I would like to point out for the record, this is the group that decided it appropriate to label thier conference tracks 'new f#gs' and 'old f#ags'.

http://www.rogueclown.net/what-are-those-track-names-again/

I'd be curious how much the tiger has changed its stripes

Greetings,

As the guy on stage giving the presentation, I feel the need to comment. I see Nick was already here ahead of me covering most of the points, but I figured I'd chime in.

The FlightGear Demo video was, as Nick mentioned, a way to show that it was possible to put ADS-B data into the air with equipment available to any hobbiest. We used a flight sim and a dummy load because at no time would we ever put real data into the air without proper permissions and safety precautions. As much as I want to know what would happen, I have no desire to see anything bad happen to any aircraft or members of the flying public. It was a proof of concept to show the theory and a potential tool to test these theories.

I fully admit I dont know the system inside and out. I dont see how someone needs to be in order to spot things that are just not right.

In all the comments, much was said, but little evidence was offered. If you have evidence that you can share publically, please do so. Contact me at renderlab.net and prove me wrong. I would love to do a presentation where I answer all of my questions to my complete satisfaction.

A few points were raised repeatedly that I'd like to address:

"But multilateration takes care of that". Really. Please show me the report. What was the methodology for establishing that as adaquate?

"But pilots and controllers are smart people" They are also human and make mistakes. Training and preperation are going to be key to solving this

"Publicity seeking" Yes, I am seeking publicity, to get the aviation authorities to open up about these issues and provide some transparancy into the

"Try to hack it, nothing will happen". I want to, with permission of course. This is why I'm asking anyone who has access to aircraft, ATC operations gear, manuals, avionics, etc. To come forth and let us test our theories publically. If everything is secure and safe, then the worst thing that happens is I look a bit foolish, but we all can fly home feeling a bit safer.

Yes, there may have been errors in the slides. I admit so right at the beginning. The aviation industry is more acronym happy than the computer industry. Some of the numbers are from official documents and older versions of SOP's or summaries or any number of sources. Until I have the controllers procedures and standards manual in my hand, I only have publically available documents to go from, which may contain variations or errors. I'm human.

Lastly many comments questioned my motives and the logic of going public. I set out to prove to myself that ADS-B and NextGen were safe. I failed in that. I do not think it is as secure and safe as has been made out to be. I kept trying to prove to myself it was safe but every avenue turned up more evidence to the contrary. I exhausted all the documents and resources I could find and so wanted to turn to the hacker community that I know and love and get thier help in trying to prove my theories wrong. These theories have been around longer than I and are most certain to have been discussed by existing bad guys. As was stated many times, dont shoot the messenger.

TL;DR version: Show me your evidence, prove to me NextGen is safe. Let us test it for ourselves publically.