Bruce Schneier | |||||||||||
Schneier on SecurityA blog covering security and security technology. « Terrorism Risks of Google Earth | Main | Military Secrets for Sale in Afghanistan » April 11, 2006Air Force One Security LeakLast week the San Francisco Chronicle broke the story that Air Force One's defenses were exposed on a public Internet site: Thus, the Air Force reacted with alarm last week after The Chronicle told the Secret Service that a government document containing specific information about the anti-missile defenses on Air Force One and detailed interior maps of the two planes -- including the location of Secret Service agents within the planes -- was posted on the Web site of an Air Force base. And a few days later: Air Force and Pentagon officials scrambled Monday to remove highly sensitive security details about the two Air Force One jetliners after The Chronicle reported that the information had been posted on a public Web site. Turns out that this story involves a whole lot more hype than actual security. The document Caffera found is part of the Air Force’s Technical Order 00-105E-9 - Aerospace Emergency Rescue and Mishap Response Information (Emergency Services) Revision 11. It resided, until recently, on the web site of the Air Logistics Center at Warner Robins Air Force Base. The purpose is pretty straight-ahead: "Recent technological advances in aviation have caused concern for the modern firefighter." So the document gives "aircraft hazards, cabin configurations, airframe materials, and any other information that would be helpful in fighting fires." Another news report. Some blogs criticized the San Francisco Chronicle for publishing this, because it gives the terrorists more information. I think they should be criticized for publishing this, because there's no story here. EDITED TO ADD (4/11): Much of the document is here. Posted on April 11, 2006 at 2:40 PM • 28 Comments To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter. Anonymous • April 11, 2006 3:21 PM Interesting, and strange - I mean, it doesn't really talk about the technologies involved, it doesn't talk (from the description posted here) about the radar guided missile jammers, countermeasure capabilities in terms of expendables (Which can easily be pyrotic in the form of flares) not threat warning equipment details ... so what's the point? Once people get onto the plane, it's very hard work to get'em back out anyway. Kevin S. • April 11, 2006 3:26 PM Must have been a slow news day in San Francisco. Sure - it probably doesn't need widest dissemination but its nothing to lose sleep over. Homeland Stupidity • April 11, 2006 3:33 PM A security expert I know is fond of saying that "Security is a tradeoff." The tradeoff itself is the real story here. Which is more likely, terrorists attacking Air Force One, or Air Force One being involved in an accident? Which has greater negative consequences to be protected against? I'm sure you can think of a few other things, but it seems to me that not having the information available is a worse idea than having it available. Prohias • April 11, 2006 3:47 PM The reporting of a non-story is itself an interesting story. So the air force got embarassed, did not stand their ground, and pulled the site off from public gaze. What endures is this line from the news report linked to: "We can't even justify how (the page) got out there," Reardon told the Chronicle. "It should have been password-protected." Longwalker • April 11, 2006 4:11 PM Documents mirrored on cryptome: The only semi-interesting things here are that the AF1-747s carry two APUs,the lack of mention of any radhaz area associated with a radar jamming system, and the absence of any guidence on dealing with pyrotechnic-based countermeasures (chaff, flares, etc). As for the, oxygen tanks, they're in the same place as those on a civil 747. Fred F. • April 11, 2006 4:13 PM I guess the trade off went this way. Do we try to explain the security trade off to the people we have been manipulating on security trade off or we just not worry about the firefighters, etc since it is very unlikely that they will actually have to deal with AF1? Nah, we already have a large investment in stupid people. If AF1 ever goes down we will make heroes of those valiant firefighters that die trying to save the president. Kevin S. • April 11, 2006 4:22 PM "Guidence on dealing with pyrotechnic-based countermeasures (chaff, flares, etc)." For that, you would need to go to Technical Order (T.O.) 11A-1-46, Fire Fighting Guidance, Transportation and Storage Management Data and Ammunition Complete Round Chart. IYAAYAS! GTR • April 11, 2006 5:05 PM Besides, if you wanted to make the plane explode, it would be much easier to aim for the fuel tanks in the wings (which when fully-loaded hold 53,611 gallons). I don't watch TV, but a little web research shows Mythbusters did a couple segments on this: Exploding gas tank: a car can explode when the gas tank is shot (original episode summary). They redid this with tracer rounds and confirmed that tracer rounds can ignite a gas tank. This doesn't contradict their original result that ordinary (legal) bullets cannot. Degree of difficulty causing an airplaine gas tank to explode using tracer rounds left as an exercise for the reader. first responder • April 11, 2006 5:05 PM Oh no, there *IS* a story here. It's the story of how unclassified information that would be useful for emergency response personnel is yanked from a public web site as soon as a Boy Cries Wolf. The follow-up story will also be interesting. It will be the story of how the information that was yanked will finally end up in the hands of emergency responders, only delayed, complicated, or with silly admonitions emblazoned on it against sharing it with unauthorized personnel. I predict that the latter story will be very quiet, and the Air Force will simply reissue the docs, perhaps slightly edited, in something like 4-6 months, and there won't be any story written about it. mike • April 11, 2006 5:12 PM "Degree of difficulty causing an airplaine gas tank to explode using tracer rounds left as an exercise for the reader." I'm not quite sure about kerosene (jet fuel), but gasoline isn't explosive when in a can/tank/whatever. You have to dispurse it, then ignite it, then it blows up. I believe that kerosene doesn't explode in quite the same was as gasoline, but I could be wrong.
Dave • April 11, 2006 7:17 PM Working from memory, I'm pretty sure that avtur (kerosene) has a similar flashpoint to diesel, and is harder to ignite than mogas/avgas. In all cases, getting the right fuel/air mixture is critical to creating a decent explosion. Longwalker • April 12, 2006 1:27 AM @Kevin S: @Dave: All USAF aircraft use JP-8, which is specified to have flashpoint and autoignition temperatures of 38 and 210 degrees C respectively. For comparison, #2 diesel has a flashpoint of around 50C. Of course, the fuel in any aircraft that's just landed is going to be well below zero anyway, making the flash point moot in most circumstances. And I wouldn't be surprised if the AF1-747s have a nitrogen inerting system, either. Paeniteo • April 12, 2006 2:21 AM Is it just me or is cryptome.org down? Conspiracy-theories to the front: DoS, Smartbombs, EMP - or just heavy load? betabug • April 12, 2006 2:33 AM Put secrecy between you and a firefigher coming to rescue you? Reminds me of the old song we used to chant when dead drunk in a bar: The house, the house is on fire! Shura • April 12, 2006 2:34 AM @Paeniteo: It's really slow, but it's not down for me. Just try again. The problem is that after their completely over-the-top approach on minor things such as people taking photos of public buildings they now have to be seen to be doing something Weght Loss • April 12, 2006 3:33 AM I don't watch TV, but a little web research shows Mythbusters did a couple segments on this anon by choice • April 12, 2006 6:10 AM So it's important an important opsec violation and must not be disclosed for AF1...but it's okay for Navy fighters? www.dcfp.navy.mil/library/ dcpubs/aviation/TO00-1105E-9Seg20.pdf ...are they making coherent risk based decisions or reflexive knee jerks. Kind of a neat document. I'm glad someone is thinking clearly. I'd say flares/chaff are of less interest to an assaliant then which parts of the airframe are fiberglass and which are titanium. @nonymou5 • April 12, 2006 8:21 AM I remember watching on the history channel an hour long movie about Air Force One. It even had technical animations about some of the defenses. Air Force One: A History DVD Longwalker • April 12, 2006 5:44 PM > I'd say flares/chaff are of less interest Early-generation 747? 100% aluminum. Boeing only started getting into composites in a big way with the 777. JakeS • April 13, 2006 1:21 PM Interesting that the Pres is up-front where first-class traditionally is, as far as possible from the press back in "coach". That sends the right status message, but is it the best safety choice? I seem to recall that the seats right at the back have a better survival chance in crashes. Anyone know? farmboy • April 14, 2006 2:11 PM These thing have keys to turn them on right? So its all about keeping the keys away from the bad guys (Bob, Alice, Mohammed, take your pick). Afterall, the vulernabilities of large aircraft are pretty well documented in the public domain. In particular, resistance to aircraft theft is only as good as the key management scheme (and some access controls). Imagine firing up 350,000 lbs of thrust from your key ring, click, click, beep, varooom. Of course some fool might find a way to use Quasars to cause trouble, but that has not been carefully analyzed and may be years away from practicality. Bruce Schneier • April 14, 2006 2:44 PM "These thing have keys to turn them on right?" I would bet money that they don't. Dave Hardy • April 18, 2006 7:51 PM Standard projectile design in WWII, for purposes of setting the other plane alight (and note we're dealing with gasoline here) was incendiary or armor-piercing incendiary. Both relied on a compound that flashed on impact, in the nose of the round or, in the pure incendiary, through its center as well. Since it was right under the copper jacket, the flash would most likely happen upon impact, outside the fuel tank. The idea was that if you hit the gas tank (or in the case of a self-sealing tank design, hit it a lot) some gas would leak, and the later incendiaries would set it afire. gotpasswords • April 19, 2006 2:21 PM "These thing have keys to turn them on right?" I would bet money that they don't.
Once inside, it's little more than mags on, fuel on, hit Start and off you go. There's essentially no security on most aircraft - it's up to the airport personnel to control who's on the ramp. Post-9/11 saw the addition of actual locks to cockpit doors on commercial aircraft, but most civilian craft are secured by the hope that people that know how to fly are honest and that people who don't know how to fly won't be interested in getting in.
Post a comment
Powered by Movable Type. Photo at top by Geoffrey Stone.
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT. |
|
Comments