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?"

Comments

not the real question

[ganjadude]

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

Re:not the real question

[ganjadude]

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

Re:not the real question

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Re:not the real question

[grimmjeeper]

The systems are completely, physically separate.

Considering that both the Avionics systems and the in flight entertainment systems are both able to reach the SATCOM radios, I'm not sure this assertion is true.

I've spent a great deal of my career working on avionics systems and did work on early Ethernet implementations in the late 90's, well before ARINC came up with AFDX/664 standards. Back then we restricted Ethernet to single point to single point dedicated channels with no switching or routing of any kind. The first vague ideas of having an in-flight entertainment network were starting to form. But at the time, it was just high level R&D.

From what I've been able to piece together is that Chris Roberts bought an under-seat device and hooked up something in his basement for proof-of-concept attacks into the avionics network. But without all of the rest of the equipment, he had to build up his system with commercial grade equipment. And that's where his "hacking the engine controls" story falls apart. Sure, he may have been able to get a specifically formatted packet through the IFE network and send it out the port that connects to the rest of the plane. And with his generic Ethernet switches, he may have been able to get that packet through to where he thought the engine control computer was. But his model is flawed.

AFDX/ARINC 664 is an entire structure built on top of the physical layer of Ethernet. While it may use Ethernet frames to pass the data, there's a ton of bandwidth management and strict routing management built on top of it. Assuming for the sake of argument that the avionics network was indeed set up correctly, there's no way an engine control packet coming from the IFE network would be routed. The filters would see that the IFE port isn't authorized to send that data and it would be dropped, perhaps with an error log of some kind. The only thing the IFE network should be able to talk to is the SATCOM radio and only within very specific parameters. There's no way a properly set up avionics network is vulnerable to an attack like this.

Of course, that begs the question. Did they set up their avionics network correctly? It's highly likely that they did, but I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that there are absolutely zero vulnerabilities. Suffice it to say, I'm extremely skeptical of Roberts' claims. But I will stop short of saying that he is, without question, full of it.

Re:not the real question

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:not the real question

[deadweight]

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.

Re:Boeing Engineers...

[grimmjeeper]

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.