Stuxnet. SCADA. And The Fact That 747s Are Giant Flying Unix Hosts.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
sweet, so hackers can upload vireses into planes and now crash them into buildings remotely? Whos side are we on anyways?

What do you mean now ?

yea

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But I doubt the aircraft mechanics will see this thread, if that's what you really wanted to know about.

You are totally right. I deliberated a long time over where to put this. Which gives me another chance to say...

Mods, Staff please let us have an infowarfare forum for this stuff. I have some news readers focused on this and it is coming fast and furious, for instance, has anyone ever heard of the Syrian Electronic Army? I would like to do a thread on them.

But yeah, I wanted to try to express the larger scope of what this all suggests. It is tough to do as I am not a computer professional or a CS major.

Then the question becomes, how good is the security?

Yep. And it sounds as though they are not very secure at all. I bet they are a lot more secure, in terms of their physical presence, since the Iran thing.

Thanks for the stuff on Qantas. I am guessing that they can take control of the plane as well but this is where we need our aircraft pros.

Thanks for being here.

Originally posted by Frater210
Thanks for the stuff on Qantas. I am guessing that they can take control of the plane as well but this is where we need our aircraft pros.

You're welcome.

I really have no idea if either Qantas, or a hacker, could fly the plane from the ground. They never showed any remote flight controls. But you can see what they did show at 4:45 in this video:



The pilots had 50 warning messages going off in the cockpit. And without the pilot even having to read each message to Qantas, the ground staff at Qantas could automatically see all 50 warning messages the pilots were looking at. This incident is the kind of thing I worry about when I fly, more than the hacking problem. I especially noted the part in the video where the pilot got on the intercom and told the passengers everything was fine and they train for this thing, which was a lie, they hadn't trained for such a catastrophic failure. It's nice to know you're being lied to when you might be about to die! (not really)

Anyway, that gives you a better idea of the intimate communication between the cockpit computer and ground computers. I didn't know it was that detailed until I saw that clip. In fact the accident caused the pilots to lose voice communications with Qantas, so they couldn't talk to them if they wanted to, but airplane computer was still talking to the ground computer. I found that fascinating.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My god I found it fascinating too. I think I've sweat a gallon from my palms watching that. Thanks so much for sharing that.

I have no idea whether or not the planes can be taken control of via the network. I am going to try and see what I can do to figure this out and get back as I do.

Also, to all, I just wanted to add that I never meant to emphasize that aircraft would be accessed in this way, overtaken and crashed intentionally. Although it is interesting to speculate on that possibility I really meant to stress that it is the accessibility of these systems that is noteworthy.

Thanks again, Arbitrageur, for that great video.

reply to post by Frater210


I don't know how much UNIX is used through a 747 so I'll have to defer that part to someone else.

Noted and thank you. One of the major security concerns about these devices (SCADA) is that they aren't networked and that their physical Inaccessibility makes them a null target. We know they are connected (networked) from our Australian friend's article, and if the Inaccessibility thing were true then how do you explain what is happening in Iran with the power plants?

Anything connected to the outside through the internet is potentially accessible. Any hacker with enough time can penetrate any system. It's just a matter of how many hoops you put in front of the attacker to jump through before he gives up.

Hello, Beloved ATS.

I really screwed the pooch when it comes to certain aspects of this thread and I would like to clean up the mess if I can.

These quotes are all me fing up...

And what do you suppose the SCADA controllers are running? You guessed it (even if you guessed Windows) It’s UNIX…

No it doesn't. The Unix (or Solaris or NT) acts as a host OS for the SCADA controllers. In the video posted by Arbitrageur, what we are seeing at about 4:45 is the GUI for the software that is running on the host OS (much more on that later).

This line, for instance, and all the others like it that read...

See what Stuxnet attacks? That’s right; the SCADA controllers that are running UNIX.

Should read...
"See what Stuxnet attacks? That’s right; the SCADA controllers that are running on UNIX.

So if everyone would not mind inserting that tiny on in there for me, with your imagination, we will be good to go.

Now here is the important part.

Me again...

I am guessing that they can take control of the plane as well but this is where we need our aircraft pros.

I should have never suggested any such thing (although I was not the first to do so). I don't know a thing about it and in fact I have been straightened out by U2U by a seasoned member with immaculate credentials.

What we see in the video is downlink only. Even if those guys had wanted to there is not a thing they could have done to help those guys, they could not even talk to them, the hardware was ripped out. I am sure that is obvious from the video but I bring it up for a reason.

I want to cut to the chase here so as not to bore anyone further with my boorishness. Here is the deal...
It has been explained to me that, despite the fact that modern aviation does include a great deal of automation and electronic monitoring, that for a pilot to rely on these is very dangerous. In fact in emergency situations control does not default further and further towards automation and electronic control but to the Pilot, as it should.

What this means is that the idea that somehow these aircraft can be controlled remotely is just silly and ultimately a backhanded insult to the brave men that jockey our airways daily. Much like the brave S.O.B.s that landed that Qantas plane.

Now for the automation interface (SCADA on UNIX *sometimes*) that our hacker friend is talking about.

Here is the rub. It is their for our safety and convenience. Yes. Our convenience. So that repairs and service can be scheduled in a timely manner and get us all to where we are going.

Which brings in to focus a post from this member,
no special characters

it's cause of the way that most sec / pen test guys try to gain publicity by "proof of concept" attacks that can barely be done while having full access to a system. In any case the article also mentions the IP6 switch but what the security guy didn't take in account is that if a system is outdated it wont be having SCADA with IP6. And as it was raised already by him and others I'm sure this will be taken in account with most implementations.

He is right. What he said.

I am sorry that the article from Australia had to be about 747s. It was my haste to find something to gain traction on so that I could grind my ideas about the ubiquity of UNIX and its accessibility from the Network (cap intentional) which is becoming an increasingly closed loop that caused me to grab for it.

So with that out of the way I would like to say again:

The UNIX belongs to us. If we are going to prioritize the things in society that should be fostered and protected then I am suggesting that UNIX should be high on the list. It is us, it runs our lives and extends us powerfully into the world. We The People must maintain the control and development of it.

What do you think?

I also wanted to add that I am terrified of flying. But, after learning about all of these systems and redundancies that are in place to keep us safe in the air, I am actually starting to look forward to my next trip on a plane.

Good stuff.



I would still like to know more about what keeps municipal systems secure. I know a lot of water facilities use these controllers. It would be great if someone could tell us about how they are networked.

Also,

Me again..

747s are giant flying UNIX hosts sporting fully hackable Seimens SCADA controllers.

Not quite. I'm an excitable boy. I'm sure some of you can identify with that. Yes, there are SCADA controller's of varying accessibility running on various host OSs, mostly based in UNIX, on these aircraft. Can they allow for these aircraft to be flown by remote? No.

That's, No.

Can they be hacked? Yep. Just to reiterate, here are the results that the guy who wrote the article got when he was working as a pen-tester...

"We managed to break the VLANs and access other systems and with source routing could access the Engine management systems. The response, "the engine management system is out of scope.""

"They filter incoming traffic, but all outgoing traffic is allowed."

www.infosecisland.com...

Incoming is filtered. And just as member, 'no special characters' suggested the pen-tester got this as output, "the engine management system is out of scope.". Why? Because the system had not been updated...

"At the time, the engine management system on this particular airline was Solaris based. The patching was well behind and they used telnet as SSH broke the menus and the budget did not extend to fixing this. The engineers could actually access the engine management system of a 747 in route. If issues are noted, they can re-tune the engine in air."

Here is a quick CV for the gentleman that wrote the original article. Sorry, I should have had this up sooner...

Craig Wright is the VP of GICSR in Australia. He holds both the GSE, GSE-Malware and GSE-Compliance certifications from GIAC. He is a perpetual student with numerous post graduate degrees including an LLM specializing in international commercial law and ecommerce law, A Masters Degree in mathematical statistics from Newcastle as well as working on his 4th IT focused Masters degree (Masters in System Development) from Charles Sturt University where he lectures subjects in a Masters degree in digital forensics. He is writing his second doctorate, a PhD on the quantification of information system risk at CSU.

Thanks to those that have come by to check this out.

Frater210,

It seems that your clarification is less clear than the original post that you were trying to clarify.

SCADA is a technology, not a specific hardware platform or a specific software platform or a specific combination thereof. SCADA consists of both hardware and software.

Should read...
"See what Stuxnet attacks? That’s right; the SCADA controllers that are running on UNIX.

No. An industrial controller is hardware. UNIX is software. In english, Software runs on hardware. Hardware does not run on software.

Now for the automation interface (SCADA on UNIX *sometimes*) that our hacker friend is talking about.

SCADA is not an automation interface. An automation interface(HMI) is usually part of the software of an industrial system, although it is perfectly possible for the system to have no need for it, and hence not have it.

It appears that you are convinced that SCADA is software that is running on top of a host OS which runs on top of a hardware platform, when in fact it is all of the above.

As for UNIX, it is not one thing. today it is different things to different people and many things from many vendors. It can be true Unix, BSD or AT&T derived, or Unix-like, such as GNU/Linux etc. Both branches are now open source under different schemes, so Unix is in a sense under control of the people.

As for your original post, I read that as relating an uncertainty of the viability of systems designed to be networked, but left without proper safeguards as networking was not a part of the original specification.

This is true, and it is not limited to aircraft. Many more types of industrial systems are vulnerable to disruption, because some corporate cost-cutter decided that it was cheaper to hook two locations up to the internet than paying for a dedicated line between them.

I read through some of those paste-bin posts and from what I have read, there is pretty much a cyber war going on.

I really don't want to link to much of the material because I really do not want these people mad at me but if you read through some of the paste-bins..


There seems like a dialogue going on where this 21 year old hacker is quite pissed off about the hack on Iran's reactor.

reply to post by aaa2500

Frater210, It seems that your clarification is less clear than the original post that you were trying to clarify.

I was afraid of that. Thank you so much for being here to help me with this. I really do want to understand these systems. even on a rudimentary level. I knew it was really complicated and I wish I had waited but trial by fire I suppose.

SCADA is a technology, not a specific hardware platform or a specific software platform or a specific combination thereof. SCADA consists of both hardware and software.

Got it. I suspected as much; the hardware being these physical units that are referred to as 'industrial controllers' and the software that translates that output to a GUI. Have I got that right? Then the GUI would run on the host OS which is running on a server. Hope I got that.

No. An industrial controller is hardware. UNIX is software. In english, Software runs on hardware. Hardware does not run on software.

Got it. The industrial controller, as mentioned previously, has a software package that is dealing with the output from the device and is representing it in a graphical user interface environment. That is probably what we see briefly in the Qantas video at 4:45. How am I doing?

SCADA is not an automation interface. An automation interface(HMI) is usually part of the software of an industrial system, although it is perfectly possible for the system to have no need for it, and hence not have it.

This is really interesting. So some industrial controllers do not bother with a software package. Is that because it is multiple devices networked to a server of some kind? Or do they just fire and forget, so to speak?

It appears that you are convinced that SCADA is software that is running on top of a host OS which runs on top of a hardware platform, when in fact it is all of the above.

Not convinced of anything yet. I am very pliable and spongelike at the moment and I really, really appreciate your clarifications. When we are done with this everybody is going to be real clear on SCADA controllers. You rock for making it happen.

I suspected this level of complexity. I was just barely getting my head around the fact that the aircraft voice communications and in flight entertainment are handled on the same dual layered VLAN when I saw your post. This really is, I think, about as complicated a system as I have ever tried to understand.

So, no, I knew that the SACDA were a combination of hardware expressed by a software package. I think I am starting to get this but I don't have the terminology and language together enough to express it with precision. I think I did think for a while that the SCADA hardware was somehow running Unix, but having had to correct this thread and your help have snapped me out of it.

As for UNIX, it is not one thing. today it is different things to different people and many things from many vendors. It can be true Unix, BSD or AT&T derived, or Unix-like, such as GNU/Linux etc. Both branches are now open source under different schemes, so Unix is in a sense under control of the people.

Thanks. I am aware of Unix and its variants and have read the story of how it all came to be. I just find it interesting that all of these variants can be communicated with via the command prompt, and somewhere in the neighborhood of like 95% of the commands are the same for all variants. Now, I only know this from other people telling it to me. I am just now over the last few months beginning to learn the CLI. So if that is not true about the universality of the commands I apologize and stand ready to be corrected (I learn the hard way. ).

As far as we having control of our Unix is concerned, I suppose it may just be paranoia. But I am sure you know that, for instance, telnet cannot be reached any longer from the command prompt on the last two iterations of Windows and Windows 8 looks like a cell phone. I am concerned about what I am perceiving to be a distancing of people from the true power of computing. Am I totally off base here?

This is true, and it is not limited to aircraft. Many more types of industrial systems are vulnerable to disruption, because some corporate cost-cutter decided that it was cheaper to hook two locations up to the internet than paying for a dedicated line between them.

Thank you so much for understanding. This is precisely the direction that I had hoped this thread would take. But, being as it is that it had to do with 747s, I did not anticipate that it would go straight to the idea of 'terrorists taking over the planes by remote control'. So thanks again.

reply to post by Zaanny

I read through some of those paste-bin posts and from what I have read, there is pretty much a cyber war going on.

I really don't want to link to much of the material because I really do not want these people mad at me but if you read through some of the paste-bins.

There seems like a dialogue going on where this 21 year old hacker is quite pissed off about the hack on Iran's reactor.

-Oh yeah? I will stick my neck out here: I think that is all that has really been going on since 1970. I am honestly starting to think that the 'cold war' was actually this very same cyber war.

-c'mon, Zaanny Bannanny, spill it, brother. What are these paste bins and what is you talking about?

-that actually sounds really interesting. Where is this dialogue going down?

http:///GkKUhu35

read some of his paste-bins......

Hi again Some more clarification seems to be needed... a) What you did affected Iranian users, you attacked Iranian people, etc. etc. etc. bla bla bla First of all people against Iranian government or Islam, even if they live inside Iran, we can't count them as Iranian people, I can't! If they get power to harm Islam and Iranian government, spying for foreign spying agencies (Mossad, CIA, MI6), they won't miss it. If they get paid from a foreign secret service, they can gather and send ANY information THEY CAN. These are not people of Iran, these type of people was my target, not normal people, people who don't have anything to do with secret services, Iran's enemies, Islam's enemies, etc. Second: this time attack was limited to Iran, next time, I'll own as more as gateways in Israel, USA, Europe, as more as ISPs and attack will run there. You know man, I give promises and I keep them, I say words and they just happen, I told you wait and see previous time (Comodo case), now you see more. For an example ask a little from LMI.NET Berkley's ISP, ask about user Todd and password loc!666 (for example), ask if they detected that I was owned their all Linux boxes and I got access to their DNS servers, you see? I'm really sharp, powerful, dangerous and smart! I told in Comodo hack case that I rule the internet, I'll bring equality of controlling internet like USA for myself and you see I'm simply doing it, huh? How you are going to stop me you Mossad animals? Like this: www.silviacattori.net... ? Israel still lives in age of stones, they kill people they just can't see, they kill Palestinian children and women, believe me, they shouldn't exists in this world. Hope to see that day soon... Third: Do you know meaning of "Unstoppable Genius Digital Hacker?" b) Some small brains said in their articles that it was easy hack, passwords was weak, it was a simple DNN bug, etc. etc. etc. bla bla bla blaaaa First: If I gave all hackers of the world, ALL hackers by it's real meaning, they wouldn't be able to reach that network behind all those firewalls, routers and final networks without any access to internet which even doesn't have internet connection. So shut the .... Second: You think I generated SSL and code signing certificates by sending some SQL queries or sending some requests or using some ready made in desktop applications with 1234 password default? Ahhh man! Stop taking people's work easy... There was netHSM with OpenBSD OS, only 1 port open, totally closed/protected with RSA SecurID and SafeSign Token management systems, they had around 8 smart card totally (a company with a lot of employees, only 8 smart card for SSL generation), you see? It's not "simple DNN bug", ok? I had remote desktop access in last RSA Certificate Manager system which had no any connection to internet, all files was coded in XUDA (there is no reference to XUDA programming language, even a single line), no one can access those server via Remote desktop, there was enough firewalls and routers which even blocked their own employeee to access that network. That network had different domain controller with different users, man! There is so much thing to explain, I'll do it later, just know it is most sophisticated hack of all time, that's all! Third: You only heards Comodo (successfully issued 9 certs for me -thanks by the way-), DigiNotar (successfully generated 500+ code signing and SSL certs for me -thanks again-), StartCOM (got connection to HSM, was generating for twitter, google, etc. CEO was lucky enough, but I have ALL emails, database backups, customer data which I'll publish all via cryptome in near future), GlobalSign (I have access to their entire server, got DB backups, their linux / tar gzipped and downloaded, I even have private key of their OWN globalsign.com domain, hahahaa).... BUT YOU HAVE TO HEAR SO MUCH MORE! SO MUCH MORE! At least 3 more, AT LEAST! Wait and see, just wait a little bit like I said in Comodo case. P.S. In wikipedia of SSL, it should be added for future that I caused to remove SSL or CA system security model, I have a special idea for private communication via browsers which could be used instead of SSL, but why should I share it and cause trouble for my own country? When USA and Israel can read all emails they want in Gmail, in Yahoo, data in Facebook, Twitter, etc. How my country should control those services? I'll help my own country for it as I did and you saw it. If my country get equal right as USA in controlling emails, I may share my brilliant unbreakable encryption system for replacement of SSL and CA system. World is shocked just by my Comodo and DigiNotar hack, what would happen if I show my other skills in cryptography, cryptanalysis, binary analysis (assessment), reversing, kernel programming, other high profiles servers I hacked and extracted all needed information from them, etc. etc. Ohhh! May they change internet model, hahahahaaaaa P.S.S. never forget, I'm just 21, you have to see much more from me! By the way, I heard that Comodo CEO (poor Melih) have talked again and said it was again State sponsored and I'm not a single hacker bla bla... Dear Melih, please wake up, I'm the only hacker, just I have shared some certs with some people in Iran, that's all... Hacker is single, just know it

This guy is not happy...... he even mentions echelon and HARRP

http:///a30b9kPF

Problem of World: Missing Equality. Some authorities thinks they rule the world, like USA and Israel, they think digital world totally belongs to them, they are simply wrong. Let me tell you some examples with references: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a) Microsoft Patches Stuxnet worm about 2 years later. They say they MISSED! it: www.computerworld.com... How come they MISS! Stuxnet bug, but they issue an update within some days for my digital certificates? MISSING EQUALITY 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) FBI cannot see/find/detect/catch HBGary CEO for spreading malware in Middle East for movie themes: english.aljazeera.net... But they try to catch me in miles away from USA? MISSING EQUALITY 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- c) No one asked a single question from USA or Israel authorities, even level 5 authorities about Stuxnet malware, why they afforded millions of dollars for destroying a nuclear facility in Iran, what would have happened if they were successful in their mission, nothing at all (there is no reference/link for something that doesn't exists) But they tried to ask questions about Comodo attack which ONLY I was behind it from my country's ambassador. MISSING EQUALITY 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- d) USA and Israel owns a lot of nuclear war heads: www.reuters.com... Israel owns most of dangerous weapons of the world: en.wikipedia.org... USA used nuclear bombs one time: HIROSHIMA No one talks about it, no one research about Israel's hidden nuclear activities, no one talk about their warheads. But ALL THE WORLD try to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program which is ONLY for producing energy: news.xinhuanet.com... MISSING EQUALITY 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e) USA builds HAARP, they can create earthquakes, destroy world or a part of it, nobody asks why? No any single question. They build Echelon, they can spy on all signals of world, nobody asks why? What do you want to do with it? Why you afford billion of budget on it? Can't you afford it for building something useful for your country's people? Nobody worries, no problem exists at all. No question, no answer at all. But when my country's army builds a new missile, all press writes about it and all gets worried. What's your problem? Why do you worry? What's the matter? All the world countries own missiles, they are for protecting a country. It's simple. MISSING EQUALITY 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You see? There is so much thing to be fixed in the world, when nobody tries to solve this problem, I'll try. I'll try to solve such problems in my own method, as much as I can. I can't do anything on nuclear stuff, but how about digital world? I'll do anything I want, anything I can in digital world and nobody should talk about it, I'll bring equality in my own method in my field. Wait for it... Hope to have a world full of equality for all

reply to post by Zaanny


Wow. Thanks for sticking your neck out and sharing those. After reading it all I think it was written by one guy but I he is probably part of a consortium. I actually don't know what to think at the moment. There are some incredibly talented people out there so maybe it is one person.

Anywho, thanks. That was a stunning read.

Got it. I suspected as much; the hardware being these physical units that are referred to as 'industrial controllers' and the software that translates that output to a GUI. Have I got that right? Then the GUI would run on the host OS which is running on a server. Hope I got that.

VERY SIMPLIFIED: Think a big central computer connected to small computers that are connected to sensors and actuators. The central computer is running an OS, and on the OS, software is running that receives data from the small computers, evaluates the data, outputs information to the screen, receives information from the user and sends data to the small computers. The small computers then act on the data received.

The key to a SCADA system is that the small computers can provide independent control of a part of system within parameters set by the big central computer, but with the big central computer supervising the process, and stepping in if needed.

This is really interesting. So some industrial controllers do not bother with a software package. Is that because it is multiple devices networked to a server of some kind? Or do they just fire and forget, so to speak?

No, hardware always needs software(unless hardwired). I was refering to the 'automation interface' which is just the visual output from the software(charachter display, lcd, meters etc) and the input from the user(switches, keyboards, knobs, dials etc.)

So, no, I knew that the SACDA were a combination of hardware expressed by a software package. I think I am starting to get this but I don't have the terminology and language together enough to express it with precision. I think I did think for a while that the SCADA hardware was somehow running Unix, but having had to correct this thread and your help have snapped me out of it.

Imagine a coalfired power plant. You have a big computer in the main building, networked to small computers in each turbine hall. The small computers are simple and designed to work for 40 years at any temperature and humidity. Each small computer is connected to a heatsensor on the boiler, a powermeter on the generator and an RPM sensor on the turbine shaft. Each small computer is also connected to an actuator that disconnects the steam from the turbine, an actuator that disconnects the coalfeeder and an actuator that disconnects the generator from the powergrid.

The small computers will use these sensors and actuators to control the boilers within parameters set by the big computer. For example, the small computers will keep the poweroutput within certain limits as long as the turbinerpm remains below a certain number and the temperature of the boiler is below a certain value etc. These parameters is then changed over the course of a day by the big computer, based on how much power is actually used. If the turbine is spinning but the generator is not generating power, then the small computer will alert the big computer via the network, shut the coalfeeder down, disconect steam and disconnect the turbine from the generator etc.

As far as we having control of our Unix is concerned, I suppose it may just be paranoia. But I am sure you know that, for instance, telnet cannot be reached any longer from the command prompt on the last two iterations of Windows and Windows 8 looks like a cell phone. I am concerned about what I am perceiving to be a distancing of people from the true power of computing. Am I totally off base here?

Not really. By distancing the user you minimize user errors, but you also restrict the user. For casual users only using the internet and email that's not a problem, but for powerusers, programmers and the like that is a serious concern.

Thank you so much for understanding. This is precisely the direction that I had hoped this thread would take. But, being as it is that it had to do with 747s, I did not anticipate that it would go straight to the idea of 'terrorists taking over the planes by remote control'. So thanks again.

Nobody really knows the extent to which any aircraft is susceptible to hacking, and what systems could be abused if sucessfully compromised. However, I do think that it is a real issue. There is a 100 percent certainty that either the OS or the programmes running on it contains some exploitable problems after deployment. Some will be of a known type(bounds checking etc.), and some will be unimaginable to the programmers. I am sure Airbus performs rigorous auditing of their code, but even the most rigorous auditing process can fail.

With regard to the terminology, use what you find on Wikipedia. I only talk about big and small computers because it helps the understanding.

Not to mention:

Siemens S7 hack

At Black Hat, NSS researcher Dillon Beresford demonstrated how to hack a Siemens S7 computer, gain read-and-write access to the memory, steal data, run commands and shut the computers off. All this is very bad when you consider these devices are used to control machines in factories, utility networks, power plants, chemical factories and the like -- a major security threat. His findings were so troublesome that he pulled out of an earlier conference where he'd been scheduled to present the information until Siemens could patch the vulnerabilities he exposed. And the Department of Homeland Security monitored his talk to make sure it didn't reveal too much.

All equipment can be tapped into, no matter how many patches they release. As more people learn electronics, we will see more hacking...friendly and un-friendly.

reply to post by aaa2500


OK. I get the picture much better now and I have watched a tutorial. Thanks again for going over this with me.

I see now that the peripherals (sensors) talk to an RTU which in turn is controlled by the HMI or SCADA master which calls the shots as far as system settings go. So. The part I am hung up on now is the HIM or master .

It seems to me that the HIM must be running a host OS that the SCADA software runs on. Have I got that straight? Or is the HIM talking to yet another machine?

And if engineers are getting this stuff on their cell phones are they logging on to a website that displays the HMI? Or what?

Thank you. thank you.

reply to post by LordBaskettIV

At Black Hat, NSS researcher Dillon Beresford demonstrated how to hack a Siemens S7 computer, gain read-and-write access to the memory, steal data, run commands and shut the computers off.

Awesome. Thanks for that. I really love this story.

Oh my God you guys, check out this video at InfoSec Institute. I cannot believe the amount of information this guy is able to cram into just over 15 minutes. I know for a fact that anyone who has been hanging around this long will want to see this. I know I am a total newb (an aged one, at that) but this just blew my damn mind.

www.infosecinstitute.com... K39w96cxKsCFccaQgodujTx0Q

Also: Would wireless peripherals that could withstand atmospheric and temperature extremes possibly be a future 4th generation of SCADA?