Slashdot Mirror
Sri Lankan Terrorists Hack Satellite
SorryTomato writes "The Tamil Tigers Liberation Front a separatist group in Sri Lanka, which has been classified as a terrorist group in 32 countries has moved up from routine sea piracy to a space-based one. They have been accused of illegally using Intelsat satellites to beam radio and television broadcasts internationally. Intelsat says that they will end the transmissions 'within days.' Intelsat has been accused of having business links with Hezbollah before, but claim that they are blameless this time and LTTE was using an empty transponder."
terrorist != freedom fighter
The intentional killing of civilians in order to promote a political agenda.
Terrorists have never won. They just kill the folks who are easy to kill.
Freedom fights have won. One doesn't win over the population by killing their faimily and friends.
I worry that all this PC bullsh1t is killing us when we can't say what is what clearly.
The satellite was configured to retransmit on certain channels, the LTE simply beamed up a signal on a channel that wasn't in use but was configured to retransmit if something was being sent to it.
F@-lun gong hacked SinoSat from Taiwan to broadcast their propaganda program to mainland china.
g +sinosat+hack
To read more:
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=falun+gon
A Tamil might be an Indian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian or Singaporean. Just because your coworker is a Tamil doesn't automatically mean he is an Sri Lankan and working in underground for Tamil Tigers. There are lot Tamil people who hate Tamil Tigers as much as people who support them.
Just adding some links to my post, this is one of the systems used to locate interferences. Of course, in the marketing they present one of the most accurate results they have, normally the precision is not that good. And that same company also does the final search for the interfering transmitter.
No need for covert hacking, most satellites are little more than expensive dumb repeaters in space, anyone with a few thousand dollars can bounce a signal off one without restriction, sometimes without even being noticed for a good length of time, if at all.
:-), it is still vastly quicker to have a human operator run through with a spectrum analyser to figure out what should or should not be there. Back when I was working for the man, the visible part of the clark belt in my section of the sky was filled with satellites having many thousands of transmissions on each polarity in use. Weeding out the pirates is tedious and never ending work for a space based telco.
Given that the best automated methods of scanning and identifying energy spikes is about as good as speech recognition 15 years ago - and don't kid your selves on this point you 3 letter agency drone PHB's
I'm certain Intelsat don't want any non-paid for signals period, though the legalities of pirate transmissions are a bit of a grey area depending on which country you are in. I have seen on many occasions a sweeping CW (carrier wave) running back and forth across what I assume are unwanted transmissions. I'd say there's not really much more Intelsat can do except suck it up and try to identify unknowns a tad faster than they have been doing in the past, and then simply try to disrupt the signal - no guarantee this will work though.
The fine article makes it sound like Intelsat have some sophisticated system that'll let them drop the transmissions with a flick of a few switches - this is an interesting feel good fluff explanation probably more aimed at their investors. What they really mean is that there is sweet FA they can do about it beyond asking nicely for the naughty men to turn off their bad signal, otherwise they'll take their transponder and switch it off for everyone, only for a few minutes though.
LTTE might have started as a group of freedom fighters.
But they are no longer one.
Life is a mystery. There is no point having a mystery if you are not curious.
No, it hasn't. When I was young (eighties), the US was seen as the great superpower protecting us from those evil Soviets. I vividly remember the horror stories told by my parent of desperate people risking their lives trying to get over the Berlin wall to the West, because it was so bad and repressive in those Eastern European states. Stories about secret police abducting you because you dared to criticise the state. On the other hand, the US were these great guys who protected us from Soviet annexation after WWII. Nowadays, you'll be hard pressed to hear my parents say anything good about the US though.
You're merely deluding yourself into a comfortable "whatever we do, they've never liked us and will never like us anyway, so why would we care what others say/think"-position? I hope you do not confuse that attitude with patriotism.
According to Asian Tribune, the satellite channel was part of the ceasefire agreement between the LTTE and the government of Sri Lanka. Since Ranil Wickremasinghe hasn't been Prime Minister of Sri Lanka since 2004, this agreement that LTTE could broadcast obviously isn't exactly new.
Speculation time:
Some people are claiming that the LTTE is paying for the broadcasts. It sounds like someone at Intelsat may have accepted a contract based on the ceasefire agreement, only to get burned now that a different political party is in charge in Sri Lanka.
Except the ones who are communist, marxist, nationalist or just plain crazy e.g. Shining Path, FARC, ETA, LTTE, RUF, etc. See US State Department list .
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Exactly, especially considering in Sri Lanka, since Independance, Tamils have been racially and xenophobically put down, by a a majority ruling party, who just happen to speak a different language.
0 07.
See "Black July" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_July and other awful cases of poor human rights and racist actions by a few in power.
I have seen the problem at face, as I have recently (November 2006) been to Sri Lanka myself: as a tourist, and stayed in a hotel, in Colombo, for only 3 nights, to see my girlfriend who lives in Colombo (she is half Singhalese, half Tamil, by the way) Whenever my hotel car was stopped at numerous checkpoints, and they saw on my BRITISH passport, that I was born in Jaffna, I was given "special treatment". I usually responded with a query of the officers Badge Number, as well as reasons for the delay in letting me through, which usually for me, made them back off.
But others are not so lucky.
A friend of mine, was recently spotted as a Tamil at the immigration in Colombo airport, and was kidnapped en route to the capital, and was help, until he paid a ransom of £2000. The kidnapping was done by gangs, supporting the current administration, with the help of the police, and authorities.
Unfortunately the current administration in Sri Lanka, has a unwritten, but oft repeated view that all Tamils are LTTE. Amnesty International has been recently doing a large campaign highlighting the general lack of human rights in Sri Lanka http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA370102
No Tamil Sri Lankan wants to separate from the rest of the country, they just desire to live together in harmony. But when the government does not protect, and then attacks members of their own people, of cause people will support the LTTE in desperation.
It's a really sad tragic situation, and destroying a very beautiful country.
Have a nice day!
http://www.hackepedia.org/?title=Satellites
Anyone can watch, listen or repeat off of many satellites.
You are incorrect regarding antenna size. Satellite communications is possible using COTS equipment such as a Ku-band (about 14 GHz up, 11 GHz down) antenna about 1 m across. If you want to go C-band (6 Ghz/4 GHz), then a dish about 2.5 m across is sufficient. You only need about 100-400 W of power, again available in COTS equipment.
If you're not concerned with some of the requirements for your transmitted signal (particularly beamwidth), you can use dishes even smaller than these, provided you have sufficient transmitter power.
Such equipment must be available on the black market; if groups such as the Tamil Tigers can afford to buy black-market weapons, I can easily imagine the black-market availability of such technology for the right price.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
This one is cheaper, quicker and easier to use
e _services___facilities0/interference_modeling/sati d.html
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/commercial/space/spac
Since >95% of unauthorised signals are some idiot with the wrong frequency or broken equipment, the interference usually comes from an antenna in the satellite operators DB. Consequently the "final search" is not necessary very often and such systems are not as expensive compared to the cost in lost bandwidth to the operator you highlighted.
You also forgot to mention - India's Union Minister of Communication and Information technology, Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, is a nephew of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
There is little hacking involved. Most older satellites are simple 'bent pipes' which transponds everything it receives on one frequency onto another frequency. So if you are in the antenna footprint of the ground station, you can use that satellite and there is nothing the owners can do to stop you.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
As a satellite network controller, I disagree with your post: 1) They didn't HACK anything. The obtained ephemeris data from some online website, and pointed an antenna at the satellite. 2) Satellites have predicted channel allocations. There's a huge database containing the predicted signal levels, filtering, datarates and modulation techniques. If an unauthorized access occurs, the satellite network controllers see it instantly. 3) The only thing a satellite controller can do to negate an unauthorized user is reallocate the beamweights of the footprint to exclude the transmission area. Sure, this may work in Sri Lanka (where I've worked, by the by), but if someone in the US wanted to do the same thing, do you really think Intelsat would create 0dB directive gain in Virginia? I don't think so. Read up on satellite operations. It'll amaze you how little control controllers actually have.
Vocal minorities are often confused with silent majorities.
Sri Lanka: The Big Hate Mo'
Of course, there's more on the Exile, which is definitely not work safe, unless you work at the Bada Bing or something. However, this article is a good primer.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
650,000. CNN.
I assume that CNN, being a nationalist propaganda machine is likely to round down. But even assuming the real figure is only as high as 200,000, the situation remains unforgivable and the U.S. is by no means "innocent".
Also, 'murdered' is an objective term. If someone is shooting at me and I have a gun, guess what: I don't care if it's a police action, declared war, or what ever, I'm shooting back. Is that murder, I supposed it depends on what side you are on or who shot first.
How nice. But we're not talking about you and your armchair war theory. We're talking about an American invasion army shooting and bombing civilians. It might also be pointed out that the Americans did indeed shoot first. "Pre-emptive", I believe the term was. Based on lies and faulty intelligence.
Further, bombed civilians aren't typically in a position to shoot first. The term 'murder' fits quite well in such cases. As it does when Americans open fire on civilian weddings, school children, fishermen and cars which, "didn't slow down fast enough", among many such countless incidents. --And these are just the ones that the U.S. admits guilt for, (otherwise they wouldn't be handing out cash to stricken family members). When murder is an offense which carries only a small fine, there is something wrong.
The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It wasn't a mistake. It was a willful, criminal act.
-FL
Communications satellites normally have no protection at all,
Yes, I have "hacked" a satellite before. Temporary bandwidth is expensive. Just point to a satellite (not hard to find them), plug in a spectrum analyzer and see where there are blank spaces. Put your carrier up there. Call your friend. Have them set their receive to there. Repeat for the return link. Turn it down within a week. Leave it off for a week. Try again. You will never be found. If you were found, nothing would happen to you. I only used it for a very short-term test when my provider was having trouble finding me test space, and no one ever noticed. If you have the gear for a satellite link and a spectrum analyzer, you can "hack" just about any commercial satellite. It isn't security through obscurity. It's a complete lack of security.
Learn to love Alaska
UNSEC 678 authorizes the use of military force to "uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area".
UNSEC 687, sections C through H, spelled out exactly what was required of Iraq to restore international peace and security to the area, including: a complete declaration and destruction in the presence of UN observers of their WMD stockpiles, a complete declaration and destruction of their ballistic missile and UAV programs with a range of at least 150km, a specific prohibition that Iraq was not "to use, develop, construct or acquire" WMD, and that Iraq "will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory", along with condemning any other acts of international terrorism.
Under no stretch of the imagination had these requirements been met. Iraq may well have destroyed their WMD stockpiles, but they did not declare these weapons to the UN, and UNMOVIC had declared them in violation of this up until the March 2003 invasion. Iraq did not dismantle their prohibited ballistic missile programs as was proven by the discovery of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, and the development of the North Korean No Dong 2000km ballistic missiles. We know for a fact from the Duelfer report, and from the interim ISG report by David Kay, that Iraq did not discontinue the development and acquisition of WMD. Both reports clearly detail WMD development activities that were in violation of UN mandate.
These two resolutions were passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which mandates all UN member states to participate in their enforcement. All of the subsequent resolutions passed against Iraq, including UNSEC 1441, referenced and reaffirmed these two resolutions, and Iraq was clearly in violation.
As to your WMD point, I would strongly encourage you to at least read the 20+ page summary of the 2004 Duelfer ISG report. No doubt that much of our prewar intelligence was flawed, and that we did not find the remnant munitions from the Iran/Iraq war that we expected to find (because Iraq offered no documentation to prove their destruction, and no UN inspector had observed the destruction of these weapons). But there is also no doubt that Iraq was still in violation of UNSEC 687 paragraph 10, leaving a clear authorization to use military force for compliance.
The United States current presence in Iraq is at the request of the Iraqi government and under a clear mandate from the Security Council (first from resolution 1546, and most recently from resolution 1723. See Annex 1 in resolution 1723 for the letter from Prime Minister al-Maliki requesting the multinational force to stay).
That is an accurate summary of how opponents of the invasion interpret the relevant international law. Suffice it to say that not only do I disagree with that interpretation, but so do the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, former Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali, and the governments of countries like the UK, Australia, Japan, and Italy (to name a few). When it comes to matters of international law, there is no final arbiter on how the laws are interpreted (like the Supreme Court does for domestic law). I hope you can appreciate this.
I don't think that is a fair characterization. Some nations, most notably Russia and China as you pointed out, condemned the attacks. Others, like Japan and Sweden, gave strong endorsements of the US and UK position. The rest of the members of the Security Council, including countries like France and Costa Rica, expressed sorrow at the situation without taking a strong position either way about the legality of the actions. See S/PV.3955 for the minutes of the relevant discussion in the Security Council.
This is completely false. Here is a quote from US Ambassador to the UN Peter Burleigh from the minutes I linked to above:
Following Iraq's repeated, flagrant and material breaches of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1154 (1998), 1194 (1998), 1205 (1998) and others, in addition to its failure to fulfil its own commitments, the coalition today exercised the authority given by Security Council resolution 678 (1990) for Member States to employ all necessary means to secure Iraqi compliance with the Council's resolutions and restore international peace and security in the area. Any Iraqi attempt to attack coalition forces or to initiate aggressive action against a neighbouring State will be met with a swift response by the coalition.
The reasoning he gave here should sound a little familiar by now, and it had nothing to do with the no-fly zones.
Of course they were! Allow me to quote from the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability,
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush