PDA

View Full Version : Will Boeing's 787 be safe from hackers?



Sporkman
January 10th, 2008, 05:30 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_hi_te/787_computer_security_2


Will Boeing's 787 be safe from hackers?

By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE, AP Business Writer Wed Jan 9, 5:03 PM ET

SEATTLE - Before Boeing Co.'s new 787 jetliner gets the green light to fly passengers, the aircraft maker will have to prove that offering Internet access in the cabin won't leave the flight controls vulnerable to hackers and hijackers.

Boeing claims it has engineered safeguards to shut out unauthorized users, but some security analysts worry navigation and communications systems could be vulnerable.

"The odds of this being perfect are zero," said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at the security services firm BT Counterpane. "It's possible Boeing can make their connection to the Internet secure. If they do, it will be the first time in mankind anyone's done that."

But Boeing spokeswoman Lori Gunter said 787's aviation electronics "are not connected in any way to the Internet."

Boeing has designed the 787 to allow airlines to offer passengers more in-flight entertainment and Internet options than previous planes have allowed.

Those new features and other aspects of 787's computer network go beyond the scope of existing regulations, so the Federal Aviation Administration is requiring Boeing to show the new technology won't pose a safety threat.

In a "special condition" the FAA has ordered Boeing to satisfy, the agency notes that the 787 "allows new kinds of passenger connectivity to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane.

"Because of this new passenger connectivity, the proposed data network design and integration may result in security vulnerabilities from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane."

An FAA spokesman said the agency has been working closely with Boeing and is pleased so far.

"We are always in constant communication and are satisfied with what they have provided," FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said.

Boeing is set to deliver the first 787 by the end of the year.

Boeing's Gunter said there is "not any place where the passenger interface to the Internet shares hardware" with the plane's aviation electronics.

"There are multiple layers of hardware and software" that ensure "data cannot pass from the passenger entrainment network to the other more secure networks on the airplane," Gunter said.

Special conditions are a normal part of the regulatory process aircraft makers undergo to get their planes certified for flight. The FAA issues them any time new designs introduce safety concerns that aren't fully addressed in existing regulations.

Boeing rival Airbus SAS argues that the only way to satisfy the new requirement would be to physically separate the passenger information and entertainment systems from all other systems on the plane.

Airbus told the FAA in a written comment that such a solution "is not technically and operationally viable."

Gunter declined to specify exactly how and to what degree the 787's computer networks are separated.

"One of the things you do to ensure security is not talk about the protections in any great detail," she said.

Boeing has already completed all lab tests the FAA has ordered for computer security, Gunter said. Final approval will come after Boeing runs another set of tests during flight testing, which is scheduled to begin in March.

The Air Line Pilots Association has urged the FAA to require a backup system that would allow flight attendants to disable passengers' Internet connections. The FAA declined, saying its job is not to dictate specific designs, but Boeing said that capability already exists.

Broadband passenger Internet access won't be available on the first 787s Boeing delivers. Few airlines offer mile-high Web access, but Gunter said Boeing wired the 787 for it because in-flight Internet is an emerging technology Boeing expects a growing number of airlines will adopt in the coming years.

The special condition on computer security, first proposed last spring and published in final form last week, is one of several the FAA has issued for the 787.

Others require Boeing to prove the 787 will be as safe during crash landings or in-flight fires as aluminum planes, since it will be the first large passenger plane made mostly of carbon-fiber composites.

Boeing also has to show that the 787, which will be powered almost entirely by high-voltage electric generators rather than air sucked through the engines, will be able to fly and safely land if its electrical power system fails.

stalker145
January 10th, 2008, 06:47 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_hi_te/787_computer_security_2

It can't be that hard to have two separate networks on an airplane... would be a lot safer, too, to have them instead of some sort of firewall. Why not make the entire plane (avionics, navigation, and everything) separate from the passengers to lower risk?

It looks like they're going to half-butt this and it's going to get shot down...

If it goes, I'm hoping that the connection to the plane is wireless since my ethernet port is broken on my laptop :(

~LoKe
January 10th, 2008, 06:53 PM
Split them into two independant networks.

stalker145
January 10th, 2008, 06:57 PM
Split them into two independant networks.

That's what I'm saying, but
Boeing rival Airbus SAS argues that the only way to satisfy the new requirement would be to physically separate the passenger information and entertainment systems from all other systems on the plane.

Airbus told the FAA in a written comment that such a solution "is not technically and operationally viable."
C'mon, really, it's an extra wireless router (2lbs), an extra MODEM (2lbs), and about 1 cubic foot of space. What's not feasible? You can even use the same transmission path (anyone hear of multiplexing?).

kamaboko
January 10th, 2008, 08:08 PM
My uncle and cousin are engineers for Boeing. Give Boeing workers some credit. They're not fricking idiots. Of course they are capable of safe guarding the plane from being hacked. This is another journalist spinning a web trying to make their due date and make a buck.

Lostincyberspace
January 10th, 2008, 08:30 PM
My uncle used to work for Boeing and helped design 777 I think and he said all they really did was test the the things that were already developed in different configurations to see which is the best.

popch
January 10th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Give Boeing workers some credit. They're not fricking idiots. Of course they are capable of safe guarding the plane from being hacked.

Of course we give Boeing workers some credit. As we do to those at Microsoft, at the Ariane project, at NASA and at a great number of other organisations which do significant hardware and software engineering.

While doing so, we learn why an Ariane rocket flight had to be abandoned after launch, why robots crash into mars, why computers can be hijacked to perform malicious code and on and on.

~LoKe
January 10th, 2008, 08:34 PM
My uncle and cousin are engineers for Boeing. Give Boeing workers some credit. They're not fricking idiots. Of course they are capable of safe guarding the plane from being hacked. This is another journalist spinning a web trying to make their due date and make a buck.

Most people who develop hardware and build their network assume it's secure. Many of these people are experts who make a living off of it. Does that mean they're "fricking idiots" when someone hacks into it? It's a lot easier to get in than it is to keep someone out.

aimran
January 10th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Right, gonna jot down some nonsense here.

As it is it's possible to run a windows virus inside a virtual machine sitting on linux rig without any side effects other than crashing the virtual machine. There was a thread a couple of weeks back of someone running the storm worm.

I guess if there's a security measure on the 787 then the above analogy would be the best prediction.

mips
January 11th, 2008, 12:11 AM
The thing that worries me a shiteload more is the use of lots of carbon fibre in the planes which do not go well with lightning, period!

hkgonra
January 11th, 2008, 12:16 AM
That's what I'm saying, but
C'mon, really, it's an extra wireless router (2lbs), an extra MODEM (2lbs), and about 1 cubic foot of space. What's not feasible? You can even use the same transmission path (anyone hear of multiplexing?).

Exactly !!!
This is a NO-BRAINER !!!!!!

2 completely seperate internet connections and networks is the ONLY way to go for this.

aimran
January 11th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Exactly !!!
This is a NO-BRAINER !!!!!!

2 completely seperate internet connections and networks is the ONLY way to go for this.

I doubt a 2lbs modem would be adequate for the 200++++ passengers

stalker145
January 11th, 2008, 01:07 AM
I doubt a 2lbs modem would be adequate for the 200++++ passengers

It would be if these passengers were merely doing as passengers do and check e-mail, IM, or surf. Now, I can see problems arising if one of those passengers was one of us... damned BT seeders ;)

Crashmaxx
January 11th, 2008, 01:46 AM
This article is FUD. The systems of the plane do not have nor use the internet. The network components for the passengers have nothing to do with the systems of the plane. They are only connected in the physical sense of using the same power supply and I doubt much else. There is no way a hacker could do anything to the plane. They could mess up someone's laptop on the plane, but there is no way they could mess with the plane itself.

Sporkman
January 11th, 2008, 01:52 AM
This article is FUD. The systems of the plane do not have nor use the internet. The network components for the passengers have nothing to do with the systems of the plane. They are only connected in the physical sense of using the same power supply and I doubt much else. There is no way a hacker could do anything to the plane. They could mess up someone's laptop on the plane, but there is no way they could mess with the plane itself.



In a report released last week, the FAA said that Boeing had left the pilots' computers open to attack by connecting the Dreamliner's entertainment system to the pilots' controls.

A hacker with a computer and some IT training potentially could hijack the system from his seat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321326,00.html

Crashmaxx
January 11th, 2008, 02:05 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321326,00.html

WTF was Boeing thinking? Not connecting entertainment systems to navigation systems should be "Flight System Design 101", someone needs to get fired for that mistake.