cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/47299437

United flight 236 from Newark to Palma de Mallorca on Saturday night was forced to turn around just an hour after takeoff due to security concerns around a Bluetooth signal. Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight and reported that the crew repeatedly requested passengers to turn off their Bluetooth. According to one poster, […]

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 hours ago

    friendly reminder that what you think is a clever WiFi or Bluetooth name probably isn’t

    Nonsense, Your Honor. As evidence I present Promised LAN, Nacho Wifi, and Hurts When IP.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I suspect the personality profiles of people with who would make the joke of calling their bluetooth device “bomb” and people who would blow up an airplane full of people is almost diametrically opposite.

    • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      My mother used to have a Bluetooth speaker in our car that she took with her. It wasn’t deliberately shaped that way, but with the silhouette, the color, and the volume it produced, we ended up dubbing it ‘the hand grenade’.

      After the hand grenade finally broke, my mother got a nice JVC speaker, a long cylinder. It was promptly named ‘the pipe bomb’.

      For context, my mother is the most bland, inoffensive Midwest Christian white lady you will ever meet. She has an unusual sense of humor that comes out in the strangest ways. She laughed her ass off all the way through the FNAF games because she thought the animatronics were funny.

      I think the TSA just hates people with a personality, period.

      • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        One time a TSA guy started to open my wife’s carry-on, which she had packed VERY tightly. She said, “Careful, it might explode.” This got a raised eyebrow.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I like to believe that people with quirky senses of humour see the various social conventions and other broadly treated as “this is the way things are done” patterns of behavior in human societies with a different perspective so often see the silly side of many such things (hence the quirky sense of humour), making them significantly less likely to simply submit to arbitrary orders from those in positions of authority than the average person.

        People that don’t just meekly comply are more disliked by “little dictators” - people in positions were they have a little bit of power which they use to push others around to satisfying petty personal needs to feel powerful.

      • Snailpick42@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Christians are rather offensive people. Especially the ones that force religion and their laws on people.

  • Kay Ohtie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The real reason is because some jackass turned their Bluetooth speaker on during a flight.

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 hours ago

    If they thought it was real, why wouldn’t they land at the closest airport? Why fly all the way back to the origin point?

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Boston Logan and Bangor should have both been able to handle the flight and are closer. In fact, Bangor has a massive runway and is the defacto airport for flights that need to divert from transatlantic international routes.

  • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    That is one of the most bizarre articles I have ever read. Why in the world are we not allowed to know what the “four letter word” is?

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    12 hours ago

    If you named a Bluetooth speaker “Just an ordinary Bluetooth speaker, nothing to see here”, would that be seen as an implied terrorist threat?

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Try naming it “Fuck ICE” and see what happens . . . or don’t, because for whatever reason the special snowflakes of that criminal org get really pissy when members of the public offer them honest and heartfelt feedback.

  • murvel@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Multiple Redditors claimed to be on the flight

    The real reason for the turn-around

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I guess you need to rename all your Bluetooth bombs before flying now. Thanks Obama.

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      12 hours ago

      link

      So what I’m getting from this, is that you should use a VPN if you’re using the airports wifi.

      Like today’s sponsor…

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          How so? I know many of the vpns sell your information, what if you have a trustworthy vpn, are you suggesting the traffic is compromised at levels before and after the vpn? I mean I know it is to some degree I just don’t know exactly.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Your traffic is already encrypted with https so yes, the “compromise” here is after the VPN.

            I put compromise in quotes since in reality the system is working as designed. You need to use a end to end encrypted messaging app like Signal if you want your communications to stay private.

            • skibidi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Your traffic is encrypted, but it is still possible to see what sites you are visiting without a VPN.

              With a VPN, all your traffic will just be to the VPN server, and any logs of the sites you visit will sit with the VPN operator.

              • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                This is mostly true but I’ll add in some additional info.

                Both QUIC and ECH make it harder to easily track what sites are being visited. Not all websites support these but maybe some day they will be standard.

            • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              Thank you for the response I value this information.

              For the record, I suspect signal has a back door for the US government.

              • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                I can say with a very high degree of confidence that Signal does not have a backdoor. What’s far more likely is that you are a victim of a misinformation campaign. In reality there are many organizations that would prefer you that you use something that isn’t end to end encrypted.

                That’s not to say that Signal is flawless as it does have some known weaknesses. The issue is that people tend to fall back to not using encrypted messaging at all which is much worse.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    16 hours ago

    What if I name my speaker “This bomb will explode if plane goes below 5k meters. To disarm it send 1000 bitcoin to 1Dkfz1uJ45zRXey2iZmvCZPfLDTPPw6KQt”?

  • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Just changed my phone’s Bluetooth name to “Not A Bomb”. Hopefully no one is confused by it.

    • Admetus@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I mean, a 12 year old is more likely than not to name a cylindrical boombox a ‘bomb’ and forget about it. Hopefully a sincere apology will suffice instead of a ban or criminal charges.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        66
        ·
        16 hours ago

        According to discussion about this elsewhere, there’s a bluetooth speaker model named ‘Bomb’ that defaults to that name, whose website, humorously, has been rate limited due to I’m sure more traffic than they’ve ever had in its entire existence.

            • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              4 hours ago

              I don’t know, I think airlines should have a responsibility to address potential bomb threats on their commercial flights but that might just be me…

                • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Not saying that’s logical, but it’s something the airlines have to act on. They have policies in place that they need to follow, and even if it’s a finer comb than it needs to be it’s better than having no policy at all.

                  People forget how many skyjackings there were in the 80s and 90s when they say airport security is worthless. Like “How many incidents have they prevented?” “Only all the ones that didn’t happen…”

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Honestly, I don’t see any way this could result in criminal charges. It’s a Bluetooth name, not someone actually threatening with a weapon. It’s like walking around with a fake gun. You can’t be charged with anything without actual intent to deceive people, and good luck proving that.

        At most, this is a civil charge. The airline might try to get some money out of this person.

        • quick_snail@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I think it depends on the color of your skin.

          Many kids with fake guns have been executed for this, because their skin is black

        • kunaltyagi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Poor chap. Chances are the person was flying economy. No way that person can give enough to recoup even the lawyer fees for the airline

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Yep. They might still try it to punish them/set an example. They’re not getting enough out of it to be worth it though, so odds are nothing happens.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          It could absolutely result in a criminal charge. If it results in a criminal conviction or not is another question.

          But any prosecutor could make the argument that it’s a terroristic threat.

        • chocrates@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You can still be prosecuted for things you didn’t intend, the laws are usually less harsh. Manslaughter vs Murder for instance. I have no idea if a speaker whose name auto sets to bomb is illegal though. Seems dumb if it were

        • fizzle@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Naming a Bluetooth device “bomb” could absolutely be intentionally disruptive or threatening.

          Im not saying thats provable beyond reasonable doubt in this case.