Posted on 03/16/2014 7:20:17 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
Is missing Malaysian jet the world’s first CYBER HIJACK? Chilling new theory claims hackers could use a mobile phone to take over the controls
Anti-terror expert said plane's direction could be changed by radio signals Speed and altitude could also be changed from device using 'codes' Possibility that it could be made to land using remote control Pilot's friends said he had always been a 'gadget geek' at school
A chilling theory suggests the missing Malaysian Airlines plane could have been hijacked using a mobile phone or USB stick.
An anti-terror expert believes the speed, altitude and direction of the aircraft could have been changed, simply by sending radio signals from a small remote device.
A framework of 'codes' created by cyber terrorists would also be able to get into the plane's in-flight entertainment system and override the security software.
Scroll down for video Activist: Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah Police have raided the luxury home of Fariq Abdul Hamid in Kuala Lumpur
Probe: Police in Malaysia have searched the home of pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah (left) and Fariq Abdul Hamid after officials confirmed the plane was taken over by a 'deliberate act'
It is also believed, once the systems have been successfully hacked, the plane could be landed by remote control.
The theory has emerged as the search for flight MH370 continues to grow, with 25 countries now involved in the rescue effort.
Yesterday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak confirmed the plane's disappearance was the result of a 'deliberate act' and could have flown as far as Kazakstan.
Dr Sally Leivesley, a former Home Office official, said: 'It might well be the world’s first cyber hijack.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
“You answered a definitive “no” also, so I would love to have feedback from you on my previous post.”
******************************************************************
You need to understand that the link you provided in Post 55 refers to PROPOSED future changes by Boeing. The 777-200ERs have been in service since 1997. I’m not sure when the specific plane used in the missing MH 370 was delivered, but it was sometime in the past, and not in the future.
“Hijacking” of a poorly programmed and designed DRONE (which is DESIGNED to be piloted remotely only) is one thing; “hijacking” of a commercial airplane designed to be flown by on-board pilots is an entirely different matter. There are NO current in-service commercial aircraft (as far as I know) designed to be flown remotely and none of these aircraft include necessary design features to allow that.
“which would in theory “
remember one ting about the FAA: it no longer is run at the executive or middle management layers by pilots, aviation professionals, or engineers. You might as well as have “journalists” run the show. Having an MBA does qualify one to run an aviation program as the FAA thinks it does. We often run into problems with the incompetent raising issues that have no basis in reality.
I misstated it in post 55 when I said “...because Boeing was approved for a unique computer network setup that made this plane vulnerable to computer security issues.”
After reading that 2nd link I posted, I understand it to mean that Boeing was approved for an add-on device/system because their computer network setup they are currently using made this plane vulnerable to hacking. IOW, they needed to install something to ensure separation between their onboard entertainment hardware/software system and their navigational system. The FAA approved it a few months ago, but it’s possible that this was not installed in their planes yet. That was my interpretation on a 2nd and 3rd read, anyway.
I believe radar has holes in it, places where radar doesn’t sweep.
<< . There are NO current in-service commercial aircraft (as far as I know) designed to be flown remotely and none of these aircraft include necessary design features to allow that.>>
What I’m thinking regarding a hack involves something as simple as one of the Iranians pulling out his laptop, hacking into the planes system (via Iranian satellite, if need be), and creating a false signal that would cause one of the pilots to open the cabin door to investigate. Something much simpler than actually flying the plane remotely. (Although if the autopilot can be tampered with in this way, it would explain the “pre-programmed turn” the news is now reporting.)
Anyway, if they created a false flag situation via hacking that got the door open, then you would have to presume that one of the two Iranians could fly the plane, or that they were confident that one of the pilots would cooperate.
Nita, sorry...I thought you were alluding to the possible remote takeover of the controls and flying the plane remotely.
So you’re saying that my understanding as restated and written in #63 is wrong? Because what you’re saying does not compute with what I’m reading. Not being sarcastic here; just confused and wondering if all these news people are misunderstanding the Fed Register.
“A document filed on the US Federal Register website indicates that aircraft manufacturer Boeing applied to have additional security installed aboard some of its 777 series of airplanes five months ago to prevent onboard hacking of critical computer systems”
It sounds to me as if Boeing/Malaysia didn’t get the “additional security” installed yet.
FAA: Boeing’s New 787 May Be Vulnerable to Hacker Attack
Jan 2008
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/dreamliner_security
I would cut and paste, but the entire article is relevant. It’s not the same exact plane, but the same security issue way back in ‘08.
I do believe that for whatever reason, Boeing planes with onboard Internet access that are flying out of Malaysia STILL have cyber-security issues, 6 years later. No WONDER Malaysia is not cooperating with a thorough investigation. They’re probably afraid their airline business is about to lose all its customers. lol.
Thank you for your input!
Sure, but if they know the transponder was turned off then they had radar contact. Transponders only transmit a signal after the radar signal asks it to. No radar, no transponder.
“STILL have cyber-security issues”
OK, you keep posting articles you know nothing about and obviously have not read. I’m thinking you are not qualified to understand what it is those articles say and instead just read their titles and assume it means there are security issues. I’ll say it again, there are not and have not been any security issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.