ever...

      That said:
      "Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)"

      That's really uncool. If he carried out that threat on a flight where my Mom came to visit, I would have to spend my entire Thanksgiving talking her out of an anxiety attack.

      Would it still be funny if someone on the plane died of a heart attack? Screwing with people for who have a fear of flying is the same kind of fun as gently pushing crippled people at the tops of stair cases and then catching them and saying "ha ha."

    6. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by monkeyzoo · · Score: 2

      As of Friday, Roberts said he has not received a warrant.

      It doesn't sound like it should be too hard for them to obtain a warrant, based on his own actions/tweets while on the plane employing said computer equipment.

      The real question then is does he comply or take the 5th? Compulsory password divulgence is not yet well-settled case law in the USA.

    7. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      "The FBI doesn't have a sense of humor that we are aware of, mam."

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You really don't understand how the requirement for a warrant works, do you?

      Holding onto his laptop to see if they can get a judge to give the a warrant is standard procedure.

      False. The police need a warrant *before* they can seize property. Read the 4th Amendment.

      They held onto my stolen sound system for 4 months in an evidence locker because the DA was pressing charges against the burglar and they needed the evidence. I REALLY hadn't done anything wrong, but that's how that part of the legal system works, if you don't like it, vote to change it.

      They recovered your stolen property from the burglar, and held it as evidence. It was seized and held as evidence pursuant to a warrant issued on the *burglar*.
      They would not, for example, have been able to seize *from you* the TV the burglar *didn't* steal and hold it until they got a warrant.

    9. Re: Must hackers be such dicks about this? by k.nous · · Score: 2

      Roberts has presented on this topic at multiple conferences, has spoken to the media about this, recently, and was on his way to present to the FBI (again) about airplane vulnerabilities. He has done responsible disclosure. He is a trusted source of information on this topic for the Feds. This is a right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing situation.

      I know Chris. He is a good person who cares about the right things being done to make everyone safer. One tweet laughing in the face of the absurd resistance to fix what's wrong with airplane security should not damn him or his work.

    10. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know that seems logical, but that's not how it works.

      For the moment, accept the notion that threatening people with scary behavior (O2 mask dropping) is a crime. Be real, it's a crappy thing to do. Then the laptop is the tool used (threatened to be used) in the commission of that crime. If the O2 masks were triggered on a Morsecode interface, and he had a morse code key, they would take that too. They can hold that evidence until the DA decides to press charges. No, they can't come into his home now and take things, but what other tool would he be using to commit the crime with?

      If he was waving a pitchfork around threatening skewer people's luggage, they'd have the pitchfork in evidence. If you slam a cream pie into an official's face, they'll hold onto your pie plate.

      He has every right not to reveal his password, and if they try to keep his laptop after the court system is through with case, this is wrongful seizure. But while the legal process is working, the pitchfork, the pie plate and the Macbook are going to get to know each other a little better.

    11. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think they need a warrant at all to seize his laptop. Warrants attest to the "reasonableness" of a search. The 4th amendment protects from "unreasonable search and seizure."

      Officers can seize any evidence of a crime that is in plain sight when they are somewhere they are authorized to be.

      The officers were fully within their authority to board the plane, and probably did so with the permission and appreciation of the plane's owner and the pilot. There, in plain sight, is the laptop of the person who announced to the world that he was considering tampering with the flight computers. Why would they need a warrant to seize the tool with which he said he might do so?

      Replace "tweet" with "stand up and announce" and "laptop" with "metal pipe" and the story becomes "Man stands up in aircraft cabin and announces he 'could disable flight instruments' with metal pipe." Not that he necessarily was going to. Just that he could...and he's got to the tool to do so right here...kinda maybe thinking about it...

      How would it be "unreasonable" to seize the man's metal pipe on the spot? No warrant required.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    12. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Common sense at this level is why we need a score of 6 - Application of Common Sense. Point is spot on. When you are arrested, everything on your person, etc... is fair game. No need for a warrant to seize the laptop and such. Now, get the password is likely a court order.

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    13. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Larryish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The cops get a warrant and go in to Joe's house looking for evidence of drug dealing.

      There is a bottle of drain cleaner under Joe's bathroom sink. Near his computers they find a digital scale, a bottle of 99% ISA alcohol, a bottle of acetone, and a few glass bowls.

      The drain cleaner is for getting hair out of the shower. The ISA and acetone and the Pyrex bowls are for cleaning and refilling print cartridges.

      The lot of it is put into a box and paraded into court as Joe is charged with "intent to manufacture controlled substances".

    14. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

      To anyone who has a shred of fear of flying, the game of "screwing with the pilots for laughs" is not fucking funny.

      Your fears are your problem and do not constitute an excuse for irrational response.

      Twitter comments were not known to anyone on the flight. Those who would have normally followed his comments would be his hax0r buddies who understand context and are familiar with issues.

      So he's scaring people and breaking/threatening-to-break his word, and they're being dicks to him. This may not be statutory justice, but it's poetic.

      Being a dick to LEA who is threatening you to back off when they are in the wrong... Sorry I don't see the issue.

      All they are doing is discouraging research and attention making the industry less safe and more likely to allow Manufacturers and Airlines to make riskier design choices in the absence of pressure to do otherwise.

      But if his frustration with Boeing and Airbus is going to drive him to be a fear-mongering troll, then any inconvenience caused him by the FBI seems utterly fair.

      The media, politicians and security industrial complex are fear mongering trolls. They routinely and intentionally stoke fear for financial gain and self promotion while being fully aware of their deceptions.

      A researcher who honestly believes something to be true is not a troll. You may disagree with his conclusions or characterizations but disagreement alone does not make someone a troll.

      The idea that harassment by LEA is somehow deserved even for crazy anti-social fear mongering trolls is disappointing. Freedom cannot exist in the absence of tolerance. Being a professional LEA is fundamentally incompatible with in-kind reaction to someone doing something to get you mad.

    15. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by SteveWoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like how a real terrorist would not joke about a bomb at an airport. But someone who does is detained or arrested, and time is spent by TSA that could be better spent looking for real terrorists.

      --
      OK a new size TV
    16. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Warrants are soooo 20th century. We don't need those anymore, all we need to do is call you a 'terrorist' and all that goes away.

    17. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is the tweet.

      Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)

      To me that is not a comment about airplane security but a threat to tamper with airplane operations. Making a comment is legal making a threat is not.

    18. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Jiro · · Score: 2

      People make jokes in stressful situations. Bombing a plane is a stressful situation. Which makes it entirely plausible that a bomber would joke about bombing.

      Of course, it's *stupid* for him to joke about bombing and call attention to himself, but criminals get caught by doing stupid things all the time.

    19. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by nobuddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Meanwhile the home was seized under asset forfieture and the police have sold it for their share of the profits before the trial ended. Too bad, Joe. Better luck next time. Maybe you can bid on your car, since that auction is still pending.

    20. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Funny

      But that part's okay - the house was clearly guilty of containing suspicious items, and declined to plead innocent of criminal intent at trial.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by Zelucifer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where's the specific articulated threat? "Should we start playing" is not a threat. Especially not in context with the tone of the rest of his tweets. Making a joke is not a threat or a crime.

      --
      The corner of a round room
    22. Re:Must hackers be such dicks about this? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Only because it's socially unacceptable to even joke about that / most people don't find that very funny / some people may not recognize it as a joke, and it can cause panic since the joke is too "believable", so even jokingly it's a terrorist threat.

      On the other hand..... "Dropping O2 masks"; isn't the same.

      Even if it's not a joke: how exactly is that life-threatening?

      Dropping O2 masks falsely would be property damage for the airline, since now they would incur additional expenses after the flight to restore/reset safety systems, not a life-threatening event in itself.

  2. Interesting.... by MooseDontBounce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No local cover here in any of the Syracuse media. Any other time if something happens at the airport, that passes for front page news.

  3. Humerous?` by Holi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    “Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? “PASS OXYGEN ON” Anyone ? :)”

    Looks like he threatened to turn on the Passenger Oxygen Light (as someone with the skill and tools to do it that's not an idle threat), Nothing that would cause a mass panic on a plane or anything like that. I mean you post a public comment like that I would far more surprised if the FBI didn't forcibly remove you from the plane. The article itself seems very biased as well.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re: Humerous?` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A better analogy would be a professional chemist openly musing about hwo he could readily make low-order explosives from the in-flight alcohol selection.

    2. Re: Humerous?` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the difference? A bomb has the potential to destroy the plane and kill everyone on it. A spurious warning message on a cockpit display has the potential to divert the plane to an alternate airport (although my guess is they would just look into the cabin, see that the oxygen masks hadn't deployed, and continue as scheduled).

    3. Re:Humerous?` by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      His tweet was immediately followed by "There IS a distinct possibility that the course of action laid out above would land me in an orange suite rather quickly :)" So clearly not an actual threat. It's just the FBI being dicks at the behest of large corporations, because Airbus and Boeing don't like being made to look like idiots.

    4. Re: Humerous?` by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You wouldn't find what he did the least bit threatening? Somebody on the plane you're on musing aloud about how he could disable parts of the flight systems?

      I wonder if the FBI agents "mused" about how they could just "shoot him in the head." Just musing, of course. Not like they're actually going to do it. Just, ya, know, they could...

      And I bet if they had, you'd be right here talking about how RIDICULOUS and TERRIBLE and UNPROFESSIONAL it would be for them to have done so! That's life and death stuff right there! And how would he know if they really would or not?

      But they were just kidding, so it'd be fine, right?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. Well by robiso22 · · Score: 2

    At the same time, wouldn't this be a nice opportunity to fix exploits? You have someone willing to show how terrible your security is right there..

  5. Since when.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    do we call assholes "researchers"? This guy is nothing but a grandstanding asshole. You dont make comments like that and you dont do the FUD slinging that he does after getting denied.

    Researchers do real work and publish their findings for peer review, not act like a street cred seeking HAx0r trolling for Lulz.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Since when.... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Standard procedure. Every time. If something MIGHT be involved in a crime, the first thing law enforcement is going to do is put that thing someplace where they can prove provenance. It can be annoying and law enforcement over reaches at time, but I have a hard time getting mad at the FBI for this one. Especially the field guys - they aren't doing the detailed forensics or anything, they are just their to make sure that the scene is safe and secure.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Since when.... by orgelspieler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF? Did you even read the article? They're harassing the CTO of a security firm because he dared to point out security flaws in airplanes. Cracking a joke on Twitter to your friends is not the same thing as threatening to bring down a plane. Just because he does private sector research instead of publishing for peer review does not mean he's not a researcher. I do R&D in my job, but it's all trade secret. Am I not doing research since I don't publish? I think the FBI out-assholed this guy by a long shot, and I'm surprised to see a comment like yours modded to +5.

  6. Pit Bull by Needs2BeSaid · · Score: 2

    I have as much sympathy for someone who messes with the FBI as I have for someone who messes with a pack of pit bulls. Yes, the pit bulls shouldn't eat people but....

    --
    Some things need to be said...
    1. Re:Pit Bull by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      That would be obvious if the dogs are showing "their manly hood", would it?

  7. YES the must be dicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He did *NOT* screw with the pilots. He jokes about hacking the aircraft system to his followers who are smart enough to know a joke.

    If being nice means not investigating security holes, then yes, he needs to be a dick, at least in some peoples eyes. Imagine if the QA in a software company didn't dig too hard for bugs because it upset the programmers?

    It's not illegal to be a dick and often quite necessary. He should not have to watch his words for fear some moron FBI agent might be reading.

    1. Re:YES the must be dicks by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he wants to investigate security holes in Boeing aircraft, he should get a job with Boeing, or offer his services to them for free. Messing around on an aircraft in flight, where he can't be certain that a misplaced keystroke won't cause death, is criminal negligence or worse.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  8. Re:This story too vague by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they have proof he hacked into the avionics via the inflight WiFi, the aircraft equipment companies should be in HUGE trouble.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  9. Schoolboy error by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    “Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? “PASS OXYGEN ON” Anyone ? :)”

    His mistake is obvious. He used a smiley face instead of a winky face.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. More dicks please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Roberts has been demonstrating vulnerabilities in the avionics systems used on modern airplanes for the past five years, warning that modern planes have converged critical systems and non-critical systems such as in-flight entertainment and wi-fi in ways that create serious security and safety risks.

    He isn’t alone. Ruben Santamarta a Principal Security Consultant for the firm IOActive demonstrated at the 2014 Black Hat Briefings how satellite based communications devices (SatCom) used to provide Internet access to planes in flight could be used to gain access to cockpit based avionics equipment. Brad “RenderMan” Haines has also demonstrated methods for moving from in-flight entertainment systems to critical control systems aboard planes.

    If plane manufacturers are putting in-flight entertainment systems on the same network that a planes control systems are on, then Roberts are doing the public a great service by exposing this horrible security debacle.

    1. Re:More dicks please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      a) The plane manufactures aren't creating a vulnerability; yup, commercial internet equipment is vulnerable. Big surprise. However, the assertion that it creates a vulnerability in another system is just bullshit. However, I know a hell of a lot more about avionics design than the average slashtard, so the retardedness spewed here is understandable. Small example; there is no dynamic memory allocation on flight safety critical systems.

      b) To the FBI's level of understanding, the guy demonstrated a) intent, b) ability and c) claimed to be doing such. What they did was absolutely correct, and the seizure was clearly part of the arrest. Yes, they need a warrant to get his password, but from their level of understanding (we don't expect cops to be rocket scientists or avionics engineers) they made the right call.

    2. Re:More dicks please by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 2

      Roberts are doing the public a great service by exposing this horrible security debacle.

      But joking about possibly taking down a flight (which by all accounts he could possibly do) is no joke.
      This guy needs to maintain some professionalism.

      This is the same reason you can't scream "fire" in a movie theatre

  11. Re:Warrant after probable cause established? by jittles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This guy is showing ignorance of the law. He gave them a reason to believe he did something wrong, and then wants a warrant? First, the warrant will be rubberstamped based upon his comments, but second, they don't need a warrant once that is established.

    They need a warrant to search the contents of the computer. They do not need a warrant to confiscate and hold the equipment while they decide what to do.

  12. If you are ABLE to be a hooker, detain you? by raymorris · · Score: 3, Funny

    > HE claimed he was able to hack the plane. That would be a potentially very serious public safety issue. It is only right that they question him and search his equipment to see if that is true.

    I hereby claim that I have hands, therefore I am able to stab someone. Should I be detained and my property seized because I am ABLE to commit a crime? 50/50 chance you have the skills and equipment to be a hooker. Therefore you should be treated as a hooker?

    1. Re:If you are ABLE to be a hooker, detain you? by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need more than hands to stab someone. You also need a knife.

      If you stood up in the aircraft cabin and announced that you had a knife and "could stab flight crew," yes, your knife would be confiscated.

      Similarly, if you announce that you "could start messing with flight controls and indicators" in a cabin of an airplane, with your laptop, yes, your laptop should be confiscated.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:If you are ABLE to be a hooker, detain you? by unrtst · · Score: 2

      This knife comparison is fucking stupid.

      There are hundreds of people walking around with laptops, and the laptops all passed through security with no reason not to pass them though.
      There are how many people in the terminal with a knife? Few to none. How many people were allowed to bring one? None.

      There isn't a very good analogy here. Shoe + threatening to kick people in the nuts? Water+towel and waterboarding threats?

      The real point, IMO, is that, AFAICT, he was not threatening to do it. He was saying it was possible. The fact he had a laptop is almost meaningless (what about phone with wifi, or any wifi device, or some custom shit with custom radios etc... the latter of which would at least imply some possible intent). It may be a fine line, but there's a definite line.

      Back to the (awful) knife analogy, at least make it right. He wasn't standing up and announcing to the plane, which would be inciting stuff; He mentioned it on twitter, which is casually mentioning it to your acquaintance that is sitting next to you that, "ya know, it'd be pretty easy to turn this plastic food tray into a sharp weapon and stab someone... I wonder why they use this type of tray?". Would they take his tray as evidence? Would they take every tray on the plane? WTF... there's plenty of laptops around, and they're just tools.

    3. Re:If you are ABLE to be a hooker, detain you? by meta-monkey · · Score: 2

      But it's the exact kind of tool with which one would carry out the threat he made. And TFS said they seized his "storage devices" also. I would not be shocked if they took his phone, and for the same reasons. Actually I'd be shocked if they didn't.

      Your analogy is even more torturous. You said "acquaintance." But he didn't say this quietly to someone who knows him. He broadcast it on twitter. To anyone who happened to be reading.

      And if someone on my plane did start talking about making weapons and stabbing people, I would absolutely report that person to the flight crew. That is weird. That is weird, suspicious, dangerous behavior.

      This was the guy's tweet:

      “Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? “PASS OXYGEN ON” Anyone ? :)”

      Your sample dialog about the tray makes it sounds like a concern that someone else might do something bad. But this guy was using first person pronouns. Not that "someone else could do something bad" but "shall I do something bad?"

      So let's rephrase that for your tray analogy, where your seat mate (that you don't know) leans over and says to you (or even to a friend, but you clearly overhear), "Find myself on this plane...let's see, a tray I can craft into a knife? Shall we start stabbing people? "Bleeding out" anyone?"

      Yes, I'd report that. Weird as shit.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  13. The 1970s called... by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Maybe they should be hiring him to help consult on how to secure the systems instead of trying to intimidate him and silence the truth?

    The 1970s called, they want their common sense back.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  14. It's about the PR, not the Hacking by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy who fancies himself a "aviation hacking expert" goes around the country giving lectures on all sorts of things he sees as "risks" in all sorts of things just got himself in trouble by saying stupid things at the wrong time. It's like a security expert who gave talks about preventing Hijacking was talking about his presentation as he goes though the TSA checkpoint or with the flight attendant. Somebody took exception to the topic being discussed because of the context (he was actually ON an airplane at the time) and in the abundance of caution he was detained and questioned. I'll bet he never attempted any hacking, much less validated any of his perceived risks, most likely he made some inane statement like "I could hack into this plane and cause .... to happen" which got the attention of the flight crew who called the FBI who stops him as he gets off the plane.

    But NOW this guy has a PR angle to play. And why not? Here is some self proclaimed "expert hacker" who has even been questioned by the FBI about possible hacking attempts and had his electronic devices taken in the process while he was on his way to give a talk on the very subject. Play that up, get more speaking gigs by playing up your qualifications.

    This guy has nearly zero credibility with me. He's never really tested any of his theories on real equipment, doesn't work for anybody who would have access to the actual design specifications. Never worked for Boeing, Airbus or any avionics manufacturer. Has never demonstrated any successful attack and to my knowledge hasn't even attempted to hack anything. About all he has are a series of power point presentations that outline a lot of perceived risks he's come up with, but never verified, yet now he's the subject of international news? I sure hope he wasn't stupid enough to actually have tried his theories out on an actual commercial flight because the FBI is going to make an example of him if he did.

    This guy's angle is all about milking the PR now. He's hit the short term jackpot and will be the featured speaker at "aviation security" conferences and I hope he makes some money. He's going to need it to pay the lawyers. However, IMHO, he's a nut job with power point skills and very little actual knowledge. He's just some lucky nut with a big mouth who fancies himself an expert on some issue that happens to be the news story of the day.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:It's about the PR, not the Hacking by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      He's never really tested any of his theories on real equipment

      That you know of. Looks like they don't want him testing anything in the real world or not..

      Never worked for Boeing, Airbus or any avionics manufacturer.

      They appear to not want anyone looking for vulnerabilities in their systems either.

      Has never demonstrated any successful attack

      I'm guessing the first person who does will not do so in a friendly way. And everyone will pretend to be surprised.

  15. "Security experts" can sometimes be idiots by ErichTheRed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Up front, let me say this guy does have a point. Avionics systems were never designed to be secure, since the technology for unauthorized users to access them didn't exist when they were developed. If you're an Airbus designer building the A320's core messaging bus back in the late 80s, do you assume people are going to have wireless network access and phones with the power of laptops in their pockets? Of course, you do now...but not back in the 80s. And once an aircraft system gets certified, changing it is an extremely drawn out process, hence the inertia. If you want another example, look at magstripe credit cards -- another system where, when it was invented, magnetic readers/encoders were "magical devices" that only huge companies could afford, so therefore there was no encryption.

    Now, that said, there are way better methods for getting the word out on stuff like this. I'm assuming he already went to the vendors on this, but if he acted anything like what he displayed here, they may have just ignored him as a crackpot. If the guy doesn't have a lot of emotional intelligence, it can significantly impact his credibility in the eyes of the "normal" population. That seems to be a problem with a lot of the security types -- they're obviously very intelligent and spend vast amounts of time digging around in the internals of the systems they're hacking. When it comes time to communicate this knowledge to others, they can do so in ways that might get them lumped into the "nerd living in Mom's basement" camp, deserved or not. Threatening to demonstrate your latest find in a live environment would certainly not be my first choice. Imagine if he had turned on the passenger oxygen warning -- air crews don't go back and check whether a warning like that is legit or not. Pilots follow checklists, and I would imagine the first thing they do is descend very quickly to a safe altitude just in case the cabin actually did depressurize!!

  16. Within 100 miles of the border. He's got no rights by BenJeremy · · Score: 2

    Syracuse is, as the crow flies, within 100 miles of the Canadian border. His equipment belongs to the US government now.