Pl0t device

>>7748895
Who's this semen demon?

>>7748960
I don't remember. A name I remember is something like "Lisa" or "Rena" but I'm shit at that.

Just reverse-image search it next time.

>>7748895
I am no EE, but it sounds decent to me. But I thought voltage spikes were more dangerous to most setups as the large potential can make the power surge in unpredictable ways (i.e. jump to place it shouldn't be) and the smaller more integrated circuits only need a small fraction of an amp to fry which is why newer stuff is so EM sensitive. The smaller the transistor the faster and more efficient, but the less it takes to fry.

There are lots of ways to break hardware with software, despite all the modern safeguards. What is the goal of this breakdown? And what is the setting?

On a cool side note, I knew one of the electrical material engineers that got called in for the US mass ICBM failure, and he helped save the day. Apparently running the ICBMs on high alert standby for years wore out some of the capacitors, which lead to many circuit failures in the ICBMs. When a good chunk of your nuclear arsenal suddenly stops working you can understand why the Pentagon secretly panicked during the cold war.

Something as simple as using the same batch of capacitors beyond their life expectancy nearly triggered WWIII. With some new capacitors they quickly fixed the ICBMs once they figured out what caused the mass shutdown. There was a near two week window when nearly half the ICBMs didn't work, plenty of time for something interesting to happen (thankfully nothing really did).

>>7748996
I chose Amperage because (My physics instructor was absolute shit as was my education on it, so be nice pls), as was my understanding or thought, that Voltage was what you gave and Amperage was what the circuit took. If that makes sense. As in, you control what voltage you put in, and it draws as much amps as it wants/needs to work.
But if voltage being unregulated is better, I can use that.

The goal of the breakdowns from the narrative perspective is to force the defense to be done amongst the older equipment that was deemed useless.
From the outside party that broke the capacitors, the goal is obviously to immobilize all the new/expensive/"deadly" fighters for their attack.

That sounds really cool. What would I search to get more info on that real life event?

>>7749005
Voltage and amperage are very related. And I am not the best to explain them.
My understanding is voltage it the potential or attraction that moves electrical energy, so bad voltage can get things to go places they shouldn't even over coming resistance which prevents flow depending on the amount.
Amperage is more like the amount of energy, too much and it breaks things, this is why people say the amps are deadly, however if there is not voltage to draw that energy to some sensitive parts then it don't really matter how destructive it could be if it never hits.
Voltage and Amperage make Power, and in the end, power is what matters.

How broken do you want it?
I am assuming it is a fighter jet? And an advanced fighter jet has so many parts you can do just about anything to make it fail. If it is a fly by wire like nearly every plane is now then it is simple to just tell the guidance control to fly down as a fast as it can after X minutes or cross this geo-locator of flight after cutting communications. If they cross a large uninhabited area the planes would appear to disappear without a trace, could take years to figure out what happened assuming they find any clues. Similar to a cross of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Andersen_Air_Force_Base_B-2_accident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370
This could be done many ways, just grounding them with a cyber attack is good. But it leaves room for them to be repaired, granted it may take too long for them to be useful, which is what you asked for.

No idea, I am constantly amazed by the unbelievable stories I hear from scientists and engineers. Till I realize what labs they work at and how incredible detailed and plausible their story actually is. Same goes with some retired soldiers.

>>7749058
That's a really well-thought out response, but the only thing broken is a single part in the motherboard, which makes the system fail. Grounding them, basically.

It sounds really cool.

>>7749058
If you wanted the attackers to seem more aggressive and have more confusion. Then I would have them launch a full scale mobilization, leaving little doubt this is an invasion. The fighters jets are lunched to intercept the large slow moving army. As typical deterrent with hard strike capabilities. Only give them hours or a day or two at most, anything more and the they have too much time to figure out what is happening

But when they get near the army there is a strong signal burst from the enemy, the fighter jets communication stop and they fall from the sky. To the defenders it would look like some new weapon that mysteriously takes out all their new fighter jets, when it is really just a loud encrypted radio broadcast masked with some EMP static telling the software to crash the plane. The EMP static would further misleads them as it implies some kind of EMP weapon that can somehow take out their EMP hardened planes

The same thing could be adapted to any major type computer controlled system in some form, the trick is to keep the same theatrics to confuse the defenders. Having the software fry the system similar to an EMP by spiking a surge passed the safeguards, sure if people look closely they could tell the difference but with an invasion, panic can distract detailed studies, especially if this is only happening on the front lines. Remember mass panic is a great excuse for costly mistakes to be made, more so with an arrogant leader

And the attackers could still blast the signal at everything with a satellite or piggyback on local radio stations given their cyber attack abilities, granted it would be more obvious but would likely disable everything before any could be done. You could even have them find the one of the viruses, then the attackers switch to mass broadcast to hit everything as Phase 2 or Plan B of the invasion for thematic effect. Nothing says screwed like figuring it all out and still losing

How much trouble do you what for them?

>>7748895
I'd use that ass as a plot device

Electronic flight controls are on a separate system to the FMS. AFCS can actuate flight controls like in any aircraft but the electronic servo systems in fly by wire is an independant circuit.
AFCS is always overridden by manual input and there is no way for you to alter that by voltage or current limiting devices.

TLDR there is no way you can 'hack' flight controls on any fly by wire aircraft. Believe me, when avionics grt bored we try some interesting shit, but you can't hack a closed shielded circuit wirelessly

>>7748895
That is not an example of a fly by wire circuit anyway.
While AFCS has electronic circuits, the actual fly by wire is all electrical.
You move the stick, and you are rotating servos which send the signal to servos in the controls. These controls are usually hydraulically/pneumatically assisted

>>7749058
Electronic circuits work on voltage levels to drive logic gates. For example, you will get different outcomes for 1mv, 2mv, 3mv.
If you exceed the rated current you will just burn out the usually tiny components, tracks, or even the pcb.

File: admiral_ackbar_portrait.jpg (73KB, 284x428px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 284x428px

>>7748960
and a cute one

>>7749620
Then how did that B2 crash? I know it was not a direct hack or remote over ride in the way most picture it. But the simple idea of having the computer over adjust the flight path faster then the pilot can correct even with manual over ride can yield the same end result of a crash. You don't have to fully remote control it, you just need to make it hit the ground hard which is a much simpler task as the ground is big and gravity is always helpful in these matters.

Take my car for example. It has a computer that adjusts to make the car's handling more predictable. However there were a number of roll overs crashes with them as people were switching to after market tires of a different size but not adjusting the control software. So the computer was incorrectly compensating on sharp turns, the result was a increased number of roll overs. Now it is not hard for a skilled person to change the tire setting in the software along with many other settings, which would increase the odds of an accident. Make an addition to the software that changes the settings after X miles and now the driver is caught off guard as the handling of the car drastically changes. Does it automatically crash? No, but not many drivers can handle such a sudden change in handling especially if activated at high speeds, so they will crash.

Now a military pilot is trained to deal with a lot so they could adapt and switch to some fail-safe manual setting. (I will assume they have an isolated fail-safe like that, although I will say I rarely see such things even in some of the most redundant nuclear safety control systems.) Well then the attacker needs to just set up conditions that the pilot can't overcome. Something like a pull sharp enough to blackout the pilot, but such things take time as oxygen lingers in their brain. So attack the hardware itself, say induce a maneuver outside the structural deign limits to have a wing snap off or some other critical failure condition.

Son if you have malware that can run on a plane, just crash the damn plane into the ground. Or do something worse like fuck up the computer controlled jet engine so it goes boom

File: battle programmer shirase.gif (484KB, 402x268px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 402x268px

>>7750725
True.
But most audience don't care about crippled compute infrastructure effects during war, they want EXPLOSIONS! Speaking of which, you would need one heck of a fuel pump running in reverse to pressurize the fuel tank into a bomb. Unless you got another way to make to go boom on the runway. Assuming the tank doesn't just swell and start leaking fuel, which is bad but not as bad as it sounds given how hard it is to ignite the jet fuel at STP.

Now if the plane had (for plot purposes) the following
1. An overly powerful fuel pump, officially to allow faster speeds that demand a high fuel rate (with the reversibility as an artifact given the pump design was adapted from some other application to save time and money)
2. A overly reinforced fuel tank, officially to deal with dramatic pressure differences that happen while at super high altitudes. (but not a space plane, as those require higher tech level to build)
3. A heat source to ignite the pressurized fuel tank. (over heat wing de-icer coils, which are adjacent to wing fuel tanks?

No, forget all that. Just flood the after burner pipe with fuel then close the valves and let the heat from the engine cook that pipe bomb. (got to love p = ρRT) Wouldn't take long if the engine was at normal operating temperature. The explosion would not be as big as I would like, but it would likely be right next to the vital turbine assembly and with an newly opened fuel valve it could feed back and ignite the fuel making the jet roast in hot red flames and thick black smoke for hours. Given the way the tanks would burn, not explode, a good pilot could make a emergency landing as it should not be too close to some control surfaces or simply eject, but that plane ain't flying again.

>Remember ALL good cyber attacks have lots of typing and keyboards. (here are some to get you started)
>also read: http://www.theonion.com/article/fast-talking-computer-hacker-just-has-to-break-thr-32000

>>7748960
lina merkalina

>>7749678
no

>>7750595
Your car in not even close to the same system.

I cant tell you about b2 avionics because thats still classified. However I have worked on multiple usaf frames in the past that are fly by wire. If you pull the cb for afcs in any of them, then you have no afcs and still full control of flight controls because it is a separate circuit.

So if you hacked the afcs the pilot could pull the breaker and fly manually and there would be no problem.
The control circuits are completely closed and shielded, there is no way to access the circuit wirelessly.

The only explanation i can give you for the b2 crash is that the b2 manual flight controls are not manual flight controls. The inputs are feed to a separate FMS than the afcs but the computer decides which surfaces to move. In this situation, an interruption to circuit voltages or voltage regulators could cause malfunctions but this wouldnt be able to be induced wirelessly.

I'm sorry but on real life frames in real life circumstances this wouldn't work at all, ive done extensive testing on different aircraft on wireless control and none will work this way, only if the pilot allowed the afcs to crash itself.

But the general public dont know about this shit so just do it

>>7749058
What does mh370 have to do with it? Its suspected that the pilot crashed it

>>7751551
It was to show how big expensive and important things can get lost, even in the day of GPS and stuff.

People tell me about how we know about X because of real time data or surveillance, but I as how would they know. I mean if you got multiple satellite tracking it you would see the plane crash, so you know when and were but that is not as helpful to telling why as many would think. Don't get me wrong having a few detailed remote recordings of what happened is helpful and could rule out a number of things like missiles, but would not be enough to point to a computer virus. Maybe malfunction or sabotage of some kind, but with all the thing that go into a plane the only certain thing is it crashed moments after it stopped broadcasting data.

>>7751534
While a plane and car are very different the core ideas are the same. I not sure what the aeronautic term for Electronic Stability Control is but I know all of them have it now. In fact the flying wing design was considered too difficult to control despite being very theoretically stable, which helps push the development of ESC and is why the B2 has such an advanced and complex ESC. It was my understanding that all planes have a ESC system between the pilot and the control surfaces, as it improves performance and safety in most cases.

In my car there is an off switch, which turns off all the computer adjustments. This "manual" mode is not a direct circuit as it still goes though the computer, just the computer doesn't make any adjustments. Now for redundancy and safety I could see the air force putting it on a separate circuit, but they would still connect to the same motors

The hacked ESC would tell the motor to do something stupid, the pilot would then notice and turn that system off to fly manually but the only way to turn the hack ESC off effectively is to cut the power to it, as unplugging each motor plug wire in flight is not going to happen

So lets assume the fighter jet actually has a hard power cut off switch, great that would stop some remote control antics or double input issues. But that hard power cut off would do very little to stop the hack ESC from just overloading the motors before anything can be done. Fry the motors in an instant then pilot retakes control of broken plane, outcome is still a crash unless you got a separate motor assembly which would add a lot of wight to the aircraft which is why it is rarely done. The A10 is the only military plane I know of that has a direct hydraulic system which could bypass this type of attack. Newer planes, especially fighters, like the F22 and F35 theoretically are more vulnerable as their designs are inherently unstable to allow for crazy maneuvering options making ESC more vitally integrated.

This was the most interesting thread I've seen on /sci/ in a long time with almost 0 shitposts.

>>7752597
I know, people are actually responding to my thoughtful posts with thoughtful replies. I love it.

But I do wish OP had picked a different image.

Typing of which where is OP?