Hacker admits hijacking plane mid-air: FBI

[clazman]

You are assuming someone actually looks at such logs.

I doubt they would look under normal circumstances, but in this instance surely they went back and had a look?p

Either way he got his 15 minutes of fame

 

[Daver6]

Unlikely, his whole point is that there is no security. That said if two posts up is to be believed the whole this was simply BS.

I think the point isn't that there is no security, but there are flaws and ways to circumvent measures put in place to prevent such activities.

 

[medhead]

I think the point isn't that there is no security, but there are flaws and ways to circumvent measures put in place to prevent such activities.

If you believe this guy. However, it seems the people investigating don't believe him. Making it hard to agree there are flaws.

 

[NM]

I doubt they would look under normal circumstances, but in this instance surely they went back and had a look?p

If logs are not collected and archived, then with many network devices they are lost when power is cycled and local retention of logs is dependent on logging memory capacity and how much detail is being logged. I very much doubt there is any opportunity to review log details from anything more than the current flight or maybe the current day - if any such data is logged at all.

Either way he got his 15 minutes of fame

And now will likely find it very difficult to fly anywhere again.

 

[codash1099]

When I read stuff like this (or similar overhyped stuff of which there is plenty) my first reaction is to ask "Is this likely?". In this case my first reaction would be NO!.

It would seem that, these days, too many people are not prepared to question what they read. Maybe it's true but I would need convincing before joining the doomsayers.

 

[Daver6]

If you believe this guy. However, it seems the people investigating don't believe him. Making it hard to agree there are flaws.

Not saying I believe this bloke in particular. However, just because he hasn't done it, doesn't mean there are no flaws and that it can't be done. That would be rather naive I think.

 

[medhead]

Not saying I believe this bloke in particular. However, just because he hasn't done it, doesn't mean there are no flaws and that it can't be done. That would be rather naive I think.

You wrote that there are flaws and ways to circumvent the system. That conclusion is not supported by the story. In pointing the lack of support in this case for your conclusion, I have not made any claim that there are no flaws.

 

[Daver6]

You wrote that there are flaws and ways to circumvent the system. That conclusion is not supported by the story. In pointing the lack of support in this case for your conclusion, I have not made any claim that there are no flaws.

Fair call.

 

[medhead]

Fair call.

Still, on the flip side, this kind of crackpot claim may prevent people looking for flaws.

 

[RAM]

I actually think this is a good thing. I'd rather this guy do the hacking (if it actually happened) rather than someone who didn't shout it from the roof-tops and just crashed the plane.

MH370 anyone?

 

[RAM]

He's a fruit loop/troll/attention seeker.

You may end up being too quick to pass judgement.

Neither Boeing nor Airbus have issued any Media Releases either denying any problem nor saying anything about the claim of hacking at all.

Normal damage control is to immediately refute if no substance to claims.

Having found serious errors (lack of any security, error checking, audit trail collection) in multiple extremely large organisations systems (one covering trillions in securities) I'll hold my judgement for a while yet.

Anything is possible.

Just look at M$' ability to charge for a product that has serious security flaws since the mid 1980s and yet it is the customer who suffers and has no right to sue M$.

Here are Boeing's Media Releases for the last few weeks:



Qn: how do you make an image larger for easy reading on a post?

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Neither Boeing nor Airbus have issued any Media Releases either denying any problem nor saying anything about the claim of hacking at all.

NO I have not seen any official response from Boeing or Airbus but I did see a news report where they interviewed an FBI spokesman who clearly stated that both Boeing and Airbus categorically denied this could occur.

 

[juddles]

This is, a total

CROCK OF ****

 

[MEL_Traveller]

NO I have not seen any official response from Boeing or Airbus but I did see a news report where they interviewed an FBI spokesman who clearly stated that both Boeing and Airbus categorically denied this could occur.

well yes... but... the FBI is hardly going to start mass public panic by admitting it's true, or even possible right?

 

[Cruiser Elite]

well yes... but... the FBI is hardly going to start mass public panic by admitting it's true, or even possible right?

So you think they might start mass public panic by saying cough yeah this dude did that? Or if they make no response at all? I'm still firmly in the camp of crock of cough in total.

But seriously MEL you and I have no idea whether or not this is possible - there are a couple of regular posters here on AFF who do posess this knowledge - if they didn't before I am tipping they have been well briefed by their employees by now - and maybe they could provide some accurate info?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So you think they might start mass public panic by saying cough yeah this dude did that? Or if they make no response at all? I'm still firmly in the camp of crock of cough in total.

But seriously MEL you and I have no idea whether or not this is possible - there are a couple of regular posters here on AFF who do posess this knowledge - if they didn't before I am tipping they have been well briefed by their employees by now - and maybe they could provide some accurate info?

I qualified an earlier post in this thread with the words 'if' it actually happened. And that's still my position.

If it happened then better this guy did it and made it public rather than finding out after a terrorist event. If he didn't do it... at least authorities at the highest levels are probably scrambling to determine if it is possible or not. So we'll get an answer one way of the other. I'm happy with that.

 

[TomVexille]

I qualified an earlier post in this thread with the words 'if' it actually happened. And that's still my position.

If it happened then better this guy did it and made it public rather than finding out after a terrorist event. If he didn't do it... at least authorities at the highest levels are probably scrambling to determine if it is possible or not. So we'll get an answer one way of the other. I'm happy with that.

Can't argue with that

 

[medhead]

Yeah because the fbi is well known for considering the big picture.

*cough Waco

 

[jb747]

I qualified an earlier post in this thread with the words 'if' it actually happened. And that's still my position.

If it happened then better this guy did it and made it public rather than finding out after a terrorist event. If he didn't do it... at least authorities at the highest levels are probably scrambling to determine if it is possible or not. So we'll get an answer one way of the other. I'm happy with that.

"If it actually happened"...then this idiot affected the controlling systems of an aircraft in flight. Whether his intentions were good or bad, he remains an idiot who should be jailed for such actions.

The ways in which we've seen the software play up when written by the people who are meant to be doing it, and with access to the real thing to test their programs on, are extensive. Nobody in their right mind would ever 'test' anything on an aircraft in flight.

If it happened of course.

 

[RAM]

"If it actually happened"...then this idiot affected the controlling systems of an aircraft in flight. Whether his intentions were good or bad, he remains an idiot who should be jailed for such actions.

The ways in which we've seen the software play up when written by the people who are meant to be doing it, and with access to the real thing to test their programs on, are extensive. Nobody in their right mind would ever 'test' anything on an aircraft in flight.

If it happened of course.

Totally agree but with one change....

Nobody in their right mind should ever 'test' anything on an aircraft in flight. (or any other live system)

Ego is a dangerous thing.

Australian example in early 1990s with fund management champion (still living of our efforts with 1987 crash) BT. Rocket scientist convinced the powers-that-be that he knew best. I had departed by then but had pointed out pride comes before fall (very publicly).

He 'enhanced' their entire accounting/custody/unit pricing system and insisted there was no need for a parallel run. He didn't make mistakes and neither would his team.

Long story short, there were mistakes, big ones. BT had to apply to ATO for all investors (over 150,000+) to be granted an extension for lodging tax returns as it took until Jan the following year (I think it was) for them to recreate their entire records using the old system all the same time as they continued managing the funds they had. At between 2-5,000 transactions per day, cross currency, custodian, trustee etc you can imagine the mess. Redemptions were frozen in many cases etc. Then it had to be audited. Big parties held by the external auditor, huge!

So "Would" vs "Should" is relevant.

Egos and sound minds not sure.