Hacking The Friendly Skies In Boeing's New 787
from the someone-deserves-to-be-fired dept
Wired is running an article about FAA concerns about the computer networks on Boeing’s new 787. Apparently, the airplanes have been designed with a computer network in the passenger area that can give fliers internet access. That seems reasonable enough. However, somewhere along the way, someone at Boeing decided to connect that network to the plane’s control, navigation and communication systems. It’s hard to fathom how anyone would ever consider connecting a general passenger network on an airplane to critical systems that actually deal with issues related to keeping the airplane in the sky. Boeing’s response is less than satisfactory as well. While it claims it’s fixing some of the issues raised, it also says the report is overblown, noting: “There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places where they are.” That really doesn’t matter. If the network is touching anywhere it should be seen as a fairly serious problem. There’s simply no good reason to connect the two in any way, no matter how “secure.” Glenn Fleishman is saying that this report is Wired making a mountain out of a molehill, and insists that the story is probably not a big deal at all. Yet, I’m still wondering why the two systems would ever touch each other.
Filed Under: airplanes, faa, internet, security, wireless
Companies: boeing
Comments on “Hacking The Friendly Skies In Boeing's New 787”
Boeing should look up firewall.
Security is no small matter.
You lock you doors, you put barriers around things you want safe, you fence off your precious.
Good fences make good neighbors.
Don’t give the temptation of trying to realtime monitor the avionics.
Re: Boeing should look up firewall.
Firewall? No way. VLANs? Not a chance. Don’t get me wrong, both of those are great technologies for security your ground-based networks. But when the consequences of a potential network compromise can be 300+ people crashing into the ground or a skyscraper, it’s stupid to have the two networks physically connected in any way. What if there’s a bug? Faulty firmware? What if someone in the cockpit or a ground crew member makes a mistake to open the connection? What if someone on the ground crew sabotages the device separating the networks?
The only way to ensure security is to keep them physically and logically separated. And let’s face it, when you’re paying hundreds of millions of dollars for an airplane, it only make sense to spend an extra few thousand for a physically separated guest network for passengers.
We gotta know
“Yet, I’m still wondering why the two systems would ever touch each other.”
To give passenger flight info of course! It’s our rights as passenger to know exactly where the plane is at all time! Gosh!
Re: We gotta know
If you need to know where the plane is, book a windows seat, I do.
You would be surprised at how much you can see from 5 miles up, horizon is 200 miles away, oo! that is about 1/2million square miles :)less if it is meters:)
Window seat, the only way to fly!
Re: Re: We gotta know
Now Ajax,
“Less if it is metres” Really?
How many metres in a mile? Say 1600m.
So how many km in a mile? Say 1.6km
How many sq. km in a sq. mile? (1.6)(1.6)? Say 2.5.
So a million sq miles is roughly 2.5 m sq. km.
And a 1/2m sq miles is about 1.25m sq. km.
Whatever happened to the most basic arithmetic?
And if you can see a circle of 200 mile radius from 5 miles up, it would only be 1/8 of a million sq. miles! Since you’re one one side of the plane, it’s about half that again. Remind me never to go on an expedition with you as navigator, LOL.
Hey can I exchange some currencies with you please, if you’ll get it wrong way round?
Re: We gotta know
You could do this with GPS without actually being linked to the nav system. Durr.
I can think of one big reason to keep the networks
I can think of one big reason to keep the networks separate: bandwidth.
Network overload.
100s of airline passengers downloading FoxNEWS video feed of an airline jet in peril because the captian of the 787 passenger jet cannot get reliable network connection to the flight controls, avionics and control tower.
Even an ambulance/fire/police have trouble using the same network backbone if too many cars are on the streets. Just because you have rules, hardware and protocol to move traffic aside for high priority emergency transmission does not mean that the channel will materialize.
Moses parted the sea once but don’t expect it to happen for you.
Why have security searches at all?
If you’re going to allow computers on board that have ANY connection to the flight controls then ANYONE with a computer can take over the flight. They don’t have to be technically savvy, they just have to get the code from someone who is.
Gosh! Who would have thought that someone on a plane would connect with a cellphone modem and give control of the plane to a third party on the ground? Is Boeing as naive about this as Jamie Lynn Spears is about sex and pregnancy?
Anyone who isn’t terrified by Boeing’s lack of technical sophistication in this case doesn’t know enough about how computer networks operate.
Hey, Boeing: listen to your paranoid network guys. They are right on this one. The networks should not touch ANYWHERE.
Give it some time...
…and you’ll see how someone is going to get in and out without nobody noticing. That someone is going to post it online. No harm done, just in and out. When that happens, Boeing will take immediate action.
That’s like new intersections on roads: DOT (or whatever agency it is) doesn’t install traffic lights until there have been some FATAL accidents.
Maybe Boeing should play a little game called “Try to hack me if you can” with a 787 that’s on the ground. That should be safe enough… Uhum! Then they can change their name to Boing!
Who in their right mind would design this?
Well, someone who has understood the intense boredom of an 11 hour flight on autopilot for the crew, that’s who! This would possibly let the cockpit crew do some serious surfing or allow them to upload their stewardess seduction videos to youtube.
Bet this one came from a focus group.
Tipical human stupidity
This really is tipical of humans in critical jobs. The fact that the link is there is bad enough, but that he blows it off saying its nothing is worse. Listen to the consumer, they know whats right, thats a rule right there that is. Bad pubilicity is all they will get now, and when a plane does eventually go down or get hijacked, then their business is over, nobody will listen to em ever again.
VLANs, perhaps?
I’m wondering whether Boeing is using one commodity switch located centrally for both networks, probably from Cisco. Each network is on it’s own VLAN, but they share a common switch. That makes a certain kind of sense, and actually should be fairly safe. Neither network knows about the existence of the other. The only concern is if a cracker could gain access to the switch. However, these switches are used to safely provide this kind of access all the time.
Re: VLANs, perhaps?
And these switches are routinely broken, too. If there are two separate networks, there is no need whatsoever for there to *be* a switch connecting them, that’s the point. Two separate sets of wires for two separate networks. Actually, more like 4 sets of wires; the avionics network is probably already triple-redundant anyway.
Reserve Judgement.. Boeing engineers arent idiots.
First my credentials – My formal education is in Aviation Managment and Flight Technology. I was (am) a commercial pilot who decided that IT was a better fit. I am also a network engineer with 15 years experience in the airline industry. While I am NOT a Boeing engineer and cannot speak directly to the design of the 787, I do have relative experience.
First – Mark Loveless’ powerpoint on hacking the friendly skies details how to hack (or how to protect) other laptops on an airplane via peer to peer networks. It does not discuss the design architecture of the 787.
The (linked) FAA document does not specify the exact overlap rather states that this is the first time this situation has presented itself and that there may be an issue. And that the current requirement did not forsee this functionality when originally authored.
What if the interconnectivity of the aircraft control domain, airline domain, and passengenter domain, is simply those portions needed to download performance and maintenance metrics from the aircraft into the mainteance system? A very likely scenario…
There have been a few comments about bandwidth connention between user downloads and the pilot’s ability to fly the airplane. You can be pretty sure that the “fly by wire” system responsible for sending inputs to the control actuators is seperate.
Re: Reserve Judgement.. Boeing engineers arent idi
First my credentials – My formal education is in Aviation Managment and Flight Technology.
Oh, brother. Our local junior college offers those degrees too in their vocational education programs. In the US, unless your degree is an appropriate ABET accredited engineering one, then it doesn’t count in my mind. And those don’t exist in “Aviation Managment and Flight Technology”. Sorry to burst your bubble. (And no, a Microsoft “Engineer” certification doesn’t count either).
Re: Re: Reserve Judgement.. Boeing engineers arent
Ouch… Try again, except this time with rhetoric that addresses my argument. My point is that there seems to be alot of speculation based more on Dire Hard 2 rather than fact.
And futher… I wish i knew that my degree was offered at a Junior College. It would have saved me a TON on tuition…
Re: Re: Re: Reserve Judgement.. Boeing engineers a
Ouch… Try again, except this time with rhetoric that addresses my argument.
You made it part of validating your argument, not me. Live with it.
And futher… I wish i knew that my degree was offered at a Junior College. It would have saved me a TON on tuition…
Sucks, huh? Many people who have blown tons of cash on unaccredited courses (e.g. various M$ “engineering” courses) who could have gotten better educations for less money at a local Junior College.
What CH said: We don't really know the details
CH is completely right.
It’s likely the systems, like all aircraft systems, will be hardened and separate in a variety of ways, and we only know the barest sliver of information.
Using one analyst’s opinion and a typical FAA document as the basis of worries about onboard systems security is simply over the top.
Re: What CH said: We don't really know the details
I noticed on your own blog that you accused the whistle blower in this case of having a “a vested interest in raising FUD about it”.
First, whatever the whistle blower’s motivations are, if what they report is true, then it is true. No political litmus test should be applied to the truth, especially in a case like this.
Second, unless you have something to backup your allegations it seems to me that you may be the one with some hidden interests.
My guess is that the networks run on Windows Server 2003 and Boeing didn’t want to license two copies. So they threw the networks together on one server.
OMG!!!
Having studied informaton security for years, I about had a heart attack when I read this. While I try to temper security of a network with the fact that it must remain usable, I see *ABSOLUTELY* no reason there should be ANY connectivity between the two networks.
The only reason I can see for Boeing doing this is to share the Internet connection so the pilots can get on the Internet as well, possibly as a cost saving measure. But then they are putting saving money above the safety of the planes and its passengers. Plus, I can just imagine the headlines now: “Airline pilots caught surfing pr0n while in flight”………
Re: OMG!!!
Plus, I can just imagine the headlines now: “Airline pilots caught surfing pr0n while in flight”………
I always wondered why they chose suggestive terms like “cockpit” and “joystick”.
Two Terrifying Words
packet sniffers
Boeing needs to stop the PR
Clearly, Boeing hasn’t learned from everyone else’s mistakes – you don’t make something like this go away by saying ‘it’s not a problem’, you only make it go away by proving that it’s not a problem. PR people are NOT the solution here – get an engineer out in front to explain what they’ve done and why it’s not a problem before everyone thinks you’re covering something up!
Re: Boeing needs to stop the PR
Boeing is not saying there is not a problem. They are saying that it is overblown, that they have a solution and are testing that solution. It will be up to the FAA to determine if the solution is viable.
Not Enough Information!
Everyone, THINK! How much information was provide in the article? Does it even state where the networks are touching and even at what layer of the OSI model they are touching? Could they possibly only touching at the physical layer or maybe also at the Datalink? There is entirely way too little information provided in this article for any of us to make an accurate judgment! Also, think outside of the box and maybe you will have a clue that the networks may ride the same physical media but are two completely independent networks. It happens every day with many critical networks.
Not Enough Data
Even though Boeing states that they use network to connect to Plane CNC systems, the question is what kind of connection is it?
Example 1: Perhaps it’s just capable of reading the flight info. If that’s the case, even hacking it would give nothing but perhaps a few more flight informations, like fuel status.
Correction, a hacker could send false data to pilots too, probably. However, since the Plane CNC systems are redundant, I don’t think it would do much.
Example 2: Perhaps the network connected to the CNC system is part of control redundancy, so a pilot can use it to dump the fuel in case of emergency landing. In that case, a hacker can dump the fuel. And Boeing 787 gets grounded. Literary and figuratively.
Imho, I don’t think that we know just how much of a “network connection” is there to CNC in the first place, so any opinions we make would be based on presumptions. I certainly don’t believe the networks should intersect anywhere, however I can see cases in which such practice is, in fact, safe. The reason I don’t believe it should intersect is the old practice to upgrade systems, so what was once a safe “read only” network system gets upgraded to “read/write” with little or no regard on the possible security issues it might bring. Better design it safe from start with the most-paranoid view possible.
connecting a general passenger network on an airpl
Boeing, this is just like the argument that wireless can be made secure with crypto. a passenger on a 24hr flight with nothing better to do and internet access will be able to figure it out or search for kiddie scripts to take it down. you do not put an equivalent ethernet jack under the mailbox (wireless AP at home) and you DO NOT have the ethernet jack on the plane go to the same backbone as the command and control systems. For this you deserve to be hacked on general principle.
Did Diebold design the network on these planes??
Sensationalism
Techdirt has generally been reliably logical and well thought-out, however, this post doesn’t do anything more than perpetuate Wired’s original sensationalism.
Boeing didn’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and testing redundant systems, from wings to controls to comms and to the onboard passenger network to simply “connect that network to the plane’s control, navigation and communication systems.” They didn’t spend tens of millions stress testing wings to loads orders of magnitude greater than flight load and simply not thoroughly consider the security ramifications of their networking decisions. Contrary to what TechDirt readers may believe, they are not smarter on this matter than the Boeing engineers who worked on this system.
There are plenty of practical and safe reasons why networks may touch at different layers, most of which in this case probably has to do with reducing complexity (and thus weight, electrical signaling & static, etc) that may very well make the plane safer overall. There are plenty of examples of security isolation on shared physical layers – government classified networks, banks, satcom, etc.
Re: Sensationalism
Hear hear. Must be a slow day at Techdirt.
Re: Sensationalism
How do you know? Did you work on this design? (Would you even admit it if you did?) Or are you just pretending to know things about the project that you don’t?
Again, how do you know? Some of the readers may very well be qualified engineers in the field themselves. Just because they criticize Boeing does not make them somehow dumber than Boeings engineers (even if they work for the FAA). You sound like you’ve maybe got some Boeing stock or other interest you’re trying to protect.
Also, there are managers that sometimes override engineers on technical matters. Maybe to lower costs or maybe the manager just wants to leave “his mark” on the project (call it “engineer envy”). It happens all the time. To anyone who thinks otherwise I say that history is full of such examples with disastrous results. (Remember NASA’s Challenger shuttle?)
The only reasons I can think of relate to cost. And that’s being penny-wise and pound-foolish, not safe. Or maybe Boeing management was planning to slip this past the FAA and then get paid big bucks again by the airlines to fix it after delivery. That sounds like some software companies I know of.
In my experience, the most highly classified government networks are never connected to the internet, even with firewalls. If you can provide an example to the contrary, please do.
WHAT?
This is probably one of the most stupid things that I have ever heard of an airplane doing. This is dumber than Wonder Woman’s invisible plane. This is dumber than lighter than air dirgibles filled with explosive gas and coated in flammable paint.
If there is even a grain of truth to this then someone at Boeing needs a serious bitch-slap.
I can just see some hacker thinking “Hmmm, instead of flying to Des Moines, why don’t we just go to Miami instead?”
Re: Des Moines
Yeah! Because the pilots would never notice that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!OMGWTFZZFBBQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupidity
As an electrical engineer with experience with both aircraft systems and networks, I can only say that this is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of a engineer doing. People, please don’t think all engineers are this stupid; we really aren’t.
Honestly, this smells like one of those (all too common) situations where the pointy-haired-management boss overrode the engineers and insisted it be done this way because he read in some magazine that “unified networking” was the latest trend. Of course, when it breaks he’ll then blame the engineers.
Cockpit Porn
How else is the pilot supposed to get LIVE internet porn in flight?
Wow, this whole thread is just silly…
CH, nice try, but there is no calming the ass-clowns with logic, (or expertise, or knowledge, or facts, or well; anything really…)
Re: Re:
Thanks,
I tried… I see there are couple more threads of sanity that spoke up.
Sensationalism and Not enough data…
No big deal.
It’s probably not a big deal. The networks are likely sharing infrastructure but are logically divided into distinct VLAN’s and the switchports are protected. They would only have the ability to talk at layer 3 which is probably where they are physically separated (or all on one 6513). One switch stack with 2 or more VLANS (one of which is passenger traffic) Those VLANs CAN’T talk to each other. PERIOD. If each VLAN has it’s own dot1q trunk to a separate router, there’s no way the VLANs can interoperate. In fact, if they issue the ‘switchport protected’ command on the access interfaces and put an access list on the routed interface, the passengers won’t even be able to directly interact with each other.
I’m sure Boeing didn’t just plug it all up on the same switch and call it a day. Although, I am left wondering why they couldn’t have used 2 distinct networks just to feel warm and fuzzy…
Re: No big deal.
Um, I think it is a big deal. You are assuming that there is no way any human being could hack into the switches and reconfigure the VLANs. When it comes to network security, the instant you start making assumptions, you open yourself wide up to the possibility of attacks.
The single, most secure way to keep the avionics equipment secure from passenger interaction is to physically separate the two networks, which is the way it should have been to begin with. As it has already been pointed out, any sort of connection between the two whatsoever could potentially result in the plane’s equipment being compromised, be it intentional or not.
There is no logical reason whatsoever for those two being connected. If they want to provide passengers with up-to-date flight information, they could wire up monitors to the private network that display said information on a continuous basis. No reason to need computers to access it. For that matter, I think screens like that are unnecessary too. A friendly update from the captain over the PA system every so often works quite well for me. Come on people, put on your thinking caps and pull the plug, or you’ll just be asking for trouble.
Did anybody bother to read the whole article?
Any one know what an air gap in a network is? If you don’t, Wikki it…
Re: Did anybody bother to read the whole article?
Clearly, YOU did not
Gunter wouldn’t go into detail about how Boeing is tackling the issue but says it is employing a combination of solutions that involves some physical separation of the networks, known as “air gaps,” and software firewalls. Gunter also mentioned other technical solutions, which she said are proprietary and didn’t want to discuss in public.
“There are places where the networks are not touching, and there are places where they are,” she said.
Gunter added that although data can pass between the networks, “there are protections in place” to ensure that the passenger internet service doesn’t access the maintenance data or the navigation system “under any circumstance.”
More info needed. For all we know, two routers happen to plug into the same power strip…
Agreed that critical vs non-critical systems should not be sharing bandwidth, and should have their own connections. Some kid in the 5th row going crazy with bittorrent should not affect the flight.
Re: Re:
More info needed.
Read the linked article.
For all we know, two routers happen to plug into the same power strip…
Um, no. In the article that you clearly didn’t read Boeing admits that the networks exchange data. I seriously that they’re doing that over a “power strip”.
Lot-O-Knee jerks here based on pure speculation. I’m sure Boeing isn’t going to let us know their proprietary engineering methods. As with any new technology introduced in an aircraft design, the FAA requires that a special conditions document be be provided that proves that technology.
Airbus
No one is even talking about Airbus. Airbus? What do they have to do with anything? Airbus is Boeing’s only competitor. If they aren’t looking for ways to actively exploit this horrific PR move by Boeing, they may as well just pack up and go home. Also, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of industrial espionage/sabotage. These guys play dirty, and there is no reason to believe that Boeing and Airbus aren’t using every means at their disposal to keep each other down.
Sure, the average hacker isn’t going to know jack about these systems. We are not dealing with average hackers, however. Also, the spokesperson did not just say “Air gaps” but submitted that vulnerabilities were being addressed by “air gaps and software firewalls”. Somehow the software part is not reassuring to me.
Well, if it’s all the same to me, I’ll just wait until the Dreamliner version 2.0 comes out. Leave that 1.0 stuff for the early adopters.
Does the network admin who supervised this plan still have a job? Becuase if that person can dream up this nightmare,anybody can. All the rest of you I.T. pro’s just quit now because this guy is coming for your job.
Think about...
If they use seperate cabling and switches and create two different networks, you may have an engineering issue.
Airplanes are bound by strict specifications (weight and space concerns). They may have had to use the same switch and create a VLAN in order to meet those specifications.
Possibly, how they attempt to ‘fix’ it is by finding a way to physically seperate those networks and still meet those specifications.
Re: Think about...
Airplanes are bound by strict specifications (weight and space concerns). They may have had to use the same switch and create a VLAN in order to meet those specifications.
Specifications can be driven by different concerns. What you are referring to are cost concerns. And the issue whether Boeing is unreasonably sacrificing safety in the name of cost. (Like when Ford shaved $11 off the cost of the Pinto but turned it into a fire trap. Was that reasonable? Some people think so.)
Re: Re: Think about...
And safety is kinda important. If something CAN be hacked, it will. There’s a reason secure computers never link to the internet
Smells like rotten meat or real good cheese...
This is pure sensationalizism. After EADS/Airbus stock is downgraded to “Sell” by Deutsche Bank, Airbus has to reclaim credibility somehow. Toulouse is hurting in many ways. I imagine Boeing sold more aircraft in 2007 and has to suceed the throne. They invested too heavily in the A380.
Re: Smells like rotten meat or real good cheese...
Are you suggesting that Airbus is somehow responsible for the network design on the 787? How so?
Re: Re: Smells like rotten meat or real good chees
No. That’s incorrect.
Re: Re: Smells like rotten meat or real good chees
The FAA docs are filled with comments from airbus… If a competitor seems to know your systems better than you do, it seems weird when you haven’t sold one and put it in the hands of the owner yet. something just doesn’t add up. Yup… an audit by a 3rd party should be done.
Now with Podcasts!
http://www.newairplane.com
Hacking the skies of Boeing
Boeing’s response to this serious matter is juvenile and totally irresponsible!!! This is the kind of crud that should be ivestigated by Homeland Security/FBI: IMHO, this was no accident. Boeing needs to step up to the plate.
Hacking the skies of Boeing
Boeing’s response to this serious matter is juvenile and totally irresponsible!!! This is the kind of crud that should be ivestigated by Homeland Security/FBI: IMHO, this was no accident. Boeing needs to step up to the plate.
boeings sabotage of the "friendly skies"
With all the recent upgrades in security in the realm of flying… dosnt this qualify as “aiding terrorism”. I cant help but think this will just make it another reason to check your laptop instead of taking it as carry on… I bet terrorists are thinking….screw the box cutter and lighter… lets just crash the plane from the comfort of our own seat… while nibbling on a sandwich and drinking our favorite drink… not a big deal! Pretty stupid stament from the first line of defence in keep the planes in the air!
Off of my 3rd tour...
I woudn’t worry. Boeing is doing a damn good job. Why doesn’t anyone talk about the Boeing 702? This brilliant piece of machinery delivers me with DirecTV, XM radio. Why doesn’t anyone talk about that? So you think they can’t keep a plane from falling out of the sky? Geez, think again. This is simple FUD brought to you by a FAA document 80% authored by Airbus. Whenever EADS can put a GPS constellation in service, they may have some credibility in my book. Right now they have none.
I always book my flights on Boeing Aircraft. “If It Ain’t a Boeing, I ain’t Going”.
Kudos Boeing. Keep up the good work. Make us proud.
Re: Off of my 3rd tour...
Yeah, right. A sergeant that can’t even spell “sergeant”.
Sure sounds like a marketing troll. And not even a very good one.
Re: Re: Off of my 3rd tour...
Anon has obviously not been in the military … those who have been know the spelling that is commonly used is not what the trenches guys use.
Many of those who have commented in this blog have zero knowledge of the expertise resident in Boeing … try attending a few trade shows and finding some of them.
It is highly unlikely that Boeing will tell anyone exactly how they design or respond to vague generalities because that could give an advantage to competitors, which is not a good thing to do. If you want to know how Boeing thinks perhaps you should send in an application and see if they hire you … if you’re really that impressive I believe they will.
If PR is all that counted it would add time to production by having to take time to respond to a few folks who have little knowledge of the situation. This is counterproductive to delivering products. Which means revenue could be affected and therefore only someone on their own time would even bother to respond.
Cisco got its start from Boeing Engineers … and is still very appreciative of that fact.
otoh – I think something might be said directly from Boein – but if not I guess we’ll just have to see on Day 1
Re: Re: Re: Off of my 3rd tour...
Anon has obviously not been in the military
Not true. US Air Force.
those who have been know the spelling that is commonly used is not what the trenches guys use.
And I find your implication that US enlisted men and women are somehow too ignorant to even spell to be highly insulting.
“Sargent Miller” is an obvious company troll. Same for you.
Again, all my best to EADS in duplicating Boeing successes.
They have a long list ahead of them-
Getting to the Moon
GPS Systems
A composite Airplane
A Mission of getting an aircraft to Mars.
Maybe they could send something out to the outer reaches of the Solar System (Read: Voyager or Voyager II)
Maybe they could bid on the newly announced upgrade of Hubble…
I don’t know. They are really lacking somehow. Throw me a bone here… What can they do?
There are many more, should I even attempt to continue..?
Re: Re:
Maybe a replacement for all those defective F15’s:
“Investigators concluded that a critical piece of the jet’s airframe broke during the flight because of a manufacturing defect. A defective longeron — a metal strut that runs lengthwise down the fuselage — was cut improperly by the manufacturer, Boeing, and led to a series of cracks over the plane’s lifespan, Corley said.”
Re: Re:
You left a few more off your list:
Fly detainees to ‘black sites’ to be tortured.
Get some top executives into prison. (and here)
Make duckbill pliers (Boeing price: $2,548)
Make plastic caps that go over the end of stool legs (Boeing price: $1,118)
Develop a stealth pollution method (Stealth polluter: Boeing’s dirty little secrets. Washington Free Press)
Steal documents and information from rivals Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
Traffic in classified Pentagon documents (criminal)
Produce a super sonic passenger airplane (oh wait, that wasn’t Boeing)
A Mission of getting something to Mars…
by Anonymous Coward
Sigh …
I certainly should have specifically said “Sarge” rather than reverted to Comp 101 … my mistake Anon … point to you.
Don’t ever belive your misconception that I doubt the intelligence and integrity of US service men and women … I not only am an honorably discharged veteran, but support … actively … their efforts.
The replacement for the F-15 is the F-18 … and F-22 and sometime soon the F-35 … errs in the F-15 have been resolved as shown by the return to flight status just recently announced.
When you talk about the … what the links show as exorbitant prices for products … remember that the articles are talking about “first articles” … so when you first have to develop a tool …. there is a lot more that goes into the equation than what you’d pay to buy a set of pliers at Ace hardware …
Answer me this … if we’re trolls … what are you? Airbus … or someone laid off during the merger acquisiton?
Re: by Anonymous Coward
I certainly should have specifically said “Sarge” rather than reverted to Comp 101 … my mistake Anon … point to you.
What are you doing, playing games and tracking points?
errs in the F-15 have been resolved as shown by the return to flight status just recently announced.
Are we to believe that this was some kind of “secret” announcement (you didn’t cite any sources) and they are going to keep flying known defective aircraft? I have a hard time believing that. The last announcement I read said the defective F-15s were still grounded and Boeing wasn’t taking responsibility.
When you talk about the … what the links show as exorbitant prices for products … remember that the articles are talking about “first articles”…
OK, now you’re just plain lying. That certainly doesn’t make your company look very good (of course Boeing is known for dishonesty: see here, here, and here)
And the irony is that I wasn’t even aware of this stuff until you obvious shills came along spouting off which prompted me to go do a little research on Boeing. Nice job there, I wonder if your handler is going to be pleased? Go look up the term “Streisand effect“.
None of this gives me any confidence in the wisdom of Boeing’s decision to connect the 787’s control, navigation and communication systems to the passenger internet network. Especially if the only excuse is along the lines of “Trust us, we’re Boeing”. You guys don’t seem very trustworthy to me.
Answer me this … if we’re trolls … what are you?
Just someone who dislikes shills and liars. I guess you could call me a “troll hunter”.
Boeing Link to Deutsche Bank and other Multi Na
Not that it ever seems to matter these days, but “Just for Ducks”, and if you are really watching the money. Read about the configurations associated with the logos of Deutsche Bank, Banc of America and Chase Manhattan Bank (As a few instances–THERE ARE MORE–). Each of these Logos converts to a Swastika. Don’t take my word for it. Do it for yourself. The box around Deutsche when bisected on each side neatly forms the legs of the DELIBERATELY slanted bar in the center of the logo. Banc of America is an easy one to convert. The Chase Manhattan form (Once a part of their “movement” in the center of the logo) has been omitted for the past 8 months. You Who may have a TYVO, AND SAVED AN OLD LOGO, can freeze the sudden twist of the four middle parts and see for yourselves.. Accident? I don’t think so.
boeing
boein, boein, boein–perverted boein
fgh
the heart attack specialist
fgh
a liar company you keep
fgh
addressed to santa anna