Hacking into an aircraft computer system
- Thread starter Pop_Rivit
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Trajan
One would think the pilots and the instruments would notice if they flew sideways?
Not buying it.
That's my question too- did this supposed sideways tracking go unnoticed? Was it reported?
The way I look at it is this guy was no pilot and was up 30k feet or however much in the air along with the rest of the passengers and crew- if he did change the engine parameters unannounced, he was endangering his own life along with everybody else's. Now who would be crazy or stupid enough to do that, when all you're trying to do is raise awareness to the subject?
I would tend to agree with Astro on this one- I don't doubt his knowledge having been a pilot, both military and commercial for many years. The men and women at the FBI aren't Boeing or Airbus, nor are they pilots who are well versed in commercial airliner systems. In this case, my money says they are simply responding to a threat to safety (real or perceived) and will thoroughly investigate what transpired. I'm also willing to bet that once they are done, they'll find out he didn't actually do all he claimed- but his goose will still be cooked...
One would think the pilots and the instruments would notice if they flew sideways?
Not buying it.
That's my question too- did this supposed sideways tracking go unnoticed? Was it reported?
The way I look at it is this guy was no pilot and was up 30k feet or however much in the air along with the rest of the passengers and crew- if he did change the engine parameters unannounced, he was endangering his own life along with everybody else's. Now who would be crazy or stupid enough to do that, when all you're trying to do is raise awareness to the subject?
I would tend to agree with Astro on this one- I don't doubt his knowledge having been a pilot, both military and commercial for many years. The men and women at the FBI aren't Boeing or Airbus, nor are they pilots who are well versed in commercial airliner systems. In this case, my money says they are simply responding to a threat to safety (real or perceived) and will thoroughly investigate what transpired. I'm also willing to bet that once they are done, they'll find out he didn't actually do all he claimed- but his goose will still be cooked...
okay, I have to ask. If over the years we have been told to turn off all electronics because they "may" affect aircraft operation, what is different now - and is it possible that he connected via RF instead of cable?
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Trajan
One would think the pilots and the instruments would notice if they flew sideways?
Not buying it.
That's my question too- did this supposed sideways tracking go unnoticed? Was it reported?
The way I look at it is this guy was no pilot and was up 30k feet or however much in the air along with the rest of the passengers and crew- if he did change the engine parameters unannounced, he was endangering his own life along with everybody else's. Now who would be crazy or stupid enough to do that, when all you're trying to do is raise awareness to the subject?
I would tend to agree with Astro on this one- I don't doubt his knowledge having been a pilot, both military and commercial for many years. The men and women at the FBI aren't Boeing or Airbus, nor are they pilots who are well versed in commercial airliner systems. In this case, my money says they are simply responding to a threat to safety (real or perceived) and will thoroughly investigate what transpired. I'm also willing to bet that once they are done, they'll find out he didn't actually do all he claimed- but his goose will still be cooked...
So would I.
But media, in the never ending quest for ratings, will always go for sensationalism.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
One would think the pilots and the instruments would notice if they flew sideways?
Not buying it.
That's my question too- did this supposed sideways tracking go unnoticed? Was it reported?
The way I look at it is this guy was no pilot and was up 30k feet or however much in the air along with the rest of the passengers and crew- if he did change the engine parameters unannounced, he was endangering his own life along with everybody else's. Now who would be crazy or stupid enough to do that, when all you're trying to do is raise awareness to the subject?
I would tend to agree with Astro on this one- I don't doubt his knowledge having been a pilot, both military and commercial for many years. The men and women at the FBI aren't Boeing or Airbus, nor are they pilots who are well versed in commercial airliner systems. In this case, my money says they are simply responding to a threat to safety (real or perceived) and will thoroughly investigate what transpired. I'm also willing to bet that once they are done, they'll find out he didn't actually do all he claimed- but his goose will still be cooked...
So would I.
But media, in the never ending quest for ratings, will always go for sensationalism.
gathermewool
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Vandalized the IFE box? Yeah, I can believe that.
Made the engines respond? Nope. Completely bogus.
The IFE on a 757 isn't connected to anything else. There is a Thrust Management Computer, it's connected to the Flight Management Computer. But they're not connected to anything else and they're not connected to IFE, which was added 20+ years after the airplane was built.
This guy has delusions of grandeur. The arrests are for tampering with expensive equipment, not because his claims are true.
Interesting. There are a lot of people, including a number of government agencies including the watchdog group Government Accountability Office, the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI that seem to think differently than you do.
Even the search warrant claims that he did what he said. On Pages 13 and 14 it spells out what the FBI thought he did.
Page 16 of the warrant goes so far as to state that
Originally Posted By: From Warrant
he had been able to and did use special equipment in his possession to "hack" into the IFE systems on aircraft previously and had claimed that he had connected to other systems on the aircraft network; and (4) that agents and technical specialists with the FBI believed that he may have just done that again or attempted to do so using the equipment then in his possession as witnessed by the FBI.
Emphasized for...emphasis. They didn't claim he did what he claimed to do.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I highly doubt the guy could access aircraft functions from a socket under the passenger seat.
Could be one of those occasional alarmist and false stories FBI comes up with like the Sony hack by North Korea.
Tell that to the Sony employees!
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Vandalized the IFE box? Yeah, I can believe that.
Made the engines respond? Nope. Completely bogus.
The IFE on a 757 isn't connected to anything else. There is a Thrust Management Computer, it's connected to the Flight Management Computer. But they're not connected to anything else and they're not connected to IFE, which was added 20+ years after the airplane was built.
This guy has delusions of grandeur. The arrests are for tampering with expensive equipment, not because his claims are true.
Interesting. There are a lot of people, including a number of government agencies including the watchdog group Government Accountability Office, the Federal Aviation Administration and the FBI that seem to think differently than you do.
Even the search warrant claims that he did what he said. On Pages 13 and 14 it spells out what the FBI thought he did.
Page 16 of the warrant goes so far as to state that
Originally Posted By: From Warrant
he had been able to and did use special equipment in his possession to "hack" into the IFE systems on aircraft previously and had claimed that he had connected to other systems on the aircraft network; and (4) that agents and technical specialists with the FBI believed that he may have just done that again or attempted to do so using the equipment then in his possession as witnessed by the FBI.
Emphasized for...emphasis. They didn't claim he did what he claimed to do.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I highly doubt the guy could access aircraft functions from a socket under the passenger seat.
Could be one of those occasional alarmist and false stories FBI comes up with like the Sony hack by North Korea.
Tell that to the Sony employees!
What bothers me about this whole thing is that an aircraft cannot fly sideways, while most helos can do so all day long.
If one engine were powered up, the plane would yaw into the engine producing less thrust and if unchecked by the rudder, the plane would eventually end up inverted.
This is the type of thing the crew would have had to notice right away.
This would have brought a write-up of the aircraft for an uncommanded thrust divergence in whichever engine and maintenance would have had to look at the problem and there would therefore be a note in the aircraft's maintenance logs.
What I'm trying to say is that it would be very easy to match the claimed hacker's flights, which the airlines can easily verify, with any crew maintenance write-ups.
The guys up front may not be actively controling the aircraft in cruise, but they'd sure as (whatever) notice an uncommanded increase in thrust from one of the engines.
If one engine were powered up, the plane would yaw into the engine producing less thrust and if unchecked by the rudder, the plane would eventually end up inverted.
This is the type of thing the crew would have had to notice right away.
This would have brought a write-up of the aircraft for an uncommanded thrust divergence in whichever engine and maintenance would have had to look at the problem and there would therefore be a note in the aircraft's maintenance logs.
What I'm trying to say is that it would be very easy to match the claimed hacker's flights, which the airlines can easily verify, with any crew maintenance write-ups.
The guys up front may not be actively controling the aircraft in cruise, but they'd sure as (whatever) notice an uncommanded increase in thrust from one of the engines.
I would also find it impossible to believe that the protocol between the cockpit controls and engines is so stupidly-simple that it would not have near real-time closed-loop control such that it would immediately correct any deviation from the commanded power level.
"Computer security expert?" According to who? Who says? The press? LOL....
I call Bravo Sierra on this "CSE". He sure is enjoying all the free press coverage though + the media is stupid enough on simple things, much less GNC, to be a credible source. Their business is constantly agitating the unknowing public and propagating fear, not informing.
Anyone who understands physics knows that planes don't fly 'sideways' just like rockets don't fly horizontal.
LIFT: It's not just a good idea. It's the law!
I call Bravo Sierra on this "CSE". He sure is enjoying all the free press coverage though + the media is stupid enough on simple things, much less GNC, to be a credible source. Their business is constantly agitating the unknowing public and propagating fear, not informing.
Anyone who understands physics knows that planes don't fly 'sideways' just like rockets don't fly horizontal.
LIFT: It's not just a good idea. It's the law!
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: pitzel
Originally Posted By: emg
And it sounds completely bogus to me, too. The IFE can read information from the avionics (e.g. position, for the map display), but has no legitimate way to send messages back.
I'm pretty sure those systems can't even do that, ie: talk to the plane's FMS. For instance, a certain airline in Canada operates early-build A320s without GPS navigation capability, yet the IFE uses GPS for the moving map, groundspeed calculation, etc. So the GPS feeding such is built into the IFE, operates independently of the aircraft's avionics entirely, and the flight attendants have to key in the destination airport when booting the IFE up. As another poster put it, the only interface between the IFE and the rest of the aircraft is literally an electric circuit breaker.
I agree, this guy is full of Bravo Sierra and his claim of doing what he said he did is totally bogus. I suspect this guy has a narcissistic personality disorder.
Each aircraft manf. uses a slightly different protocol and have their internal data buses connected differently.
An entertainment system is on a different data bus than the FMS, etc., and architecturally isolated from the other buses.
One would have the know data bus protocols of each manf., the Cyclic Redundancy Check keys running within each data bus, a special connector to tie into the main avionics bay, and a host of other attributes that I can guarantee he doesn't know or have.
A simple way to determine if anything was abnormal on any flight is to look primarily at the the Error Log in the main avionics computer, and secondarily, the FDR.
Originally Posted By: emg
And it sounds completely bogus to me, too. The IFE can read information from the avionics (e.g. position, for the map display), but has no legitimate way to send messages back.
I'm pretty sure those systems can't even do that, ie: talk to the plane's FMS. For instance, a certain airline in Canada operates early-build A320s without GPS navigation capability, yet the IFE uses GPS for the moving map, groundspeed calculation, etc. So the GPS feeding such is built into the IFE, operates independently of the aircraft's avionics entirely, and the flight attendants have to key in the destination airport when booting the IFE up. As another poster put it, the only interface between the IFE and the rest of the aircraft is literally an electric circuit breaker.
I agree, this guy is full of Bravo Sierra and his claim of doing what he said he did is totally bogus. I suspect this guy has a narcissistic personality disorder.
Each aircraft manf. uses a slightly different protocol and have their internal data buses connected differently.
An entertainment system is on a different data bus than the FMS, etc., and architecturally isolated from the other buses.
One would have the know data bus protocols of each manf., the Cyclic Redundancy Check keys running within each data bus, a special connector to tie into the main avionics bay, and a host of other attributes that I can guarantee he doesn't know or have.
A simple way to determine if anything was abnormal on any flight is to look primarily at the the Error Log in the main avionics computer, and secondarily, the FDR.
Last edited:
- Status
