Are these the same maintenance workers that have access to even more sensitive parts of the airplane like the avionics compartment and its miles of wiring?
Wait until they find out your mechanic has unfettered access to your car's OBD port when you hand them the keys. They could install a COIN SIZED device on the CAN bus and you'd never know.
Some people do this voluntarily in exchange for a discount on their insurance.
There's literally millions of people driving newfangled EVs where the car manufacturer has full remote access to their vehicle and can upload software however and whenever they like.
I forgot only the nefarious ones wear yellow reflective vests and earmuffs.
There's literally millions of people driving newfangled EVs where the car manufacturer has full remote access to their vehicle and can upload software however and whenever they like.
This part has been beyond baffling to me. The last thing I want, is to hit the brakes in my car, and suddenly they're less/more sensitive, due to an update the night before, and it really does matter especially on snow/ice. And such updates happen.
I also don't want a perfectly good, 100% working car to suddenly degrade in experience because "Wups! Sorry! Last update broke <whatever>, we'll update within the month to fix!". It's just pure, unbridled dumb.
I recently bought a car, and the dealer tried to sell me an extended warranty. What? It's under a full warranty right now, and yes, my region has very strong warranty and anti-lemon laws. But my point is, they kept saying "there's a lot of complex and expensive electronics in this car, you're going to need an extended warranty".
Um, what? Hello? You just explained that the car breaks down a lot because it's complex? So complex that there are more frequent, highly expensive issues?
How is that a plus?
If a car is "too complex" to roll out the assembly line, without needing updates to modules on a monthly basis for years, it's the opposite of positive. I've had multiple BCM(body control module) updates, updates to every single module in the car. There shouldn't be enough code to cause issues here, it should be simple, simple, simple.
But it's not.
It's complex and difficult to make bug free.
And that makes me oh so very comfortable as I drive down the road.
That trust was what led to this incident where someone just walked into the airplane dressed as a maintainence worker and nobody stopped him.
Also pilot suicide isn't something new and the aviation world has tried to come up with several regulations to ensure it doesn't happen even though we completely trust pilots on a normalative basis.
> less than a minute, that hardware implant can be fitted into a port accessible via a hatch on the exterior of the plane
Just as with computers, as the saying goes, if you have physical access to the device then all bets are off. The tricky part is getting that physical access in the first place...
It is not that simple, atleast in the automotive industry _today_. Atleast here in EU.
Every component is analyzed from a cyber security perspective. Many components needs tampering protection - while others need not. This includes replacing components with malicious ones.
It is not logical at all and a stupid regulation. But it is not as simple as you can do what you want if you have physical access.
Of course. Doesn’t mean we should leave the root password written down on a post-it next to the hardware. It sounds strange that such a privileged port has no authentication.
> the company may not in fact implement any such update to their systems for years to come, given how rarely commercial airplanes are redesigned.
Boeing commercial airplanes are constantly updated. As long as the airplane is in service, Boeing retains a team of engineers that update parts as needed. If FAA review is needed, this will of course take longer.
BTW, anyone with access to the internals of an airplane could potentially sabotage it. Sadly, all people with access need to undergo a security check.
...so they built an equivalent of OBDII reader for planes, and it worked just the same as ones for cars? Interesting but not as scary as the title may suggest.
HN should have a rule like what does some reddit subs do.
Either outright ban paywalled articles, or if not then either an archived link should be posted alongside, or the whole text of the article should be copy pasted as a comment
> “Our technical experts are confident that the layers of protection in place on the airplane, including within the system design and the operating environment, provide sufficient mitigation to significantly limit the feasibility and risk of real-world attacks,” the statement reads.
one that's routinely within reach of maintenance workers or other airport and airline staff between flights
You already trust them (as well as the pilots) every time with your flight.
Are these the same maintenance workers that have access to even more sensitive parts of the airplane like the avionics compartment and its miles of wiring?
Wait until they find out your mechanic has unfettered access to your car's OBD port when you hand them the keys. They could install a COIN SIZED device on the CAN bus and you'd never know.
Some people do this voluntarily in exchange for a discount on their insurance.
There's literally millions of people driving newfangled EVs where the car manufacturer has full remote access to their vehicle and can upload software however and whenever they like.
I forgot only the nefarious ones wear yellow reflective vests and earmuffs.
There's literally millions of people driving newfangled EVs where the car manufacturer has full remote access to their vehicle and can upload software however and whenever they like.
This part has been beyond baffling to me. The last thing I want, is to hit the brakes in my car, and suddenly they're less/more sensitive, due to an update the night before, and it really does matter especially on snow/ice. And such updates happen.
I also don't want a perfectly good, 100% working car to suddenly degrade in experience because "Wups! Sorry! Last update broke <whatever>, we'll update within the month to fix!". It's just pure, unbridled dumb.
I recently bought a car, and the dealer tried to sell me an extended warranty. What? It's under a full warranty right now, and yes, my region has very strong warranty and anti-lemon laws. But my point is, they kept saying "there's a lot of complex and expensive electronics in this car, you're going to need an extended warranty".
Um, what? Hello? You just explained that the car breaks down a lot because it's complex? So complex that there are more frequent, highly expensive issues?
How is that a plus?
If a car is "too complex" to roll out the assembly line, without needing updates to modules on a monthly basis for years, it's the opposite of positive. I've had multiple BCM(body control module) updates, updates to every single module in the car. There shouldn't be enough code to cause issues here, it should be simple, simple, simple.
But it's not.
It's complex and difficult to make bug free.
And that makes me oh so very comfortable as I drive down the road.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/06/avalon-airp...
That trust was what led to this incident where someone just walked into the airplane dressed as a maintainence worker and nobody stopped him.
Also pilot suicide isn't something new and the aviation world has tried to come up with several regulations to ensure it doesn't happen even though we completely trust pilots on a normalative basis.
> Also pilot suicide isn't something new and the aviation world has tried to come up with several regulations to ensure it doesn't happen
As AI171 has shown, turning the engines off on rotation does it reliably and there’s nothing that the other pilot or regulations can do to prevent it.
You conveniently left out the part where he walked through a hole in the airport fence.
Airfields are expected to be secure areas. If you can walk through a hole in a fence there's issues.
Remember a guy stole an entire airplane a few years ago (RIP Sky King). Airplanes don't have ignition keys.
Is that the legend who managed to do a loop-the-loop?
You know it is.
> less than a minute, that hardware implant can be fitted into a port accessible via a hatch on the exterior of the plane
Just as with computers, as the saying goes, if you have physical access to the device then all bets are off. The tricky part is getting that physical access in the first place...
It is not that simple, atleast in the automotive industry _today_. Atleast here in EU.
Every component is analyzed from a cyber security perspective. Many components needs tampering protection - while others need not. This includes replacing components with malicious ones.
It is not logical at all and a stupid regulation. But it is not as simple as you can do what you want if you have physical access.
Of course. Doesn’t mean we should leave the root password written down on a post-it next to the hardware. It sounds strange that such a privileged port has no authentication.
> the company may not in fact implement any such update to their systems for years to come, given how rarely commercial airplanes are redesigned.
Boeing commercial airplanes are constantly updated. As long as the airplane is in service, Boeing retains a team of engineers that update parts as needed. If FAA review is needed, this will of course take longer.
BTW, anyone with access to the internals of an airplane could potentially sabotage it. Sadly, all people with access need to undergo a security check.
Sadly?
Irony/point of view from an attacker.
http://archive.today/3fpga
...so they built an equivalent of OBDII reader for planes, and it worked just the same as ones for cars? Interesting but not as scary as the title may suggest.
https://archive.md/3fpga
HN should have a rule like what does some reddit subs do.
Either outright ban paywalled articles, or if not then either an archived link should be posted alongside, or the whole text of the article should be copy pasted as a comment
I think a lot of these links are being shared via the browser extension, but yes I agree they should do something about this.
Who do you expect to pay for journalism?
It's all so bizarre. They don't want to pay but expect in-depth articles.
It's akin somewhat to the open-source crowd demanding features (and security updates) all without donating to the project.
> They don't want to pay but expect in-depth articles.
You are putting words in my mouth I've never said. I don't "expect in-depth articles", HN would be perfectly fine without paywalled content.
Jeff Bezos, probably. The internet really is the death of quality journalism, and democracy slowly dies with it.
Slowly?
..I feel like I shouldn't bookmark this post, given the invasive "social media checks" in the so-called Free World :')
> “Our technical experts are confident that the layers of protection in place on the airplane, including within the system design and the operating environment, provide sufficient mitigation to significantly limit the feasibility and risk of real-world attacks,” the statement reads.
So "We don't expect hackers to figure it out"
>So "We don't expect hackers to figure it out"
People