I was contacted by this journalist and I gave my views on all the good work that it is been done in aviation security. Of course “good news” and reassurances in aviation security are not popular, therefore they are not covered and replaced by FUD.https://www.ft.com/content/2e416eca-4e3d-11e8-ac41-759eee1efb74 …
-
-
This is an industry where fear, uncertainty and doubt play little role. There is an extremely rigorous process and there is no good reason to worry the general public with these kind of articles which, while more balanced than others, still reflect poorly reality. (2/2)
-
Fine for me but as I'm being quoted in that article I assume that my claims are also being considered FUD when actually are strictly reflecting *real-world* situations. As usual, anyone will eventually have access to the tech details that back those claims.
-
My tweet wasn't necessarily pointed at your specific comment and it isn't. My only potential remark on your comment could be that I've never seen a data loading platform that "might ... inject malicious malware", and this by design. Of course I haven't audited all DL designs.
-
And my general complain is that there is a worrying trend of reporting unsubstantiated claims first, and then maybe some of them are backed by technical details. As of today not a single real life aircraft hacking story has ever been corroborated with solid technical merits.
-
so you are saying, for example, that the scenario I elaborated in my latest 'aircraft hacking' research didn't actually happen?
-
Which one specifically?
-
You making that research != real life aircraft hacking story, I guess we are debating semantics here. Also no safety impact (as you point out). I have a lot of comments and I find the research debatable in a few aspects, but honestly I have no desire to argue about it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.