Posts by Psyx

NSA 'hunted sysadmins' to find CAT PHOTOS, high-level passwords

Re: The way these people think.

"the writer seems to be interested in is solving the puzzle. ...All I could come up with was 'sociopath'."

And is any top-flight IT bod any different? Listening to interviews with people from Bletchley Park tells us that the technical people DO view matters as puzzles.

We are puzzle-solvers. We view technical problems as technical issues to be fixed, not as moral quandaries. We rant about users. We view the end-user as an obstacle and dehumanise them. A new project is more of an opportunity to play with new tech and write code than it is about giving customers something. Those are more sociopathic reactions and behaviours than empathic ones.

These people aren't so different from any tech-obsessed sys admin.

Which is not a problem in its own right, PROVIDING that there is oversight.

I'm personally fine with our tech-spies being the same type of problem-driven, mildly sociopathic and autistic people as we employ in civvie IT departments, so long as someone is keeping an eye on them who is divorced from actual investigations and their goals, whose job it is to rap their knuckles with a wooden ruler when they go out of bounds. I daresay such people do exist somewhere, but I wish there were more of them and that their oversight was more visible and effective.

"I'm afraid that I don't see the "scandalous indiscriminate collection of data on everyone" angle here."

Huh, really?

What isn't clear about the ascertain that in order to spy on the target they seek to compromise the sysadmin and the entire network. That's like taking down a guy by first taking down his misses and then levelling the block.

Re: @John Smith

"There is no implication in the article that this is anything other than targeted surveillance"

Yeah, it says right there that they identify a target on the system... and then they go after their sys admin in order to breach the entire network. So in their own words they go after the suspect by first of all spying on the innocent sys admin.

MH370 airliner MYSTERY: The El Reg Pub/Dinner-party Guide

Re: The simplest explanation and confirmation bias

"To be clear, the article we are writing is about the psychology of the investigation rather than the technical details"

You don't have any insight into that, not being privvy to the investigation, not having talked to them. You and I have no idea about the inner workings of this investigation.

It won't be an article, it will be a completely speculative blog piece. Don't you feel that's perhaps not exactly good journalism?

"I discount the military radar data because I am familiar with such radar data and I have a good idea what it does or doesn't show."

Umm..clearly not. Vincennes was a fire control (human) error, not the radar. Military radar on Aegis cruisers is designed to track hundreds of targets, down to the size of individual missiles. You conclusions about military radar capabilities are entirely false and based on a single incident and zero first-hand experience. And you speak about confirmation bias in others?

"Of course the aircraft itself is no longer available to verify that they have the right number..."

Wow... so you want to assume that they have the wrong number and it's some other flight? Really?

In truth it would be a piece of cake to ascertain by checking back on the history of that handshake and confirming it was in the vicinity of the flight historically.

"Maybe like not converting time zones correctly when analyzing data in a way they have never been asked to do before?"

Hell of an assumption there. A massive one that it's unfair to make without being privvy to the investigation: which you aren't.

Re: Wake up and smell the coffee

"Not if you are headhunting them for information about a government they work for that is not on the best of terms with yours."

Several thousand years of history replete with people and spies who happily worked for big bags of cash say you're wrong.

Pretty much no financial reason would result in a cost or profit which outweighs the price of a 777. No amount of gold it could have been carrying would cost as much as the airframe itself.

Re: Wake up and smell the coffee

When you use 'tags', you have to actually use hash-tags. Not that they'd do anything here...

Re: The simplest explanation and confirmation bias

"This may also explain ping responses but I must admit, less likely."

I don't buy that it carried on transmitting for hours after a crash and that the wreck was repeatedly missed. I could be wrong, but it's a stretch.

Re: The simplest explanation and confirmation bias

"The simplest explanation is that MH370 crashed into the sea near where it disappeared, and the rest of the shaky evidence and wild speculation is simply wrong (as much of it has already proven to be)."

Not born out by evidence, though. No wreckage. Plane crashes leave wreckage and the area has been repeatedly combed by aircraft capable of detecting debris.

"I'm working on an article to that effect"

So: An attention grabbing piece which selectively ignores evidence. Wouldn't it better to write something without a conclusion but which is best-fit for observations?

"The military radar data is nonsense."

Easy to say, hard to back up. Why?

"common sense suggest..."

Confirmation bias there. Common sense says that I put my keys where I usually do, but if I haven't find them after looking a dozen times, they're elsewhere.

Re: Another interesting hypothesis

"The why was the plane's radar signal (not transponder code) lost at 35,000 feet, which is nearly 7 miles up? I have heard 23,000 feet up to 35,000 feet, but no sign of a rapid descent before lost radar contact?"

Because that's the altitude it was at when it went out of range of the radar system.

"They do not come from the engine. They merely indicate that the satcomm equipment was powered up."

Sources more knowledgeable than I have stated that they only handshake when the engine is powered up. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but your version conflicts with what has been formally stated.

"ACARS and Transponders are physically separate (separately powered) from satellite com kit. ACARS can send via the satellite link but the ACARS engine status reports were being transmitted via VHF."

Yes, I understand. But they were turned off at completely different times.

Re: "The satellite would thus know to keep one of its receiving assemblies aligned..."

Someone didn't like me having that beer. :(

But it was too late, because I'd drunk it by that point.

As regards the 'pings' received and triangulating them... a comment on about page 4 along the lines of "Why can't we find the plane on spy satellites photos?" did spur an interesting thought:

Although no other birds or receivers would be listening out for random radio handshakes other than the one managing ACARS, there's a good chance someone might have sniffed and registered it: The NRO.

Specifically, ELINT birds are there to hoover data and see what they can see, and are very sensitive.

If anyone might have picked up the pings as well and might be able to help triangulate, it would be an ELINT bird. Hopefully people are having a look-see at the data on the off-chance.

Re: Spy satellite? ATC hand over

"So they have more important things to do that control air traffic?"

More like they are too busy looking after stuff already in their airspace to worry about things that are supposed to be turning up in their airspace at some point in the future. When those aircraft reach them, they will call and then the ATC will start looking after them.

1) We have primary radar traces that all the people who have access to the raw data believe is the missing flight.

2) We don't know that the 'pings' represented an aircraft in the air. but we DO know that they represent an engine that is not powered down and is receiving an electrical signal. So it's not likely to be coming from a wreck or a parked plane.

3) Correct, but if it stopped transmitting without being switched off, then the 'pings' would not be transmitted. But they were.

4) Eh? There reason has been given: The pings were picked up by a geo-sync bird over the Indian Ocean. The last one was a known distance from that bird, making the final destination of the plane within an hour of that arc.

Re: Hijacking foiled scenario?

" Plane is hijacked by tech savvy terrorist intent on a 9/11 type attack on Beijing."

Target makes no sense, though. The flight was going there, so why hi-jack when the plane has just reached altitude and risk getting rumbled long before you get there?

A coerced first officer would likely make a much more formal and less relaxed call. There's no way a tech-savvy hi-jacker would allow such an informal 'call.

Re: But what motive?

"But what motive? I find it surprising their isn't more discussion or speculation on what motive might drive events as they panned out"

Because it's just empty speculation, without any factual evidence. Better to play guessing games based on things we know, rather than things we don't know.

I'm sure a lot of people involved are looking at that kind of thing, but the information just isn't out there for the rest of us. Indeed: There seems no rational motive at present. Elaborate pilot suicide is the most rational speculation, but even that exists in somewhat of a vacuum.

Frankly, I'm shocked that nobody has yet suggested that it was Putin paying good money for the service so that it got the media's eyes away from Crimea! It's as good a conspirricy theory as any I've yet seen.

Re: Why are emergency locator beacons so failure prone in water crashes ?

"Why are emergency locator beacons so failure prone in water crashes ?

ELT beacons are supposed to work in the event of crashes even if the crash is on water.

So why did they fail in both the AF 422 and the MH 370 case."

I'm guessing it's because they were on a plane that crashed. It's probably not an engineering solution that is 100% reliable, given the conditions.

Re: Nothing here...

"Nothing here......about flying close to the Singapore Airlines plane to hide from radar..."

It certainly made an interesting read and was food for thought.

However, such tactics would never foil a decent radar array or operator. Military radar in particular is designed to be able to tell you just how many planes are coming at you, no matter how closely they fly. Radar is easily capable of picking one airliner out from another. You wouldn't confuse the return simply by flying a mile behind an airliner in another airliner.

BUT:

If a civilian ATC sees two airliner returns on the same heading, alt and speed - one with a transponder, one without - in their controlled airspace, I imagine they would give the pilot (of the identified aircraft) a shout to ask if there is anything in the vicinity, and put a shout out to try to identify the other return. I also imagine that if it's in uncontrolled, near-empty airspace and the pilot says he's ok, can't see anyone else and there is nobody else around that he can see, then the ATC might let it slide... especially at 1am.

Tl;dr: Tailing another aircraft to avoid radar utterly fails in a technical sense, but might work *at the time* because of human failings. However, a later review of the radar would show the 'false' return.

Re: Tinfoil Hat?

"Very far fetched I know - but impossible?"

Pretty much impossible, from even the perspective of my limited understanding. To whit, even the transponders are semi-isolated and independent of the rest of the kit in the cockpit. If everything else was screwed you'd flick the transponder to an emergency setting in order to get word out, instead of turning it off.

Re: My tuppence worth.

"It fits the evidence (other than the disputed altitude changes)"

The flight crew would have used throttle to try to affect an altitude change if they were on limited oxygen. They'd have tried *something*, faced with limited oxygen, rather than just leaving it be, surely?

It's possible, but it doesn't seem to fit perfectly, requiring more leaps of logic than some of the other solutions.

Additionally, in an emergency, I would expect the flight crew to use their yokes, rather than typing course changes into their console, which is what they reportedly did.

Re: Spy satellite?

"I had assumed that long haul flights were carefully planned and monitored - I am now wondering how lucky family and friends have been to turn up when and where expected."

Imagine a town swarming with traffic, all generally following the rules. Then add in a bunch more cars which don't conform to those rules because they are painted green and throw in a bunch of little mopeds ridden by people who only drive once a week. And only place cameras so they cover about 30% of the roads.

Now imagine trying to perfectly locate and control every aspect of the traffic's movements via twenty decentralised, independent control centres.

Not easy, is it?

Re: Different theory @ DAM

Isn't that outside the aircraft's range?

" the whole thing will be made clear to your sight!"

The place is hardly news. The Americans have been there for quite some time. You're going to have to do better with your theory than "There's an American airbase on the same half of the planet as a plane went missing!". Anything else supporting it?

Re: Question

"It will reduce the chance of cooperation due to religious beliefs so it will make the plane safer"

And it will reduce the chance of cooperation due to religious beliefs, so it won't.

Seriously, have you ever put two over-tired people with wildly differing, strongly held religious views in close confines and made them work together? It's grounds for arguments, passion and flared tempers. None of that should be going on in a cockpit of an airliner.

Frankly, I'd prefer my pilots to be selected because they were the best at their jobs, not recruited on the grounds of religion. And when/if there is an issue on the flight deck, I want the pilots to fall back to relying on their skill and nothing else. I do not want fervent prayer to replace skill and dedication.

I don't agree with any of your points. They are poorly thought-out knee-jerk reactionary solutions to a problem that we are not even sure exists.

The best person to fly a plane is the pilot in the cockpit, working in close harmony with their first officer. Putting two different flavours of religious maniac in two separate boxes, refereed by someone on the ground, in a plane with a remote control over-ride which could be subverted is frankly not a good solution. I wouldn't get on that plane.

"Number of fires in ACARS system that would necessitate turning it off to save the aircraft: 0" [Citation required]

I suspect that there have probably been times when pilots have turned them off in flight for various real-world reasons. Airlines tend not to post long lists of averted problems.

Anyway: Hindsight is wonderful. Yes: Maybe this will lead to some changes. But it has very much been a black swan incident.

Re: Smartphones

"My post is relevant to "pings are from seabed"."

"pings are from the seabed" was referring to the poster's theory that the radio handshake pings from ACAS and received by satellite were broadcast from submerged wreckage, not pinging noises from an acoustic transmitter.

Re: Accident or Malicious?

"But hoping that not one of the passengers -- or flight attendants! -- would notice that the terrain is kind of different, and/or the moon isn't where it's supposed to be? (No, I haven't checked whether the moon would have been up during the flight)"

Red-eye flight, over open water, 35k'... should probably be ok. It's certainly a better way than managing the aircraft than flying at 5k' and hoping the cockpit door holds out!

We are simple creatures in many ways, and even if someone did think the moon was in the wrong place (it was a half-moon - I checked. Good thinking, though), I suspect that they'd probably assume the pilot knew what he was doing, or if he raised it to a passenger and stewardess they'd make a similar reassuring comment. Simply, the idea that the plane is flying completely in the wrong direction and something is wrong is one of those conclusions that we would tend to throw out of our minds because it poses many more troubling questions... especially at 2am!

And even if you were sure... what are you going to do? Scream and shout: Get pinned down by other passengers. Ask a stewardess for pilot to confirm that you're going the right way, and you'll get comforting reassurance. Rationally explain, and people will disbelieve for the reasons mentioned above.

It's certainly what I'd try and do. That or de-pressurise.

Re: What if it was ditched and sunk intact?

"Well NATO, that is 28 nations...share 17 planes, and then you have 27 more airforces/navies having airborne radar systems, and quite a few ones of these are in Asia, including India, Pakistan, Thailand, Korea (both) , Japan, Taiwan and China."

I'm not really seeing what your point is, especially as Korea and Japan aren't exactly near the search locations. I mean we might as well mention that old F14 Iran used to use as AEW too, if we're feeling keen.

The vast majority of nations do not fly AEW around 24/7 in peacetime along non-volatile borders and oceans. It's very expensive and pretty pointless.

Re: Smartphones

I don't understand how that is relevant, I'm afraid.

That's not what the ACARS transmitter is. It's a radio transmitter, externally powered, not resistant to high pressure AFAIK.

Additionally, the acoustic transmitter fixed to black boxes is just that: It's an acoustic transmitter that makes a noise, not a radio transmitter: It would have to be pretty bloody loud to be heard in spaaaaaaaaaaace!

Re: Question

"pilot and co-pilot should have different religions."

Having flight crew with strongly held, differing religious viewpoints is not going to make the plane a safer place.

"Pilots in seperate cabins."

Who gets to over-ride the other one if one is suicidal. Surely having them in the same space is actually safer.

"Plane controlled from ground with a pilot on standby outside the cabin for emergencies."

Which means you have a plane that can be controlled by either the ground station or someone who can spoof the system, who is not on board. Given how people feel about drones, hackers and the NSA right now, I don't think that would go down well.

Re: Plausable theory worth consideration

It was plausible, but now information has emerged that renders it obsolete as a theory. Specifically the tracking 'pings', sticking to known navigational markers and manoeuvring *after* overflying the area and the manner in which the plane reportedly manoeuvred; to whit using buttons instead of the yoke and possibly the reported altitude changes.

Re: Another interesting hypothesis

"However, some of the literature I have read states it would take a meteorite the size of a BASEBALL to take down an airliner. If it struck the fuel tanks, no plane, completely obliterated."

Mankind has plenty of experimental evidence as to what happens to a large aircraft when you fire a 1kg mass at it at high velocity. Generally it goes straight through and leaves a hole, which is why we started filling such projectiles with explosives. If it hits something volatile it can cause an explosion which turns the plane into a collection of material which is independently incapable of sustained level flight.

What it does not do is totally annihilate an airframe several hundred foot in length.

"I am not saying this is what I believe. I really have no clue. However, it is an interesting hypothesis, and would be nigh on impossible to prove."

It's fairly easy to disprove: Simply fire lumps of stuff at aircraft and see what happens.

It also doesn't fit the facts: The plane was still flying after it turned off comms and transponders and was tracked through airspace.

Re: Another interesting hypothesis

"The word you're looking for is exterminate."

Yes, Darleks make far more sense than space cantaloupes.

Re: Another interesting hypothesis

"travelling wicked fast and hot, impacting the plane and this would completely decimate the craft and everyone inside rather quickly."

No worries: We'll just find the surviving 90% of the aircraft and passengers, then.

"Debris would be near impossible to find and spread out across a very wide area"

Kinda oxymoronic, there. Debris spread over a wide area is very easy to find. Especially those 300 life vests: They stand out a bit from the air.

"and unless some serial numbers or other tell-tale markings are found on some debirs, any parts found could be thought of as trash/ litter, rather than part of the craft itself."

Except all of those life vest and floating pieces of luggage, of course.

If it had been hit by a rock in the original search area we'd have seen debris and Malaysian radar would not have seen the plane flying 300 miles over their country.

"A space rock of small size could decimate - meaning nothing of size is left"

That's not how physics works. The plane breaking up would shred it far more effectively than a cantaloupe-rock, and yet plenty of debris from high altitude disintegrations on other occasions have been found.

Re: Smartphones

"pings are from seabed"

Emanating from a radio transmitter powered by what for several hours after ditching, operating despite its container not being designed to take several (hundred potentially) Bar of pressure, with the radio signal propagating to a satellite up through the water?

The US Navy spent quite a lot of money to develop radio systems to communicate to submarines, so I don't think it's as simple as that.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it was underwater and still pinging away.

Re: Mystery

"The most likely explanation speculation would seem to be a failed hijack attempt. Hijackers make pilot turn off comms, try to get him to fly somewhere"

Yup, and the tech-savvy pilot would turn off the radio and transponder but leave on the subtle signals, such as engine data uploads. It would be very hard to get everything off without the flight crew being implicit, to my mind.

Re: Accident or Malicious?

"Well the passengers have remained unusually quiet... no phone calls or anything. Poison in the food? Gassed? Toxic carbon dioxide or monoxide build up?"

Why bother when you can just de-pressurise the aircraft?

It's what I'd do if I thought the passengers were going to be a problem.

Otherwise I'd just manage the problem by flying evenly, at altitude, in the knowledge that they're unlikely to notice anything is wrong that way.

It's why the 5,000 foot of altitude thing would be foolish to try unless you'd depressurised the plane first: Someone would notice, someone would get out a phone call, someone would raise hell.

Re: Accident or Malicious?

"Stating that religion is devoid of logic isn't bigotry, it's a statement of fact. "

No it's not. Religion can easily be devoid of bigotry and the idea that the universe is inhabited or was created by something outside of our knowledge is not entirely utterly devoid of rationality (plenty of clever rational people believe in a God; they just don't believe in many of the dogmatic fictions used to pad them out and lend authority to them in times past).

I'm not of any real religious conviction, but I don't believe that everyone has justified their belief in an entirely irrational manner.

Re: Eh?

"It doesn't but at least you'd know where the plane was."

Over open water, over-the horizon from any radar emitters and in international, uncontrolled airspace? How? No amount of willpower and keenness to prevent another such incident can make RADAR do things that it can't do, nor finance a new international track-everything-in-the-air system of some kind. And we'd also need to integrate everyone's air tracking systems on an international basis.

The only way to do that is to either cover the planet with sat coverage and AWACS or to put an active transmitter in every aircraft. And the moment that you do that, the pilot needs an off switch, because sometimes that transmitter is going to cause an issue and will need turning off.

Re: @Psyx What if it was ditched and sunk intact?

"Except for Australia's JORN, which works over the horizon. (Although I must admit it is far from cheap.)"

People have been trying to improve radar by bouncing it off the upper atmosphere for 60-ish years now. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but generally it's line of sight, and that's what you kinda trust it to do. Low-budget south east Asian countries don't have such luxuries.

Re: Question

That's already been answered further up the page and numerous times in the media.

Short answer:

1) If they (there's two) break, you turn them off and on again.

2) They can cause interference and air controllers routinely ask for them to be switched to standby.

3) If it catches fire, the pilot would like to be able to turn it off.

The moment you have things in the plane that pilots can't turn off, the plane is LESS safe, not safer. We trust these people with our lives and have to hand them all the tools they need to protect them.

" It's been assumed since the sixties that traditional bombers would be detected, and intercepted. "

Yes: Over Europe.

Assuming that it's so in south east Asia is like assuming everyone there has a smartphone, just because most people in London do.

And remember that Malaysian radar DID track it. It then headed out over the ocean, where Malaysia wouldn't really care and nobody else would track it (aside from maybe India, who reportedly seem to have had their stuff turned off).

"Starting to wonder whether popping something on a plane and flying it to a target is as problematic as people make out"

Probably, given that this seems to have had the assistance of a pilot with 18,000 of experience who keenly took his work home with him. It's as easy to say that hacking a bank is easy because one of their sysadmins could do it.

Re: Accident or Malicious?

Alternatively, aliens did it. there is just as much evidence for that as there is that the pilot was a religious maniac intent on killing heretics.

Re: Eh?

"I was writing from the perspective that the threat of hijacking was global and so, presumably, was the response."

How does an air defence system prevent hijacking? We don't even know if it was hijacked. And if it was hijacked by a pilot, what measures can you think of that would prevent a pilot from hijacking a plane?

Re: What if it was ditched and sunk intact?

"That's why military types use them from on top of (relatively) high flying aircraft, so as to get a better long range view."

That's why over-budgeted air forces use a few of them on top of high flying aircraft, to provide detailed coverage of areas of interest.

The USAF does not constantly fly AWACS up and down every border, 24/7. And most of the rest of the planet does not have airborne early warning radar systems.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't an AWACS loitering over 'stan and another one Korea-way, but I very much doubt any of the local nations had any in the air.

Re: "The satellite would thus know to keep one of its receiving assemblies aligned..."

"As opposed to randomly aiming off into space?"

Yes, I was being trite towards the idea that the bird points receivers at individual targets, rather than having a wide angle of reception.

Re: Accident or Malicious?

And Islam is a nice easy scapegoat?

Re: Eh?

"So, all the post 9/11 civil and military tracking technology is quite useless then"

Don't be absurd.

How does the over-the-horizon radar capabilities of south east Asian minor nations have a bearing on the air defence capabilities over major US cities?

"If there was one 'ping' per hour then presumably there should be 5 or 6 other possible location arcs that can be calculated from the other pings before the last one."

Quite. I've been thinking the same. Analysis of the other 6 arcs would provide a better idea of general heading if mosaiced together.

Re: Why could they turn everything off?

"However to disable these things isn't easy and indicates that it was definitely the pilot or co-pilot who carried out the action.."

Dude, transponders are a box in the cockpit with an on/off/standby switch on them. Anyone can turn them off.

The engine monitoring stuff... less so and more niche. A hijacker probably wouldn't know to order those to be switched off. But transponders... obvious and easy.

Re: Why could they turn everything off?

"Another way of asking that is - is there any failure mode of the comms and/or transponder equipment which represents such a hazard to the plane - or to others - that shutdown of all such equipment is justified?"

Yes.

Firstly, some kit sometimes stops working and as we all know the best way to fix it is to turn it off and on again.

Secondly, from what I understand, transponders can sometimes cause interference in cluttered airspace, and pilots are routinely asked to switch them to standby mode.

I'm seeing a lot of crap in the press about "Why can pilots press a button to make their plane invisible to radar". Well, ultimately these people are trusted with our lives. Someone has to be. The alternatives to trusting a pilot with a plane full of people are potentially even more troublesome:

1) Fly aircraft by remote control, where they are then susceptible to interference.

2) Robotic control. because people are just fine with the idea of robot planes these days. Not.

3) Armed person to watch the pilot... who is then just as fallible... and armed.

Say CHEESE: Samsung files patent for transparent camera

Re: Transparent display?

"Is it transparent in both directions?"

Seeing as the stated reason was for subject and 'tog to retain eye contact, I would guess so...