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

Bob Noel wrote:
In article , wrote:

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.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Non sequitur.

As I said, an individual may ignore him, but there will allways be someone
who will respond.


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.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.

Won't happen in the real world.

The only thing that bothers me with those that resond is those that
quote 347 lines to add one or two lines; if you are going to respond,
snip for christ's sake.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

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.

Either you totally ignore him or you don't. You can't have it both
ways.

Non sequitur.

As I said, an individual may ignore him, but there will allways be
someone who will respond.


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.

and thereby feeding the troll

The only way to deal with a troll is completely ignoring it.

Won't happen in the real world.

The only thing that bothers me with those that resond is those that
quote 347 lines to add one or two lines; if you are going to respond,
snip for christ's sake.


Heh heh.

Bertie

george wrote:

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.
A touch screen that allows you to select a film channel, audio channel
or Air phone is scarcely going to go any further than that !
I built networks.
In one building the server ran an Office network, a Student network
and our Tech network.
We could see everything on the other networks.
The students could only see their own network.
The Office staff could only see their own network.

So you have hundreds of passenger devices on the network. Due to a bug, one
or many may malfunction and cause a packet storm, either bringing down the
network or causing unacceptable latency. High latency can cause autopilot
oscillation and loss of control. Oops.

You do NOT put noncritical devices on the same physical network as critical
ones. You just don't. You don't even bridge them together, because
problems on one side of the bridge might crash the bridge itself, affecting
the critical network.

george writes:

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.

The passengers will have laptops.

It would appear that your knowledge of computers and IT is right up
there with your knowledge of aviation !

I note that there's often a reverse relationship between self-confidence and
quick answers and experience.

John Mazor writes:

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

Why?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

george writes:

To 'hack' into a system you have to have an input device like a
keyboard.

The passengers will have laptops.

It would appear that your knowledge of computers and IT is right up
there with your knowledge of aviation !

I note that there's often a reverse relationship between
self-confidence and quick answers and experience.


Do you even feel it when you walk straight into a wall?

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Mazor writes:

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

Why?


There it goes again.


Bertie

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

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, I don't see a conflict there between the FAA and Boeing.

If the FAA is pointing out a potential vulnerability in Boeing's
design, what would you call it?

Where is the FAA pointing out a potential vulnerability?

The special condition is intended to address an area where
the FAA certification requirements don't quite cover.

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

wrote in message


My bank's ATMS have touch screens.

One day recently I walked up to them and one clearly had a Microsoft
BSOD.

I didn't try to hack in, but someone might.

I recently saw a similar error displayed on a parking garage ticket
dispenser.

What input device would the would-be hacker use? Was there a touch-screen
keyboard available? Some other input device accessible?

"Someone might" try hacking *any* system. A computer's mere existence is
enough of a challenge for some folks. Are you suggesting that the ATM should
not be "connected" to another system because it represents a security
vulnerability (which was the premise that started this thread)?

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
John Mazor writes:

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

Why?

Why not?