"Physically connected" is not automatically synonymous with "dangerous risk". In the IT world we have these little things called "firewalls" to protect physically connected networks. You might have heard of them. It's completely possible that (and, I would hope, likely) that Boeing had the same kind of precautions but that the FAA wants them tightened up as much as is possible.
So, what are *your* aircraft design qualifications?
John, whilst there are security measures that can be put in place, none of them are entirely secure and certainly none are as secure as not physically connecting the two systems. What possible reason could there be for having such critical systems tied into non secure ones. Perhaps you think it would be perfectly alright to have the systems which control nuclear power stations tied to the internet as well? After all, we can put a firewall in between them...
I tell you what, given your level of confidence in such systems, why don't we give you a fly by wire, computer controlled car with the drive systems connected to the internet to drive on the freeway and let it be known that you are doing so and have *total* faith in the firewall to prevent hackers from taking over your car. Game for that? Game for us to put your family in that car?
John B, in the IT world the presence of a firewall is not in the least bit synonymous with hack-proof. If there is no need at all for the customer network to communication with the plane's operations network, why in the world would anyone want to trust an application (firewall) sitting on an operating system, sitting on some piece of hardware to protect one network from another when packets have a phenominally hard time aerisolizing and jumping from one network to another? TRUE AIR GAP!
I don't have any aircraft design qualifications, but I do have enough common sense (and a Cisco certification, but common sense is all you really need) to know that no firewall is fool-proof, and given enough time and effort, someone possibly could penetrate it. With the lives of a few hundred people on the plane, and possibly thousands more on the ground at stake, why not just be safe than sorry and have the 2 networks completely separate and independent of each other.
And it may not even take a hacker. Maybe some innocent, computer illiterate person is just browsing the web, and the system doesn't like some website and crashes the entire network, and the pilots lose control of the plane? If I'm going to die in a plane crash, I'd rather it be from something a bit more serious than grandma checking her e-mail.
It was said the NYC cab systems were completely protected. That fiasco reminds us that even with all the protections in place, all you need is 1 human error. The best solution: seperation.
Being that the repair cost will ultimately either 1) be charged to purchasers and then passed through as a cost on airline ticket costs, probably to the tune of $.37 per person, or 2) Boeing stock drops roughly that same amount because of higher production costs / 1 time charge for a retooling, both seem to me like a cost of insurance that most people would be willing to pay for. Insurance against what? Against the 14 year old, as well as the thousands of people that really really really want to take my plane down. That being the case, I'll opt for the insurance.
They're not idiots. Paul is just selectively reporting what Wired already selectively reported and is making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a non-issue. Boeing and the FAA already have agreed to what tests need to be performed, and the publication of the FAA document is a standard part of the certification. That's all. There is no issue, no problem, and not new threat. The aviation press (like Aviation Week, which I subscribe to) has covered this and other issues. The 787 breaks a lot of new ground, and when that happens the FAA always requires additional testing and proof of the new concepts. That's standard practice.
Rikf: I'd do it, with my family, if the system were designed to the same requirements as the 787. Without even blinking.
And, just so you all know, the 787 is not the first airliner with flight control systems and non-critical systems interconnected. Most modern airliners, most of the Airbus product line, newer Boeings, etc, have different tiers of systems that interconnect. There are a number of requirements that must be met to allow this. Including RTOS systems which hard partition applications from each other. This is all designed to much higher levels of reliability than anything in the commercial computing realm, even telco systems which are five-nines. The 787 is another step forward with integration and the FAA is reasonably requiring additional testing as with any other innovation. The 787 is also the first largely composite commercial airliner, and the FAA also required more airframe testing that normal to be satisfied that the new materials will perform as required.
In the real world, we have self-obsessed dolts in IT who think that they know everything. Meanwhile, they make life hell for everyone who has to use the crap that they set up.
MegaZone - that's just really dumb. If a lot of earlier planes linked in-flight entertainment systems with navigation systems, then that was really dumb, there, too.
I am sure Al Quaeda is excited to hear about this. All they need to do is find one weakness, then exploit it in 100 planes simultaneously. 100 planes down, no box cutters needed. It's a terrorist's dream.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
What idiots.
"Physically connected" is not automatically synonymous with "dangerous risk". In the IT world we have these little things called "firewalls" to protect physically connected networks. You might have heard of them. It's completely possible that (and, I would hope, likely) that Boeing had the same kind of precautions but that the FAA wants them tightened up as much as is possible.
So, what are *your* aircraft design qualifications?
John, whilst there are security measures that can be put in place, none of them are entirely secure and certainly none are as secure as not physically connecting the two systems. What possible reason could there be for having such critical systems tied into non secure ones. Perhaps you think it would be perfectly alright to have the systems which control nuclear power stations tied to the internet as well? After all, we can put a firewall in between them...
I tell you what, given your level of confidence in such systems, why don't we give you a fly by wire, computer controlled car with the drive systems connected to the internet to drive on the freeway and let it be known that you are doing so and have *total* faith in the firewall to prevent hackers from taking over your car. Game for that? Game for us to put your family in that car?
John B, in the IT world the presence of a firewall is not in the least bit synonymous with hack-proof. If there is no need at all for the customer network to communication with the plane's operations network, why in the world would anyone want to trust an application (firewall) sitting on an operating system, sitting on some piece of hardware to protect one network from another when packets have a phenominally hard time aerisolizing and jumping from one network to another? TRUE AIR GAP!
I don't have any aircraft design qualifications, but I do have enough common sense (and a Cisco certification, but common sense is all you really need) to know that no firewall is fool-proof, and given enough time and effort, someone possibly could penetrate it. With the lives of a few hundred people on the plane, and possibly thousands more on the ground at stake, why not just be safe than sorry and have the 2 networks completely separate and independent of each other.
And it may not even take a hacker. Maybe some innocent, computer illiterate person is just browsing the web, and the system doesn't like some website and crashes the entire network, and the pilots lose control of the plane? If I'm going to die in a plane crash, I'd rather it be from something a bit more serious than grandma checking her e-mail.
John, do you even know what "IT" stands for?
It was said the NYC cab systems were completely protected. That fiasco reminds us that even with all the protections in place, all you need is 1 human error. The best solution: seperation.
Being that the repair cost will ultimately either 1) be charged to purchasers and then passed through as a cost on airline ticket costs, probably to the tune of $.37 per person, or 2) Boeing stock drops roughly that same amount because of higher production costs / 1 time charge for a retooling, both seem to me like a cost of insurance that most people would be willing to pay for. Insurance against what? Against the 14 year old, as well as the thousands of people that really really really want to take my plane down. That being the case, I'll opt for the insurance.
Jesus Christ!!! What kind of idiot skipped his Software Engineering classes in University and created this appalling concept?!?
I just don't understand. Do you WANT to give terrorists another route (one in which they don't have to physically BE on the plane at all)???
They're not idiots. Paul is just selectively reporting what Wired already selectively reported and is making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a non-issue. Boeing and the FAA already have agreed to what tests need to be performed, and the publication of the FAA document is a standard part of the certification. That's all. There is no issue, no problem, and not new threat. The aviation press (like Aviation Week, which I subscribe to) has covered this and other issues. The 787 breaks a lot of new ground, and when that happens the FAA always requires additional testing and proof of the new concepts. That's standard practice.
Rikf: I'd do it, with my family, if the system were designed to the same requirements as the 787. Without even blinking.
And, just so you all know, the 787 is not the first airliner with flight control systems and non-critical systems interconnected. Most modern airliners, most of the Airbus product line, newer Boeings, etc, have different tiers of systems that interconnect. There are a number of requirements that must be met to allow this. Including RTOS systems which hard partition applications from each other. This is all designed to much higher levels of reliability than anything in the commercial computing realm, even telco systems which are five-nines. The 787 is another step forward with integration and the FAA is reasonably requiring additional testing as with any other innovation. The 787 is also the first largely composite commercial airliner, and the FAA also required more airframe testing that normal to be satisfied that the new materials will perform as required.
In the real world, we have self-obsessed dolts in IT who think that they know everything. Meanwhile, they make life hell for everyone who has to use the crap that they set up.
MegaZone - that's just really dumb. If a lot of earlier planes linked in-flight entertainment systems with navigation systems, then that was really dumb, there, too.
I am sure Al Quaeda is excited to hear about this. All they need to do is find one weakness, then exploit it in 100 planes simultaneously. 100 planes down, no box cutters needed. It's a terrorist's dream.