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 …
-
-
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 -
-
-
So we may talk about this in some months... Regarding "malicious malware": obviously is actually 'malicious firmware' something I pointed out to the journalist but she didn't change.
-
The distinction between malware and firmware is irrelevant to me as signing happens elsewhere. Anyway I think this is a minor nitpick, if we talk of "might" and "possibilities" well...of course everything has a degree of probability. The actual risk and newsworthiness however...
-
Concerning the "we may talk about this in some months..." are you suggesting that some months from now details will be released about an actual successful hack? I am all ears then ;).
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.