The Numbers Stations Analyzed, Discussed
GMontag wrote to mention a Washington Post article about the always-intriguing 'number' radio broadcasts. The numbers stations, as they are known, are 'hiding in plain sight' spycraft. Random digits broadcast at little-used frequencies are known to be intelligence agencies broadcasting their secrets in encrypted form. The Post article gives a nice run-down on the truth behind the transmissions, and touches a bit on the odd community that has grown fascinated by them. From the article: "On 6840 kHz, you may hear a voice reading groups of letters. That's a station nicknamed 'E10,' thought to be Israel's Mossad intelligence. Chris Smolinski runs SpyNumbers.com and the 'Spooks' e-mail list, where 'number stations' hobbyists log hundreds of shortwave messages transmitted every month. 'It's like a puzzle. They're mystery stations,' explained Smolinski, who has tracked the spy broadcasts for 30 years."
This article made me recall a great All Things Considered story from a few years back about Akin Fernandez's 'Numbers' CD, a CD compilation of some of the most interesting strings of randomly read numbers reaching out across the airwaves.
1258965
1258965
1258965
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
There was a BBC radio programme about this a few months ago:
e -poacher/
http://jamesholden.net/2005/04/23/the-lincolnshir
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
Ham radio builders and ham radio operators are very numerous and short wave will always be their domain.
http://www.arrl.org/
You can download the mp3's for free: http://irdial.hyperreal.org/the%20conet%20project/
lost
shouldn't it be fairly straightforward to locate the origin of these transmissions?
Yes. Automatic radio direction finding is common and was often used in the cold war. The spectrum is constantly monitored and when a new broadcast pops up, it is automaticaly DF'ed and logged. When several DF sites pickup the same broadcast, triangulation to the source is a simple task.
Here is what a typical DF site looks like. Both the US and Russia have them.
http://www1.shore.net/~mfoster/FLA_Wullen.htm
The truth shall set you free!
A quantum computer is useless against a message encrypted with a properly constructed one-time pad.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
No.
Decrypting one-time pads isn't hard because there isn't enough compute power to throw at it. It's hard because it can't be broken, no matter what you do to it. Given a message to decrypt, the best an enemy cryptanalyst can do is random chance. There are better ways of compromising secrets.
This is a well-established result in encryption and there is no point in arguing about it. The only time one-time pad encryption has ever been broken was when the agents misused their one-time pads. The Venona decrypts are a good example of this.
(Wow! First time I've ever linked to the NSA!)
...laura
You're correct, but just in the interests of preventing confusion, the idea of what was a "long wave" in the early 20th century was very different from what an electrical engineer might think of today. What are today rather low frequencies for radio communication were at the time rather high, hence the term 'short waves.' The preferred frequencies for communication at the time are now barely used by anyone, with the possible exception of naval communication with submarines and the like. Their data-carrying capacity is just too low, and the antennas they require are obnoxiously large.
Of course, by calling things in the 1-30 MHz range "high frequency," those engineers forced us to use such terms as "very high frequency," and "ultra high frequency" when equipment finally became capable of transmitting at those wavelengths.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's actually spammer's trying to mess with any bayesian filtering you have so that more of their viagra ads get through.
I've seen an article on it, here or on digg.
-Interesting.
John Walsh once found me while looking for some other kid. He was not amused.
You can find more at Wikipedia's article on hardware random number generators:
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
I listened to some of those recordings and they were clearly the leaders transmitted by commercial stations, to indicate where the real transmission is. Over the course of the day, shortwave stations move to different frequencies, that are better propagated by the ionosphere.
When a station moves to a new frequency, they continue to play a unique identifier tune and read out the frequencies where the station may be received better. For example, 39715 would be 39MHz715.
Others may simply be a station transmitting automated junk, in order to 'occupy' the channel, so that someone cannot apply to the IETF to use the unused channel. Since they all have these number voice systems to announce their frequencies, it is logical to use that system to occupy the channel with random junk.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!