How to hack an airplane with an android phone?

[tknudsen 26]

Both, still confused?

[InTheAir 44]

Seriously though, why propagate this information in any way as it's not helping anyone? I suppose this information will help people be even more cautious now while air traveling. I'm not placing any blame on you Tom, I blame the Media for not fact checking (which happens  A LOT). Regardless, all of this should have been kept under their (those who found the vulnerability) hats until the issues were resolved.

 

Just my humble opinion and $.02

[tknudsen 26]

We find vournabilities to tighten security, without such knowledge and ability to reverse engineer, we would not be able to prevent mailicious code or intent.

[xxxmikexxx 0]

The Israelis are rumored to have the ability forcibly to take control from the ground of any El Al flight that they suspect has been hijacked. Presumably they disconnect the Mode Control Panel and feed the electronic logic with pseudo-MCP events generated on the ground. (Think giant ground controlled drone.)

 

Since the Flight Management Computer is just another user of the MCP, this strategy would as well make the FMC useless to hijackers. Obviously they would also have to disconnect the manual controls from the fly-by-wire system along with disconnecting the MCP, if the scheme is to be fool-proof.

[FLEX1978 373]

Mike, that is the silliest thing I have ever seen posted on Avsim.....Ever...

[Jude Bradley 660]

FAA: 'No, you CAN'T hijack a plane with an Android app'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/13/faa_debunks_android_hijack_claim/

[HiFlyer 9,435]

Honestly though, the FAA statements are very very carefully worded.

 

I get the impression that there may be some nuggets of truth in this researchers work. The FAA and other statements at first blush sound like outright denial, but closer examination makes me wonder if some very fine needles are being threaded.

 

I also wonder about the timing, and the affect on the current discussions about cellphone and tablet use on aircraft.

[xxxmikexxx 0]

Mike, that is the silliest thing I have ever seen posted on Avsim.....Ever...

I don't have a link a link for you, regrettably, but let's look at it. Yes, it would be silly if we were talking about an aircraft fresh off the Boeing production line. However, we're not. We're talking about a nation that had all too many aircraft hijacked and that instituted effective airport security procedures that don't involve groping Grandma. Now ...

 

In this day and age the controls are all fly-by-wire, yes?

 

So anything that put the appropriate messages on the fly-by-wire signal bus and on the FIDEC engine control signal bus will be able to operate the aircraft.

 

The kind of thing I'm talking about is not hard in concept -- but it would be a lot of work. You would need to use SELCAL or ACRS as the message source but that doesn't sound difficult to me, not in principle.

 

Does it still sound impossibly silly to you? If so, which aspect of my analysis do you disagree with, and why?

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

I used to do real time embedded systems. While I haven't bothered to confirm it I assure you that any aircraft FBW system is going to look philosophically like the automotive CANbus digital system in your car. The most recent embedded system I was involved with (thirteen years ago) was a remotely controlled mine clearing bulldozer for the US Army.

 

I did all the device drivers for the peripherals, and I did the extensions to the operating system software. I "owned" both the human operator base station and the electronics on board the bulldozer itself.

 

I guarantee you that if anyone had asked me whether it would be possible to rework my software to allow a third party to seize control of the bulldozer from its normal human operator, my answer would have been a resounding yes.

[81717 0]

The Israelis are rumored to have the ability forcibly to take control from the ground of any El Al flight that they suspect has been hijacked. Presumably they disconnect the Mode Control Panel and feed the electronic logic with pseudo-MCP events generated on the ground. (Think giant ground controlled drone.)

 

Since the Flight Management Computer is just another user of the MCP, this strategy would as well make the FMC useless to hijackers. Obviously they would also have to disconnect the manual controls from the fly-by-wire system along with disconnecting the MCP, if the scheme is to be fool-proof.

How? My friend just started working for them and never told me anything like this. El Al are subject to hijacking for various reasons but the have extra security as well...

[xxxmikexxx 0]

How? My friend just started working for them and never told me anything like this. El Al are subject to hijacking for various reasons but the have extra security as well...

See my post above for how. I wouldn't expect El Al to have told your friend about it. Maybe it's only on the transatlantic flights. Maybe the rumor isn't true at all. But I do know this ...

 

It's not only technically feasible, it would not be all that hard to do in principle provided one has the source code for all the devices involved. Certainly I -- me, moi, Mikey -- could do it.

 

Whether someone else has actually done it I can't say. I can only report the rumor and tell you that technically it's not ridiculous at all, not in concept.

[81717 0]

See my post above for how. I wouldn't expect El Al to have told your friend about it. Maybe it's only on the transatlantic flights. Maybe the rumor isn't true at all. But I do know this ...

 

It's not only technically feasible, it would not be all that hard to do in principle provided one has the source code for all the devices involved. Certainly I -- me, moi, Mikey -- could do it.

 

Whether someone else has actually done it I can't say. I can only report the rumor and tell you that technically it's not ridiculous at all, not in concept.

The thing is that certainly if a plane can autoland itself, even with just engine power (MD-11 test aircraft?) and with remote space rockets. It would be very possible. But the thing is that even if it has this technology, if the hijackers treaten to blow up the plane it would be ###### for them anyway... The days from stealing an airplane flying from airport to airport like in the 70s are just gone, so negotiating is more or less useless.

[FLEX1978 373]

I don't have a link a link for you, regrettably, but let's look at it. Yes, it would be silly if we were talking about an aircraft fresh off the Boeing production line. However, we're not. We're talking about a nation that had all too many aircraft hijacked and that instituted effective airport security procedures that don't involve groping Grandma. Now ...In this day and age the controls are all fly-by-wire, yes?So anything that put the appropriate messages on the fly-by-wire signal bus and on the FIDEC engine control signal bus will be able to operate the aircraft.The kind of thing I'm talking about is not hard in concept -- but it would be a lot of work. You would need to use SELCAL or ACRS as the message source but that doesn't sound difficult to me, not in principle.Does it still sound impossibly silly to you? If so, which aspect of my analysis do you disagree with, and why?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI used to do real time embedded systems. While I haven't bothered to confirm it I assure you that any aircraft FBW system is going to look philosophically like the automotive CANbus digital system in your car. The most recent embedded system I was involved with (thirteen years ago) was a remotely controlled mine clearing bulldozer for the US Army.I did all the device drivers for the peripherals, and I did the extensions to the operating system software. I "owned" both the human operator base station and the electronics on board the bulldozer itself.I guarantee you that if anyone had asked me whether it would be possible to rework my software to allow a third party to seize control of the bulldozer from its normal human operator, my answer would have been a resounding yes.

Unable to selective quote on my phone....

 

No not all aircraft are FBW, what would make you think that? Out of the entire EL Al fleet only 6 aircraft are FBW.

 

Regarding the rest of your post regarding El Al, absolute nonsense my friend, If you cannot figure out why then so be it.

 

let's get something clear, nobody would deny that is possible to implement the technology to drive your bulldozer or create an airliner that can be fully automated from gate to gate.

 

To suggest that this technology is already implamented in the El Al fleet is once again the funniest thing I have heard on these forums..

Regards

[xxxmikexxx 0]

FLEX1978, on 15 Apr 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

No not all aircraft are FBW, what would make you think that? Out of the entire EL Al fleet only 6 aircraft are FBW.

Who said that all aircraft are FBW? I said that most modern aircraft are, even if they don't advertise themselves as such, see below. But even if I'm wrong on that point -- and even if only six El Al aircraft are true FBW -- that's six large transport aircraft that could easily be modified to operate the way I said.

 

Your other remarks amount to opening arguments in a court case. If you really want to debate you're going to have now to provide your case-in-chief, as in ...

 

"Mike is wrong because the facts are as follows ...", not "Mike is wrong because I say that he's wrong."

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Returning to the FBW-equivalent issue, it really doesn't matter in principle whether there's a common digital signal bus or whether there is an analog connection -- or a hydraulic connection -- between the cockpit manual controls and the control surfaces and the FADEC.

 

This is because the aircraft can be controlled by any signal source that masquerades as the factory-intended signal source. Anything that simulates the manual controls will be able to do whatever the manual controls can do provided you can unmake all the normal cockpit connections to the actuators.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Again, shoot me down with specifics, not just with a blanket assertion that what I say is absurd. By your reasoning, an MCP cannot be built, nor can an FMS drive the aircraft through the MCP.

[FLEX1978 373]

Mike listen to yourself, again I can't quote but you say things like "easily modified" are you kidding? You are telling me once those El al 777's get delivered the Isreali government are modifying these aircraft to be remotely controlled from the ground in case of a hijacking? What are you smoking dude?

 

Mike I don't want to debate because you sound a little crazy, however I will leave it with this.. You are saying El Al have possibly modified there own aircraft, they have people on stand by ready to take over at moments notice, these modifications where done in house without any formal certification, these aircraft operate in international airspace, governments allow these aircraft to be operated but keep it hush, these aircraft are capable of what exactly? configuring gear,flaps,speed brakes, spoilers on approach? Or the ground crew press a big red land at nearest suitable airport button.

 

So once again, nobody is denying that remotely operated airliners are being researched, but to suggest that this technology is at a stage in which it can and is implemented is just plain nonsense. And to suggest that it would be easy to implement is even more ridiculous.

[xxxmikexxx 0]

"You are saying El Al have possibly modified there own aircraft, they have people on stand by ready to take over at moments notice, these modifications where done in house without any formal certification, these aircraft operate in international airspace, governments allow these aircraft to be operated but keep it hush, these aircraft are capable of what exactly? configuring gear,flaps,speed brakes, spoilers on approach?"

 

Yes. I'm saying that shortly after 9/11 there was a rumor to exactly that effect. I can't confirm the rumor. I can only report it along with my assessment of its believability. (I believe the rumor.)

 

Just imagine coupling the cockpit of a Level D 747 simulator to the controls of an airborne 747 so you fly the aircraft remotely, like a drone. (I don't mean Level D the software company. I mean a Level D airline crew training simulator.) If you've got a camera showing the instrument panel this would not be all that difficult a way for a ground operator to control the aircraft.

 

Want to hear another crazy rumor about certain aircraft in the El Al fleet? Supposedly some of them have Stinger-type IR missile launch detectors along with chaff dispensers -- and those equipment packages were bought by USAF for use in the presidential 747s.

 

And don't call me dude. And don't accuse me of smoking rope. Learn to debate.