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.'"

10 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by msi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or just shoot any one coming towards you with a laptop!

    1. Re:Why? by eobanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, that's not entirely true. For example: 2.4 GHz, which is an ISM band in the United States, is used by the French military in France. Therefore, a number of common electronics, like cordless phones, Bluetooth devices, 802.11, etc., have faced problems with the government banning their use; over time, industry groups have been able to cut through the red tape, but both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi was not allowed in France for several years after it was already in wide use in other countries.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

  2. Sanity check: by Jennifer+York · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do anyone think the Hezbollah reference is a little bit odd? How does intrusion detection and firewalls stop someone from eavsdropping on communications? Please point out the reference that deatils how an Isreali tank was denied information, or misled by false information.

    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.

    1. Re:Sanity check: by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, lets say I'm connecting to my computer via SSH, and I'm a savvy individual, I notice a keyswitch, etc, and won't connect if I see something like that (suggesting a man in the middle).

      No you think "great, it'll be hard to evesdrop on my conversation, I'm running SSH, it's encrypted!"

      So, now some hacker comes along and wants to observe me. He *could* go after my SSH traffic, and try to decode it, but look! I'm not running a firewall or intrusion detection software. He figures (correctly in most cases), it will probably be easier to hack into my system, and put monitors there.

      So, without a firewall, he got in easier, and without an intrusion dection system, I didn't find out. I now have a "new" ssh client, that copies everything over to his/her system, all network traffic is sent in duplicate, the keylogger is collecting all my paswords, etc, etc, etc...

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Sanity check: by dwillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Absolutely it's odd, since Hezbollah wasn't really able to listen in on the Israeli radio's, they just used Direction Finding to locate where the Israelies were broadcasting from, and used that to plot where the Israelies were and where they were going.
      There was no great security hack, just monitoring and DF'ing the encrypted radio traffic. I don't need to know what is actually said. If I can track the enemies location by simple DF'ing of their communications, I can quickly locate them and then track their movements. And when that indicates that a large number of radio's are moving up the valley towards my position, I know to be ready to attack, defend or run.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  3. The 800 LB gorilla in the room... by tgatliff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  4. And those protected devices now slow to a crawl... by securityfolk · · Score: 4, Funny
    C'mon Joe, aim the turret, aim the turret!!! Sorry Jim, I can't - my system isn't responding right now - it's scanning for spyware :(

    BOOM...

  5. Nice ad by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do I get my products advertised as articles on Slashdot? I imagine that could be pretty lucrative. Who do I pay?

  6. Well no, not really by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:id4-type attack? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.