Hack my plane why don't you!

[EEngr]

They had to 'sell' you with email, for you to approve a tool for you to do your job better?

You misunderstand which side of that battle I was on (That's OK. I never made that clear.) I supported the HP hardware and software on behalf of engineering. The IT folks stepped in between us and manufacturing management with their 'preferred IT architecture'. Which back in those days was: get Windows on enough processors and your CIO gets a seat next to Bill Gates at his next dinner party. We (engineering) lost that battle.

Windows was (is) a crappy platform for anything you have to keep in configuration for cal/cert or other compliance issues. Every time it gets connected to the network, it starts slurping updates off some server in Redmond. And that's the low risk stuff. Most non-tech savvy people who get a prompt for some administrative function might as well have a button that says "Make the nasty popup go away and show me the nice video of kittens now".

[cwatters]

The 787 has this chip which has this back door, but the 787 does not have any ability to recieve reprogramming instructions into the FMC while airborne.

Data is transmitted to ground stations for monitoring purposes like ADS/CPDLC etc. but the FMCs do not acccept commands unless the cockpit crew choose to accept it. ie route loading, atc clearances etc.

The chips if hacked may corrupt the software logic of systems but the worst is a systemic shut down of automation.

Those familliar with Boeing system logic will see that when the auto mode is corrupted, it reverts back to primary basic mode; if the system continues to malfunction, the system is isolated!

So the threat may exist, but hackers bringing down a 787 is very isolated.

I agree the risk is very very remote but perhaps you under estimate how clever some hackers can be? To perform a hack on this type of system the person would need to be very familiar with the systems. That obviously makes much less likely to occur but also means any attack could be very sophisticated. We're talking about someone who might be quite capable of modifying a system (say while undergoing maintenance) in a way that is not readily apparent and which might fool other system into thinking it's working normally. These days the best hackers don't just shout "yahoo we're taking over", they are much too clever for that.

Perhaps worth remembering that two American space satellite systems were hacked in 2007/8...

Cover Story: Hacking Cases Draw Attention To Satcom Vulnerabilities | Defense News | defensenews.com

In the case of Landsat 7 and Terra, the hackers created highly specialized radio frequency signals and transmitted the signals to the spacecraft from the Svalbard ground station in Norway. They did so on four occasions in 2007 and 2008. The commission was most specific about the probing of Terra. On June 20, 2008, hackers “achieved all steps required to command” NASA’s Terra, “but did not issue commands,” the commission said.

[EEngr]

but the FMCs do not accept commands unless the cockpit crew choose to accept it. ie route loading, atc clearances etc.

What stops them from accepting commands without FC confirmation? Their software. Think about it.

Stuxnet was designed to spin Iran's centrifuges overspeed (uncommanded) while presenting normal reading to the plant operators.