Slashdot Mirror
Chris Roberts Is the Least Important Part of the Airplane Hacking Story
chicksdaddy writes: Now that the news media is in full freak-out mode about whether or not security researcher Chris Roberts did or did not hack into the engine of a plane, in flight and cause it to "fly sideways," security experts say its time to take a step back from the crazy and ask what is the real import of the plane hacking. The answer: definitely not Chris Roberts. The real story that media outlets should be chasing isn't what Roberts did or didn't do on board a United flight in April, but whether there is any truth to longtime assurances from airplane makers like Boeing and Airbus that critical avionics systems aboard their aircraft are unreachable from systems accessible to passengers, the Christian Science Monitor writes. And, on that issue, Roberts' statements and the FBI's actions raise as many questions as they answer. For one: why is the FBI suddenly focused on years-old research that has long been part of the public record.
"This has been a known issue for four or five years, where a bunch of us have been stood up and pounding our chest and saying, 'This has to be fixed,' " Roberts noted. "Is there a credible threat? Is something happening? If so, they're not going to tell us," he said. Roberts isn't the only one confused by the series of events surrounding his detention in April and the revelations about his interviews with federal agents. "I would like to see a transcript (of the interviews)," said one former federal computer crimes prosecutor, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If he did what he said he did, why is he not in jail? And if he didn't do it, why is the FBI saying he did?"
"This has been a known issue for four or five years, where a bunch of us have been stood up and pounding our chest and saying, 'This has to be fixed,' " Roberts noted. "Is there a credible threat? Is something happening? If so, they're not going to tell us," he said. Roberts isn't the only one confused by the series of events surrounding his detention in April and the revelations about his interviews with federal agents. "I would like to see a transcript (of the interviews)," said one former federal computer crimes prosecutor, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If he did what he said he did, why is he not in jail? And if he didn't do it, why is the FBI saying he did?"
The FBI isn't claiming anything. The affidavit simply states that Chris Roberts told the FBI agents he was able to hack the avionics of the plane.
Frankly, it's complete bullshit. The systems are completely, physically separate. There is no way to hack the thrust from the in-flight entertainment system because they are not connected to each other. The most he'd be able to do is turn on the fasten seatbelt sign.
The affidavit simply states that Chris Roberts told the FBI agents he was able to hack the avionics of the plane.
It's not illegal to be "able" to hack something. A crime is an illegal act, done at a specific time and place. You can't charge someone with having killed "someone" unless you name that someone. You can't even charge them if you have a name of the murdered, unless you have a time and place named.
You can get a warrant for someone "able" to do it, and they did. If they arrested him, the charge should specify what he did that was illegal, and when and where it happened. I haven't seen a pic of the actual arrest paperwork, but the media stated it was for hacking a specific flight. This means that the media reports are that he was arrested for actually having caused a flight-path diversion mid-flight by controlling (at least part of) the flight control systems from his passenger seat.
Learn to love Alaska
he made it clear that he did so in a simulator, not on a real plane in the sky. the FBI is taking it out of context to scare people and the media is complicit in this as well for not doing basic journalist research
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The corresponding FAA term is "Airworthiness Directive" (AD). An AD is a very big deal.
The in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems receive navigation data from the flight deck computers so they can display the moving maps and other stuff on the entertainment displays, for those passengers who want to know "where am I", "are we there yet", "is it time to reset my watch because we've crossed a time zone and I'm trying to adjust my body clock".
I would be shocked to learn that Boeing allowed the IFE to put ANY kind of data into the flight deck computers. I'd actually expect Boeing to use a one-way interface, one that transmits but does not receive: think RS-232 with one of the pins removed. I'd be almost as shocked to learn that Airbus did something like that. However, Airbus's comment about "firewalls" does not exactly inspire me to confidence in their airplanes.
There's something else. If Mr. Roberts did in fact do what the FBI claimed he said he did, I would have expected the air up in the cockpit to have turned very blue, as the pilots said (screamed, actually) something along the lines of what the Apollo 8 crew said (screamed, actually) when their CSM did an uncommanded thruster burn. I would further expected them to take manual control immediately, get on the radio immediately, declare an emergency because of the uncommanded engine power setting change, and land at the nearest airstrip that could handle the airplane. I would further expect maintenance crews to pull the flight data recorders to find out WTF just happened.
Logical? Yes. Physical? No.
Speaking as someone who worked for a Boeing subcontractor who designed their on board computers, I can tell you that there is a physical connection. There's only one set of SATCOM radios on board. The avionics systems use it for some of their communications and have for a long time. The airlines wanted to monetize the extra bandwidth by selling access to the passengers for a price. I am told they didn't add a second set of radios to provide bandwidth to the passengers.
So at the very least, there is a switch that connects the avionics network, the in flight entertainment network, and the SATCOM radios. And while this is a physical connection, there is a fair amount of confidence that it's still a logical separation. The AFDX/ARINC 664 standard is pretty extensive and allows for very strict connection management. While Roberts may have been able to get a packet out of the IFE network and have it look like an engine control message, there's very little chance that packet would make it anywhere close to the engine control computer. Of course, that assumes that the avionics network was set up correctly. And that's a pretty good assumption given the safety requirements in place for avionics design. Still, there's that one in a million shot that there is an exploitable flaw. It's probably less chance than that, but it's not guaranteed to be zero.
According to Bruce Schneier they're not physically separated: "Newer planes such as the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A350 and A380 have a single network that is used both by pilots to fly the plane and passengers for their Wi-Fi connections."
See also Figure 4 of this GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669627.pdf. There's a firewall protecting the command-and-control avionics from the passenger's network. Both the avionics systems and the passenger network utilize the same egress to the ground. Per the report: "Firewalls protect avionics systems located in the cockpit from intrusion by cabin system users, such as passengers who use in-flight entertainment services onboard."
Older planes had physically separate networks. Newer ones, not so much. Of course, maybe the security is bullet-proof. Doubtless there are access controls at the ethernet layer much more sophisticated than your standard network. And it'd be very surprised if Chris Roberts wasn't lying or grossly exaggerating. But regardless the systems are _not_ physically separate.
I've been to Roberts' lectures. There is a piece of information that he talks about but is left out his slide deck and other documentation that is missing in the media reports. That piece is the actual vulnerability itself.
I am a commercial pilot and the term "dog tailing" is a new one for me. Also I would *very much* notice an uncommanded change in engine power.