Slashdot Mirror


Cracking the GPS Galileo Satellite

Glyn writes "Newswise is reporting the the encryption in the Galileo GPS signal has been broken. The pseudo random number generator used to obscure the information stored in the Galileo GPS signal has been broken. From the article: 'Members of Cornell's Global Positioning System (GPS) Laboratory have cracked the so-called pseudo random number (PRN) codes of Europe's first global navigation satellite, despite efforts to keep the codes secret. That means free access for consumers who use navigation devices -- including handheld receivers and systems installed in vehicles -- that need PRNs to listen to satellites.'"

3 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Get your filthy American hands off our data! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a European tried doing something like this with a US GPS satellite, they'd get arrested for being a terrorist long before they had chance to write a paper on it.

  2. Re:uncrackable encryption by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "But anyway, there is no such thing as an encryption scheme that cannot be cracked. It is just a matter on how much time it will take to crack it.
    Encryption will always be crackable, we are just playing with the fact it would take 512 or so years to crack a particular scheme with the actual technology."

    Actually, there is almost no encryption scheme that can stand up for a weekend to the 'suitcase full of cash' cracking methodology.

                    -Charlie

  3. Re:uncrackable encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And before you go running off to make a patent, white papers exist on the internet dating back to 1990 on using One Time Pads for internet/computer authentication mechanisms. And the fact that I wrote all this up here also serves as prior art.

    This is laughable. You are trying to use the only perfectly secure encryption scheme, while breaking the rules which allow it to be the only perfectly secure encryption scheme.

    So your mechanism is only as secure as the weakest parts, which in this case is plain text email or maybe SSL encrypted email, in which case, just use SSL and have the user provide their own strong password. You are getting NO GAIN for something which is MORE of a PAIN.

    BTW, specifically in regards to GSM mobile phones (I don't know about others), GSM phone crypto uses a small Linear Feedback Shift Register configuration (40bit equivalent) for Pseudo Random Number Generation. To make matters worse, it is seeded (partially or fully?) with the IMEI number of that phone. IMEI numbers can be broken down a great deal if you know the make of the phone and then more if you know the model. The bit depth of IMEI suddenly drops. In 1999 GSM could be cracked in less than a second on a basic home PC. In addition to that, I personally know of a GSM eavesdropping/recording device being used outside of government/law-enforcement and I also know of someone who makes a similar device which is separate from the other I have mentioned. GSM at least, can hardly be considered to be providing strong comms. GSM crypto only "protects" the wireless link between the mobile phone and base station, NOT the wired link between cells or landlines, etc, so you trust your Telco? BTW, do you trust the French? This is their crypto scheme (A5) and they intentionally made it weak. Germany, try as they might, being so close the then Soviet Union, wanted it to be strong. The fact is, most governments don't want their people having strong crypto and you are essentially providing nothing.

    Why bother? You are taking the strengths of OTP, weakening them to something ranging from plain text to strengths we already have (SSL) and yet you are keeping the impracticalities of OTP. I have to wait to have my password broadcast to the World before I can log in? What exactly are you providing again?

    Really, why bother?

    Hate to make a plug for myself but I came up with a one time pad authentication method for logging into websites. It's as secure as can be socially accepted. Key words there.

    Every single time, in the past 11 years or so that I've been into crypto and crypto forums, that I heard someone say something like, "I think I have a good scheme", it has turned out to be a complete joke. I now get a chuckle whenever I read something like that, before I go on and read the "good scheme". So thank you for the chuckle. By the way, you can't have prior art when someone before you has it. It's not yours, it's thiers. Even if it does suck.