FAA: Boeing's New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack

On Jan 6, 6:54*am, Bob Noel
wrote:


Notice that the Special Condition published in the 13 April 2007 Federal
Register *(and later on 2 Jan 2008) adds the following requirement
for the 787 Type Certificate:

"The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain."

If complied with, why complain?

Bob Noel

If they can safely accomplish this, that's great. I hope they do.
But just because the FAA writes a regulation saying it should be
foolproof, that doesn't mean it will be.

Phil

Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Noel writes:

Notice that the Special Condition published in the 13 April 2007 Federal
Register (and later on 2 Jan 2008) adds the following requirement
for the 787 Type Certificate:

"The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain."

If complied with, why complain?

How do you verify compliance with something that vague?

The requirement is not unique nor vague to those that do it for a
living; you know, a job, something you may have heard about but
never experienced.

You hire any number of companies who have been doing this for decades.

snip ignorant babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Would you fly a plane designed by Microsoft?

The R.A.P. Irony-O-Meter just pegged over to the stop.

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:54:34 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:


Notice that the Special Condition published in the 13 April 2007 Federal
Register (and later on 2 Jan 2008) adds the following requirement
for the 787 Type Certificate:

"The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain."

If complied with, why complain?

Apparently Boeing is not currently in compliance, hence the conflict
with FAA over certification of the Dreamliner.

What conflict?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.


#m

Martin Hotze wrote in news:flrakc$moj$3
@kirk.hotze.com:

schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.


Make up your mind.

Bertie

If Boeing does make a coupled cabin/flight control system initially
'foolproof', there always seems to be some unanticipated vulnerability a
bright, driven hacker could exploit. Also, software and hardware is
periodically fixed and improved. It is the nature of such complex systems
that later generations of developers will not completely understand the
built-in safeguards and may make the system more vulnerable.
Not allowing data to flow between the two systems is the safe way to avoid
later problems.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel


"Phil J" wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 6:54 am, Bob Noel
wrote:


Notice that the Special Condition published in the 13 April 2007 Federal
Register (and later on 2 Jan 2008) adds the following requirement
for the 787 Type Certificate:

"The design shall prevent all inadvertent or malicious changes
to, and all adverse impacts upon, all systems, networks, hardware,
software, and data in the Aircraft Control Domain and in the Airline
Information Domain from all points within the Passenger Information
and Entertainment Domain."

If complied with, why complain?

Bob Noel

If they can safely accomplish this, that's great. I hope they do.
But just because the FAA writes a regulation saying it should be
foolproof, that doesn't mean it will be.

Phil

Martin Hotze wrote:
schrieb:
Mxsmanic wrote:
(...)
snip ignorant babble

Wouldn't it be a good idea to save your time on answering him? It leads
to nothing than more stupid posts from MX.

No matter what anyone does, he will continue to make stupid posts.

There are two major schools of thought as to what the rest of the rational
world can do:

1. Totally ignore him to reduce the wasted bandwidth, but there will
also allways be someone who will respond whether it is because they
are new or because he particularly ticks someone off.

2. Respond to the extent that it corrects his usually incorrect and
sometimes dangerous postings least someone who doesn't know the
source actually believes what he says.

As for the time it takes, I seldom open a USENET window unless I'm
waiting for something else, e.g. a long compile or a data gathering
session to complete, so it is either that or play pocket pool.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:18:41 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

Apparently Boeing is not currently in compliance, hence the conflict
with FAA over certification of the Dreamliner.

What conflict?



http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...liner_security
Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have a serious
security vulnerability in its onboard computer networks that could
allow passengers to access the plane's control systems, according
to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:18:41 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
:

Apparently Boeing is not currently in compliance, hence the conflict
with FAA over certification of the Dreamliner.

What conflict?



http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...liner_security
Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet may have a serious
security vulnerability in its onboard computer networks that could
allow passengers to access the plane's control systems, according
to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration.


Wow, you even think like a policeman.


Bertie