Soif Roberts wasn’t able to alter the thrust of an engine, would he have at least been able to access the avionics system to do other things? Soucie and Lemme say no.
the ARINC 429 is an output-only hub that allows data to flow out from the avionics system but not back to it
although inflight systems “receive position data and have communication links” to other systems on the plane, they are “isolated” from systems that perform critical functions.
...All of this appears to add up to the conclusion that there’s no way Roberts could have hacked the thrust controls of a plane and manipulated the aircraft, either through the IEF, the SATCOM or anything else.
I could go on and on, but according the article you cited, it didn't happen that way. Yes, dude issued commands on that bus. Not disputing it. But, the bus isn't designed to accept commands. The inflight and avionics are separated. It's a good design. one which the automotive industry apparently have not followed.
It's also a sad case of people calling themselves security researchers and go out of their way to puff up their claim as big as possible so they can sell it to whatever news company they can. People like this guy give actual researchers a bad name.
As is obvious, I hadn't read all of the article, so sorry for that. I had heard of this a bit back and was just trying to share what I thought was the article I had read before.
I agree that cars should separate the bus controlling functionality from the bus that controls less critical things like I now know planes do.
I also agree that he gives security researchers a bad name in many regards, for over inflating his claim as I now know, and for even considering doing what he claimed to do.
Again sorry about the bad info, and thanks for pointing it out to me.
Hoping my reply back didn't come off combative. Was afraid of that. Wasn't my intent at all.
The mistake isn't your fault, I blame what shit passes for "journalism" these days where they take 10 paragraphs to explain how horrible it could be, but only slip in a couple of sentences showing that it really didn't quite happen the way it was described. Drives eyeballs, drives ads.
It didn't feel combative to me, corrections to mistakes are greatly appreciated. And even if I am not completely to blame, I still feel bad for helping to spread misinformation.
I could go on and on, but according the article you cited, it didn't happen that way. Yes, dude issued commands on that bus. Not disputing it. But, the bus isn't designed to accept commands. The inflight and avionics are separated. It's a good design. one which the automotive industry apparently have not followed.
It's also a sad case of people calling themselves security researchers and go out of their way to puff up their claim as big as possible so they can sell it to whatever news company they can. People like this guy give actual researchers a bad name.
As is obvious, I hadn't read all of the article, so sorry for that. I had heard of this a bit back and was just trying to share what I thought was the article I had read before.
I agree that cars should separate the bus controlling functionality from the bus that controls less critical things like I now know planes do.
I also agree that he gives security researchers a bad name in many regards, for over inflating his claim as I now know, and for even considering doing what he claimed to do.
Again sorry about the bad info, and thanks for pointing it out to me.
Hoping my reply back didn't come off combative. Was afraid of that. Wasn't my intent at all.
The mistake isn't your fault, I blame what shit passes for "journalism" these days where they take 10 paragraphs to explain how horrible it could be, but only slip in a couple of sentences showing that it really didn't quite happen the way it was described. Drives eyeballs, drives ads.
It didn't feel combative to me, corrections to mistakes are greatly appreciated. And even if I am not completely to blame, I still feel bad for helping to spread misinformation.