Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Boeing Doubts Flight Controls Were Hacked; FBI Now Involved in Investigation of Last Week's Amtrak Derailment; GOP Hopefuls Say Hillary Clinton Escaping Questions; Syrian Troops Fight to Keep ISIS from Destroying More Treasures. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired May 18, 2015 - 13:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:30:00] KIM ZETTER, SENIOR REPORTER, WIRED.COM & AUTHOR: Aand from there he was able then to get into the avionics system and issue a command to the thrust management control and manipulate one of the engines.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you believe that, that he did that and was successful in that manipulation?

ZETTER: I don't know. I mean, there are a lot of people who are criticizing that right now who are saying it's not possible to do that. I know that Boeing says that the two networks are not connected. But I've spoken with Boeing back in 2008 when this issue first came up. The FAA issued an alert to Boeing notifying them that they needed to separate the two networks and at the time Boeing told me the networks were separated but they told me they separated them with a software firewall. And to computer security experts, that's not really separating networks.

BLITZER: What do you think, David? You've taken a closer look into this?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Yeah, I have. One of the things that bothers me most about this is that the idea of the software network, the software firewall versus hardware firewall. First of all, flight management computer system is not part of the network we're talking about here. I've gone to Boeing and studied what Boeing does, I've taught avionics on the aircraft, I know how it's wired and, in fact, I've taken the CISSP (ph) course, the Certified Information Security Specialist Program, and so in my knowledge, there's no possibility that this could occur. So -- but then backing up from that as well, just for tampering from the fire detector on an aircraft you can go to jail for that. That's a federal offense. The fact that he took this on his initiative and didn't go through the proper channels to report what we thought was a vulnerability is a serious, serous violation of federal law.

BLITZER: As you know, Kim, this guy, Chris Roberts, has not been arrested but has been interviewed at least a couple times by the FBI. As far as you know what is the status of the investigation right now?

ZETTER: Well, so his -- the FBI seized his electronics. He was on a flight going to Syracuse, New York, and the FBI met him at the end of the flight, seized electronics, two laptops. And I believe at this point they haven't done a forensic investigation of those. But they were looking for a sign to see if he connected to the network in one of his last flights last month and if he issued any commands or manipulated the systems.

BLITZER: Even if he had gotten, David, into the in flight entertainment system but not flight controls, as he claims he did, you point out that would still be a crime, is that right?

SOUCIE: Yeah. It's part of the -- if -- the fact is he's tampering with a part on the aircraft. It doesn't matter if you're tampering with a seat, fire detector, the fact is if he took something apart, he took it on himself to try to hack into that, that is a federal crime. It is not something that should be taken lightly at all. There's wires, others flight critical wires connected down there that are not part of this system necessarily, but nonetheless, to be hacking into an aircraft or attempting to hack into an aircraft is a serious problem.

BLITZER: You know this guy, don't you, Kim? Tell us about him. You've interviewed him and spoken with him.

ZETTER: Yes. He's the founder of a security company called One World Labs. They do what's called penetration testing, which is this kind of thing where you go into systems and look for vulnerabilities. Legitimate testing means getting permission of the owners of the system you're testing and researching.

I should point out that he did speak with Boeing and Air Bus about these issues. He started looking into the problems with planes going back to 2009 and he's done a couple presentations at computer security conferences. So he did have meetings with the airlines. They didn't do anything based on what he told them. He had a conversation with the FBI in February with the understanding the FBI was going to help him ensure that the questions were answered.

BLITZER: So, David, even if he didn't get into the flight controls, I think you will agree that there's a lot more work that needs to be done to make sure these planes cannot be hacked into?

SOUCIE: Absolutely. And it's a consistent look at this. There's a continuous improvement program that Boeing has, that Air Bus has, everybody using it. And in that continual improvement program, it's constantly looking for ways to improve security because for every system you have another hacker that tries to do it. That's why there's a physical firewall between these two systems now. She right, in 2008 there was not. But there is now. And so I really don't see that this is a risk. But there may be something I don't know. That's part of the continuous improvement program, is making sure that everyone is looking at this all the time.

And, Kim, if it's an opportunity, I would love to speak with him and see if there is a vulnerability, because with my background, I can connect him with the people that need to be there to test this properly.

[13:35:09] BLITZER: All right. Kim, want to respond to that?

ZETTER: Yeah. You know, even if it's true there are hardware firewalls here and he wasn't able to get into the system, there are questions about the ability to connect to that network box underneath the passenger seats. Those network boxes shouldn't be there and they shouldn't be accessible. Also the fact that they were secured with the default password is another issue the airlines should be looking into.

BLITZER: Good points made by both of you.

Kim Zetter, thanks very much.

David Soucie, thanks to you.

To our viewers, read more of Kim's article at wired.com. Go ahead and read it if you're interested, and I think you probably are.

Still ahead, Amtrak has restored full service in the northeast. I'm going to tell you why the FBI is involved in the investigation into last week's deadly derailment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Some semblance of normal returning to the busy northeast Amtrak corridor. This morning, service resumed on the Philadelphia to New York route. Amtrak scrambling over the weekend to get the trains running once again. More than 300 workers installed new safeguards, including speed controls in the same area where the train barreled off the tracks. The investigation continues into last week's crash that killed eight people injured more than 200. The FBI is now on the scene looking into the possibility that the train's windshield was hit by something before it crashed.

Let's bring in Peter Goelz, our CNN transportation analyst, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board here in the United States.

The theory is that maybe something hit that windshield, some sort of projectile, a brick or whatever, and maybe disrupted the engineer because, after that windshield was hit, the throttle went forward and the train went from 60 miles per hour to 106 miles per hour in a 50 mile-an-hour zone around the curve. Is that theory realistic?

[13:40:16] PETER GOELZ, CNN TRANSPORTATION ANALYST: It could be. You want to look carefully at the 45 seconds to say two minutes prior to the train accelerating and see what was going on in the cab. Was, you know, did something hit the windshield? Was there some sort of communications from the outside coming in? Was something else going on where he lost situational awareness, where he forget just for a second where he was and thought perhaps he was beyond the turn and started to accelerate. The train wasn't accelerating by itself. The impact of an object against a windshield wouldn't have accelerated the train. This was something unfortunately that was probably human directed and we need to thigh to figure out what could have gone on. BLITZER: The engineer in his conversations with the NTSB, the lead

investigators, says he has no recollection of what happened, although that throttle according to the so-called black box was thrust forward to accelerate going into that curve?

GOELZ: He had no recollections of the incident leading up to it. No radio report of him acknowledging he got hit by anything. No radio contact with another train saying I just got hit. So far, I think the FBI are going to look at that windshield and say something hit it, but it's not going to be a contributing factor.

BLITZER: They're taking a look at the windshield to see what that was?

GOELZ: That's right.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: There is a history in that area around Philadelphia, people throwing stuff at trains?

GOELZ: Unfortunately, the trains along the northeast corridor get pelted sometimes, three, four, five times a month, engineers report, and it's a -- if you get hit by something hard it is startling.

BLITZER: Here is the tragedy. If that train had been equipped with positive control, that speed that would have automatically slowed it down, right, if that system was in place in Philadelphia, even if he had thrust the throttle forward it would have slowed down the train instead of accelerating?

GOELZ: It would have slowed the train down.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Even if he pushed the throttle forward?

GOELZ: Even if he was pushing it forward, it would have overridden his command. It's in place today, apparently, why wasn't it in place last --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Part is in place, not the full system is in place.

GOELZ: On that turn it is.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Those people would be alive today if that system was in place and even if he was startled and, you know, he went out, let's say something hit the windshield and he lost control and accidentally pushed that throttle forward the system automatically would have slowed the train down instead of allowing it to accelerate.

GOELZ: That's right. The tragedy would have been averted. BLITZER: All right, Peter, thanks very much.

GOELZ: Thank you.

BLITZER: See what investigation shows.

Just ahead, Hillary Clinton returns to the campaign trail today, but will she answer her Republican critics by answering questions from reporters? And speaking of questions, another Republican struggling to answer the one about the war in Iraq. We have details. Analysis coming up from our political panel. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:46:46] BLITZER: President Obama's free trade initiative could take another step forward later today. The Senate is scheduled to vote on two amendments to the Trade Promotion Authority Bill. The legislation allows the president to negotiate a 12-nation deal with Pacific Rim countries. Congress would get an up and down -- up or down vote on the trade agreement. The bill is expected to pass the U.S. Senate but faces a tougher fight in the House of Representatives. However, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan says the House now has the votes to pass it.

Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, gets back on the campaign trail today. She attends a grassroots house party in Iowa. But the question her potential Republican rivals are all asking is, why isn't Hillary Clinton fielding questions from journalists?

Listen to what Jeb Bush said over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEB BUSH, (R), FORMER FLORIDA GOVERNOR: We're probably around 800 to 900 questions asked and, hopefully, answered. Just as an aside, Hillary Clinton has been a presidential candidate now for a month maybe and she's had 13 questions asked by the press.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Let's bring in our chief political analyst, Gloria Borger; and our senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, who is on the road with the Clinton campaign in Mason City, Iowa, right now.

What are they saying, the Clinton campaign, Jeff, when asked, why doesn't she answer reporter questions?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the Clinton campaign says she will answer all these questions in due time but she is doing this second presidential campaign on her own terms. So she is willing to ignore some of the criticism and getting a lot of it. It's not just her Republican rivals it's also voters who are beginning to say, isn't she going to answer our questions here. I would suspect she will answer a couple this afternoon, but no full press conferences, no -- we have so many things to ask her about. She's been a candidate for about five weeks or so, but she is doing this on her own terms and they're willing to put up with the criticism so she doesn't have missteps and she can roll out her campaign as she sees fit.

BLITZER: Is it a smart strategy, Gloria?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I think it depends how long it lasts. Obviously, there are issues out there she has to address, for example, trade. I mean, you know, the party is pulling her to the left on trade. How is she going to come down? Is she going to side with the president? She has Bernie Sanders, a potential presidential candidate, attacking her from the left on that. There are legitimate questions I think will people -- people want answered. And it's a tough call for them to make because she's a candidate, so people want to hear more from her.

BLITZER: Is it just a matter, Jeff, that she's sort of afraid that she might get tripped up? Is that part of the reason why she's sort of dodging reporters?

ZELENY: I'm mot so sure she's afraid. Being a presidential candidate, you are on a tight rope every day, every moment as Jeb Bush has found out. I think she wants to keep her message as she sees fit. She talked about immigration a week or so ago. She's talking about small businesses today. She's trying to run her second campaign and keep the message focused. So many reporters are saying, why isn't she answering questions. This becomes a problem when voters start saying it and does this feed into the idea that she's being secretive and not being open enough. Voters here in Iowa, Wolf, they have many questions for her. So voters here in Iowa have many questions for her. Gloria is right. She can do this for a while, but not much longer.

[13:50:11] BORGER: You don't want to get the sense that you're a candidate who plays by a different set of rules when you have Republicans out there doing town halls, taking questions from the press, appearing on Sunday shows. You know, then it looks like a little entitled and voters just don't like it.

BLITZER: I want to play a clip because Senator Marco Rubio, he also sort of got tripped up on the basic questions about the war in Iraq in 2003. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO, (R), FLORIDA: The question was whether it was a mistake. My answer was, it's not a mistake. I still say it was not a mistake. Because the president was presented with intelligence that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was governed by a man who had committed atrocities in the past with weapons of mass destruction.

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: What she asked you was, was it a mistake to go to war with Iraq?

RUBIO: It was not a mistake given the facts the president knew at the time.

WALLACE: No, she didn't say that. She just said, was it a mistake.

RUBIO: That's not the same question. Based on what we know now. Well, based on what we know now, I think everyone agrees --

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: Was it a mistake to go to war with Iraq?

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: I'm asking you --

(CROSSTALK)

RUBIO: I understand. But that's not the same question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Awkward situation there between Marco Rubio and Chris Wallace of FOX News.

BORGER: Yeah, it was awkward. I think that Republicans are having a really difficult time, including Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, answering this question. Why? Because generally the public believes that the war in Iraq was a failure, that we shouldn't have been in Iraq. Republicans, however, are kind of split on that. They've grown a little more hawkish on foreign policy. 74 percent of Republicans, for example, approve of some form of boots on the ground in Iraq. So they're trying to walk a fine line. By the way, Hillary Clinton wrote about this in her own book. She said that her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq was a mistake. But she also said if we knew then what we knew now, there wouldn't have been that vote.

BLITZER: Why is it so hard for Republicans, at least some of the Republicans, Jeff, to answer the basic question, was the war in 2003 against Saddam Hussein's Iraq a mistake?

ZELENY: Because it is a complicated issue, and they're not exactly sure where their base is on this. Their base is sort of all over. But it also speaks to the threats going forward. It has been very surprising to watch Jeb Bush first and then Marco Rubio second sort of making these missteps, if you will. At the very least, just sounds more senatorial than presidential. But it's a complicated issue, and they do not want to come out of the box and say they absolutely made a mistake.

But I think the more important things are the questions going forward. Those are the questions that Hillary Clinton and others are going to have to answer about ISIS and the threats like that. But it has absolutely been an unexpected hiccup, I would say, for these Republican candidates.

BLITZER: All right, Jeff Zeleny, on the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton in Iowa. We'll see if she answers any of your questions today, or other reporters' questions for that matter.

And, Gloria Borger, thank you.

By the way, the first president with a Smartphone has become the first president with a Twitter account. President Barack Obama's new handle is @potus. His first tweet, quoting, "Hello, Twitter. It's Barack. Really. Six years in, they're finally giving me my own account." He describes himself as, quote, "dad, husband, 44th president of the United States." And to stay within the law, he notes, quote, "Tweets may be archived." OK.

Still ahead, we'll go to Syria, find out new details on the fight to keep ISIS from destroying more ancient artifacts in the Middle East.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:57:27] BLITZER: Syrian troops are reportedly battling to keep ISIS from taking over the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. It's an archeological gem, a UNESCO world heritage site.

Nima Elbagir has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NIMA ELBAGIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Palmyra, for 2,000 years, its columns and temples have loomed over the oasis at the heart of Syria, a crossroad of Roman, Greek, Persian and Babylonian influences. Now in a renewed territorial push, ISIS militants stand at the gateway of this so-called Venice of the South.

(SINGING)

ELBAGIR: This is what's happened in other towns and territories taken by ISIS, pillaged, hacked, and sawed. Artifacts standing for thousands of years as testament to man's flights of imagination deemed idolatrous and un-Islamic by ISIS. The Winged God of Nimrod (ph), dating back to about 900 B.C., the Mosul museum. Across Iraq and Syria, in the place of priceless artifacts, ISIS has left rubble as the world stood helpless.

Palmyra recognized as one of the most significant monuments in the Middle East. Now the U.N. is pleading with the world to find a way to save this symbol of our shared past.

IRINA BOKOVA, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, UNESCO: I don't know what will happen in the Palmyra. I'm very worried. I'm alarmed by what is happening. Let's hope that this wonderful monument will not be destroyed like we have seen unfortunately in some of the others, some of the bulldozing and bombing of the sites.

ELBAGIR: Across Iraq and Syria, Palmyra and seven other ancient sites and cities are on the U.N.'s cultural agency UNESCO's danger list. Damascus' old town, Aleppo, the list goes on. This, in a year where, in Nepal alone, 200 heritage sites were damaged during the recent earthquake. Nature, of course, can't be stopped. Whether ISIS, who is just outside Palmyra, can, remains to be seen. Nima Elbagir, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: What a disaster unfolding right now.

That's it for me. Thanks very much for watching. I'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in "The Situation Room."

For our international viewers, "Amanpour" is coming up next.

For our viewers in North America, "Newsroom" with Brooke Baldwin starts right now.

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Wolf Blitzer, thank you.