Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
Planes, Tweets & Possible Hacks From Seats
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
JimM699
50%
50%
JimM699,
 User Rank: Apprentice
6/3/2015 | 4:33:24 PM
Re: It's also not that simple.
Unfortunately unauthorized acccess and resulting unauthorized changes to a system don't need a published exploit or flaw in code to occur. This is one of the many premises of airgapping highrisk, mission critical systems. Indeed, even when someone puts the system on an IP stack the game changes. Accessibility means everything.

And the use of probability as a factor in this is flawed.  Time and time again estimated probabilities have been shown to be flawed. Just look up "Black Swan."  To be clear when human life is at stake there is no room for a simple equation to justify a decision to allow a potentially unsafe system to operate when the consequences are dire.  It is morally and ethically irresponsible. Try talking probabilty to a lineman or carman who deals with lifethreatening materials every hour of his working life. Does he think in probabilities or certainties when they enter the operational environment. There is a reason that the field as Safety rules.

The use of risk to manage IT Security has been showed as a flawed approach resulting in misapplication of resources and worst of all, incorrect and misleading meausurements. People should realize this by now. How many "unforeseen" "Mega" breaches have to occur?

 

 
graywilliams
0%
100%
graywilliams,
 User Rank: Apprentice
6/1/2015 | 6:51:27 PM
Re: It's also not that simple.
The nav systems (I'm told by Green Hill) are based on green hill's proprietary integrity kernel.

This kernel has achieved some pretty amazing safety and security certifications:
FAA: DO-178B, Level A (INTEGRITY-178 RTOS)
NSA: EAL 6+ High Robustness Common Criteria

That its not windows or linux-based essentially drops the risk probability of the flight systems being hijacked/hacked thru the wifi service *substantially* - if not all the way to near-zero.

The outcome of the risk assessment swings radically on this one bit - i'd say, most critical bit - of information (Risk and Probability plummets as Vulnerabilities and Threats both fall to zero; r=pvta) yet no one seems to have loudly pointed this out anywhere online or in the recent hearings, and that includes Wired, GAO, Boeing and Airbus.

The primary takeaway points out the importance of the risk assessment process and thinking in terms of probabilities. We risk wasting precious time & resources when the discussion occurs outside of this framework.
ramsha
50%
50%
ramsha,
 User Rank: Apprentice
5/25/2015 | 8:07:15 PM
Re: Just a publicity ploy perhaps?!
Why would he do such a thing to risk his professional life you ask. One reason, perhaps because as I stated earlier "... his bulldog mouth ...." wants to call attention to himself, perhaps it's professional immaturity, or he's hoping to get a job with the FAA or NTSB. Who knows what his real motivations are, but until the facts come out, there's no need for anyone to run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
ramsha
50%
50%
ramsha,
 User Rank: Apprentice
5/25/2015 | 8:07:13 PM
Re: Just a publicity ploy perhaps?!
Why would he do such a thing to risk his professional life you ask. One reason, perhaps because as I stated earlier "... his bulldog mouth ...." wants to call attention to himself, perhaps it's professional immaturity, or he's hoping to get a job with the FAA or NTSB. Who knows what his real motivations are, but until the facts come out, there's no need for anyone to run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
5/23/2015 | 11:44:15 AM
Re: field completed
Better solution is to secure the device, correct? When we do a root cause analysis on this situation it will come down to "secure the device" first.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
5/23/2015 | 11:41:15 AM
Re: It's also not that simple.
Not only pilots but nobody else should be overwriting certain things. Why would anybody in the passenger end be able to access a box with a port in the first place?
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
5/23/2015 | 11:35:23 AM
Re: Just a publicity ploy perhaps?!
That may be the case but why he would take that much risk, he may be discredited if it is all cleared out, that would be end of security expert life for him.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
5/23/2015 | 11:33:30 AM
Noting surprising
I am not sure why we are getting very surprised on this situation. Situation is that somebody has access to a device with a port. From that point forward the security is already compromised. Whether he can go to plan's control system or not should not really the question here.
JayWestbrooke
50%
50%
JayWestbrooke,
 User Rank: Apprentice
5/21/2015 | 5:23:08 PM
field completed
"Even so, there's no reason to panic: "We should not be thinking airplanes are going to start falling down the sky if someone just presses a key in their laptop," Santamarta says. "Aircraft rely on redundancy to operate safely, [and] ... pilots are well-trained professionals. It's not that easy." "

Is this assuming that in theory if a plane is hacked, the hacker will automatically attempt to shut down the avionic systems? What if the hacker does what Chris claims that he did, tilt the plane, how would redundancy help?
neutronneedle
50%
50%
neutronneedle,
 User Rank: Apprentice
5/21/2015 | 1:28:38 PM
It's also not that simple.
Recent airline catastrophe news has revealed filght control systems which the pilots cannot override. One was an anti-stall feature which causes the plane to decrease altitude until the sensors involved indicate stall is not a danger.

The more automated aircraft operation becomes, the more likely a plane will be pwned and abused or destroyed.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: I am the Genie of the Desk and I am here to grant you three Security Patches!
Current Issue
2020: The Year in Security
Download this Tech Digest for a look at the biggest security stories that - so far - have shaped a very strange and stressful year.
Flash Poll
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
Assessing Cybersecurity Risk in Today's Enterprises
COVID-19 has created a new IT paradigm in the enterprise -- and a new level of cybersecurity risk. This report offers a look at how enterprises are assessing and managing cyber-risk under the new normal.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-12512
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
Pepperl+Fuchs Comtrol IO-Link Master in Version 1.5.48 and below is prone to an authenticated reflected POST Cross-Site Scripting
CVE-2020-12513
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
Pepperl+Fuchs Comtrol IO-Link Master in Version 1.5.48 and below is prone to an authenticated blind OS Command Injection.
CVE-2020-12514
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
Pepperl+Fuchs Comtrol IO-Link Master in Version 1.5.48 and below is prone to a NULL Pointer Dereference that leads to a DoS in discoveryd
CVE-2020-12525
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
M&M Software fdtCONTAINER Component in versions below 3.5.20304.x and between 3.6 and 3.6.20304.x is vulnerable to deserialization of untrusted data in its project storage.
CVE-2020-12511
PUBLISHED: 2021-01-22
Pepperl+Fuchs Comtrol IO-Link Master in Version 1.5.48 and below is prone to a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the web interface.