Gawain 0 #1 December 17, 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=yhoofront Quote..by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link ... I don't know who the genius is on the side of the Pentagon is, and I don't know who the genius is on the manufacturer side, but how this got through spec, I'll never understand, and cannot be justified. The whole focus, and purpose of these drones is to provide visual reconnaissance, real time...how that transmission is deemed okay to sent unencrypted.... ...of course now they say they're fixing it, but what the hell?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #2 December 17, 2009 I was reading the SlashDot posts on the topic; One interesting theory is that they might be sending bogus video feeds in the clear to mislead the enemy. Then there was this: Quote Turns out the drones use bluetooth. Just the other day my laptop asked me to sync to one when I was put a pringles can on the antenna. "Windows has found a MQ-9 Reaper, would you like to connect?" At this point I was (a.) terrified and (b.) glad that somebody with some clout was going to do something about the increased crime in the area. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #3 December 17, 2009 If a unit was in the field and one of these cameras was supplying support video... the insurgents would effectively have video of the battlefield and see the deployment of US troops. An obvious advantage. Worst example - mountaintop camps. Having a snapshot of the layout of the camp defenses before an attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #4 December 17, 2009 Quotehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=yhoofront Quote..by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link ... I don't know who the genius is on the side of the Pentagon is, and I don't know who the genius is on the manufacturer side, but how this got through spec, I'll never understand, and cannot be justified. The whole focus, and purpose of these drones is to provide visual reconnaissance, real time...how that transmission is deemed okay to sent unencrypted.... ...of course now they say they're fixing it, but what the hell? "Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #5 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuotehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=yhoofront Quote..by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link ... I don't know who the genius is on the side of the Pentagon is, and I don't know who the genius is on the manufacturer side, but how this got through spec, I'll never understand, and cannot be justified. The whole focus, and purpose of these drones is to provide visual reconnaissance, real time...how that transmission is deemed okay to sent unencrypted.... ...of course now they say they're fixing it, but what the hell? "Use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes." By which you mean there is no thoroughly reliable video encryption technology out there? Um...no....So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #6 December 18, 2009 QuoteBy which you mean there is no thoroughly reliable video encryption technology out there? Nope, that not what I mean.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #7 December 18, 2009 the pentagon wants war, the arms maunfacturers want war, who cares what these things do or dont do, they will make more war and thats what counts right?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #8 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteBy which you mean there is no thoroughly reliable video encryption technology out there? Nope, that not what I mean. I don't understand the context of your quote then. It's sarcasm then?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 December 18, 2009 Quotethe pentagon wants war, the arms maunfacturers want war, who cares what these things do or dont do, they will make more war and thats what counts right? wrong.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #10 December 18, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteBy which you mean there is no thoroughly reliable video encryption technology out there? Nope, that not what I mean. I don't understand the context of your quote then. It's sarcasm then? It appears that the system was sent into operations before being thoroughly tested, a violation of one of the principles of a management system I've been studying lately. Allowing intel to be grabbed from the air by the enemy is a pretty big deal, potentially. Streaming video encryption isn't my forte, so I have no idea whether there is sufficiently reliable technology out there right now or not. Thorough testing should have identified the exploit potential of the technology being used.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #12 December 18, 2009 Its pretty unbelieveable that the military sends un-encryptied anything, anywhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #13 December 18, 2009 The very first thing that came to my mind the moment I heard this was "disinformation." Send up a Predator and have it fly overhead at a lower than normal altitude so that it actually IS heard and seen. Allow the bad guys to tap into a bogus feed showing goats on a hilltop while you're looking directly at them. When they get confident they can move freely outside; BOOM!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #14 December 18, 2009 QuoteStreaming video encryption isn't my forte, so I have no idea whether there is sufficiently reliable technology out there right now or not. Thorough testing should have identified the exploit potential of the technology being used. Streaming encryption can be bought off the shelf. It's used every day by networks and film companies and is good enough to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It's trivial to put in-line.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #15 December 18, 2009 Quotewrong explain, there is no need for these wars, yet they are called 'just'. How is the USA's current foriegn policy not responsabkle for unecessary deaths ofhundreds of thousands, and the destruction of thousands of communities? The reasons for invading have been proven false numerous times by qualified people, with legal documents. US 'intellegence' disregards the views and suggestions from your intellectual and experienced citizens and placed the responsability in the hands of wall street beurocrats, with no consequnce for thier actions. There are hundereds of people, if not thousands starting, completing and reseraching books, peer reveiwed journals, and thesis' on the subject, yet no one listens? It is taboo to discuss, or question, well it was... The opposition to any official story is silenced from Law. The truth and evidence violently opposed by willingly subdued and falsly patriotic people such as yourself. [url"http://noliesradio.org/archives/9296" ]Americas New Threat: it;s own secrecy[/url] If you are interested, click this lonk and listen to the radio interview, his reasearch started decades ago, well before 911 yet his studies are consistent with post 911 actions. To be a patriot, is to ask questions and take responsability; Quotepa⋅tri⋅ot /ˈpeɪtriət, -ˌɒt or, especially Brit., ˈpætriət/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, especially Brit., pa-tree-uht] Show IPA Use patriot in a Sentence See web results for patriot See images of patriot –noun 1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion. 2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, esp. of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government. 3. (initial capital letter) Military. a U.S. Army antiaircraft missile with a range of 37 mi. (60 km) and a 200-lb. (90 kg) warhead, launched from a tracked vehicle with radar and computer guidance and fire control. Are you a patriot or a lemming?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 December 18, 2009 I can't do streaming media. You claimed that 'the Pentagon wants war, arms manufacturers want war' and that 'they will make more war and that's what counts'. I say you are incorrect. Of course, if you HAVE documents showing how the Pentagon and the arms manufacturers are controlling Congress and the President, by all means show them. Oh - and you can provide proof for the claims in the post I'm answering, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 December 18, 2009 More on the story, the technology, and analysis from Wired's Danger Room: Excerpts: "The military initially developed the Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, or ROVER, in 2002. The idea was let troops on the ground download footage from Predator drones and AC-130 gunships as it was being taken. Since then, nearly every airplane in the American fleet — from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to A-10 attack planes to Harrier jump jets to B-1B bombers has been outfitted with equipment that lets them transmit to ROVERs. Thousands of ROVER terminals have been distributed to troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. "But those early units were 'fielded so fast that it was done with an unencrypted signal. It could be both intercepted (e.g. hacked into) and jammed,' e-mails an Air Force officer with knowledge of the program. In a presentation last month before a conference of the Army Aviation Association of America, a military official noted that the current ROVER terminal 'receives only unencrypted L, C, S, Ku [satellite] bands.' "So the same security breach that allowed insurgent to use satellite dishes and $26 software to intercept drone feeds can be used the tap into the video transmissions of any plane. "The military is working to plug the hole — introducing new ROVER models that communicate without spilling its secrets. 'Recognizing the potential for future exploitation the Air Force has been working aggressively to encrypt these ROVER downlink signals. It is my understanding that we have already developed the technical encryption solutions and are fielding them,' the Air Force officer notes. "But it won’t be easy. An unnamed Pentagon official tells reporters that 'this is an old issue that’s been addressed.' Air Force officers contacted by Danger Room disagree, strongly. "'This is not a trivial solution,' one officer observes. 'Almost every fighter/bomber/ISR [intelligence surveillance reconnaissance] platform we have in theater has a ROVER downlink. All of our Tactical Air Control Parties and most ground TOCs [tactical operations centers] have ROVER receivers. We need to essentially fix all of the capabilities before a full transition can occur and in the transition most capabilities need to be dual-capable (encrypted and unencrypted).' "Which presents all sorts of problems. Let’s say a drone or an A-10 is sent to cover soldiers under fire. If the aircraft has an encrypted transmitter and the troops have an unencrypted ROVER receiver, that surveillance footage can’t be passed down to the soldiers who need it most. "'Can these feeds be encrypted with 99.5 percent chance of no compromise? Absolutely! Can you guarantee that all the encryption keys make it down to the lowest levels in the Army or USMC [United States Marine Corps][acronym expanded in original story - nerdgirl]? No way,' adds a second Air Force officer, familiar with the ROVER issue. 'Do they trust their soldiers/Marines with these encryption keys? Don’t know that.' "And U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have come to depend on the feeds. 'For sure,' Lt. Col. Greg Harbin told the Los Angeles Times, 'I would be dead without this technology.' "Still, systems like the ROVER (and the Predator, for that matter) were 'built to be cheap. They used commercial off-the-shelf hardware. We wanted to get stuff out there. So it’s not gonna be perfect,' the officer adds. 'So yeah, if we’re broadcasting in the electromagnetic spectrum and you’re underneath the footprint, you can receive it. Duh-uhhhh.'" If one accepts that report and analysis as factual, it looks like the prime driver was getting technology out to the warfighter as fast as possible. Altho' not mentioned in the piece, I also strongly suspect that another major contributing factor was the predominance of Network Centric Warfare (NCW) ideas during the time the technology was put into the acquisition process (2002). Before COIN, RMA & Transformation (RIP Adm Cebrowski) were the novel, dominant paradigms. It was all about networked technology and information sharing. As far as the behavior of the insurgents, I think it's just further validation of the concepts of 4GW. Still is all about networks just have a different frame of reference and different strategy. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #18 December 18, 2009 QuoteIf one accepts that report and analysis as factual, it looks like the prime driver was getting technology out to the warfighter as fast as possible. Better, faster, cheaper... pick two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreePhly 0 #19 December 18, 2009 One of the chief issues confronting any communications on the battlefield is bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth available. Unencrypted data can be compressed with little cpu overhead, but once encrypted, the data stream is basically un-compressible. In addition, adding off the shelf encryption gear is not as simple as many make it out to be. many of the components used in field communications are custom and don't necessarily conform to open standards. PhreePhly Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 December 18, 2009 QuoteOne of the chief issues confronting any communications on the battlefield is bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth available. Unencrypted data can be compressed with little cpu overhead, but once encrypted, the data stream is basically un-compressible. In addition, adding off the shelf encryption gear is not as simple as many make it out to be. many of the components used in field communications are custom and don't necessarily conform to open standards. PhreePhly Are you speaking to military equipment, or civilian? Military equipment *is* standardized.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #21 December 18, 2009 Quote One of the chief issues confronting any communications on the battlefield is bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth available. Unencrypted data can be compressed with little cpu overhead, but once encrypted, the data stream is basically un-compressible. Unless encryption in itself adds significantly to the data-size, you're wrong. One could just compress first, and then encrypt. HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #22 December 18, 2009 Quote Quote One of the chief issues confronting any communications on the battlefield is bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth available. Unencrypted data can be compressed with little cpu overhead, but once encrypted, the data stream is basically un-compressible. Unless encryption in itself adds significantly to the data-size, you're wrong. One could just compress first, and then encrypt. No, he's not. Once it's encrypted, compression would corrupt the datastream.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #23 December 18, 2009 QuoteOne of the chief issues confronting any communications on the battlefield is bandwidth. There is only so much bandwidth available. Unencrypted data can be compressed with little cpu overhead, but once encrypted, the data stream is basically un-compressible. You're very correct that bandwidth insufficiency continues to be one of the biggest challenges in military across many fields not just UAVs. I'm not sure that's the critical hurdle (or even a specific hurdle) here. If I'm reading the secondary reports correctly, the causative variable is less technological and more a function of acquisitions process and bad assumptions w/r/t adversaries capabilities or inclination to adapt. This story includes specific links to CIA reports and DoD transcript suggesting that potential vulnerabilities with unencrypted data transmission date back to the 1990s. I'm not sure I agree (or disagree, for that matter) with the conclusions in that story. The linked primary documents do suggest that the potential for a problem was not recognized and acted on ... or perhaps it was recognized but the capabilities that the ROVER system enabled were determined to be greater. Sometimes one has to make hard decisions. Or sometimes bad decisions get made without good reasons. I don't have enough information to speculate in the situation with any confidence. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #24 December 18, 2009 Quote Quote Unless encryption in itself adds significantly to the data-size, you're wrong. One could just compress first, and then encrypt. No, he's not. Once it's encrypted, compression would corrupt the datastream. Ehm... read my post again. Other way around. Run whichever compression algorithm you will (say mpeg4), then run the resulting stream through an encryption algorithm. Exactly where am I corrupting anything?HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #25 December 18, 2009 QuoteIf I'm reading the secondary reports correctly, the causative variable is less technological and more a function of acquisitions process and bad assumptions w/r/t adversaries capabilities or inclination to adapt. And that is what needs to be weeded out, and should have been weeded out 9/11/01.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
