What do you think about a possible interference of a stuxnet type damaging software with the electronics of (passenger) aircraft?
On 2010-4-10, 10:41 local time a TU154M plane with Angela Merkel's most outspoken international adversaries, the Poles around pres. Lech Kaczynski, crashed in Smolensk in a way (into thousands of pieces) that is possible only with a bomb or bombs. Shortly before however, the pilot, who had been lured in a wrong direction by the Smolensk tower (while all instruments were bugged and showed wrong info), tried to get the nose of his plane up but could not - as if also there the flaps were blocked. Now with the same type of plane a crash happened because the flaps had been blocked (as it seems) in an up position, so as to bring the plan in stall mode - this on the fetish day of 25 years after Gorbachev agreed in Malta to give up the Soviet Union. Putin, playing stupid, lets them say that "if it was the flaps it cannot have been terrorism" - how newborn does he want us to think he is?
Now I just read a short notice on Voltairenet (translated from a Romanian source) that says something similar about the KGL9628 flight (RU Airbus over Sinai): ";the autopilot had received bad data and therefore let the plane execute manoevers (with 4g down, then immediately afterwards with 5-6g up) which could not have been performed manually..."o; Hey, MH370 also had these sudden up/down changes. I then remembered that Stuxnet (whose Intelligence development must have begun with the beginning of the Obama-regime, just as the preparations for the murder of the Polish president - a first occasion to have him shot down in Tbilissi on 2008-8-8 was avoided by the brave pilot Protasiuk who Putin today slanders as "having obeyed the order of a third person in the cabin to land (in Smolensk) although it was not possible" - ok, that Stuxnet sped up the Iranian centrifugues from 1000 rpm to 1410rpm (i.e. of all numbers in mathematics the same holy Merkel/Hitler number141 x 10), so as to overload them and kill them this way. My insert: I would think a nuclear centrifuge would spin at least 10X that fast (my washing machine is rated for that speed in spin cycle) end insert. KGL9628 was then another example of overload, and the newest case can again be defined as overload. I remember reading that experts said that stuxnet was built to destroy the Iranian centrifugues, yes, but that it had many parts in it for purposes that could not yet be deciphered. Thus: can stuxnet (or one of its relatives) also creep into airplane software for doing the same thing - overloading the system until it breaks?
Stuxnet does many things. The main thing it does is sit and silently watch what normal operation looks like until it thinks it has learned enough, and then does the opposite of what an infected system is told to do while it keeps all the indicators looking normal, as if the system really did do what it was told. This will cause disaster. Yes, obviously that type of thing would be put on a plane to crash it.
If in the 2010 Polish plane crash the instruments were showing wrong info, that would be CLASSIC Stuxnet. There were many variants of Stuxnet made, that would be a prime example of what a Stuxnet type infection would do.
The Airbus is limited to 3 G's no matter what the pilot tries to do. If it ever does more than that, it can only be a virus or some sort of remote control over ride. If the crash over the sinai pulled that many g's it would sure indicate some sort of hack or virus was involved. Boeing can be operated to destruction by default (unless something changed recently).
The big problem with Stuxnet on a plane however is it's possibility of randomness. What would make it to a plane would obviously be related to Stuxnet, but would be designed to do exactly what it is told, rather than risk raising mayhem until something blows because it would not be doing anything secret at all to a plane, whatever it did could be immediately observed and the pilots could call out if what it did was not immediately disabling or destructive.
In an industrial setting, no one would know Stxnet was putting the pressure on the inside of a pipe to 3x normal until the pipe blew, or mixing chemicals wrong to create an explosion, or putting a nuclear reactor to full output when it says it is turned off while it holds all the pressure relief valves closed until something blows. So its behavior does not need to be as predictable in an industrial setting as it would on an aircraft where anything it did would be immediately felt. The aircraft variants would have to be a lot more clandestine, and then suddenly act destructively without warning and with perfection. Slamming the flaps all the way one way suddenly would surely do that at cruising speed. That would snap the wings off.
MEXICAN ANONYMOUS
On 2010-4-10, 10:41 local time a TU154M plane with Angela Merkel's most outspoken international adversaries, the Poles around pres. Lech Kaczynski, crashed in Smolensk in a way (into thousands of pieces) that is possible only with a bomb or bombs. Shortly before however, the pilot, who had been lured in a wrong direction by the Smolensk tower (while all instruments were bugged and showed wrong info), tried to get the nose of his plane up but could not - as if also there the flaps were blocked. Now with the same type of plane a crash happened because the flaps had been blocked (as it seems) in an up position, so as to bring the plan in stall mode - this on the fetish day of 25 years after Gorbachev agreed in Malta to give up the Soviet Union. Putin, playing stupid, lets them say that "if it was the flaps it cannot have been terrorism" - how newborn does he want us to think he is?
Now I just read a short notice on Voltairenet (translated from a Romanian source) that says something similar about the KGL9628 flight (RU Airbus over Sinai): ";the autopilot had received bad data and therefore let the plane execute manoevers (with 4g down, then immediately afterwards with 5-6g up) which could not have been performed manually..."o; Hey, MH370 also had these sudden up/down changes. I then remembered that Stuxnet (whose Intelligence development must have begun with the beginning of the Obama-regime, just as the preparations for the murder of the Polish president - a first occasion to have him shot down in Tbilissi on 2008-8-8 was avoided by the brave pilot Protasiuk who Putin today slanders as "having obeyed the order of a third person in the cabin to land (in Smolensk) although it was not possible" - ok, that Stuxnet sped up the Iranian centrifugues from 1000 rpm to 1410rpm (i.e. of all numbers in mathematics the same holy Merkel/Hitler number141 x 10), so as to overload them and kill them this way. My insert: I would think a nuclear centrifuge would spin at least 10X that fast (my washing machine is rated for that speed in spin cycle) end insert. KGL9628 was then another example of overload, and the newest case can again be defined as overload. I remember reading that experts said that stuxnet was built to destroy the Iranian centrifugues, yes, but that it had many parts in it for purposes that could not yet be deciphered. Thus: can stuxnet (or one of its relatives) also creep into airplane software for doing the same thing - overloading the system until it breaks?
Stuxnet does many things. The main thing it does is sit and silently watch what normal operation looks like until it thinks it has learned enough, and then does the opposite of what an infected system is told to do while it keeps all the indicators looking normal, as if the system really did do what it was told. This will cause disaster. Yes, obviously that type of thing would be put on a plane to crash it.
If in the 2010 Polish plane crash the instruments were showing wrong info, that would be CLASSIC Stuxnet. There were many variants of Stuxnet made, that would be a prime example of what a Stuxnet type infection would do.
The Airbus is limited to 3 G's no matter what the pilot tries to do. If it ever does more than that, it can only be a virus or some sort of remote control over ride. If the crash over the sinai pulled that many g's it would sure indicate some sort of hack or virus was involved. Boeing can be operated to destruction by default (unless something changed recently).
The big problem with Stuxnet on a plane however is it's possibility of randomness. What would make it to a plane would obviously be related to Stuxnet, but would be designed to do exactly what it is told, rather than risk raising mayhem until something blows because it would not be doing anything secret at all to a plane, whatever it did could be immediately observed and the pilots could call out if what it did was not immediately disabling or destructive.
In an industrial setting, no one would know Stxnet was putting the pressure on the inside of a pipe to 3x normal until the pipe blew, or mixing chemicals wrong to create an explosion, or putting a nuclear reactor to full output when it says it is turned off while it holds all the pressure relief valves closed until something blows. So its behavior does not need to be as predictable in an industrial setting as it would on an aircraft where anything it did would be immediately felt. The aircraft variants would have to be a lot more clandestine, and then suddenly act destructively without warning and with perfection. Slamming the flaps all the way one way suddenly would surely do that at cruising speed. That would snap the wings off.
MEXICAN ANONYMOUS