Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$26 of Software Defeats American Military

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the cheap-at-twice-the-price dept.

reporter writes "A computer program that can be easily purchased for $25.95 off the Internet can read and store the data transmitted on an unsecured channel by an unmanned drone. Drones are crucial to American military operations, for these aerial vehicles enable Washington to conduct war with a reduced number of soldiers. '... the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under US surveillance.'"

7 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. but what are the hardware costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, demodulating an unencrypted digital signal is not news.

    I am more interested in what kind of RF equipment one would need to capture it off the air.
    It's not like you can do this with your WiFi card. ;)

    1. Re:but what are the hardware costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Simple explanation here.

      Back in the early days of this design, someone designated drone-originated video as unclassified. Otherwise there's no way in hell it would be unencrypted.

      This isn't an oversight - there's guaranteed a loooong paper trail going back to a conscious decision regarding the classification level of the drone video here, and following conscious decisions regarding the design.

      If you use encryption in a military system that is not NSA Type 1 approved, there's a LOT of paperwork required to prove that your encryption is not being used to protect classified information.

      Type 1 approved crypto is a royal pain in the ass. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_1_encryption

      It often proves significantly easier in terms of cost and paperwork to not encrypt than to prove that your encryption isn't being used to protect classified information. Security guys ask, "If it's unclassified, why are you encrypting it?", with "It's good design practice." resulting in massive beancounter agro.

    2. Re:but what are the hardware costs? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No kidding.

      The SINCGARS is the standard today, though a few versions later.

      I flew RQ-11A Ravens in Iraq, and even THOSE aren't plain text transmitions. WFT?

      I'm sure a small mod will be pushed out now and the other UAV's will be encrypted and freq-hoping like it's no big deal.

      --
      THL phish sticks
  2. Re:Oh noes by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It could be a deliberate ploy to manipulate what the enemy "sees". Why not have a "leak"?
    It's a bit like leaving USB keys around for the unsuspecting to pick up...

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. Some real kneejerk reactions above by Kupfernigk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Really this is a huge fuss over nothing, and some of the more wacko conspiracy theories about CIA honeypots and the like (above) are just as silly as the "shoot General Atomics" mob.

    Is there any real security risk in this? I suspect it is very small. The Russians never bothered to encrypt the telemetry on their ICBM tests, because after all even assuming someone was reading it, they had no way of stopping the thing. Even if you know where the drone is, it is going to be very hard to shoot down; RPGs and IEDs really aren't much use. And given that this is a video feed, how do you ray trace back to the actual position of the camera?

    Unfortunately there are plenty of assholes out there who will exaggerate anything in order to claim that they are more security conscious than the next person (and perhaps hope to get a contract for their company). But this is surely small war, no-one dead, move along please.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  4. Re:Sh..... by blueturffan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to be harsh about it, but think back to high school and college and ask yourself if you would describe the people who were planning military careers as the "best and brightest" of your class.

    I went to school with a guy that was student body president, captain of the basketball team, and valedictorian of his class. He went to the Air Force Academy, and after graduating won a Rhoades Scholarship. He has three master degrees, and graduated first in his class from flight school.

    He was (maybe still is) in command of the 89th Airlift Wing, which is responsible for flying and maintaining the planes that carry the president, vice president and other top U.S. officials. I believe he was recently promoted to Brigadier General.

    Yes -- I'd describe him as "the best and brightest". He also happens to be a very nice guy.

  5. Re:Hubris by westlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Germans did not think the Poles could break their codes. The Japanese did not think the US and the Australians would break their codes.

    The problem was never breaking the codes.

    The problem was breaking the codes more or less instantaneously.

    You need time to frame and execute an appropriate response - and far too often the correct response will be to do nothing.

    Since to do anything will invite suspicion.

    Eavesdropping on the Rising Sun
      The Code War
    The Edison of Secret Codes