Slashdot Mirror


Air Force Launches Encrypted IM Service

nomrniceguy writes "U.S. Air Force's Print News Today announces a new instant messaging service for enlisted people stationed abroad to communicate with their families and loved ones. Users cannot send images, audio or other documents through the system. Messages are also encrypted to prevent unauthorized access."

182 comments

  1. skype? by dJOEK · · Score: 0

    sounds like stripped version of skype ... or Jabber over ssl ;)

    --
    Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
    1. Re:skype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it sounds NOTHING like skype you retard.

      RTFP (post) "Users cannot send images, audio or other documents through the system"

    2. Re:skype? by garbletext · · Score: 1

      as the rude AC noted, this is a web based IM program, not a VOIP telephony program. So, sotp using your karma-bonus to post factually incorrect first posts.

    3. Re:skype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like he said, NOTHING like skype.. do you know skype? :)

    4. Re:skype? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know your nick is garbletext, but it really is "stop" and not "sotp".

    5. Re:skype? by dJOEK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i said stripped version, fucktard

      --
      Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
    6. Re:skype? by aToaster · · Score: 1

      Right, like AIM/ICQ is a stripped version of Skype? Don't think so. I agree with garbletext. Way to try to sound funny and end up coming off as an ass.

    7. Re:skype? by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

      So if you strip the Voice out of a Voice Over IP program, tell me what you end up with? I'm trying to picture a VOIP program that doesn't do VOIP. I can't imagine it does anything. Next you'll tell me kDevelop is a stripped version of OpenOffice

      --
      DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
  2. UUcode anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Can't send pictures, huh?

    1. Re:UUcode anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm in the air force and I been deployed and will be deployed for at least half of my air force carrer.

      the reason for this is there is this thing called general order number 1 which bans pornography in a warzone, I've seen people get artical 15's because of this.

      article 15=bad disciplinary action.

    2. Re:UUcode anyone? by squall14716 · · Score: 1

      No pr0n?

      Guess I won't join the air force then.

    3. Re:UUcode anyone? by KingArthur10 · · Score: 1

      He said no pr0n in a warzone, not in general. I work maintenance on acft, and I've seen my share of stashed pr0n onboard. quite funny when the pilot steals the crew chief's pr0n. Causes the pilot to have a few kinks in his voyage. lol.

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
  3. No images? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone have a copy of uuencode laying around for them?

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    1. Re:No images? by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      Or how about aalib?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    2. Re:No images? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anyone have a copy of uuencode laying around for them?

      It probably does not allow messages that are long enough.

      Can't think why the Bush administration would not want soldiers sending back more of those happy snaps from Abu Graihb...

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    3. Re:No images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not flamebait!

      If those soldiers hadn't sent those pics, the public would have no idea whats going on. The military already knew about the abuses, they would've rather covered it up and ignored it.

      I prefer to know the ugly truth.

    4. Re:No images? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, most military members already have email, I know I do. While I'm not sure if the servers overseas in mission-critical areas block attachments and/or filter email, I'm sure any pictures that wanted to be sent can still be sent by those means.

    5. Re:No images? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

      Nice idea, but still easy to block. I think they would notice if you sent 10K of text through IM. That's just a small image.

  4. Protection by xOleanderx · · Score: 1, Funny

    This will protect their vital messages such as HeY SeXaY and WhAt R U N2?

    1. Re:Protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes don't let the enemy know what you are wearing!

    2. Re:Protection by DotNM · · Score: 1

      ... especially when it's nothing at all!

      --
      There's no place like localhost
  5. New Slogan by phaetonic · · Score: 2, Funny

    B a11 U /an B, |_o|_

  6. uue or yenc? by weighn · · Score: 1

    Users cannot send images, audio or other documents through the system uue or yenc?

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  7. $5 says... by sH4RD · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    $5 says someone leaks it out and regular people try to use it as an encrypted messenger.

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
    1. Re:$5 says... by mkeroppi · · Score: 1

      You can Paypal it right here.

  8. Perhaps... by neiffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They should be more worried about soliders posting their digital camera photos to public sites than what could be hacked through instant messages...

    1. Re:Perhaps... by plcurechax · · Score: 1

      Most (but not all) soldiers know not to publish confidential information to the public.

      It's the causal daily chatting to a spouse/partner or story-telling to their children that seems confidental that gets them going and can be colourful and can contain lots of details.

    2. Re:Perhaps... by Etcetera · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the causal daily chatting to a spouse/partner or story-telling to their children that seems confidental that gets them going and can be colourful and can contain lots of details.


      Loose lips sink ships. I wish the trolls here would try to understand that very simple concept.
    3. Re:Perhaps... by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Keep in mind this is the Air Force. We don't have Soldiers, we have Airmen. We don't fight on the front lines, for the most part we fly desks far far away from the bad guys. The closest I've been to combat is watching it on CNN from the comfort of my home on base.

      Anyway, I have seen a few pictures from digital cameras from deployed Airmen. For the most part we all practice good OPSEC and I have yet to see a picture I shouldn't have.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    4. Re:Perhaps... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      What would your first reaction be when the military forces, who are OCCUPYING, not in the process of an invasion, start trying to stop pictures from getting to the public?

    5. Re:Perhaps... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      Not all Airmen have desk jobs. I was a M60 gunner in the Air Force and helped hold the front lines at King Khalid Military City (40km south of Kuwait) before the Special Forces, who came up from the south, passed us up and took the front lines from us. This was in the first Iraq conflict in 1990.

      My basic training was both Air Force and Army basic training, one after the other. After that, I attended technical school to learn the art of combat (and everything that it includes), proper search and clear procedures and hostage negotiation. After that, I attended weapon training courses, specializing with the M203, M60, 50cal, Mark 19 and LAW.

      Good times.

    6. Re:Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how many kids did you get to kill?

    7. Re:Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All a matter of perspective. I am sure Germany and Japan and Korea and France and Italy and, well I could go on and on, had a hard time with it. Oh wait, only the evil bastards did, otherwise at the time they were happy to see us. Hmmm, funny how that works out.
      Anyway, what kind of pics are we talking about? Generally, all the pics you see are from embedded media, and all kinds of that has gotten out. The Abu stuff was released from the gov't, while the investigation was going on.
      I don't understand why people think that they have a right to view everything that comes out of a warzone, like that somehow makes everything wrong. I have seen a death, actually watched some one die.. I don't want to see it anymore. However I don't want to see my brothers and sisters killed anymore. Pictures from a warzone won't change that either way.

      Besides, you don't want all the pictures, only the ones that support your opnion. If you saw pics of them rebuilding a school and providing food, you would dismiss them as either isolated, planted, or what we should be doing.

      You think if they released pics of the Soldiers who were just killed trying to eat, you would feel the same compassion for them as the terrorist who got shot trying to kill them the day before? If not you, the world wouldn't care. Because our lives don't mean anything to you people.

      But go ahead and type what you would like. I'll be the dude over your shoulder ready to blast the SOB with a RGP coming to stop your porn Download.

      SSgt JT

    8. Re:Perhaps... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      You think I don't care about people lives at all? I have only the greatest appreciation for what our armed forces have been doing for the world, and wish I had a way to repay them. I have sympathy for all who are killed and wounded, no matter whose side. I know that both sides think they are doing the right thing, and although I believe...no...know that it is the terrorists that are in the wrong, I would rather resolve out differences peacefully. But sometimes this cannot happen, and since it seems that you are in the military, I thank you for fighting for that that is right.

      I know that the US is helping to rebuild Iraq, and I thank them for that, but does that disallow me from casting ANY suspicion at all? Abu Ghraib anyone?

      I can understand if you want pictures of weapons and other classified material to be kept secret. I don't have a problem with that. But eliminating all means for a whistle-blower to make public incriminating information if something bad is happening i think is not a good idea, IMO. But I guess not everyone has the same opinion on these things.

  9. RTFA: Not a launch by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Informative

    This instant messaging service has been in use for a couple of years now. However it was limited to military and contractors. Now it's open to family members. The airman has to sponsor you by entering in your email address, and then you receive login instructions.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:RTFA: Not a launch by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Kinda like a gmail invite then :D

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:RTFA: Not a launch by gruhnj · · Score: 1

      The Army has had a similar operation going on for over three years now, open to family members as well. All you need is an Army Knowledge Online (AKO, www.us.army.mil) account. Accounts are open for anyone that a soldier can sponsor for an account. Registration for the portal is automatic for soldiers and provides access to the portal. Sounds like what the US Air Force has done is copmore of the same. I know that the Navy has their own internal portal as well called unsuprisingly Navy Knowledge Online. Its just a sign of the times.

    3. Re:RTFA: Not a launch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lame part is that the Army IM system used to be able to connect with other IM services until Rumsfeld declared that a Bad Thing. So, now family members need to run the AKO chat java applet in addition to whatever IM software they use for their other contacts.

  10. Censored? by Filberts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No media, huh? I guess that means we can go back to using our imaginations to visualize the horrors reported back by our soldiers abroad.

    On a lighter note, it's nice to see that they will have an easily surveilled method to connect with family from abroad.

    1. Re:Censored? by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      ASCII-armoring, anyone?

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    2. Re:Censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Like anything else on a government box isn't subject to monitoring. Sheesh.
      LART thyself like a baby harp seal for that post.
      We are, BTW, not allowed to use USAF computers without signing off that we know the ROE for using an Air Force computer system. Most airmen have official email accounts as well, and IM only augments these. Official email DOES support attachments, and most accounts are accessable from the internet. Furthermore, sending photos of anything not classified or from which x'fied info can be easily derived is quite legal under the UCMJ.
      If I wanted to ensure copies of anything got spread, I'd just forward them to my buddies like any other email and they'd be in inboxes worldwide, and on Ogrish shortly after.

    3. Re:Censored? by Nameis · · Score: 1
      No media, huh? I guess that means we can go back to using our imaginations to visualize the horrors reported back by our soldiers abroad.

      Yeah, because there's absolutely

    4. Re:Censored? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      On a lighter note, it's nice to see that they will have an easily surveilled method to connect with family from abroad.

      Any communication made through a government computer or network is subject to surveillence. Every time I log in to my computer at work I have to click through a long legalese dialog box that says everything I do may be monitored. This is no different from anything else a deployed Airmen might use -- DSN phone, satellite phone, email, or even this IM program. While it sounds like Uncle Sam is listening in on everything, it is very rare that someone gets in trouble for misusing the network. You have to do something really stupid, blatantly illegal, or both. For example, I read about an Airman who loaded kiddie porn onto his work computer. He used a CD-ROM so there was no network traffic, but when the LAN shop took his computer in for maintenance, they found his stash. Busted. That is the only time I've ever heard of someone getting in trouble for misusing the network. I am sure that this IM service, despite "being monitored," won't be a bad thing from a privacy standpoint.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  11. Serious Question... by benjamindees · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Does it run on Linux?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Serious Question... by Omniscientist · · Score: 1

      According to the article, it isn't OS-dependent, rather it seems to function in a browser, not as a standalone program.

    2. Re:Serious Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but, is it digitally signed?

  12. Encryption? by AtOMiCNebula · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's wrong with Jabber, AIM, MSN, or any other chat medium? Sure they might not have encryption (unless the Jabber server has SSL enabled), but then again, I'm sure there's some rule that says that the soldiers shouldn't be sharing secrets or mission critical information with anyone but themselves...

    ...right? So why the need for encryption to keep the "I hope I'll be home soon, how's the family?" messages private? Unless I'm missing something...

    1. Re:Encryption? by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      With the gaim-encryption plugin, you can use 4096 bit rsa with any of those protocols, not to mention protocols like IRC etc. I highly doubt any browser-based encryption scheme can compare with that.

    2. Re:Encryption? by TLLOTS · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're more concerned about information that could be deduced from such a conversation? Information that could possibly be used against them if it fell into the wrong hands.

      Even in a normal conversation it's quite likely that a great deal of information could be inferred from it, unless of course people were very very careful. However I doubt caution would be on the utmost of people's minds in this instance, rather it'd more likely be communicating with their loved one whom they miss.

    3. Re:Encryption? by lifeblender · · Score: 1

      It would be good to avoid any enemies sniffing all the messages that look like this: "It's late, and I love you. Pray for me; we're going into action tomorrow." Enough messages sniffed like that, possibly with IP addresses attached, and an enemy force might be more prepared than the military might like.

      --
      Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
    4. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that it would be a pain in the ass for them to listen in and/or keep a record of their conversations.

    5. Re:Encryption? by Jeffery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Conventional IM programs are not authorized for use on Air Force Systems. This program is the only way for us when we are overseas to communicate back home in an IM way. and yes, i am in the air force, and used this program during my stint in Iraq/Oman.

      --
      President Bush Supporter
    6. Re:Encryption? by izomiac · · Score: 1

      If they use Java then I don't see why they couldn't. Heck, javascript probably could do 4096 bit RSA, if not for memory limitations.

    7. Re:Encryption? by esmoothie · · Score: 1

      Actually, current versions of AIM do support encryption.

    8. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Besides the points given by others here -

      If you're going to encrypt any traffic, it's a pretty good idea to encrypt all traffic, because then you're not telegraphing which messages are interesting.

    9. Re:Encryption? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Maybe the idea is to just create a whole lot of unimportant encrypted traffic as a distraction from the more important stuff?

    10. Re:Encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the encryption is only a small part of the over all reason their restricted to it. They don't want other chat programs because their is a larger chance they'll be exploited. Of course their app might have problems. But it's closed source, and restricted to authorised users. So thats a little bit of security through obscurity in the real world for you =)

    11. Re:Encryption? by agnosonga · · Score: 1
      another reason they couldnt use "any other chat medium" is the fact that friends and family members will get a "scaled back version".
      Friends or family members will not have the same access to the portal that Airmen have, but they will get limited access to the messenger.
      also:
      Other concerns about the system have also been addressed. Recently, ranks were added to "screen names" to ensure Airmen knew who they were talking to when online.

      "We added rank in there so people know your name and rank and where you are," Colonel Besselman said. "It helps make sure people are operating within the guidelines of the Air Force when they talk to somebody."

    12. Re:Encryption? by rossi · · Score: 1

      MSN has a 3rd party bolt on called simp-lite. You can get a free download from http://www.secway.com/ I've been using it for about two weeks and have got some of my buddies to try it out. Seems to work quite well.

      Anyone else been using this...??

      --
      I want to meet the guy who invented beer and see whats he's up to now.
    13. Re:Encryption? by elasticwings · · Score: 1

      "...right? So why the need for encryption to keep the "I hope I'll be home soon, how's the family?" messages private? Unless I'm missing something..."

      Come on, that's how the conversation will start, but then it'll turn into, "I don't know Mom. She looked very clean. I'm in so much pain. It really f***ing burns when I pee."

  13. Benefit by tomjen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So they get a less usefull im client (no pics etc)
    Sure they get encryption, but i think that a plugin to gaim exist that can do this too.

    So what is the benefit for the soldiers there?

    The only one i can see is that they can chat with there families - wich they could do just as well with the myriad of other IMs already in existens.

    --
    Freedom or George Bush
    1. Re:Benefit by geekoid · · Score: 1

      it allows them to offer an approved solution to soldiers without them having to spend time researching all the other possibilities.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Benefit by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      [i]The only one i can see is that they can chat with there families [/i] [BR] I thought that was kind-of the purpose of IM in the first place, to chat with friends/family.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Benefit by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I've been spending WAY too much time on a phpBB. shoot me now.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    4. Re:Benefit by Q-Hack! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      wich they could do just as well with the myriad of other IMs already in existens

      Actually all commercial IM's are blocked by the military. The reason givin was a bandwidth thing.

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
  14. Trillian. . . by BlackEyedSceva · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I wonder how long untill there is a Trillian plugin for this. *rolls eyes*

  15. Way to go, chief by Rinisari · · Score: 2, Funny

    Text only, eh? To the multitudes, I present two functions, base64_encode and base64_decode.

    Email is still all text and probably always will be :-p

  16. Won't use it by Xierox · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Maybe I'm way off base, but... with no support for file transfer or audio, won't most families and soldiers continue using the regular Instant Messenging programs?

    --
    Xierox
    1. Re:Won't use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one of my familly was actively supporting the killings in Iraq, I wouldn't talk to him or her anyway.

    2. Re:Won't use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than likely, the only way Air Force people use the internet while overseas is through the computers at work or at the Family Support Centers. Both of which are on the same network and more likely than not block the same webmail and instant messaging websites (ie aim.com, hotmail.com, mail.yahoo.com).

      Users aren't allowed to install software on their accounts, either.

    3. Re:Won't use it by Xierox · · Score: 0

      Hmm, interesting, I didn't know that. Thanks.

      --
      Xierox
    4. Re:Won't use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if they joined the military when Clinton was in office? What if they joined because they wanted to serve their country, BEFORE September 11th happened and BEFORE the war in Iraq?

      You can't just choose to quit the military whenever you want. There's a little thing called an 8-year commitment when you enlist.

    5. Re:Won't use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cunt.

  17. Modern browser? by Omniscientist · · Score: 1
    "If you are using a modern browser, that's all you need to use the chat," he said.

    I guess that rules out links, w3m, and lynx.
    Think it works with Firefox or Mozilla?

  18. Unsurprising by Sanity · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Users cannot send images
    Gee, I wonder why
    1. Re:Unsurprising by Omniscientist · · Score: 1
      "It doesn't allow you to embed images or sounds or documents, where somebody could have put malicious code," Colonel Besselman said.

      Ahh, they're obviously worried about malicious images like .jpg.vbs. Or perhaps malicious looking images hehe.

    2. Re:Unsurprising by bonzoesc · · Score: 1

      Or buffer overflow exploits. Code never written is the most secure.

    3. Re:Unsurprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Hmmm. Interesting that you chose to post a link to those, but not this one.

      Yeah, I know, this probably belongs in the Politics section.

      But what powertool modded this "Funny"?!? Maybe I should register after all...

      -Dave

    4. Re:Unsurprising by XeRXeS-TCN · · Score: 1

      May also have something to do with this. ;)

  19. How encrypted? by DanteLysin · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to know how secure the encryption really is. Traditional 128-bit SSL? And does the Air Force get to censor the communication?

    1. Re:How encrypted? by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      This is one of those situations where i'd be really inclined to distrust it unless it were open source.

      I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that all messages are logged and can be decryped by the appropriate authorities.

      The move of offering "encryption over the internet" may be a carrot to discourage people from using aim/msn/icq/irc, while bringing conversations back to where they can be intercepted.

      I think Trillian provides end to end encryption on top of standard messaging networks.

    2. Re:How encrypted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The move of offering "encryption over the internet" may be a carrot to discourage people from using aim/msn/icq/irc, while bringing conversations back to where they can be intercepted."

      Bingo.

      Since nobody else seems to be willing to don the tinfoil hat today, I shall.

      This service exists in order to allow servicepeople (as it were) to be able to IM while feeling confident that 'freedom-haters' will not intercept any messages containing potentially compromising information. This IM service is, I assume, completely free to the users. A laudable goal in itself. Therein lies the carrot.

      However, the unspoken reality is that when G.I. Josephine and husband back home use this service to share anecdotes about their children, they will also be sharing said anecdotes via ADK with whichever U.S. intelligence agency has purview here. The stick.

      Not drawing any conclusions; just spitballing.

  20. AirForce-IM 1.2.19 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    InDaSandbox32: 141ac5c0563fc690672ae868777b7f57fcab77
    USAGurl2005: 770a8a5fcab77aa5fe04fcab770d4e3c3211f
    InDaSandbox32: a2f7a57d35ff48fc7d0
    InDaSandbox32: f7a55fcabd4e3c5ff48fce868777b7
    USAGurl2005: 5af75db86cef4f9090

    1. Re:AirForce-IM 1.2.19 by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Meh. its not Base64 and sure as heck isn't UUEnc.

    2. Re:AirForce-IM 1.2.19 by goon+america · · Score: 1

      It's hex. You've got all your basic hex digits there [0-9][a-f] and nothing else. I have no idea beyond that.

    3. Re:AirForce-IM 1.2.19 by andreyw · · Score: 1

      Grouping the hex into bytes doesn't help either.. since 14 isn't a letter in ASCII... Not UTF8 either. Maybe UTF16, but I doubt it.

  21. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more nasty torture pics form Iraq!!!!!!

  22. what about military secrets? by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How encrypted is this? Can military censors read this? What's to stop someone blabbing about deployments or positions?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:what about military secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's to stop someone blabbing about deployments or positions?

      They already do that. At least a few of the soliders I know over there who get online occasionally. I'm usually informed a few days before most major offensives and such. It's kind of weird.

    2. Re:what about military secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We value our lives and the lives of our fellow Airmen?

      Seriously, at a certain point, the issue isn't about restricting communications. It's about making sure you have good people. Background investigations, security clearances, etc. are all part of this equation.

      Besides, it's the Army guys and Marines who are in forward-deployed, secret positions. We Air Force guys are playing "support" these days, because "air power!" isn't a factor in urban combat settings. Army guys get big M2 guns to protect convoys, we get screwdrivers and soldering irons to fix radios.

    3. Re:what about military secrets? by The+Hegemon · · Score: 1

      The military doesn't censor all the communications of all the deployed soldiers. It isn't like they have people reading all the mail that get sent from Iraq, especially email and the like. Nowadays with the ease of communication anyways, sensitive info can be passed much quicker, so they don't have to worry that much about people blabbing.

    4. Re:what about military secrets? by Commander+Trollco · · Score: 0

      And if the messenger will be open-sourced?
      No, seriously folks. How do we expect to progress as humanity unless every aspect of our military projects become open and shared? Frankly, I would assume it is auto-censored, analyzed for "classified" (read- Abu Ghraib)material, or worse until the code is available to see otherwise. The US military is going to stagnate unless they start using open technologies.

      --
      http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
    5. Re:what about military secrets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could one censor instant messages? It's no longer instant if someone has to approve each line of text..

    6. Re:what about military secrets? by gschwim · · Score: 1

      lawpoop said: "The mind and the mouth have an inverse relationship: when one is open, the other is closed."

      Um, thanks for deciding that for all of us!

    7. Re:what about military secrets? by stephanruby · · Score: 1
      How could one censor instant messages? It's no longer instant if someone has to approve each line of text..

      You could do it the same way employers censor employees. If soldiers know they're being watched, they can and they will censor themselves.

    8. Re:what about military secrets? by charyou-tree · · Score: 1

      What's to stop someone blabbing about deployments or positions?

      Professionalism. Communication between deployed servicemembers and friends/family back home is already unmonitored and uncensored.

      Seriously, we trust these guys to carry guns, fly helicopters, review intelligence, guard stuff, make breakfast ...

      ... either you can trust Private Bob not to tell Mom about tomorrow's raid, or you can't. If you can't, that is a failure of Private Bob and his leaders, not the communications infrastructure.

      This is a non-issue.

    9. Re:what about military secrets? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      If the algorithm or source code aren't publicly available, then it's probably security through obscurity. Kerchoffs law, and all that.

      In the end of the day, you can't beat rubber-hose cryptography, buxom-blonde cryptography, or photos-at-the-seedy-gay-bar cryptography -- they'll crack even the strongest protocol.

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    10. Re:what about military secrets? by lawpoop · · Score: 1
      You're welcome, g schwim !

      Ree hee hee!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  23. Trillian's been encrypted for years... by jarich · · Score: 1
    Seriously, Trillian has been encrypted for at least 4 or 5 years... (it only encrypts between 2 Trillian clients).

    Anyone know why the AF would come up with their own system? Is it just to be able to backdoor it for security reasons?

    1. Re:Trillian's been encrypted for years... by DJStealth · · Score: 1

      It works over the ICQ and AIM protocols and called "SecureIM". It may work over Y! as well.. I can't recall.

    2. Re:Trillian's been encrypted for years... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      And this is one of the main reasons I use Trillian and have my friends using it. Encryption is a snap. I believe the new yahoo client has an encryption option also.

      >Anyone know why the AF would come up with their own system?

      Why not? I'm sure its a lot cheaper than paying for trillian licenses and of course the option of having the encryption key to decrypt communications is very appealing. Maybe its more feature rich than trillian's. Someone can try a man-in-the-middle attack, steal your buddy's login, etc.

      Sadly, there is no encryption standard. Even Gaim can't get its act straight because of licenses. SSL (as in ssl-gaim) is a BSD license while gaim is GPL so they won't play with it. They also snubbed trillian for the same reasons. I don't use OSS for the sake of using OSS, I use what's best.

      Also, the commercial entities can roll their own encryption scheme, but that of course leaves you running 4 IM clients at the same time.

      This is why Trillian rocks and continues to dominate the multi-IM market.

    3. Re:Trillian's been encrypted for years... by Trepalium · · Score: 1

      Two words. Authentication and authorization. For the first, most commercial IM systems have very limited authentication systems. Most are open for registration from anyone in the world, and give you little assurance that you're talking to who you think you're talking to. The other concern is authorization. Are you allowed to use the service, and to whom are you allowed to communicate with? I doubt many IM systems offer any controls for these types of restrictions.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    4. Re:Trillian's been encrypted for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course there is a back door. Why would people in a war zone have privacy? They gave up their rights to that when they signed up for the army/AF/Navy/etc. The last thing we need is someone blasting location and tactical information to family members unencrypted. Of course the military monitors these conversations.

    5. Re:Trillian's been encrypted for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of course the military monitors these conversations.
      Uh, no. Nothing is monitored. They quit trying long, long ago.

      Honestly, it's not that big a deal.
  24. IM has to be encrypted? by kngthdn · · Score: 1

    And yet they have blogs.

    1. Re:IM has to be encrypted? by vhold · · Score: 1

      It's fairly obvious those blogs aren't directly published by the troops but go through some kind of third party.

  25. Gateways to other IM networks by electrichamster · · Score: 1

    They state in the article that initially the users could chat to people on other IM networks, but the functionality was removed because these networks allowed users to send&recieve files etc.

    So why the hell didn't they just disable this feature and keep the gateways in??

  26. Do as we say, not as we do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So USA wants to listen on our conversations, but they don't want us to listen in on theirs.

    1. Re:Do as we say, not as we do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from the biggest hypocrites in the universe?

    2. Re:Do as we say, not as we do by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. I'm sure no other country in the world is trying to listen in on US conversations, nor are there any countries in the world who try to protect themselves from other countries doing the same to them. It's exclusively a USA-only thing.

      Fucking morons.

  27. akamai by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

    Supplied by akamai.com ?

    See the links throughout

    http://www.my.af.mil/

    to, for example (Privacy Policy)

    http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/7850/v001/ftptria l. download.akamai.com/11372/DoD%20Warning%20Statemen t.htm

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:akamai by jasperbg · · Score: 1

      Akamai is a web cache.

    2. Re:akamai by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

      Ok, sounds good.

      The "ftptrial.download.akamai.com" in

      http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/7850/v001/ftptria l. download.akamai.com/11372/DoD%20Warning%20Statemen t.htm

      looks curious.

      What's the "trial"?

      Stephan

      --
      http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
  28. Security of the client machines being used by mahesh_gharat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No matter what kind of encryption technology they have implemented for their IM; if the soldiers are going to use the webbrowsers in cybercafes in the foreign land. Then god help them. I have been here in KSA (Kingdome of Saudi Arabia) for six month now. All the MS-Windows systems in cybercafes are full of spywares, keyloggers and whats not. Most of these problems due to administratative rights given to all the clients who need just a browser. No matter what technology one uses over netwrok but its very difficult to get rid off key loggers. After experiencing all that crap I bought a dial-up internet connections cards (Nesma and Zajoul)... both the connections are pretty slow for me though.. compared to my home country dial-up.. Now I can browse through Firefox with antivirus and personal firewall on.... Pretty safe feeling now. I get atleast one incoming connection to my system from the external internet every five minutes. I suspect these are from other dailup users(probably infected) only. Withought a firewall and unpatched MS-Windows system you will be a deadduck in hour or so. I think they should give them secure client machines also. That will help them in better way. I read about the massive bandwidht they are enjoying in this IRAQ war. If they are routed through their own satellites then nothing like it.

    1. Re:Security of the client machines being used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you just get an older Apple Powerbook and run OS X or PPC Linux? Ubuntu PPC would be great.
      You can chat/email/send images without all the spyware and all the other extra problems.

    2. Re:Security of the client machines being used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sounds like a use for Metropipe.
      http://pvpm.metropipe.net/
      No admin rights needed, BTW.
      All it needs is a virtual keyboard.

    3. Re:Security of the client machines being used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you find out there were keyloggers installed? I have to use internet cafes sometimes, and would like to know how to test them.

  29. I've been using encrypted IM for many months now.. by codergeek42 · · Score: 0

    ...it's called Gaim Encryption. Add that to Jabber over SSL (overkill, probably) and I've got secure conversations with my friends and family.

  30. No images?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why that imposed that restriction. Surely not to prevent images of our wonderful superior American military boys raping and beating the shit out of innocent prisoners getting leaked? That could never happen!

  31. webmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Air Force also has a webmail service they encourage servicemembers to use, as well. They block most other web-based email services.

  32. It may not be end-to-end encrypted IM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    but it sure sounds like an improvement considering the second gulf war was coordinated though.... microsoft comic chat... no really, you cant make stuff like this up!.(search for "alien" in the text... I kid you not!)

    IRC, the protocol voted "script kiddies choice" for ten years in a row, is what powered the critical communication infrasteructure. Combined with a microsoft client that adds comic characters. Also the database used for collecting and assigning ground targets for bombers.... access.

  33. SILC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should use Secure Internet Live Conferencing (SILC)...

  34. Invalid server certificate? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

    It may just be my copy of Firefox, but the link at the bottom of that article (to the actual AF website) throws up a dodgy server certificate warning.

    There goes any hint of faith I may have had in this being secure.

    --
    How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    1. Re:Invalid server certificate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's no way a .mil is going to trust Verisign and such, so of course they'd sign their own certificates. It absolutely does NOT make it any less encrypted or less secure...

  35. ob. GAIM rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you stop supporting broken non-standardness and start hounding the GAIM guys (or someone else) to write an encryption plug-in or system that actually works with other Jabber clients? Hell, why don't you get the GAIM people to actually make their client understand Jabber resources.

    Jabber has support in the protocol for encrypting messages, GAIM and its plug-ins don't do this; they go their own route just like the Trillian folk. Don't support a system that ignores the standards, it makes things worse for everybody.

  36. They should have call the service.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Airforce AIM-y

  37. Security Risk... by dshaw858 · · Score: 1

    Somehow I don't think that this is really encrypted. Well... encrypted so that enemies can't intercept it, yes... but not encrypted so that the Air Force itself can't read what's being transmitted. Somehow I doubt they'd leave the risk of transmitting sensitive data with no way to see what's happening completely open to the entire Air Force.

    - dshaw

    1. Re:Security Risk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what use are sending encrypted data when the PC in the other end are full of spyware and worms. Whether or not it's well encrypted does not really matter when the enemy can target the users with some nice specialbuilt worm/spyware package who send them the chatlogs:-)

  38. Unofficial Explination by Jeffery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am in the Air Force, a 2E251, job title is "Computer, Network, Cryptographic, and Switching Systems Journyman". here is how i can best explain why it is encrypted and why we cannot use regular IM products (aim, icq, etc etc...) It isn't that classified or top secret messages are being transmitted across this system, it's simply to keep the enemy from deducing simple things and protecting the members families. Think of it this way, if you have 100 people from the same network ID talking about hopping on a plane for a "Big Mission" the enemy might beable to figure out what's going on. another good reason for encryption is so that when members are like, "Boy, i can't wait to go home for christmas and go to grandma's so and so's house this year" what's to keep enemy's/Terrorists from taking from there grandma's name, finding out where she lives, and then kidnaps her to black mail you, or just out right kill her to hurt the morale of all troops in the sand box. also, due to AFI regulations, regular IM programs are not authorized for use on Air Force Systems, plain and simple, for those exact security reasons. i was in Iraq/Oman for a while back in the summer of 03, and i used this program alot. Thank you all, and i hope this was useful.

    --
    President Bush Supporter
    1. Re:Unofficial Explination by drDugan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know if the military controllers have the keys to decrypt and monitor the messages.

      Also, I'd like to know when the military will stop censoring the real images of war. Why is it not surprising that the communications system for troops can't send images. Technology? NO. Politics and spin -- probably.
      We gotta keep control over the people. The press can't even print all the images they want. ... and this is what the shrub calls the "free society" in contrast to the others out there. Someone might see something or think something we're not supposed to. Or maybe there is a better "official explination"[sic] of why there are no images to send home.

    2. Re:Unofficial Explination by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I would assume that it is possible, but not practical to monitor the messages (since the server that handles it all is probably in the US). After all, telling family members things that one shouldn't (like mission details) probably doesn't happen very often, but if someone was suspected of doing so then I would guess that someone would listen in to make sure that they didn't. Also, I would assume that this is similar to those java IRC clients you see on some websites. My guess is that they wanted to deploy this as soon as possible instead of adding features like file transfer and image uploading (which also reduces the bandwidth requirements). Most pictures that soldiers send home (that I've seen at least) are of them posing by tanks and things. It's not like Private Joe wants to send his mother a picture of someone that got hit with an RPG. Some people might want to see stuff like that, but most people don't. The only time I've ever seen that kind of picture is on anti-war propaganda pages. Sure, war might not be pretty, but it happens, and it's not like anyone (except a few wackos) wants war to happen (it's just a difference of opinion as to when it's necessary).

    3. Re:Unofficial Explination by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually one of my friends whose in the Army had something like this happen to one of people in his squad. He started getting harrassing emails from someone who identified themselves as part of the Iraqi resistance and then started naming his family members in the states that their assosiates would hurt if this person continued to serve. Last I knew the FBI got involved, etc. So, this sort of thing is already happening.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    4. Re:Unofficial Explination by suprchunk · · Score: 1
      I'd like to know if the military controllers have the keys to decrypt and monitor the messages.
      Why are you going to use it?
    5. Re:Unofficial Explination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, I'm so sure some Iraqis are going to risk their lives to kill someone's grandma halfway across the world. Heh.

      Well, US has kinda been doing that, but usually not targetting civilians purposely, of course..

      I just wish this damn war would end.

    6. Re:Unofficial Explination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-war Propaganda? Said another way...

      Peace Propaganda... what exactly are you afraid of? Who's telling the "truth and reality of war," the people showing the war, or the people hiding it?

      Keep in mind the same people trying to hide it are the people who have never served, and have no idea what it's like.

    7. Re:Unofficial Explination by catalina · · Score: 1

      Hmmm---kinda like what US intelligence was doing prior to the Iraq offensive? Emailing Iraqi soldiers to indicate that they should not resist?

    8. Re:Unofficial Explination by bburton · · Score: 1

      What's your reenlistment bonus?

      --
      Slashdot = ((Technology + Politics) / Trolls) % Grammar Nazis
    9. Re:Unofficial Explination by Trent05 · · Score: 1

      I think you are right, we need to show EVERYTHING.

      -Everytime a new shcool is opened
      -Everytime a hospital is repaired
      -Every "civilian" laying in a hospital bed after a firefight, lets show the footage of them 10 minutes earlier spraying a bus full of real Iraqi civilians with an AK-47
      -The Abu-Graib pictures were shown around the world and on the NYT frontpage for weeks, the proveyors of which are currently being prosecuted by the US, lets show the 99.9999% of time when prisoners were treated properly according to US law.
      -How about we spend Abu-Graib time (3-4 weeks) on each person we pick up and then let go because of lack of any evidence or a misunderstanding (under Saddam, they would've been shot outright just for suspicion)
      -I haven't seen anyone show the video of Saddam's henchmen cutting out a guys tounge then beheading him with a sword
      -On the same line, there's another video of a guy screaming, getting his hand surgically ripped apart with a small knife. The media won't show that to put in perspective who we are up against, but they will quote Sean Penn on how great a place Iraq was before the war

      YOU'RE RIGHT, THE TRUTH IS BEING OBSCURED FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC!!!

      --


      --
      The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
    10. Re:Unofficial Explination by radar_uk · · Score: 1

      Did you like using it? I've always felt it was a poor replacement for MIRC, AIM and the rest. Besides the fact that you have to log in to the Portal, it's also impossible to find anyone you're looking for. I talked to the Portal support desk about it and they told me it was because they never linked the usernames in Bantu with the ones in the Portal---completely missed the boat!

    11. Re:Unofficial Explination by drDugan · · Score: 1

      Two ways to interpret what you wrote:
      1) Why, are *you* going to use it?
      2) *Why* are you going to use it?

      As to 1), Are you kidding? I would never use software endorsed by the US government! And since I wouldn't use it, 2) doesn't then make any sense.

      I want to know because this is exactly the kind of control mentality that causes most of the problems in the world. It is especially prevelent in the military.

    12. Re:Unofficial Explination by drDugan · · Score: 1

      I think you just called the US political leaders wackos... :)

    13. Re:Unofficial Explination by drDugan · · Score: 1

      what shcool[sic] did you attend? typos aside, you are buying the lies hook, line, and sinker. how's that going for ya?

      Let me back up. Maybe, the US should be working to build a world where people don't WANT to kill each other. Don't have to. Don't.

      Maybe the US should be leading the world so that we don't have Geneva-style differentiations separating parts of our society as the warring part (the non-civilians) and the peaceful part (the civilians). This artificial separation is only a justification for sanctioned violence.

      There are no real civilians. This whole concept buys the assumption that if you are not in the military, you are not part of the acts and horrors purveyed by your kin. Wrong. War and violence create more, and lawless behavior is always part of war. Just because some post-WW2 treaty tries to makes rules for fighting so that the strong economic powers win does not mean people will follow it. The "terrorists" on both sides, the US and the so-call media "terrorists" know this.

      It is only for propaganda and mind control of gullable people like YOU that we even have the concept of a civilian. Where do you think your taxes go? How many bombs did you pay for? $450 Billion and counting.

      Be careful what you wish for. When you do get to see everything, your world will come tumbling down.

    14. Re:Unofficial Explination by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except I'm not sure the US emails went into explicit detail about the location of the Iraqi soldiers family's and what would be done to them if they decided to fight.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  39. I wonder when they would get a chance to use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soldierman: Hey honey, I hope you and the kids are doing ok.

    wifeofsoldier: we're doing fine....the kids are kinda wound up tonight.

    soldierman: well, tell them daddy said to behave.

    wifeofsoldier: I will, make sure you keep safe...I'm worried about you.

    soldierman: hang on a second honey,I hear something. brb

    wifeofsoldier: ok.

    soldierman: oh shit, the iraqi's are attacking!! they just bombed the base...

    wifeofsoldier: oh shit LOL :p

    5 minutes goes by

    wifeofsoldier: BUZZ!

    nothing

    wifeofsoldier: BUZZ! where did you go?!?

    nothing

    wifeofsoldier: helloooooooooooooooooooooo? :P

    wifeofsoldier: lol is this a joke or something?

    nothing

    wifeofsoldier: oh well, I wasn't gonna tell you the bad news now..but I've been talking to this one guy online since you left and I'm gonna move in with him since he got me pregnant.

    wifeofsoldier: so, good luck and stuff :D

    wifeofsoldier: bye

    5 minutes later

    soldierman: wtf?!? I get back and I see this shit....

    nothing

    soldierman: are you still there????

    nothing

    soldierman: :( *sighs*

    *soldierman has signed out*

  40. Good explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's absolutely right, giving out such simple info about a "Big Mission" a hundred times in an hour can give our enemies a simplified picture of something coming up. The biggest threat to our operational security is the internet, we have to be extra careful 24/7...

    even when we're just talking to mom.

    Thanks to all the people at slashdot.org that support us.... Happy Holidays to everybody.

    Oh, just to clear something up. In the article that describes the military using Microsoft Chat... it's still on a secure network. If we get hacked through there.. we have a WAY bigger problem than just a simple virus. Read the article at wired.com for a clear picture of our secure network. It's a lot better than people give us credit. It's actually pretty damn amazing...

  41. air force spy on thery boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its just that american air force whanted a better way to filter theyr solders chat thats all, encryption is the bait for the solders to start using it.

  42. How is this possible? by dswensen · · Score: 3, Funny

    This far into the discussion and no one's made an "AIM High!" joke yet? C'mon, people.

    1. Re:How is this possible? by SpecBear · · Score: 1

      I don't AIM high, but I have been known to Trillian Drunk on a fairly regular basis.

  43. oriface by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an oriface I can send anything I like.

  44. USAF IM is from Bantu systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The IM client is Java based and from Bantu systems (v. 3.0.1.25) - see http://www.bantu.com or http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1358228,00.as p

  45. meh by erotic_pie · · Score: 0

    I'm in the airforce and we've had this now for almost a year, nothing really great about it :-/

  46. airforce: "It is encrypted" by masouds · · Score: 1

    Yeah, right!

    --
    This .sig was intentionaly left blank.
  47. Re:US-army = murderers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about if someone comes to your house and takes your children and rapes your wife. If you call 911 and I see AC on the ticket then I will go get a donout first.

  48. and also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Messages are also encrypted to prevent unauthorized access.

  49. censorship by moosesocks · · Score: 1

    does anybody know if the IMs are moderated by a security team in a similar manner to written letters to prevent servicemen and women from accidentally releasing sensitive information?

    now, don't get me wrong, censorship is almost always bad, but in the military it is a necessary evil to prevent a mole from leaking information. this information would only be useful to a terrorist and be used to put our enlisted men and women in harms way.

    Encryption is useless if one of the people on either end blabs something they shouldn't. Sensitive information should not be transmitted to family members. Period. In other words, the whole encryption thing is a bit pointless...

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:censorship by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      It's not pointless at all. It's damage control, just like the no images/files thing probably is. While sensitive information should not be transmitted, sometimes what we consider worthless info is very useful to those that know how to do use it. If some information, maybe sensative, maybe not so much, but still useful was transmitted on an open link, anyone in between can read it. For fun with this, go sit in an airport with a packet sniffer running on the wireless network. However, if you encrypt it, at least for the durration of transmission, you've more or less guaranteed the information stays between the two ends.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    2. Re:censorship by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      ugh, can we please stop using the word terrorist to describe the entire iraqi resistance. information leaked by any one side of a war could be potentially useful to the other side. using the word terrorist to describe any one side of the war is disinformation. if anyhting i beleive the american invading force has acted more in a terrorizing fashion. how would you feel if somebody ran in your neighborhood with a bunch of tanks, yelled out "we're here to free you!" and then proceeded to destory your water, power and sewer systems, blow up half your neighbors homes, and started hunting down systematically everybody who tried to stop them, along with anybody who happens to be in the building with them at the same time.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  50. this is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm in the air force and I actually get deployed to the base that this client was beta tested. things are pretty restricted there. Here's a synopsis of what it is like.

    being that going off base to go to cyber cafes and use the internet there is really not reaslistic to do everyday, maybe not even once a month, our only choice is to use the internet connection provided on base. Don't get me wront i think it's great for them to give us this luxury in a war zone, but we get the internet through the local internet companies and there is also this filter called "websense" which filters out half of the internet. most people who have a desk job have a computer thats hooked up to the internet. there is also a place where any joe blow airman can go to and use a computer for a timed 20 minutes (sometimes when it wasn't buisy the people there would let you stay on as long as you want).

    There is another option which alot of people dread and thats to get internet in your room (trailer room really.) This sounds nice, however, the same restrictions that apply to the base apply to your computer in your room. Not only that but before you can get on the network you need to give up your computer (usually a laptop) for a week or so, so the computer guys can wipe your Hard drive clean and install windows xp, and set it all up so that you only have basic user rights.

    So all the email from back in the states is blocked off, you can't install any programs, well you could but after you get your computer back from the computer guys it pretty much a government computer hooked up to a government system, and doing anything to comprimise security of the system would mean trouble for you, and I'm not talking about a letter from your ISP trouble either. I'm sure there's ways around this, i have a few ideas myself, but i would rather not ruin my carrer over this.

    Anyways to make a long story short, the only i could get in contact with my girlfriend and family (besides my 2 15 minute phone calls per week) was through the Email that was given to me and goes through the base exchange server.

    I tried using the email like a IM, the only thing is it is not very reliable, that is there would be some times where i would be talking away and nothing for a half and hour and then boom, like 20 messages all at once. not to mention times when the server is actually down. It got to be pretty flustering after a while.

    I know that when I'm deployed I'm at war, and things like this make the air force pretty spoiled, and resented by the other services, but hey, That's why i joined the air force.

    bottom line is I think this is a great service for us and I can't express how grateful i am for this. I hope that this will spread throughout all the military.

    1. Re:this is great by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, are you talking about self-provided laptops? Would they let you use an iBook?

    2. Re:this is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are all self provided. Sometimes your squadron can issue a squadron laptop for temporary use while over seas, but this is rare. I think ibooks aren't allowed

    3. Re:this is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they are private laptops you use on the AFs (our) network. You use their resources you play by their security rules.

      JT

  51. One Word: Geraldo by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the reason they more likely had in mind was incidents like this.

    1. Re:One Word: Geraldo by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should preview from now on... like this.

  52. It's called Bantu... by radar_uk · · Score: 1

    Web-based, SSL encrypted system. I've personally used it and find it sub-par. It's not designed to compete with AIM, et al. It can't.

    What it does have going for it is that the AF has tight control over its network. You can't install MSN messenger, AIM, YIM, Trillian etc. without getting picked up by the admins. And the ports are already blocked. Being a web-based client, it doesn't require an installation, nor does it take up any extra ports.

    Regarding encryption and monitoring, the AF can monitor, but don't assume it does. There's enough going on without bothering to sort through every love not and chat conversation between Airman Snuffy and his girl. If there's reason to suspect espionage, it'll be watched. But if any info is going out through this hunk of dren called Bantu, I'd be surprised.

    Honestly, it's no big news inside the AF. The Air Force Portal (my.af.mil) has enjoyed some success, but it's still a solution looking for a problem in some ways.

  53. So... Um... by Slipped_Disk · · Score: 1

    Essentially UNIX talk (or ntalk), over an SSH tunnel?

    Kinda sad.

    --
    /~mikeg
  54. More a political than technical accomplishment by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The US Military is tied up by a lot of rigid rules. They could've been using IPSEC, stunnel, email and PGP, Kerberos, or some other security setup long ago except for the rules. For instance, military personnel aren't allowed to encrypt any data without special permission. Sometimes they will actually use ftp with no protection at all, because it's politically easier to work in the clear than get permission to use openssh. Sometimes an available encryption method, such as DES, isn't "good enough", so instead they operate in the clear. (Well, DES isn't good enough, but it's better than no encryption at all!) Usually, part of getting permission is providing some means for authorities to read the data, which of course breaks the very security they're trying to get.

    The testing and certification process is so onerous and lengthy (up to 10 years) that a system can be hopelessly obsolete by the time it finally is certified, if it makes it. Then there's the abuse of the labels "classified", "secret", and so forth to cover up problems. Known flaws in security related software are often kept secret from everyone-- enemies, rival companies, critics and auditors and security experts, not to mention the users. Very convenient for the vendors and their sponsors. Diebold security anyone?

    There is the paranoid refusal to use something just because it's from outside the US-- it might have malicious code. And there are the export controls that try to keep technology in the US, implicitly assuming the US is the leader in this area. Ironic that the effect is the loss of US leadership as experts set up elsewhere (OpenBSD in Canada, for example).

    And if all that isn't bad enough, the military pushes this idea of responsibility, as in "held responsible" and possibly even sent to jail should any breach in security occur. That makes military base system admins very conservative and risk adverse.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:More a political than technical accomplishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So exactly when and where have you served? I currently work on the networks for the AF, and it's not that we have these "rules" that bind us for security. You would be surprised how advanced some of the AF stuff is. They're still trying to figure out how some of it works. Sure I use FTP, on an encrypted network, so it doesn't matter. We don't FTP out of our domains. Not saying the AF doesn't get hacked, everyone does. But at my last base they didn't the whole time I was there. Find me a larger organization with that kind of record. CISCO and MS, gods of the internet, don't even have that.

  55. 'should have done it - with VOICE - via Skype! by ivi · · Score: 1

    Re-inventing the wheel at tax-payers' expense
    is not my idea of frugal gov't use of tax $'s

    I'd have jumped on the Skype bandwagon; it rocks for free!

  56. It's Jabber Time by fairyliquidizer · · Score: 1

    http://www.jabber.com/index.cgi?CONTENT_ID=460 I reckon this is Jabber Incs technology which they licenced recently to USJFCOM. If it's not well I'll be wrong! Fairy

    1. Re:It's Jabber Time by fairyliquidizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry formatting http://www.jabber.com/index.cgi?CONTENT_ID=460 It's not Skype it's Jabber

    2. Re:It's Jabber Time by radar_uk · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. It's Bantu IM. I've used it. USJFCOM has nothing to do with the Air Force Portal and not much more to do with the Air Force...

  57. yes by Errtu76 · · Score: 2, Informative

    OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.my.af.mil
    http://www.my.af.mil was running AkamaiGHost on Linux when last queried at 24-Dec-2004 05:38:53 GMT

  58. Name of service by jacobcaz · · Score: 1

    Will this new instant message service perhaps be named IcbM?

  59. On encryption and monitoring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's encrypted.

    The actual conversation itself is encrypted, but the traffic passes through the AF central message server, where it's decrypted and read by analysis software. If any keywords pop up, *then* it will be flagged for an operator to examine and determine if they need to intervene or cut off the conversation.

    The monitoring software and the hardware supporing it is incredibly fast. You never notice the delay.

    Once the text is approved by the software at the central server, it's then passed to the NIPR servers and sent over the NIPRnet. The NIPRnet is passed to trunks encrypted using FASTLANES, but they're upgrading to TACLANES, which have a much higher capacity and more goodies, and can be trusted for use in a tactical environment, where equipment not only needs to be hardend, but electronically destroyed quickly and easily.

    All NIPR trunks pass to a SATCOM link, which then gets passed to one of the three NCTAMS, DISA or other communications stations, where it's decrypted and passed to their internal networks. From there, all traffic is copied and the copied traffic sent to the spooks for analysis, while the original signals proceed to their destination.

    ALL of it. Every single one and zero is monitored. As you can imagine, this level of monitoring engenders it's own problems, but understand that it *IS* monitored.

    If you do something stupid, it may take a while before you're caught, depending on what you're trying to do. If you're stupid, you'll get balled out by your chain of command and lose your priviledges. If you're smart-or just THINK you are-then they will watch you in silence, monitoring your every single move, as well as everything being done by those you're talking to.

    If you are *really* smart, you will stick to snail-mail. THAT is something they don't have the time or the manpower to read, and it all just passes through the system, mostly ignored. Occassionally, they will open a few hundred letters to make a stab at things, see if anyone is being blatantly obvious or trying to use some sort of cipher.

    But because everyone is so keen on "instant communication", the chances of someone going for a written letter instead of instant gratification are low. They have the bait and know where to find the fish.

  60. I remember something called uuencode by Dynamus · · Score: 1

    And it used to work. -- Alejandro Escalante Medina http://alexdinamo.homeip.net/weblog

  61. No, unwanted publicity by hughk · · Score: 1

    This isn't about WWII type security. This is about GWII where unwanted pictures have spread around and appeared in newspapers. Very embarassing for both the military and the government.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  62. The military doesn't implement... by PCMeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    anything that it can't decode in real-time (or in the future via archives) for any given use.

    As for the suggestion to use UU en/decode or other binary-to-text converters: It's potential use was most probably thought of, which in turn would prompt the creation of a script that would scan through and moderate (or flag for review by IT personnel) those messages which contained headers for programs such as UUencode, PGP, etc.

    Like every system, there will always be ways around its security measures. However, there should be no reason why the terminals being used by the soldiers can't be kept free of spyware, keyloggers, and the like (ie. re-imaging workstations at the end of the day.) Either way, the military brass will still have access to the information being sent by soldiers, but would severely limit access to information (and thereby its abuse) by those outside of the group charged with running the system.

    God bless the men and women of the United States Armed Forces!!