Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chris Roberts Is the Least Important Part of the Airplane Hacking Story

Posted by samzenpus on from the hacking-the-friendly-skies dept.

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?"

11 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. not the real question by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the real question to be asking is that if what the FBI is claiming is true, why has the FAA not grounded all planes of the same make yet? they have grounded planes for less in the past, the FAA doesnt really mess around

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:not the real question by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only bullshit if Chris Roberts was actually lying. And validating it is pretty straightforward: Did the plane yaw, as was claimed? Can Chris' software cause it to happen again?

      It's a pretty simple test. And as far as Chris' treatment, if he's been trying to tell people about this vulnerability and getting the cold shoulder, he's as innocent as they get and should be compensated for time served.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:not the real question by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if Roberts was telling the truth he should be charged for hacking the avionics. If he wasn't telling the truth then he should be charged with making false statements.

      Though of course the FBI will want to dig up evidence either way before doing anything. Even though it's obvious the second is the case. If a plane he had caused a plane to climb the pilots would have reported that the plane initiated a climb all by itself and the FAA would be investigating and probably grounding planes or having them disable the entertainment systems.

    3. Re:not the real question by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      What are your qualifications to be able to say so?

      The systems should be separate. There should be no way to hack into avionics. That doesn't necessarily make it so.

      If you really do know, then great, I am more informed than I was previously was.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:not the real question by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I assume there are a couple of pilots on the flight who could easily verify if this was the case.

    5. Re:not the real question by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. If you are charged with the murder of Bob, by shooting him, and you can prove that he was dead from a heart attack, the most they can charge you with is desecrating a corpse, which wouldn't stick if you could prove that he was alive when you shot, and dead when it hit.

      Hacking doesn't have to have an effect, though. It's not a crime to make a plane divert. It's illegal to try, whether or not you succeed. So that's different.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:not the real question by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he did this on an actual aircraft in flight (he didn't, it's BS) then he put the lives of everyone on that plane in danger. They don't let flight control software on a plane without a well understood pedigree for a reason and he was mucking with that. If he did this on an actual plane in flight (he didn't) he belongs in jail. If he didn't do it (he didn't) then he is basically confessing to a crime that wasn't committed, and perhaps he should be committed himself, that or the FBI is full of shit and it wouldn't be the first time for that. If the entertainment system actually has a way to send data to the critical flight control systems then a bunch of engineers and executives belong in jail right beside him, and throw in some FAA folks for good measure.

    7. Re:not the real question by citizenr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt what the FBI is claiming is true

      of course its true, they found hair evidence and everything!

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  2. Hmmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's almost as though the FBI is being hamfisted and incompetent again; but that couldn't be right...

  3. Re:Boeing Engineers... by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that Boeing asked the FAA for a Special Condition to allow just such an interconnection.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  4. Re:Boeing Engineers... by I'm+not+god+any+more · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except that Boeing asked the FAA for a Special Condition to allow just such an interconnection.

    Which was granted: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granu...