Slashdot Mirror
Meshnet Digital Armor To Protect Tanks
An anonymous reader writes "General Dynamics Canada and Secure Computing have partnered to develop Meshnet, a hardware/software firewall designed to protect networks and digital devices inside tanks and other military vehicles from hostile computer and virus attacks. Without adequate protection a tech savvy enemy can infiltrate networks, manipulate information, and deny crews the data they need to participate in modern warfare. Exactly such an event happened last year to an Israeli crew, when hackers from Hezbollah eavesdropped on their communications. 'The system uses Secure Computing's off-the-shelf Sidewinder Security Appliance ... Sidewinder consolidates all major Internet security functions into a single system, providing "best-of-breed" antivirus and spyware network protection "against all types of threats, both known and unknown," according to Secure Computing.'"
Or just shoot any one coming towards you with a laptop!
Is there some deficiency in the military's current ability to kill people that I am not aware of? Or are they preparing to defend against extra terrestrial attacks? Isn't this the second military research story for week?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This unsubstantiated BS as a justification for an obvious product placement requires more scrutiny. I don't doubt that there IS a chance that some enemy force could have the capability to "hack" a tank, but the "Exactly such an event happened last year to an Israeli crew" needs some evidence.
Dominant Meme
This reminds me of Ghost in the shell, "I pwned your eyes".
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Hope it helps a bit when Skynet takes over. I for one don't welcome our Skynet overlord with his beowulf cluster of hacked tanks.
No one wants to suggest the obvious, which is systems like this should never require antivirus and spyware support. For mission critical systems, the only thing they should use is embedded devices where the only way to install additional software is by flashing the firmware on the device. Also, use of a hardened kernel would be nice...
The easy option: Don't have any remote communication/data systems connected to vehicle control systems, unfortunately there's already a lot of hardware out there already.
The solution the US military will come up with: Spend trillions setting up a super intelligent AI that can defeat hackers on the fly and control all military weapons on it's own to spare ever needing to send real troops into battle again... it will be named Skynet...
No, It doesn't. According to the PDF in the article:
I'm no security expert, but those don't sound like "strong links" in the chain.
BOOM...
The evidence from the digital attack last year is as follows:
"The A-176 tank scope operator was panning to the North to acquire the target in question when a pop-up add appeared in the view finder alerting him of a fantastic deal on Viagra. Later alerts included free porn and offers to download virus scanning software"...
How do I get my products advertised as articles on Slashdot? I imagine that could be pretty lucrative. Who do I pay?
Any security consultant worth his salt would be aghast at the military taking up a posture that allows for a single point of failure. Defense in depth is the current mechanism of choice... talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
Just shoot back at the enemy. If your tanks are getting hacked, cancel the MySpace page for your regiment.
technical writing / development
Is the military so stupid they're actually using Windows-based software (or software running ANY consumer OS for that matter) in battlefields? If so, there's been a major drop in their design and code standards in the past few years.
Also, what's the threat? "This was reportedly the case during Israel's incursion into South Lebanon last year, where Hezbollah hackers were allegedly able to monitor IDF communications, giving the guerrillas a leg up in attacking Israeli armor." sounds like ordinary signals intelligence. You don't fight that with firewalls and antivirus software, you fight it with encryption and electronic countermeasures like dummy sources to fight tracking and traffic analysis.
The sorry state of affairs today in that our boys on the field rely TOO MUCH on TECHNOLOGY is reflected in what happens when that technology FAILS. People DIE.
a) Technology can give you a huge advantage over The Enemy(tm). Which is why the US led coalition was able to dominate in Desert Storm.
b) Because technology acts as a "force multiplier," meaning you can do a lot more with less people/tanks/planes/etc.. Without high technology we would need many more real live people in the military. So you either pay the cost in technology or you pay the cost with a larger percentage of your population in uniform and/or in harm's way.
c) Technology requires "less skill" to use. Having infrared sensors, laser range findings, and a computerized fire control system makes the M-1's main gun very deadly. How long would it take for a gunner to get that good using just the Mark I Eyeball and human skill? People in the military should be focused on winning, and not on frantically having to look up wind speed on paper firing tables before taking a shot.
No, there are not. There are very few avenues to crack any system.
#1. Attack the daemon listening on an open port.
#2. Trojans.
#3. Exploiting a vulnerability in an app when fed specific data (IE is a good example).
#4. Viruses that attach themselves to other apps.
Yeah, you've just repeated yourself without explaining how the firewall is supposed to do anything.
No, it is not. They all have the same, limited, avenues of attack. There is nothing "different" about that.
That conflict showed the failure of an army fighting by the rules, against an enemy that did not, and never has.
If Israel could have used the full force of its military without the world breathing down its neck, hezbollah would have been so much smoking corpses.
What this shows you is that most advanced tank cannot deal with a meat shield if there is a camera crew near. Hezbollah has become very good at using this kind of war, they had to, the more recent lebanese actions have shown they suck at military conflict. Note that lebanon could just blow the hell out of hezbollah bases and civilian casualties be damned. Suddenly the world realises that just because a shot up corpse is dressed in civil garb, does not make it a civilian.
In fact the military conflics around Israel have shown just how bloody effective modern equipment is, outnumbered in every way, Israel nonetheless manages to hold out, because they use tech to the max.
You are also wrong about the soviets, the russians were actually the one with the better gear against the germans. It just took a while for it all to come together, but it was the germans that copied soviet tech, not the other way around. The turn around came when russia learned to use the tech advantage it had and properly equip its soldiers with it. Early in the war, it had excellent tanks, but often without radios, or it had motivated troops, who lacked guns. Once that was sorted out, the germans never won a single battle against the russians. Superior tech.
Offcourse, you got to use it properly.
Iraq again shows you just how lethal tech is over numbers. The iraq army was many times greater and was wiped out.
The current conflict has nothing to do with the lack of manpower or reliance on tech. You cannot occupy a country that doesn't want to be occupied unless you are capable of dealing out massive amounts of punishment Roman style. Storm the city, kill everyone inside, tear down the buildings, plow up the ground and sow it with salt, so that you can then point to the desolate area and say, "this is what we do with those who oppose us, any questions?"
In a way, Hezbollah uses very modern weapons, western media, to fight the war. No use of radio? How do you think the images of bloodshed, real and staged made its way to the west? Pigeons?
One final note. You state that Israel only managed to advance X miles. How many miles did Hezbollah advance? Okay, yards then. Feet? Inches? So much for low tech then. Hezbollah has never once manage to threaten Israels survival. It is one of the reasons Lebanon is so fed up with them and finally took action against them and this time, the world media didn't care.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Since the tanks PROBABLY aren't running fiber or CAT 5 between them ... we're talking radio signals. So yeah, if they can attack TCP/IP or exploit a vulnerability in the transmission itself ...
http://docs.lucidinteractive.ca/index.php/Cracking_WEP_and_WPA_Wireless_Networks
And as you've noted, a firewall would NOT be much help.
Particularly, as noted in the article, and "off the shelf" firewall.
You are confusing logic with sales. The point of this excercise is to sell a bunch $50,000 anti-alien-mind-control-ray tin foil hats. "100% Guaranteed and Tested! No Space Aliens have ever penetrated our ReflectoBeanie! Its a real bargain!"
Never you mind that practicality of manipulating takns into shooting each other or their own troops is beyond ridiculous from the perspective of logistics on the battlefield and return on investment for the attacker who would have to be just in the right place in the right time with a complete understanding of the internal workings of the enemy's command and control systems and procedures, relative tank positions and in respect to their true targets and also to be able to plausibly override voice communications when one tank commander goes on his radio to ask "Sir, why are we prorized to shoot a target 90 degrees from the direction towards the enemy positions?".
But thats Military Industrial complex for ya. Next up, $500 military-grade anti-vampire garlic patches.