Slashdot Mirror


US Military Develops P2P Wireless Network Sniffer

Merlin83 writes "As being reported on The Register, the US Military is developing a new system for monitoring enemy battlefield communication. Called WolfPack, each node is a 6"x4" cylinder, launched by missile or dropped from aircraft. Once the node lands, it stands up, extends its antenna and contacts other nodes. The nodes can also jam cellular communications by transmitting a signal themselves. "

28 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Life is starting to remind me more and more... by under_score · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Of "the Diamond Age". We just have to get these things smaller...

    1. Re:Life is starting to remind me more and more... by pontifier · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of science fiction!

      Vernor vinge wrote about these things in his story "Fast Times at Fairmont High"

      In his story they were super small and sprinkled around to create a robust network. the only problem was cleanup when they went bad.

      --
      -John Fenley
  2. Guess they've figured out how to get around these by luzrek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Considering how dependant the US military is on high tech communications, I'm guessing we are only hearing about this because they have figured out how to get around something like this. Anyone care to speculate on what that is?

    --

    Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.

  3. Imagine a... by jaxdahl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    beowulf cluster of these! No. Seriously. Could you have a impromptu cellular network be put up, perhaps in the Niagara-Mohawk area if power goes out again and the cell-phone tower generators run out of fuel?

  4. Not a smart move by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wouldn't think that the US would want something like this to exist. Think what some of these could do in a large city.

    And they propose to drop them on the ground in unfriendly areas, where anyone can come along and pick them up!

    -1 Idiotic

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Not a smart move by homer_ca · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's not much secret about radio. Most HAMs could probably rig up a big dumb 800Mhz or 1900Mhz transmitter that'll kill cellular service for a big area. Then again we get shitty signal anyway, most people wouldn't think anything was wrong. They'd just drive another mile down the road until it worked.

  5. Poorly Edited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That has to be one of the more poorly edited articles I've ever seen. First off, there were numerous gramatical errors and incomplete sentences. Secondly there's a completely erroneous reference to Napster which was NOT a P2P network.

    I consider this as poor as CNN reporting that ConEd was on fire last night. Just 10 minutes of proof-reading and fact checking would show the faults. I hate this bullshit.

  6. Why the limitation? by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ..for monitoring enemy battlefield communication..

    Why limit the system to only battlefield? I mean if this works for the US Military it is also usefull in a more civill environment.
    The Army could license the technology to companies and earn in some of those tax dollars.
    This has happened before with a lot of tech and it could happen again. Just think about the possibilities in for example the fight against terror.

    --
    Proud patriot and republican voter.
    1. Re:Why the limitation? by bourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why limit the system to only battlefield?

      Because in a civil environment, we call devices that allow eavesdropping and jamming of communications "cell towers" and "central offices."

      Seriously, something like this is designed to intrude into an area of no control or hostile control. The civil scenario you describe is one where the authorities have control, and have laws requiring the telecom carriers to allow access to the infrastructure in certain circumstances. No need to drop pringles cans.

  7. How Interesting by Brew+Bird · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Picture now that these devices are equiped not only with wireless, but also with infrared and motion sensors.

    Slave these to a smart 'expert' system, that creates a 'map' of the area over which they have been spread. Now you can 'see' when anyone intrudes into that area.

    Slave THAT to some artilery (or better yet, a jeep towed high energy rail gun ;) ), and you have just created a mine field that can be abandond without worring about hurting civilians afterwards.

    I wrote a high end overview of such a system for my technical writing class in 1989... As I recall, I got a 'D' for it, because my diagrams were not good enough. Ahh, I wish I could have had Visio back then!

    1. Re:How Interesting by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's also a miefield that can be taken out by a sharpshooter from 1KM away. All you'd have to do is shoot these things. I'm pretty sure they're not invisible.

      I think custom-camouflage would be good for this sort of thing. Just drop a bunch of these in individualized 'rock' shells that blend in in Afghanistan, etc.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  8. Force Multipliers by Detritus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you can jam the enemy's communications, they are in deep shit. They can't coordinate movement of units, call for fire support, report contact with the enemy, request resupply, etc.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  9. I think I see the problem by vevva · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The countermeasure is surely too straightforward - send a bunch of kids out to collect them.

    Unless they are fitted with antipersonnel devices (looking unlikely given the current trend towards banning cluster munitions) they will make nice souvenirs of the conflict.

    2 days after they are released in the wild we'll be bidding for them on eBay.

  10. And now the UWB reference... by poptones · · Score: 2, Interesting
    And this right here is exactly why the military (likely to be joined by other governments) will do all it can to deter deployment of UWB. Once you have an infrastructure that is highly resistant to this sort of jamming, communications becomes nearly impossible to control.

  11. Re:Slashdotted - here's the article by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Your version:
    Units can stay powered for up to two months in the field, and can be later collected and re-used. Each node costs around $10,000. Together, they are cheaper, less like a huge warm cock and a much less obvious target for enemy intervention than the aircraft-based systems used to jam or monitor communications at the moment.

    The Registrers version:

    Units can stay powered for up to two months in the field, and can be later collected and re-used. Each node costs around $10,000. Together, they are cheaper, less obtrusive and a much less obvious target for enemy intervention than the aircraft-based systems used to jam or monitor communications at the moment.
    A slightly different version you've got there Sir.

    --
    Proud patriot and republican voter.
  12. Re:Guess they've figured out how to get around the by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Proprietary frequencies? (non-cellular standard)

    Digital communications with IFF that are ignored by the jammers? Like the pay-per-view stuff -- if your key code is correct, we don't jam you.

    Ultra wideband that doesn't rely on a specifig frequency.

    etc.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  13. More questionable govt garbage (Pork?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why is it that the people in uniform are ignored when they ask for some practical things like a newer fleet of air refueling tankers to replace the ageing fleet they have that is almost 40 years old, and they have to get tech toys that honestly would be useful only in urban battles in a first or second world nation, and not places like Afghanistan and the Iraqi desert? How would this have helped our people in Somalia? What about Yugoslavia? Even if we start in on a new country, it is likely to be Syria or Iran or N. Korea. If all this thing does is post a listening device and jam the signals, we have had that ability for the last 60 years.

    This looks like the results of a flashy bid for government dollars through a beurocratic bid system the values WOW glitz as higher than good ole useful application.

    1. Re:More questionable govt garbage (Pork?) by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Working in the norwegian armed forces myself - who has been trying to tell our politicans that a) running a defence costs money, b) doing a lot of operations overseas costs more, and c) we could really need more and newer fighters, preferable by 1997, and some new tanks, rifles, chemical protection suits and naval ships wouldn't be out of the way - I would say this has a simple reason.

      Buying 'more of the same' just ain't sexy enought.

      Nor does it look impressive. Telling your mistress that you signed a deal for a score of flying gasstation is not as cool as telling her you just signed a goverment contract to develop an airportable selfdeploying P2P network with cellular jamming capability.

      That, and we most not forget that the arnament industry in the western world is technologydriven. The defenceindustry comes up with something new and sexy, and off course the top brass goes along with it (see above for why). In the old eastern block, things worked (well, barly worked, but thats another matter) differently. The military went to the industry and said 'this is what we need, you have two years to come up with a solution'. Worked much better, at least as far as maintaining capabilities goes. A bit less so if your focus is on developing new capabilities thought...

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  14. Re:Guess they've figured out how to get around the by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I forgot the painfully obvious one...

    The devices themselves are used as comm nodes for the U.S. military. They could forward encrypted, digital communications through the network they create.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  15. Wow, I like it! by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just let them "bomb" you, pick it, hack it and have a cool wireless p2p box. Imagine porting Kazaa to these! :)

    Seriously, remembering times from IIWW when in occupied Warsaw people commonly made grenades from dud bombs, that thing with some technology applied, could provide great means of communication network for the enemy :)

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  16. I wonder... by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They drop these. You pick them. They win the war, conquer your country and then sue you for stealing US government property. Sounds probably, doesn't it?

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  17. 5th Element Cockroach by Talia+Starhawke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This reminds me of when, from the movie The Fifth Element, Zorg's main lackey was using a remote-controlled cockroach to listen in on the President's "secret plan" to send Bruce Willis to meet the Diva Plavalaguna on Planet Fhloston to get the stones and save the world...anyway, the President grabs a shoe and squishes the cockroach, sending a squeal of feedback into the lackey's ears, and sending waves of giggles into the audience... I wonder if, since these are so "secret", if it won't be the same type of situation. They'll be found, dismantled, and disposed of. It was just a thought...

    --
    +5, Female ;)
  18. smart dust by wannasleep · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this seems the complement of the smart dust .
    The smart dust was supposed to be a 1 cube mm sensor with some computational power that was also supposed to transmit signals. I also recall that it was supposed to cost very few $ (one?). Clearly, you do not need parachutes for it and you can just deploy thousands on the battlefield or whatever you want to spy on. I don't know if these can send such a strong signal, but I believe that if you deploy enough of them you could. And being much smaller and many thousands, they would be much harder to get rid of. However, I haven't heard of smart dust in a while. Maybe they have perfected it and started using it. Or maybe the project just died.

    1. Re:smart dust by !Freeky2BGeeky · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Perhaps the large devices mentioned in the article are annouced as a feint to the real devices (smart dust). Picture the enemy finding all these deployed (large) devices in the field and shooting them or stealing them but missing the real comm devices.

      Not to say that the larger units are fakes, no reason to deploy something that doesn't work. But if the enemy thinks it has all the large devices accounted for, then it wont go looking for something smaller that might be doing the work too.

      --

      Visualize Whirled Peas

  19. Re:Seems like an unfortunate choice of name by fred_sanford · · Score: 2, Interesting

    odd, i've always ascoiated it with my alma mater. Never heard of the Nazi connection. I figured it was just a group of like items working together much lick a pack of wolves.

  20. Re:Funny how the US develops technology... by E-Rock · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's all good and well, except that the first thing you do when you invade is destroy those fixed lines of communication. Even if these fixed lines are made impregnable, commands to the field still need to be transmitted to mobile units. I also wouldn't assume that the full details of what these units can do was laid out in the very brief news article.

  21. The art of naming military operations. by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Operation Desert Storm

    There are numerous articles on this subject, and the Army acyually uses special guidelines when they name operations.
    A liutenant Sieminski wrote a article about this (do some googling).
    At the end of his article, Sieminski offers four guidelines for naming operations in the future.

    1. Make it meaningful.

    2. Identify and target the critical audience.

    3. Be cautious of fashions.

    4. Make it memorable.

    Operation Desert Storm was a good name but Operation Iraqi Freedom was even better. The names are altered to fot to the public whom would not accept war unless its sounds "meaningfull".

    Personally i liked the Operatin Just Cause (Panama) because of the noble sound it gives, and I think it added something to the justification of he war.
    The last operations in Iraq was initially called "Operation Desert Freedom" and later "Operation Infinite Justice". I love the last one as i think it reflects the way the US Military should fight. After that someone wanted to call it "Operation Iraqi liberation" but for some reason they abadonded that. I think this was a good thing as the word "liberation" is a reference to a french word.

    I like Sieminski as he has nailed the whole point of naming wars in a special way for the cause of getting the public to accept a war that will beneft the nation:

    "an effectively nicknamed operation, an outcome that can help win the war of images. In that war, the operation name is the first--and quite possibly the decisive--bullet to be fired. Mold and aim it with care."

    In a perfect world this would not be neccesary, but as long as the public is so relluctant to wars in general this is a good way to convince them to fight for the country in wars that are neccesary but hard to understand ordinary non-educated workers.

    --
    Proud patriot and republican voter.
  22. Another possible application by Snags · · Score: 2, Interesting
    These devices could serve as a communications system to get information to/from special forces soldiers during covert ops. With a guaranteed friendly receiver within maybe a mile, an extremely low power could be used for the soldier to transmit. Add encryption, compression, and a high bandwidth, and only short, un-sniffable, non-locatable transmissions could be used. The "Pringles cans" would even lay down a base of inteference so that actual communications would be impossible to spot.

    The function of a single can would be some combination of:

    • if a friendly base is within range, establish a link
    • keep a network going with neighboring cans, passing data around as necessary
    • listen for friendly communications to forward
    • listen for hostile comm. to intercept
    • jam hostile comm.
    • act as a smart mine in case of enemy tampering?

    Maybe they could even have solar cells to make them last more than 2 months in the field.

    --
    main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
    LN2 is cool!