Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
MyW0r1d
50%
50%
MyW0r1d,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/15/2013 | 4:40:01 PM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
So it comes down to a matter of credibility. A government agency (credible ?) making a public statement on a possible vulnerability outside their field of expertise (software) that if true would certainly be cause for concern and desiring to downplay the possibility (credible ?). A trained cyber security researcher with a reputible firm (credible ?) backed by specific subject matter knowledge (certified pilot) that publishes a possible exploit specific to a certain software product utilized by certain aircraft (credible ?). Ummmm, hmmmm, well that's a difficult decision on who to trust.
Andolasoft
50%
50%
Andolasoft,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/15/2013 | 2:56:39 PM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
Android Mobile Application Development has evolved to become the foremost option for the developers ...... ( www.andolasoft.com )
Andrew Hornback
50%
50%
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/15/2013 | 1:45:23 AM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
It's possible to take a commercial-grade aircraft operated by the Air Force or another branch of the armed forces and try this in a secluded area. Or, even better, take an stockpiled 737, upgrade it to the latest hardware, build it out as a remotely controlled aircraft and try out these exploits...

Andrew Hornback
InformationWeek Contributor
Andrew Hornback
50%
50%
Andrew Hornback,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/15/2013 | 1:43:17 AM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
I think the question here is... "Are you so sure?"

Let's think about this for a minute from a risk management standpoint - if Mr. Teso's research shows that he can modify the control configuration of a simulator which is based on the actual flight management system in use, wouldn't it make sense to take his research and try it in a controlled environment analogous to the simulator but on a real aircraft? What's the cost of that flight vs. the lawsuits involved when someone actually does "solve the puzzle" and ends up landing an Airbus or a Boeing without a runway?

Andrew Hornback
InformationWeek Contributor
eafpres1
50%
50%
eafpres1,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/13/2013 | 4:03:21 PM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
I can see many reasons the training software, which runs on a laptop, would be quite different from the "hardened" software. It has to be ported to run on the processor in the laptop within an operating system which is surely different than that in the real avionics. It does not (presumably) receive any actual data, so these are simulated.

Look at this another way--if you had a made for purpose secure communication module in an aviation environment, and you were asked to get a version to run on a laptop under, say, Windows 7, would you commit that you could keep it secure? I doubt it.

What would eliminate all the debate would be to demonstrate his method works on a real aircraft. That, of course, would require some special permission as it is illegal to intentionally disrupt such communications in US airspace. So your points about the FAA's motivations are probably correct, the result being not that we can be sure there is a problem, but only that we are unlikely to know the true answers.
sswigart97201
50%
50%
sswigart97201,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/12/2013 | 6:19:02 PM
re: FAA Dismisses Android App Airplane Takeover
A best practice in software development would be to use as close to the same software as possible in production and in simulators. If you have already developed hardened software for use in aircraft, why would you strip that hardening (buffer overrun protection, etc) out for simulator software? You wouldn't. This article also doesn't dispute that many of the data streams to/from the aircraft are unencrypted which would make spoofing possible. Finally, assuming systems are vulnerable, what incentive would the FAA and aircraft manufacturers have to admit it? The FAA assurances ring hollow in this one.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...