Hugo Teso, 2013 — FMS proof-of-concept
Hack in the Box · research demonstration, not a 9M-MRO finding
Confirmed as a public research talk: Teso showed that flight-management logic could be reached and manipulated in a lab/simulation setting. FAA disputed operational risk. No record in this file places that path on 9M-MRO.
The remote-control board treats this as the ‘other pathway’ besides a dedicated uninterruptible-autopilot box: standard avionics, ACARS/SDU, ARINC 429, FMS. A 2013 conference demonstration is not an installation, not a 777 service bulletin, and not a night-of exploit. It keeps the question live — can this airframe’s buses accept an unauthorised external command? — without answering it.
Sources
- Hugo Teso, Hack in the Box 2013, ‘Aircraft Hacking’
Related
Remote-control claims versus evidence gaps
Patent, QF-16, Teso FMS proof-of-concept · installation on 9M-MRO still open
Did 9M-MRO have any path for external flight-control commands?
What was actually fitted on 9M-MRO — SDU, FMS, data buses, 2012 Shanghai repair?
External / uninterruptible autopilot on 9M-MRO
Engineering precedent exists. Installation on this airframe is not established.