Ace of Spades HQ

December 17, 2009

Iraq insurgents hacking video downlink from drones
— Purple Avenger

I suppose this is a natural evolution of the battlespace if you're broadcasting in the clear with hardware that was rushed into production and service.

Shia fighters are said to have used off-the-shelf software programs such as SkyGrabber to capture the footage.
The hacking was possible because the remotely flown planes have an unprotected communications link.

If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 11:17 AM | Comments (113)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

1 BAMM!

Posted by: First at December 17, 2009 11:19 AM (3IZGh)

2 If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

Who knows?
Maybe we've been doing that .

Posted by: YIKES! at December 17, 2009 11:19 AM (/cfp9)

3 If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

Shhhh............

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at December 17, 2009 11:20 AM (uZx+x)

4 I heard the hackers saw footage of Tareq and Michaele Salahi crashing a desert wedding party in Afghanistan.

Posted by: FreakyBoy at December 17, 2009 11:22 AM (4s1it)

5
Pretty unbelievable we're doing anything in the clear over there. Somebody (airfarce) is fucking that chicken real, real good.

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 11:22 AM (Haq+B)

Board cast some of my old cartoons instead.

Posted by: Porky Pig at December 17, 2009 11:22 AM (3IZGh)

7 Danger Room is saying that its worse. They say that the Terrorists can see manned aircraft's video feeds as well.

Posted by: Iblis at December 17, 2009 11:24 AM (9221z)

8 Finally! Proof of the Obama administration's promised transparency.

Posted by: FreakyBoy at December 17, 2009 11:25 AM (4s1it)

9 They should put gay midget porn on the unencrypted channel. Or not - those sick Jihadi bastards would probably like it.

Posted by: Xander Crews at December 17, 2009 11:26 AM (ZYX5j)

10 We should broadcast old Bay Watch episodes, that'll confuse 'em. If we could throw in some kiddie porn, they would never know what hit them.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at December 17, 2009 11:26 AM (muUqs)

11 Unfucking believeable... The Iranians have been stealing our megahurtz for how long now? Someone at the Pentagon/Air Force needs to have their dicks chopped off for this oversight. My wireless router probably has more security on it than a Predator drone.

Posted by: EC at December 17, 2009 11:27 AM (mAhn3)

12
Finally! Proof of the Obama administration's promised transparency.

++ would read this poster again

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 11:27 AM (Haq+B)

13 With luck some of them will actually get to watch their own deaths:

"Hey Achmed, that house looks very familiar"

"That's right Iqbal - hey, isn't that your pink lawn camel?"

"By Allah's septic toenails, it is"

"What do you think tha"

Ka-Boom

Posted by: Holdfast at December 17, 2009 11:27 AM (Gzb30)

What the HELL has happened to the military I used to be in? This shit is unfucking believable.

Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at December 17, 2009 11:28 AM (3IZGh)

15 "If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff."

Thank you for the heads up.We'll alert our overseas "contacts" immediately.

Posted by: NYTimes at December 17, 2009 11:28 AM (swuwV)

16 I would say that 'hacked' is somewhat of a misnomer if the feed is an unencrypted transmission. But I guess the story is better with 'OMG jihadis used 30.00 software (why is the price important?) to haxxor our planes11!!!'

Posted by: negentropy at December 17, 2009 11:29 AM (27KAF)

17 Spaceballs Colonel Sandurz: Try here. Stop. Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie? Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now. Dark Helmet: What happened to then? Colonel Sandurz: We passed then. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now. Dark Helmet: Go back to then. Colonel Sandurz: When? Dark Helmet: Now. Colonel Sandurz: Now? Dark Helmet: Now. Colonel Sandurz: I can't. Dark Helmet: Why? Colonel Sandurz: We missed it. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. Dark Helmet: When will then be now? Colonel Sandurz: Soon. Dark Helmet: How soon?

Posted by: vinman at December 17, 2009 11:29 AM (HOYRo)

18 @Xander Crews

If it keeps them distracted, all the better. Seriously though, I'm surprised that the Pentagon wasn't encrypting the signals to begin with. You'd be surprised what you're able to put together with a little electronic knowhow and a Digi-Key catalogue...

Posted by: Chuckles at December 17, 2009 11:30 AM (nd0uY)

19 I'd love to think the open signal link is just disinformation; and even the cynical part of me thinks, "Come on!" The idea that anything important is left open on a drone carrying a Hellfire? About as likely as letting an outspoken muslim jihadi be an army psychiatrist, I'd say.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at December 17, 2009 11:31 AM (pZEar)

20 >If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

send 'em porn. it'll either freak them out, or calm their asses down. Make 'em easier to bomb. Fuck these people.

Happy Christmas!

Posted by: Jones at December 17, 2009 11:31 AM (JL3qV)

21 The worst thing is that this will show Johnny Jihad just how much we can see at night. We killed a lot of really stupid jihadis who didn't have a clue of that.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at December 17, 2009 11:33 AM (jmoRq)

22 I was thinking this could be turned into a good psyops campaign. Splice in some stock footage of missile launches at random points during the flight and let'em count the missiles. If they think the drone is empty, its not as interesting anymore.

Having someone see video on purpose sounds bogus, but it can be turned to your advantage if you're controlling the content.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:33 AM (fp8kq)

23 5 to 1 the radical left will not consider this hacking a "theft".

Posted by: FreakyBoy at December 17, 2009 11:34 AM (4s1it)

24 If I had to throw out a guess, I'd go with the command and control stuff is all digital and encrypted, and they used off-the-shelf NTSC video cameras and radios for the feed.

I'm not sure that this bothers me. Now they know we're watching. What are they gonna do, move? We'll see them. Stay home? Easier to bomb. Either way, this knowledge doesn't help them much.

See also the proposed conversation above that ends in "BOOM!"

Posted by: brian at December 17, 2009 11:35 AM (g//nK)

25 And Biden wanted to pull the troops and just use Predators.

Posted by: wensteph at December 17, 2009 11:35 AM (KmFQY)

26 Wait till some asshole lawyer starts demanding the video for trials?

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 17, 2009 11:36 AM (0GFWk)

27 The worst thing is that this will show Johnny Jihad just how much we can see at night.

I think they already know. They're going on the "its a big sky and they can't be everywhere" theory. The bomb planters are expendable cannon fodder to the bombing planners.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:36 AM (fp8kq)

28 Wait till some asshole lawyer starts demanding the video for trials?

It got "homogenized".

Posted by: brian at December 17, 2009 11:37 AM (g//nK)

29 this was video not command and control connections which are encrypted ... and apparently on some old model drones ... newer models have all connections encrypted ... again no data just video ...

Posted by: Jeff at December 17, 2009 11:37 AM (1Aiyp)

30 Isn't that just like putting an energy vent in your Death Star design that a single fighter could use to blow up the whole thing?

Posted by: Socratease at December 17, 2009 11:38 AM (nJmDs)

31 @Brian

If low-rent jihadis can pull this off, what can the ChiComs do?

Posted by: Chuckles at December 17, 2009 11:38 AM (nd0uY)

32 The issue isn't whether we're clever. The problem is in allowing ourselves to forget that the enemy is clever. Just because they could not build, say, a 747, doesn't stop them from taking advantage of the existence of that item and using it against us. If it can be done by an American with COTS material, it should always be assumed a bad guy will soon do the same.

Posted by: epobirs at December 17, 2009 11:39 AM (zowpH)

33 newer models have all connections encrypted

We need to get that fixed ASAP, so we can have in the clear disinformation downlink capability.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:39 AM (fp8kq)

34 If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

How do we know that isn't exactly what they "hacked"?

You've got three choices: general incompetence, brilliant strategy or Obama administration sabotage. I guess we'll never know.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 17, 2009 11:39 AM (T0NGe)

35 "I'm not sure that this bothers me. Now they know we're watching. What are they gonna do, move?" It's not that they know we're watching, it's that they know *where* we're watching. If they know that, they can be elsewhere, or lay low until the Predator moves on.

Posted by: Socratease at December 17, 2009 11:40 AM (nJmDs)

This has been a known problem for quite some time. I remember seeing a news report about us sending out unencrypted video to our allies when we were in Bosnia--1998-ish.

The excuse provided then was that we couldn't encrypt the video stream without providing decryption equipment to our allies. If we gave them the decryption equipment, they might be able to reverse engineer our algorithms and see things we didnt want them to see.

I suspect that's what's going on now.

Posted by: wizardpc at December 17, 2009 11:41 AM (YLs4U)

37 There's an app for that. B+

Posted by: Al at December 17, 2009 11:41 AM (0lyUI)

38
If you can pull the broadcasts in the clear, you can jam them, and then what do you have? Shit we encrypted EVERYTHING, stateside, southern zone, training, operations, didn't matter. This is a goatfuck, the hell with the chicken.

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 11:42 AM (Haq+B)

39 AmishDude - If it's military and encrypted, it's AES. There are no known weaknesses to AES.

Chuckles - The Chinese make televisions. I think they can receive an unencrypted analog signal.

Posted by: brian at December 17, 2009 11:42 AM (g//nK)

40 How do we know that isn't exactly what they "hacked"?

True enough. The whole story could be disinformation. If people believe in demons, that's almost as effective in changing behaviors as having real demons milling about.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:42 AM (fp8kq)

41 Not to sound too glib about the situation, but remember those 3 rules you see in garages and such, the one that goes something like "fast, inexpensive, good...pick any two"? Well...with the bandwidth demand placed on the UASs and the available satellites on station, this is what happens. Need more satellites with the ability to handle that much encrypted info? Its gonna take a while, and it ain't going to be cheap. Til then, we fly the UASs with the AF we have, not the one we wish we had. Just ballparking it here...

Posted by: Lurker From AFSPC HQ at December 17, 2009 11:43 AM (k7Ddt)

42 "If low-rent jihadis can pull this off, what can the ChiComs do?" Offer to gold farm for us?

Posted by: EC at December 17, 2009 11:44 AM (mAhn3)

I'd heard they were broadcasting Hot Pesian Babe Sappho Shootout.

Winning their hearts and minds.

Posted by: Ook Ook at December 17, 2009 11:46 AM (dQdrY)

44 Cheap tethered aerostats with LOS laser comm links to the drones might be a cheap way to cure the bandwidth issues. I don't know if anyone has looked into that.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:47 AM (fp8kq)

45 I dont think this really matters much. They would have to have the meta data (location, heading, etc) and be able to do something with it in a very short decision loop. Just slapping some encryption on is not the easiest answer, upgrading the whole datalink is the solution.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 11:48 AM (Scxfk)

46 I haxxored your drone, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt and hellfire missiles. But mostly hellfire missiles.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Bacons, and the Odd Near Miss Meteor at December 17, 2009 11:48 AM (erIg9)

47
Ok, I get you don't want our tech and methods getting back-engineered on an essentially disposable Predator. I guess we really are just going cheap n' fast with them. Still it's going to bite us in the ass eventually, and by "bite us in the ass" I mean get some of our people killed.

grrrr

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 11:49 AM (Haq+B)

48 If I see a drone, and it's circling me, do I care if I've "hacked" into the video feed. "Hey, Achmed! Look at this. Some idiot- wait, two idiots- are looking at a laptop while being videoed by that drone up there..."

Posted by: t-bird at December 17, 2009 11:50 AM (FcR7P)

49 Yeesh. This is communications security 101 guys. That said, if this came out now I'm thinking they had fixed the problem by now.

Posted by: joncelli Ace at December 17, 2009 11:52 AM (RD7QR)

50 Ahhh, memories. See, "Battle of the Beams" from 1940-41. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you're in a hurry. And complacent.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at December 17, 2009 11:52 AM (I1Thg)

51 25 And Biden wanted to pull the troops and just use Predators.

Posted by: wensteph at December 17, 2009 03:35 PM (KmFQY)

Hey, why not just have all the channels rearranged? It takes me a year to program my DVR every time the cable company switches them.

Let's see those insurgents read a flashing 12:00 for hours

Posted by: Joe the Biden at December 17, 2009 11:53 AM (sYxEE)

52 Wonder if they see the hellfire coming and say allah acbar?

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at December 17, 2009 11:53 AM (OmBSC)

The Hildebeast pledges 100 billion of OUR tax dollars to waste on the Global Warming fraud. Ain't that sweet of her hamminess?

Posted by: maddogg at December 17, 2009 11:53 AM (OlN4e)

54 I'm thinking that unsecured channel needs to start broadcasting some serious hentai.

Nothing like dicknipples to make the average jihadi want to kill themselves.

Posted by: Randy Rager at December 17, 2009 11:54 AM (x6dJS)

55 TSAT was supposed to utilize lasercom, but got axed. But hey, I'm sure we got some F-22s for it. Actually, I'm not sure if the technology level could keep up with the satellite's requirements; lasercom was dropped, and TSAT-lite was the program that got canxed.

Posted by: Lurker From AFSPC HQ at December 17, 2009 11:54 AM (k7Ddt)

56 I dont think this really matters much.

True enough. Real-time video of insurgent action is going to have a very limited actionable lifespan measured in minutes before its too stale to be of real-time use. Where some asshole was 15 minutes ago, if he isn't in the same place now, is only useful to a ground unit intel/EOD teams that might want to sweep a site to see if anything was left laying around or to see if the locals noticed anything going on.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 11:54 AM (fp8kq)

If we could throw in some kiddie porn, they would never know what hit them.

No, they would like that. Just put on an endless "Ten Commandments"

Posted by: dagny at December 17, 2009 11:54 AM (s+PQ2)

58 Maybe we should post pics for them to hack of mo washing in pig crap!

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at December 17, 2009 11:55 AM (OmBSC)

59 The Hildebeast pledges 100 billion of OUR tax dollars to waste on the Global Warming fraud. Ain't that sweet of her hamminess? Posted by: maddogg at December 17, 2009 03:53 PM (OlN4e) I'd rather spend our money on new and improved war hardware and money for our troops.

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 17, 2009 11:55 AM (0GFWk)

60 I'd rather spend that money to get real Americans REAL JOBS!!

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at December 17, 2009 11:57 AM (OmBSC)

61 The Skygrabber software isn't the hard part, it was the antenna configuration to capture the signals in the first place.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 11:57 AM (6Njk9)

62 61 I'd rather spend that money to get real Americans REAL JOBS!!

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at December 17, 2009 03:57 PM (OmBSC)

I'd rather not spend it at all.

Posted by: Unclefacts, Summoner of Bacons, and the Odd Near Miss Meteor at December 17, 2009 11:58 AM (erIg9)

63 I think they already know. They're going on the "its a big sky and they can't be everywhere" theory. The bomb planters are expendable cannon fodder to the bombing planners.

The smarter ones have known in a general sense, now they have the real picture. And the planters have always been expendable.

Cheap tethered aerostats with LOS laser comm links to the drones might be a cheap way to cure the bandwidth issues.

Until the tether breaks on the darn balloon. Have seen that goat rodeo too.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at December 17, 2009 11:58 AM (jmoRq)

64 But I guess the story is better with 'OMG jihadis used 30.00 software (why is the price important?) to haxxor our planes11!!!'

I don't know about "better" but that might be the real story.

skygrabber.com is down (go figure) and I can't figure out where it was written. If it's a U.S.-based company, technology export laws apply (short form: selling software to Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan requires federal approval). Unless the "insurgents" were smart enough to spoof an IP address and use a stolen CC number.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 17, 2009 11:58 AM (NtiET)

65 This is actually a new and interesting take on "Voice of America"

"Yes, that's your house. Run. Faster. Anyone else want some?"

Posted by: Al at December 17, 2009 11:59 AM (0lyUI)

66 If the terrorist motherfuckers (who other than Michael Moore thinks they're "insurgents"?) are tapping the video feed, then the Air Force needs to put up some electronic warfare drones -- broadcast disinformation. If done cleverly, it could convince the tmfs that there are drones where none are operating, and that the coast is clear when it isn't.

Posted by: Trimegistus at December 17, 2009 12:00 PM (BUxMT)

67 Nothing like dicknipples to make the average jihadi want to kill themselves.

They might like that too. I know from observation that the Arabs have a strange fetish for chicks-with-dix pron.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at December 17, 2009 12:01 PM (jmoRq)

68 Radio broadcasted real time battlefield imagery; Who would possibly be interested in that? I'm sure non encrypted comms is fine.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at December 17, 2009 12:01 PM (0q2P7)

69
Unless the "insurgents" were smart enough to spoof an IP address and use a stolen CC number.

Hey, the insurgents in Wee Wee's campaign were smart enough to disable the donation-origin checking software. Think they can't spoof an IP? Or hell just get it delivered to Detroit and Fedex it to Baghdad.

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 12:01 PM (Haq+B)

70 PA, and without the geo-reference -- the image will have to have a recognizable surface feature to be of any use at all. It isn't going to help that three days later they figure out what road we were watching. If encryption slows down pace of the operations or the flow of data to the operational level then it will be a net loss not gain to incorporate it, regardless of cost.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 12:02 PM (7K04W)

71 65 skygrabber.com is down (go figure) and I can't figure out where it was written.

Unsubstantiated internet rumor says it's Russian.

Posted by: Anachronda at December 17, 2009 12:03 PM (1OYcp)

72 Shia fighters are said to have used off-the-shelf software programs such as SkyGrabber to capture the footage. I wonder what it's like to see yourself about to get offed?

Posted by: Che Pizza at December 17, 2009 12:03 PM (4iIhs)

73 Wouldn't it be cool to watch one of those released videos of a guy on his computer getting whacked while watching himself getting whacked?

^{Getting whacked in the mafia sense of the word, you pervs.}

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at December 17, 2009 12:04 PM (DIYmd)

74 skygrabber.com is down (go figure) and I can't figure out where it was written. Unsubstantiated internet rumor says it's Russian. Posted by: Anachronda at December 17, 2009 04:03 PM (1OYcp) I heard that also

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 17, 2009 12:04 PM (0GFWk)

75 This sucks! Change the channel.

Posted by: Beavis The Terrorist at December 17, 2009 12:04 PM (4iIhs)

76 and, remember that this depends on the receive antenna. A surreptitious antenna is not going to give them continuous coverage - just glimpses.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 12:05 PM (7K04W)

77 73,

I can tell you from experience when you see bark flying from a tree 2|" from your face it ain't purrrrty. hahahaha

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at December 17, 2009 12:06 PM (OmBSC)

78 Until the tether breaks on the darn balloon. Have seen that goat rodeo too.

I'd scatter them around like cell towers, so you can afford to lose some. The "deadly monster cable slicing down from the sky" scenario can be cured with an altitude sensing device that would deploy some retarding parachutes attached near the top of the cable when an excessive rate of descent was detected. That technology already exists in the FXC/Cypress type automatic reserve parachute deployment systems.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 12:06 PM (fp8kq)

79 Unless the "insurgents" were smart enough to spoof an IP address and use a stolen CC number.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 17, 2009 03:58 PM (NtiET)

who says they bought it? If it isn't the Russians, I would be shocked if they just didn't pirate it as it's a hell of a lot easier

Posted by: fartbubble at December 17, 2009 12:07 PM (cBeTr)

80 I'm not sure this is all that useful to the insurgents themselves, but I'm sure it's been interesting for Iranian intelligence, who have certainly been recording and analyzing it all.

Posted by: sandy burger at December 17, 2009 12:08 PM (MT+0i)

81 PA, the aerostats never seem to break thru. Can't explain why not.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 12:08 PM (7K04W)

82 I sure hope half of what we hear is disinformation

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 17, 2009 12:11 PM (0GFWk)

If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

This has been the plan along...you wingers are soooo obtuse! To think we thought the New York TImes was gonna blow our cover.

Posted by: J Biden at December 17, 2009 12:12 PM (pr+up)

84 Yeah, Russia won't have any laws about giving/selling technology to anti-American interests, would they...

It's not as if this admin wouldn't take any action against a domestic vendor anyway.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 17, 2009 12:15 PM (NtiET)

85 I know that you guys are just kidding about the porn stuff, but have any of you ever seen a bunch of Arabs fighting over a skin mag? Most of the cellular phone bandwidth in the Middle East is used up while downloading Western porn. Not to mention the "jihadis in the strip club" thing.

Arab and Islamic culture has some serious pressure points in their sexual politics, and I'll bet that we're not hitting 'em. Airdrop porn mags on a town just before an assault and they'll be too busy to fight back. Spam every cellphone in an area with hot lesbo porn pics and they'll be too busy fapping one out to plant IEDs.

Fuck their cultural sensibilities. Call it "Operation Jenna" and kick ass.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 17, 2009 12:16 PM (l1Wlr)

86 I can't wait until Comcast has the "Jihadi Goes Boom" channel in HD.

Posted by: Che Pizza at December 17, 2009 12:17 PM (4iIhs)

87
Broadcasting pr0n as a psyop would undoubtedly get someone brought up on charges of crimes against something-or-other by someone.

Posted by: Dang Straights at December 17, 2009 12:18 PM (Haq+B)

88 but have any of you ever seen a bunch of Arabs fighting over a skin mag? Goat porn is the hawt!

Posted by: Achmed The Jihadi at December 17, 2009 12:19 PM (4iIhs)

89 Fuck their cultural sensibilities. Call it "Operation Jenna" and kick ass. Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 17, 2009 04:16 PM (l1Wlr) That's how Italy won the World Cup last time, by getting that muslim french guy to loose his cool and get kicked out. Worked like a charm

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 17, 2009 12:19 PM (0GFWk)

90 aerostats never seem to break thru.

DEA operates some near Key West for interdiction. It does seem to me they'd be cost effective against relatively low tech opponents.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 12:20 PM (fp8kq)

91 KIRK: By the book! Regulation Forty-six-A: 'If transmissions are being monitored during battle...' SAAVIK: ...no uncoded messages on an open channel...'

Posted by: twitter.com/lheal at December 17, 2009 12:23 PM (NNLn+)

92 If we were clever, we'd leave everything as is and use the unencrypted channels to broadcast bullshit video from flights that happened in the past, and an encrypted link for the real stuff.

Bingo. Additionally, how do we know that this isn't already the state of affairs?

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at December 17, 2009 12:23 PM (1hM1d)

Just had a conversation with a military programmer who worked on the J-Stars system. He said "he'd personally guarantee that nobody could get past the video encryption on manned military aircraft. We do not live in a Bruce Willis movie where civilians can hack into military communications systems". He also said there "were major bucks being spent by foreign military to try to do just that, but that American military encryption tech is about 3 light years ahead of anything else currently in the world. And if anyone in China or Russia or North Korea ever did manage that, it would be an immediate worldwide success story, that would also necessitate the American military completely change their current encryption systems."

If the Predator was open, it's because the system was rushed into use in a hurry up need from the Pentagon. Because Rockwell Collins would have included that in their avionics if they had enough time to work through the entire avionics systems. Period.

Posted by: Just a Cynic.... at December 17, 2009 12:27 PM (v4UYp)

94 Admiral, if we go by the book, like Lt. Saavik, hours could seem like days.

Posted by: Captain Spock at December 17, 2009 12:27 PM (1hM1d)

95 It does seem to me they'd be cost effective against relatively low tech opponents. >>> The ones that deploy out of 55gal drums in teh bac of trucks seem to be very effective in urban scenarios -- just never seem to get the momentum to become a common item.

Posted by: Jean at December 17, 2009 12:32 PM (tJF9l)

Fuck broadcasting porn to the jihadis. Fill the bandwidth with footage from "Iron Eagle". Once they start to believe that even our unmanned drones have soundtracks done by Queen, they'll realize that they're hopelessly unmatched.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 17, 2009 12:43 PM (7n7Br)

97 Or "outmatched". That too.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 17, 2009 12:45 PM (7n7Br)

Broadcast the pron.

Disregard the culture crap.

The Prime Directive of Multi-culturalism is bullshit.

Posted by: Rodent Liberation Front at December 17, 2009 12:53 PM (dQdrY)

99 Iron Eagle, cool, but for NavyJoe we'd need to inclide some TOP GUN footage as well.

Posted by: Tommy Gunnar at December 17, 2009 12:54 PM (rQTdM)

100 Maybe the beach volleyball scene?

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at December 17, 2009 12:57 PM (7n7Br)

101 Yep, Russ, I'm sure they could identify with the homo-erotic scence, goat-fuckers!

Posted by: Tommy Gunnar at December 17, 2009 12:59 PM (rQTdM)

102 The unnamed official said the US defence department had addressed the issue by working to encrypt all video feeds provided by drones in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Astounding, if true. I always figured that the military thought everything through beforehand...

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 17, 2009 01:08 PM (jV9DU)

103

PA: I can see a conversation.

Abdul: "Hey! I got a video feed from an infidel Predator!"

Ahmed: "Wonderful! Let us see!"

Ali: "Isn't that a feed of our parking lot?"

Posted by: Mikey NTH at December 17, 2009 01:35 PM (TUWci)

104 The media has real trouble identifying military vehicles. All UAVs are Predators in their eyes. The ubiquitous, dinky little hand launched Ravens send their video in the clear because it is lightweight, cheap and reliable. Most importantly the data has a very short useful life (minutes to hours). As noted multiple times above, old intel is useless intel.

Posted by: deadman at December 17, 2009 01:38 PM (dvEtf)

105 First off, encryption hardware and software is cheap, so there's no reason to broadcast unencrypted signals. Secondly, we should start broadcasting Rick Astley videos over those channels. There should be a few weeks of screaming until the stupid NGOs find out.

Posted by: Ace's liver at December 17, 2009 01:46 PM (XIXhw)

106 Not when it gets put in and goes up on a satellite...

Posted by: Lurker From AFSPC HQ at December 17, 2009 01:51 PM (k7Ddt)

107 What we should do is have some old surveillance footage that lures the jihadis into a deep state of concentration, then put up a really scary face (like Rosie O'Donnell) to scare the living crap out of 'em -- just like all those gotcha vids on YouTube. Or would that be considered "torture"? Sorry, jihadis.

Posted by: red speck at December 17, 2009 05:25 PM (/vfpn)

108 Not when it gets put in and goes up on a satellite...

Indeed. Commercial grade stuff would fail before reaching orbit. I worked on STS avionics in a past life. Rad-hard space environments are a whole different ballgame.

With a Sat you only get one chance to do it right and there's soooo many things that can kill it. In the past few years, STS had some gear sidelined for a while due to the "metal whisker" problem in enclosures. A whole pile of gear had to be remediated and re-certified because of that. A few years ago I was corresponding with Jay Brusse and Henning Leidecker at Goddard over the whisker issue batting around potential remediation/prevention ideas. The only real solution is in not using materials that exhibit the whisker problem, but that excludes almost all readily available commercial stuff. Tinned leads, silver solder, zinc plating, are all susceptible.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 05:52 PM (CDBJ9)

109 The excuse provided then was that we couldn't encrypt the video stream without providing decryption equipment to our allies. If we gave them the decryption equipment, they might be able to reverse engineer our algorithms and see things we didnt want them to see. There are plenty of strong public-doman encryptions that they could use, using public-key ciphers. Sure, they can know the algorhythm, but without the key, it's useless. Any crypto person can tell you that security doesn't lie in a private algorythm, but one that is PUBLIC and well-tested.

Posted by: cheshirecat at December 17, 2009 06:17 PM (ZHPG2)

110 With something like this real-time video feed it doesn't need to be very good, and it doesn't even need to be an "encryption algorithm".

This is the kind of situation where a "one-time pad" scheme could be used quite effectively. It would be easy enough to load the drones with a fresh pad on a daily or weekly basis. OTP's are essentially unbreakable and don't consume a lot of compute power to encrypt and decode. Their only weakness is during pad transmission, but we do have secure channels in/out of Iraq to send the pads.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 17, 2009 06:59 PM (CDBJ9)

111

A year ago, USAF had a Cyber Command. Then, suddenly, it did not. Who can tell what significant event may have taken place that unfunded that mandate?

We would be fortunate to come across this now, instead of when the Chinese used it to redirect our attacks--as mentioned above--if we had two fricking nickels to rub together to do something about it. But we don't, so we aren't.

There's a poli-sci genius, on pension somewhere in Moscow, who figured out how to make Army and Navy call each other names over the price of destroyers and carbine barrels while Congress refuses to debate dropping a trillion at a time for healthcare stamps and phony jobs.

For the record, I have said that Albert Gore's decryption of GIS was high treason, because mid-tech enemies will use our own coordinate system to target us. People who like to play GPS games and have their car talk to them thought that aw'fly "authoritarian" of me. But they're going to do it.

Posted by: comatus at December 17, 2009 07:04 PM (/VEEI)

112

You do know AoSHQ is a smart military blog, right?

So double ZIPIT on discussing these dis-info-rmation revelations.

You've seen Avatar: wait till they see the live bomb damage assesment feeds from the centrifuge sites...

Posted by: Ex-X-Box Gamer at December 18, 2009 02:27 AM (mKpVf)

113

Holdfast, from above coined: "pink lawn camel"

That is the funny!

Posted by: Ex-X-Box Gamer at December 18, 2009 02:29 AM (mKpVf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.