Farnborough International Airshow in Surrey
Hampshire, please.
Airbus's UK infosec chief, Ian Goslin, has said that cyber-attack attribution is a matter for "nation states" – and has questioned whether some critical national infrastructure companies are taking the infosec threat seriously. Goslin, speaking at the Farnborough International Airshow in Hampshire where Airbus is a major …
The mailto link loads the wrong mail client on this machine and I haven't got the round tuits to fix it yet, Just copying the link doesn't copy the subject etc.
I understand the security by obscurity, maybe the traffic problem can be fixed in the same way, the A325 and A331 are a nightmare when the show is on. But at least I get a good view from the back garden.
The problem with infrastructure (like pumping stations), is they should not be anywhere near the internet. They should have dedicated cables to the head office. More expensive? Of course. More secure? Definitely. Then you only really need to worry about the head office security infrastructure.
" More expensive? Of course. More secure? Definitely."
More expensive? yes.
More secure? Only if you design it that way and make sure it STAYS that way.
Air gaps have a remarkable tendency to be bridged and false senses of security result in organisations not bothering to bother with hardening things internally.
Eggshell security is frequently worse than none at all, which is one of the points that Goslin was making.
Bombardier is *NOT* an also-ran. Just because the C Series nearly cost them everything it does *not* make Bombardier an also-ran. Their business jets, the Q400 series, and the CRJ series are all still strong money makers.
Remember that Boeing nearly lost when they bet everything on the 747, and they found themselves deep in the crapper too over the 787, and Airbus suffered a lot of losses over the A380, so please, calling Bombardier an also-ran is an insult.
P.S. I don't work for Bombardier.