Slashdot Mirror
FBI Alleges Security Researcher Tampered With a Plane's Flight Control Systems
Salo2112 writes with a followup to a story from April in which a security researcher was pulled off a plane by FBI agents seemingly over a tweet referencing a security weakness in one of the plane's systems. At the time, the FBI insisted he had actually tampered with core systems on an earlier flight, and now we have details. The FBI's search warrant application (PDF) alleges that the researcher, Chris Roberts, not only hacked the in-flight entertainment system, but also accessed the Thrust Management Computer and issued a climb command. "He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights. He also stated that he used Vortex software after comprising/exploiting or ‘hacking’ the airplane’s networks. He used the software to monitor traffic from the cockpit system." Roberts says the FBI has presented his statements out of their proper context.
Somehow I doubt this actually happened. While I can believe that in theory it might be possible. I just dont see this guy, a security researcher from what I understand has a great reputation would have done this.
More likely the government is trying to save face right now. and since the TSA cant seem to catch any real terrorists, might as well make an example out of someone instead.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No researcher would be so reckless as to actually screw with an airplane's engines mid-flight. The fact that the FBI alleges that he did means that they know damn well they have nothing to do on, but need to paint this guy as a terrorist in order to save themselves looking like idiots for arresting a guy based on a single twitter message.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
This guy might be a giant dick who tried to crash a plane, and if that's the case we should hold him accountable like any other person who endangers others.
But isn't the real problem here that, if what the FBI describes is true (which I doubt), the FAA allowed -- and is still, today, allowing -- a plane to fly with a passenger entrainment system that can access flight controls? The power train CAN bus in my car has better isolation and security than that.
Of course, if it were possible to take control of a plane like this, the government would immediately ground all those planes until the security flaw could be fixed, right? Funny, haven't heard that they've done that.
Do not under any circumstance EVER talk to law enforcement. It's that simple stupid. I don't care if the cop threatens to tow your car and take your children. STFU. If they have something on you they will do it anyway and if they don't then they're trying to get you to say something for which they can arrest you. Nothing you say will ever help you in a court of law. Law enforcement are TRAINED TO LIE in order to get the responses they're after. "Sir- I'll need to ask you to step out of your car so I can search it". He's not ordering you to step out of your car. He's asking permission to search your car. If you comply he'll testify in court you gave permission for them to search your car. The exact phrasing will never be heard in court as the cop will just summarize it as "I asked for permission to search he responded yes". Had you STFU and only surrendered your name and address and if driving your ID, insurance, and registration you would never have ended up arrested. Yes- cops will "get angry" if you don't "cooperate". They will threaten to arrest you. However these are generally lies to get you to do what they want (allow a search, etc). If you don't "cooperate" they won't actually arrest you 99% of the time because they haven't got anything on you.
As I professional pilot can I say that while I have no insight into what may or may not actually have happened on this flight, the write-up in the article is utter bollocks from a flight dynamics perspective. If the case really rests on such a flimsy explanation of what happened than the FBI need some above from somebody who knows anything whatsoever about aircraft and flight dynamics.
It's sad when the FBI makes a statement and I automatically don't believe them.
What if the protection on planes is so bad that a passenger can use the inflight entertainment system to gain virtual access to the controls of the plane?
Suppose you are a security researcher and find this out. What do you do? Tell boeing! They... do nothing. Tell the airline! They.... do nothing.
It all starts with a belief issue. You hack into the entertainment system, compromise the firewall and see plane-control messages flying around on the network you now have gained access to. This is enough for a sufficiently technical person to be convinced of having gotten too far for comfort. At that point you know you are only one step away from taking control of the airplane.
Tell anybody less technical about it and they will not be convinced that you'd be able to move the plane. For example, today with this news today someone already voiced: "he might only THINK he moved the plane" (... while in fact the pilots initiated that maneuver).
So... to prove to the world that there indeed is a dangerous situation, you need to actually make the plane move.
And this is where everybody gets their panties in a knot. Suddenly the guy who reports that the planes are not secure enough is the bad guy and needs to be thrown in jail.
Examples of people reporting security problems and being ignored include: On a saturday night two men walking their dogs notice that the bank has left a window open. A person can just climb into.. the bank! So monday morning they walk into the bank, tell them about it, bank says thank you and... nothing happens. Next weekend, window is again left open. So they tell the bank again. And again. After a few times, to prove the point, they decide to climb in, and photograph what access they have once inside the bank. They got into a lot of trouble for that. But since then, the window has been closed.
Personally I have reported security problems in computers without going that extra mile of "making the plane move". In one instance I've reported such a misconfiguration to over 100 system administrators. Two hours later, saturday afternoon, the first response: "Thanks, fixed". Come monday morning, one response: "we know, not a security issue, get lost.". And all others were "no response". A year later more than 50% of the computers where I reported the configuration error were still vulnerable.
With laws being written in such a way that the "white hats" (*) can be thrown in jail, we create an environment where the white hats are either ignored or thrown in jail. Before you know it, the "white hats" are too afraid to report anything and stop reporting real problems. In that situation, you only find out the problems when a bad guy ends up crashing a plane.
Boeing: invite the guy over to show you the problem. Once that hole has been closed, invite him over, pay his hotel an meals for a week while he hacks at a "fixed" plane on the ground at your facilities. Credit him for making aviation safer.
(Do this, before someone makes it stick that: "Boeing created this system with such bad security that it put passengers at risk.").
(*) the researchers that report the problems they find without causing real harm,