See the recent BadUSB attack [1][2] for how this sort of attack can work; the firmware of the USB microcontroller itself can be infected.

[1] https://srlabs.de/badusb/ [2] http://www.wired.com/2014/07/usb-security/

Doesn't badusb have to pwn the host OS to propagate?

Nope, and reinstalling it wont help it..

Can work is irrelevant. And mostly wrong, since can is not do.

They claim it is happening.

If behind the USB port is some (writeable) data storage (for PDF manuals etc) this is quite possible.

Or some infectable USB controller is involved.

What on here is able to store malware? https://learn.adafruit.com/minty-boost/parts-list

If the USB chargers in cockpits are any more complex than the above, why?

They almost certainly aren't USB chargers. Probably USB ports for inserting thumb drives to update the navigational charts. These kinds of USB ports are [mis]used for charging phones all the time, and the phone can end up being mounted as a mass-storage device.

No idea how the rest of the exploit would work in this scenario though, I have a hard time believing it.

I think they mean "because the computers that fly the plane run a different OS than the computers that control the in-flight entertainment". The malware isn't going to cause the plane to crash, but it could still execute and spread itself via those little seat-back touch screens with their USB ports.

It's true that that scenario is not relevant, but the fact that there is a direct connection between the usb ports for charging stuff and the planes' computer is obviously a point of intrusion for attacks like Stuxnet.

Might be the case that the USB ports are for interacting with the plane's computers, and the charging being done by the pilots is against the rules.

I think the sentence "But it would pass the virus on to other devices that plugged into the charger." comes from the reporter, showing that he does not understand computers. It is plausible that malwares were copied without being executed.

A virus is something that copies itself. If something is copying a virus, it is infected.

So the virus would have to infect both android and the cockpit to spread from phone to cockpit to phone.

Not at all, that's like saying floppy disk viruses happened because both PCs and floppy disks were vulnerable. Just imagine the cockpit to be a floppy disk. You plug your phone in, and your infected phone puts a file in the cockpit. Then someone with a vulnerable phone plugs into the cockpit, reads the file and is infected.

Not saying that's how it happened, just that it's possible.

The hole in the argument is, why would the second phone read the file and execute it? We are waaaay past autorun.

Why would the first phone read the file and execute it? ( this is an exercise for the reader, not an actual question )

Sadly, we're not: http://www.windows10update.com/2015/05/windows-10-tutorials-...

Bullshit, I've watched Independence Day. You can easily take down advanced alien warships with some objective-c.

Was that really Objective-C?

Well it was on a mac laptop :)

I could maybe understand it if it was a USB hub, and the phones all had a defect that meant rogue USB signals could infect them. So if 2 people plugged into the same hub at the same time, it could spread.

But if the claim is that the virus lie 'dormant' in the uninfectable plane OS, then I can't understand that.

USB devices cannot contact each other, only the master can communicate with the devices on the bus. It is a tree with one device at the root.

nice catch. can't help but think of Independence Day when Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith infect alien mothership with a mac virus from a 3.5 floppy which specifically disabled its protective shield. "will give it a cold"

Edit: corrected it's its

There's a deleted scene that explains that all of our computer technology has been covertly based on the results of the Area 51 research into the crashed ship. It makes that bit a little less silly.

'it is protective shield?'. That's what you've written in effect. http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/its-vs-its

> disabled its protective shield

I think you added an apostrophe by accident, or the poster corrected the mistake.