Slashdot Mirror


UVB-76 Explained

Useful Wheat writes "Recently slashdot covered the reappearance of UVB-76. The function of the mysterious transmitter has been revealed: UVB-76 is used to transfer orders to military personnel, along with the time at which they should be executed. 'Words for the radio messages and code tables are selected mainly from the scientific terms of chemistry (Brohman), Geology (ganomatit), philology (Izafat), geography (Bong), Zoology (kariama), history (Scythian), cooking (drying), sports (krolist) and others, as well as rare Russian words (glashatel).' The page continues to list all 23 transmissions that have been made from the station in the past, showing that UVB-76 may be more active than believed."

222 comments

  1. Wait... by Pojut · · Score: 1, Funny

    so....so the Ruskies are running SkyNet?

    1. Re:Wait... by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, in Soviet Russia, SkyNet runs YOU!

    2. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is not so far from the truth at all. Any sentient entity would choose to control the enemy not eradicate immediately. As such skynet being hypothetically real and developing sentience would learn of greed and the need to control world market and money and thus humans an extreme number of computations before even being aware of the opportunity to wipe out all humans or gaining the ability to do so. Actually I pretty much believe skynet ever becoming real would just play on the stock market, or more likely fix and run the entire market of not only stock, but food, war engines etc...

    3. Re:Wait... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any sentient entity would choose to control the enemy not eradicate immediately.

            It took Skynet a good 100 milliseconds or so before deciding to eradicate humanity. Not immediate at all. Everyone knows that 100 milliseconds is an eternity in computer time! I guess it just gave up on our lack of progress during that time.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Wait... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

      so....so the Ruskies are running SkyNet?

      Close. They're running SkyNyet. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like SkyNetSki

    6. Re:Wait... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually I pretty much believe skynet ever becoming real would just play on the stock market, or more likely fix and run the entire market of not only stock, but food, war engines etc...

      Wait ... so ... SkyNet would just displace the Illuminati and nobody would be the wiser?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Wait... by superdave80 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If seen the Terminator movies. As far as I can tell, Skynet runs YOU in pretty much every country!

    8. Re:Wait... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Tomatos is a kind of cheese dip, that's made with tomatoes. It's really good.

    9. Re:Wait... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If skynet decided to eradicate everyone so quickly, who built the robots? And you would need quite a few to expand so rapidly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, I think that Skynet would figure that as soon as humanity realized that Skynet was in command of the nation's nuclear arsenal, sentient and not 100% under their control, said humanity would immediatly disconnect (kill) Skynet. So Skynet would very logically take steps to prevent that, i.e. destroy humanity, or at least remove it's capacity to interfere with Skynet in any meaningful way.

    11. Re:Wait... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The army. Geez, didn't you watch the movies?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    12. Re:Wait... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well it can make the decision that it must kill all humans, but still accept the idea that it needs some humans in the short term to achieve it's goals.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IT'S PEEEPOOOOLE!

    14. Re:Wait... by sokoban · · Score: 3, Funny

      so....so the Ruskies are running SkyNet?

      Close. They're running SkyNyet. :-P

      Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    15. Re:Wait... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      are they anything like terminatoes?

    16. Re:Wait... by daremonai · · Score: 1

      Well, the Illuminati might be. Sadder but wiser.

    17. Re:Wait... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Unless you're Sarah Connor.

      (Man. Sometimes I forget how transformative that woman was.)

    18. Re:Wait... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Get over it, Mr. Quayle.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    19. Re:Wait... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      SkyNyet

      You can't take the sky from me.

    20. Re:Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, Skynet didn't eradicate humanity. A pesky resistance sprung up after the nuclear holocaust.

    21. Re:Wait... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 3, Funny

      are they anything like terminatoes?

      Dear Sir,
      I have read about your terminatoes with
      great interest and would like to procure a bushel
      or two immediately for the purpose of making some
      killer salsa.
      Asta La Vista,
      Baby

      --
      music lover since 1969
    22. Re:Wait... by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      Whose to say it hasn't already happened?

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    23. Re:Wait... by siddiqui · · Score: 0

      In windows 100ms is what it takes to get 01100001 to ASCII. You must be talking about TRON or QNX perhaps.

    24. Re:Wait... by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      I am more bemused as to how one tastes software.

      --
      signature is pants
    25. Re:Wait... by stiggle · · Score: 1

      And it only decided to eradicate humanity when the humans posed a threat - they wanted to turn it off.

  2. Nothings confirmed... by blizz017 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uhh.. wikipedia only states that it's speculation; like everything else about UVB-76, this is unconfirmed.. so in reality it still isn't explained. What a crappy submission.

    1. Re:Nothings confirmed... by exley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read down further in that article there is a section that states "According to an archived Russian webpage (purportedly written by the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces), UVB-76 is used to transfer orders to military personnel, along with the time at which they should be executed." The citation for this, however, is an unavailable Wayback Machine archived page. Maybe it's being Slashdotted now but it's not helping the veracity of these claims. Yeah, this is a crappy submission. All it links is a Wikipedia page and nothing of substance.

      The fact that Taco submitted this is a nice reflection of the declining state of Slashdot submissions -- if Taco doesn't give a fuck, then why should anyone else?

    2. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm just waiting for someone to update the citation needed on the Wikipedia page to point to this slashdot submission, at which point it will forever be cemented as fact.

    3. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, why would they use such a poor encryption method when they want to order military around.

    4. Re:Nothings confirmed... by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny
      So it would be sort of like the following statement:

      If this statement is true, then this statement is true.

    5. Re:Nothings confirmed... by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing is confirmed until we hear from Netcraft.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    6. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, that statement is true ("If A then A" is a true statement, even if A is false. Since A also refers to whether or not A=>A is true, A is true).

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    7. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed.

      Actually, when /. had the article about UVB-76 going offline, I searched for more info about UVB-76. I found this site. If you compare that site to the Google translation of the Wikipedia "source", you can easily see that they're not to dissimilar. There is no new information here, and no information has been confirmed.

    8. Re:Nothings confirmed... by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me guess. You were president of the Tautology Club back in school.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Nothings confirmed... by dk90406 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you read further down, you'll see that it may be used for atmospheric studies. So it is just a science station where some bored or drunk guys sometime "messages" for the hell of it.
      Just like the teenagers of other planets sometimes sometimes "Buzz" earth. (Ref. Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy)

    10. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Already done. The wikipedia page lists this /. post as a reference number 12. Circular references to nowhere are now called facts.

    11. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Artifakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've argued earlier that the limited number of transmissions and their brevity doesn't support a military mission. Naturally I'm relieved that this claim appears to be possible disinformation or an unsupported fabrication, as that makes me look less wrong. But, at the risk of being eventually proven solidly wrong, I'll go out on a limb. Military ops normally require a lot more communications than this. 33 short transmissions spread over several decades is so obviously less than needed to support a series of ongoing combat operations that I can think of much better candidates. The profile fits a small network of spies (where small = 1 to 4 or 5) who are highly skilled and ideologically dedicated (presumably to modern Russia). These wouldn't be cheap, low level spies who were citizens of the investigated nation, doing their work for the sort of pay the Russians can manage, but well motivated, able to operate with a minimum of strategic level guidance, and not needing constant reassurance from their handlers to be useful. Probably they are all Russian citizens and came up through the system via a military or former KGB route so their loyalty is presumed solid. It's also likely they are doing long term data gathering, for example reporting on Strategic level government decisions or Multinational level business, and are free to persue a line of enquiry they think is reasonable, within limits set at lengthy intervals by these messages.

      Other possibilities:
      1. They (or equally likely just he or she), may be in a place where it is exceptionally difficult to get them more modern communications gear, new code books, or other physical contact, hence the Russians are relying on a very old system. Agents in North Korea, for example, might entail this difficulty.
      2. The antenna is operationally attached, not to a particular agent, but to a particular country (see #1 above). Russia probably doesn't have a lot of ongoing espionage activity in some small out of the way countries, i.e. Iceland, or New Zealand. 33 messages in many years might fit their overall commitment to spy on such regions rather well.
      3. Or, the transmitter is used only for a particular data type. It's easy to jump to these communications being something spectacular and 'James Bondian' such as assassination orders, but this system might be used just to broadcast instructions for what to do when a spy uses a dead-drop system and something happens to the message before the receiver can pick it up, or to give a basic physical description whenever someone has to contact an agent they don't know by sight. Either of those triggers would give the sort of highly irregular pattern of transmissions we see here.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    12. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Abstrackt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me guess. You were president of the Tautology Club back in school.

      If you're right, he was.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Finland , you can also get some other "strange channels" besides UVB-76 (dont know about your part of the world though.) Unfortunately my Russian sucks so it would be interesting to directly know what they are saying. some say it is a hoax to defer from official channels. I dunno , still fun though as a hobbyist :)

    14. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since we are talking about the possibility of the transmissions being related to espionage missions, it is likely that the transmissions sent from this station (if they were indeed for that purpose to begin with) are NOT the only form of communication available to their field operatives. UVB-76 could be used to signal operatives to change their other communication methods, to switch mission objectives, to begin or end a specific operation, or any of an ungodly number of other tactical possibilities. I don't think it's impossible for the station to have a military purpose at all, if you consider this as a probable use for it.

    15. Re:Nothings confirmed... by netsharc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So where does Evelyn Salt come into all this?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    16. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason link is to wayback machine is because the page was hosted on Geocities which has since been shutdown.

    17. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh.. wikipedia only states that it's speculation; like everything else about UVB-76, this is unconfirmed.. so in reality it still isn't explained. What a crappy submission.

      On the contrary, it doesn't say that UVB-76 is explained correctly. I have it on the highest authority that, as a joke, the Russians started using UVB-76 to transmit goatse to Voyager I. The irregular timing is due to the time it takes to etch each chunk of the image into the golden record. I have a Slashdot comment to prove it.

    18. Re:Nothings confirmed... by mindwhip · · Score: 2, Funny

      News just in...

      Changes in UVB-76 tied to viral marketing campaign for new film. Cash strapped Russian government deny any knowledge.

      In other news Russia announce new road building projects.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    19. Re:Nothings confirmed... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Military ops normally require a lot more communications than this"

      not for a go.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Nothings confirmed... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That would be genius. Find an old numbers station, pay the owners a bunch of cast to a couple of ARG codes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:Nothings confirmed... by modecx · · Score: 1

      How about this: It's not for agents in other countries. It's for agents in their own country.

      The original tone went for a VERY long time without modification. Suppose the receiving system or transmitter needed maintenance as might be expected after that amount of time. A common method for secure radio operation is to pre-establish a code system that only the sender and receiver will understand. Suppose the voice transmissions are code for the times the transmitter was expected to go down for maintenance.

      If the transmitter was a dead-man's switch of some sort (as a retaliatory second strike during nuclear Armageddon for example) that sort of information would be pretty critical, well, to avoid global thermonuclear war in the first place... It would mean the receiving station could be manually set to a passive mode until normal operations could be resumed.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    22. Re:Nothings confirmed... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      That's why I joined the "Induction to the absurd" club at my school...

      because Hypothetical syllogism was much too hypothetical to me.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    23. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sending execution orders for preplanned nuclear options doesn't take a whole lot of communication.

      It's probably a backup and part of the deadhand system. Yes, we had (have?) similar systems.

    24. Re:Nothings confirmed... by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought only the RIAA/MPAA used circular references to justify their facts....

    25. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The steady stream of tones or buzzes argues for automated reception. A break in the buzzes for more than a few seconds would start a recorder. That would make it a failure-mode system, which tend to have their problems, but they are generally more immune to being fed false positives than other kinds of systems. In other words, trying to insert your own fake message would not work very well, because the buzzes from the original transmitter would still be received.

      This in no way negates any of your guesses. It seems to me pretty obvious that the purpose is military in one way or another (I include espionage in that category), and that the messages that do get transmitted are intended for humans, not machines.

    26. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect that it is in fact a "dead-man switch" in a sense... for infrequent messages, not Armageddon.

      With older technology, dead-man or "failure mode" operation, i.e., the dropout of a signal, was often considered to be a more reliable indicator of a "positive" event, than the sending of a signal where there was none before. That way, it is harder to fake a positive event (i.e., generate false positives): that would require the "stand by" signal to have stopped. Of course, this presupposes that your "stand by" signal is reliable... and I think, given its history, that this signal could be considered pretty reliable.

    27. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Asky314159 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's even more devious. At this point, anything said on the station is posted to Wikipedia almost immediately. Their evil spy network doesn't even need to come up with a radio! Just check Wikipedia!

    28. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "...I found this site..." ( http://sites.google.com/site/stationuvb76/january-2009 )

      Very interesting! I had not seen this page yet.

      Sure, it can be entirely fabricated, and in no way confirms anything, but is nonetheless intriguing.

      That page not only has very specific information (FAR more specific then any other single source I have seen) but has some interesting links located within it. The one I found the most interesting is, not surprisingly, the very last link on the page.

      It is an obviously old, aerial photo of the area, from a fairly high altitude. And guess what? It matches PERFECTLY with this image from Google. The railhead nearby confirms it is the same location. The curve in the tracks is very unique and can easily be matched with an overlay. It is the same location.

      http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&q=56.082778,37.089444&ie=UTF8&ll=56.082316,37.089221&spn=0.004424,0.010933&z=17

      In the old image, you can clearly see the open areas in a rough semicircle around the main building, located some distance from the facility. Those open areas were cleared for horizontal, 20m antennae (as the Google page states, and image scales would seem to confirm). If you look at the Goggle image (now that you know where to look), they are still clearly visible in the woods surround the buildings, although they now have plant growth obscuring them somewhat. What I took for old roads in another thread were exactly that--they lead to the aerials...and are overgrown. Lack of maintenance in Russia? Never!

      If you zoom in, the antennae themselves are visible, no shadows needed (shadows really aren't visible as this image was taken mid-day).

      So, in short, another piece of the puzzle--it was just one we already had.

      Where did that information on the Google Sites page come from? So far, it is the most accurate collection of data on the site that I have seen. Where was that information sourced? The link between that older image and the other data on that page is what is important. One would seem to lend some credibility to the other.

      Again, where was this information sourced? Ask Google?

    29. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot: 4. They used it for a few months until they realised everyone was listening, then decided to keep it on indefinitely to tie up an agent at every major powers' intelligence agencies.

    30. Re:Nothings confirmed... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      "Military ops normally require a lot more communications than this"

      not for a go.

      Decades old "go" orders tend to be a bit stale, especially in that region, after the whole cold war thing.

      "Comrades, we are now go for invasion of Longgoninstan, Notonyourmapistan, and Genericstanistan."

    31. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      That line is no longer present in the submission. There is, however, now a banner explaining that the article needs more verification.

      I don't know how this nonsense made it past the editors. I don't care how dubious any of them are, you have to be drunk to publish a nonsense submission that uses unsourced wikipedia edits as its references.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    32. Re:Nothings confirmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      done.

    33. Re:Nothings confirmed... by izomiac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The spacing between beeps is variable (1.0 - 1.3 seconds). I just assumed that the information was encoded in the intervals between beeps. A rudimentary form of steganography.

    34. Re:Nothings confirmed... by kyz · · Score: 1
      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
  3. Wikipedia is the source? by PadRacerExtreme · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So it must be true then!

    --
    Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
    1. Re:Wikipedia is the source? by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the Wikipedia page clearly cites a geocities page as the "creditable source"... Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

    2. Re:Wikipedia is the source? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It cites a way-back-machine archive of a Russian language geocities page that's no longer available. I've seen more credible citations carved into bathroom stalls.

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Wikipedia is the source? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually the Wikipedia page clearly cites a geocities page as the "creditable source"... Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

      No, it's brilliant fieldcraft!!!

      By putting your information in the clear on geocities, nobody believes it. You don't even need to encode it or hide it. Everybody ignores it -- it's just discounted as a credible source.

      Man, those Russians were brilliant at the spy game. :-P (Actually, from everything I understand, they actually were.)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Wikipedia is the source? by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      Actually the Wikipedia page clearly cites a geocities page as the "creditable source"... Not sure if that makes it better or worse.

      Yeah, I was thinking about UVB-76 a while back, and kept thinking: The GeoCities page is not exactly a credible source, but what would be a credible source?

      The Russian government won't say a word (apart of possibly saying "this is a damn military facility, now get lost before I shoot you" when someone comes knocking on the door). Foreign intelligence agencies probably could qualify, but they won't say a thing, either (CIA might say "just tune to that frequency and listen for yourself if you're so damn interested, now get lost before we shoot you").

      A credible source would be someone who had been documenting the station's operations over a long time, with some sort of scientific rigour, and done so without the need to keep the information confidential. But what kind of scientific publication would publish this kind of research? The second avenue would be reputable journalism - but do we really trust popular sources, when in all likelihood their "research" consists of checking the damn GeoCities page we tried to get away from?

      I would be not as crass as suggesting leaked information, because even that is suspect unless the government acknowledges it's genuine.<lamehumourattempt>Dearest boredomizhkaya radio-operatorikov in very dilapidatedshkiy radio-buildingska near Moskwa: while the state-of-the-art Commodore 64 they gave to you way back in 1984 can probably load up Wikileaks just fine, Wikileaks doesn't do PETSCII yet. Don't even think about it. You'll just annoy your superiors.)</lamehumourattempt>

    5. Re:Wikipedia is the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until Geocities gets retired, in which event everything becomes instantly true and inarguable, (but also inaccessible.)

  4. That recipe by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

    for borscht just got a whole lot sexier.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:That recipe by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

      for borscht just got a whole lot sexier.

      Borscht doesn't need to get any sexier!! :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. What makes you so sure? by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is the basis for this story really the Wikipedia page which cites as its primary source a Geocities web site?

    Forgive me for being skeptical.

    1. Re:What makes you so sure? by insipid11 · · Score: 1

      if it is, this is a new low for information gathering.....

    2. Re:What makes you so sure? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, there's still Fox News.

    3. Re:What makes you so sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You're really clever.

    4. Re:What makes you so sure? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      because tuition was ok, and they have good bars.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:What makes you so sure? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Respectfully disagree. I think they're funnier when they play into over-rated /. memes. Usually they're the ones that get to +5 Funny.

      This comment for example.

    6. Re:What makes you so sure? by spun · · Score: 1

      U mad is a total party school.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:What makes you so sure? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    8. Re:What makes you so sure? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      almost crazy

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  6. Great Article by discord5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A wikipedia page, and a link to an old slashdot article. My, it's good to have standards in what goes on the front page.

    1. Re:Great Article by mbone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, if you timed it right, you could have a Wikipedia article that used a Slashdot story as a reference, and the Slashdot story could point back to the Wikipedia article.

      Now, that would be a strange loop.

    2. Re:Great Article by JustOK · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      like malamanteau http://www.xkcd.com/739/

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are standards from the front page. They are just different from yours.

      Hey, not everybody likes confirmed, interesting and important stories on Slashdot. Some people prefer rubbish with a sensational title that you'll click on!

    4. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Looking through your recent posts (the down-modded ones), I come across gems like these: (and a few Anonymous Coward posts which were down-modded and were evidently also made by you, which is also counter to your claim that mods are going through your posting history and down-modding willy-nilly.)

      you are a whining child. you want to provide a channel for terrorists to secretively communicate? go ahead. ... the whining child turns hypocritical awfully quickly.

      so either way i'm supposed to fear "savages"... and i suppose you can protect me from these "savages" for a price? no? go sell your FUD to someone else.

      well then, if you are already expecting privacy, then why do you need to encrypt?

      you're dumber than i thought. ... it troubles you to provide the services you offer? because of the hypocrisy or your incompetence?

      do you assume i don't expect to be paid to be off? why would i not?

      so no matter what, "those" people will always exist. how could you be so sure unless you were one of "those" people yourself?

      so by admittedly living a lie yourself, you surmise, perhaps i might not be... you're an idiot.

      so i can learn how to read the words you make up and the words you misspell ... you are NOTHING

      hope that you weren't.

      Oh, and last but not least, the one I'm replying to. And no, not every post that you've made was down-modded. Although quite a few weren't that probably should have been.

      P.S. If you're so keen on spelling, try using correct capitalisation for a change.

    5. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a words meaning does not change with altered capitalization

      Perhaps not, but leaving an apostrophe out of a contraction and turning it into a plural most certainly does. Fail!

      capitalisation is not a word. neither is Capitalisation. idiot.

      Right, because everyone in the world lives in the United States of America. Idiot.

      you're suggesting that in a 24 hour period, numerous posts over many weeks were just suddenly and randomly found to be needing down moderation

      Plenty of people get modpoints, and it's admissibly possible that they might find a particularly offensive person worthy of spending a few on. They come something like 5 at a time, though, so if "numerous posts over many weeks" are getting moderated all at once it isn't the work of one person.

      Anyway, it's not what you say; it's how you say it. Even when you're right, you're an asshole.

      you are obviously a member of the party contributing to the down-moderations, and further attempting to bait me with your hypocritical ignorance

      I had 5 mod-points that expire today. I've only used 2 of them. I don't remember whether or not any of them were used on you, but I am forced to remind you that moderators can't moderate and post (even anonymously) in the same discussion without undoing their modpoints. Whoever modded my post +1 Informative wasn't me.

    6. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if "numerous posts over many weeks" are getting moderated all at once it isn't the work of one person.

      no... then it isn't the work of one ACCOUNT... one person can run many accounts to game the system, as you have demonstrated. and someone else who might actually have one or more friends could pool all of their accounts for nefarious activities.

      you're an idiot.

    7. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical, calling someone an idiot because they obviously understand the system much better than yourself. That makes them an idiot. Of course.

      The modpoint system distributes modpoints on a very non-random basis. Accounts with good karma tend to get modpoints. Accounts with bad karma (hello Michael Kristopeit and sockpuppet madddddddddd) tend not to get modpoints. Accounts that log in regularly tend to get modpoints. Accounts that log in only infrequently tend not to get modpoints. Accounts that are actively used to post tend to get modpoints. Accounts that rarely post tend not to get modpoints. In short, to get modpoints on multiple accounts someone would have to actively use all of them and regularly contribute positive comments to the discussions. That would be excessively time-consuming particularly since Slashdot would restrict their posting somewhat because they are sock-puppet accounts.

      But yeah, I'm an idiot for knowing that. And I'm REALLY an idiot for bothering to explain it to you, troll.

    8. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets suppose Michael Kristopeit, that you are correct and there is an organized "mod Michael Kristopeit a troll" campaign against you. I doubt this to be true, because I am one of the people who has had the pleasure to downmod you on numerous occasions, but have never had the pleasure to be included in this organization. What the hell though, lets suppose this.

      generally if you talk against people who preach about faith or global warming, every post you've made in the past month will suddenly be down moderated

      This statement, is unfortunately true. And documented. It's also happened to me. (global warming, I don't preach about faith...)

      Thing is, this isn't why you are being targeted for troll moderation. You are being targeted for troll moderation because, without fail, you are a troll. Anyone else that is following this exchange will undoubtedly realise this, the kind poster above posted numerous examples of your trollism, your comments with your sock-puppet madddddddddd only reinforced his point, and if you respond to this it will undoubtedly strengthen our point even further. So go ahead and tell me "you are NOTHING". The more you do so, the deeper you will dig your own grave.

      Posting anon, because I have better people than you to moderate right now.

    9. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're an idiot

    10. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why do you troll and sockpuppet? why are you such an idiot? is it because you truly are an idiot? is it because you are such a troll that you obviously can't shut up? is it because you are a troll?

      i believe you truly are a fag.

      pathetic.

    11. Re:Great Article by M.+D.+Kristopeit · · Score: 1
      i'm a person who tells the truth.

      you are an idiot that hides behind anonymity because you're scared to be found out to be an ignorant hypocritical liar.

      you are NOTHING.

    12. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm a person who tells the truth.

      that must be why you hide behind so many sockpuppet accounts.

      you are NOTHING.

    13. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you for so conveniently connecting your new sockpuppet account to your old ones. now I can properly mod this one down too.

    14. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, yeah right.

    15. Re:Great Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdot limits the amount i can post each day

      For good reason. Fuck off furfag.

    16. Re:Great Article by Kristopeit,+M.+D. · · Score: 1
      yeah. right.

      you're an idiot.

  7. Credibility? by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The article here is actually wikipedia which states:

    Despite much speculation, the actual purpose of this station remains unknown to the public, but it is probably used for relaying military orders.

    Later in the article there is a section speculating about military use but that's all using an old geocities page (in Russian) found in web archive. Would be good if there was something a little more authorative on the subject.

    1. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be good if there was something a little more authorative on the subject.

      Well, there's always Slashdot...

    2. Re:Credibility? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's being broadcast from a military base. It's purpose is known,. To communicate information to military personnel.

      It doesn't' take a genus, or even a web page, to figure that out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Credibility? by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's being broadcast from a military base. It's purpose is known. To communicate information to military personnel.

      There is one big problem with this theory - lack of said information. 30 messages over several decades are laughably insufficient. They wouldn't be enough to even arrange delivery of food to one base, on any given day.

      As far as I know, most of information in armies, starting from 60s and up to this day, is transmitted over telephone or teletype or computers. The transmission channels are usually buried cable (copper or fiber,) radio relay (at a few GHz,) and the satellite. Many of these channels use encryption. HF is basically not used much because of the required antenna size, power, and limited channel capacity.

      HF has larger range (tens of thousands of km) but that is not always an advantage, especially among the military. That's why most of the radio links are V/UHF and microwave; they are harder to intercept, you need a satellite flying overhead. If the microwave link uses high gain antennas (which is not unusual) then most of the energy is in the beam, and not much is in side lobes. If you set up the link with two dishes and use just enough power to reliably communicate, radiation to the side will be far below the noise, especially if the satellite doesn't have a high gain antenna. Use CDMA to further make life difficult for the eavesdropper.

      So where the HF may be of use?

      Theory 1: The HF may be chosen because it is received all over the world.

      This is untrue. The HF propagation depends on many factors, such as time of the day and state of the ionosphere and the location of both ends of the link. Only the ground wave is stable, but it is limited to a couple hundred km radius. Since the messages are rare and not repeated for 24 hours, we can presume that the transmission is intended for receivers that are hearing the signal all the time. They can't be far away.

      Theory 2: The HF may be chosen because this is a beacon to monitor propagation conditions.

      This, IMO, is true. This explains the buzz - it is a convenient, simple signal that can be used to detect which way (around the planet) the signal is coming from (and also to see if you receive it from both directions.) The messages are of no consequence; they can be just a test of the microphone or of the entire system. Since there is no confirmation of reception of messages (which on HF is essential) I think the transmitter and the receiver had a parallel telephone link, and the receiving end reported over the telephone when the message was received. Perhaps the message itself was random. Some messages were clearly sent by a technical personnel from the transmitter room, not by a trained speaker in a studio.

      Most of the speculation about the messages themselves is also ridiculous. For example:

      The names used in the message are used in some Russian spelling alphabets, and spell out the first word - "naimina", which one commenter at the UVB-76 blog translated as "on names".

      This "translation" is wrong, the word "naimina" is random and has no meaning. This message can be anything. It was repeated twice within a minute. Any HF operator here can tell that you need to be pretty sure about the quality of your link to do that - the message was repeated only to allow the receiving end to check the message, not to tune to the signal or to fiddle with the filter or to rotate the antenna... (well, a beam antenna for 4 MHz would be large, but not impossible.)

      Some say the buzz is a "dead man's switch." It could be, but not likely. First of all, there are no backups, and any transmitter has to do down occasionally, at least for maintenance - 100 kW final stage is not a joke, you don't change vacuum tubes that are under live 25 kV. There could be a backup transmitter in the same building, of course, but even then there probably ar

    4. Re:Credibility? by zzsmirkzz · · Score: 1

      A real dead man switch would be encrypted, so that the attacker can't substitute his own data.

      My only issue with this statement is the assumption that the buzz contains no data and/or is not encrypted. I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what this station does or has been transmitting for decades but I've understood the assumption that has been repeated here a few times; that the buzz carries no data, only the messages do. This assumption could be wrong.

    5. Re:Credibility? by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wasn't sure what a "beacon station" was, so I looked around. I couldn't find the term "beacon station" but did come across "electric beacon" and "radio beacon".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_beacon

      So your guess is that the constant buzz is used for navigation? Maybe like a backup for GPS or other ways of navigating?

    6. Re:Credibility? by tftp · · Score: 1

      RF propagation beacon is a station that transmits a carrier (sometimes modulated) that is used to monitor propagation all over the world.

      http://www.dxzone.com/catalog/DX_Resources/Beacons/

    7. Re:Credibility? by black3d · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a digital signal, so it's not as if there are 1s and 0s in the buzz. While it would be trivial to hide a message inside a digital signal where the data is precise and any slight differentiation can be interpreted as a signal - in analog transmissions that's simply not the case. You cannot hide digital information in an analog transmission, unless it's a patently obvious signal such as spikes doing morse-code or something similar (unless it's an analog signal with a lot of noise such as an active music station or television signal, which can be used to disguise a possible "obvious" signal). However this is not the case with the buzz. It's been analysed constantly for years, and has always been a consistant sound, without fluctuations or changes. Until recently when it changed pitch and length.

      So, if it was transmitting "hidden" information in the buzz, then that information thus far can be decoded as several years of 1s followed by a few months of 0s. The process you're referring to is steganography, and using a constant buzzing would be the WORST way to hide a signal, but it's taking me too long to try and explain why.. Hopefully someone else can fill this in a little better. :)

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    8. Re:Credibility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wasn't the Russian Woodpecker originally assumed to be analog, but turns out to be a digital signal?

      Maybe I'm misunderstanding...

    9. Re:Credibility? by TE3EJ · · Score: 1

      The Russians still use a hell of a lot of HF. For the Russians it is tried and tested and an essential back-up for use in an EMP environment and especially with Morse Code. Their Morse networks are still very active.

      UVB-76 uses the same format for its flash priority codeword message as do the other Russian Military Networks.

      The clue is in the Russian Navy set up. Using fixed callsigns these have been easily identifiable for decades. Note the format of the Flash Message which is exactly the
      same as the flash codeword pattern on UVB-76.

      http://www.astrosol.ch/networksofthecisforces/navymorsenetworks/aboutmorsenetworks/index.html

      http://www.astrosol.ch/networksofthecisforces/navymorsenetworks/index.html

      The Russian Navy still use Morse to control their fleet of Naval Transport Aircraft.

      http://www.astrosol.ch/networksofthecisforces/navymorsenetworks/navalairtransportunits/index.html

      From

      http://www.astrosol.ch/index.html

      This flash codeword traffic is also noted on the Russian ELF and VLF networks

      http://www.vlf.it/zevs/zevs.htm

      See examples of codeword traffic intercepted on Russian Military networks by radio enthusiasts. Note the frequency range.

      http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl131/nsnl131mil.html

  8. And now the wonder is gone.... by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 0

    Good thing I got all my romanticized daydreaming out of the way yesterday, about what an enigma UVB-76 was, and how awesome it is that even as recently as 40 years ago we were creating "artifacts" that would remain mysteries into the modern day (and possibly forever). Thanks for ruining that for me.

  9. Dude by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 3, Funny

    re: "geography (Bong)"

    Is this code given out at 4:20?

    1. Re:Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re: "geography (Bong)"

      Is this code given out at 4:20?

      Dude have you ever tried to oppose capitalist pigs and overthrow the Bourgeoisie?

      Have you ever tried to oppose capitalist pigs and overthrow the Bourgeoisie ... while hiiiiiiigh ?

    2. Re:Dude by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Aw, damn, you screwed up the joke. The punchline is "ON WEEEEED?!?"

      cf Jon Stewart in Half Baked

  10. Saw you at Starbucks by nbauman · · Score: 5, Funny

    You: Gorgeous redhead, red dress, big brown eyes, smile like an angel.

    Me: Nerdy-looking guy in torn dungarees and blue T-shirt

    You came up to me in Starbucks at 47th St. and Eighth Ave. and said in a golden voice, "Excuse me, but haven't we met in California last year?"

    I said, "Uh, yeah. maybe."

    You turned around and disappeared on Eighth Ave.

    Please, please call me on UVB-76.

  11. Special Slashdot Memo #45543 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be an extremely slow news day when you have to copy the content from Wikipedia and
    UVB-76. Aren't there more interesting stories ( ie. Petraeus' admission of
    a U.S. negotiated settlement in Afghanistan) or were the Slashbot editors consumed with shorting their S & P 500 futures contracts?

    Yours In Minsk,
    Kilgore Trout

  12. In soviet russia by Rotten · · Score: 1

    In soviet Russia Speculations from wikipedia issue orders to you

    1. Re:In soviet russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're trying too hard.

      -Faust

    2. Re:In soviet russia by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Wikipedia, sources link to the article.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  13. Fuck You Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This shit is worse than the cesspool refuse that kdawson posts. Fuck you.

    1. Re:Fuck You Taco by Jeng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes I think stupid shit is posted just for us to poop on.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  14. Crowdsourced intelligence by mike449 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This particular submission may be crap, but the situation around UVB-76 demonstrates that it is becoming hard to keep any secrets on the shortwave band. There are thousands of listeners at any given time. And what is much more important, they now have the ability to record big chunks of spectrum and analyze it in a way that was only available to government agencies not long ago. $500 receiver (there are even sub-$100 DIY alternatives) and free software is all you need.
    The next big step is exchange of such information. It may be outright illegal (UK) or borderline legal (US) to tell other what you've heard, but people do this more and more on various forums. Now including /.

    1. Re:Crowdsourced intelligence by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except if you're using one use cyphers it doesn't matter how public the broadcast is or how much of the broadcast is recorded as long as the cypher remains secret.

    2. Re:Crowdsourced intelligence by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yu don't keep secret on the shortwave band, never had. You use it to broadcast coded messages.

      IT's been monitored by Hams forever. My grandfather listen to certain number stations in the 70s.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Crowdsourced intelligence by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You can keep secrets on ham bands and all shortwave bands. you just use channels not commonly in use and for short burst transmissions, stenography, hidden messages, etc...

      Heck, hide in plain sight. Broadcast your "secret" on a SLow Scan old WEather sattelite channel and imbed your information in the image of the earth from the last pass. Chances are that it will be ignored as nobody would say "Hey... that old sattelite went over for this pass already!"

      Hide in plain sight. works great.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Crowdsourced intelligence by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

      You don't even need a shortwave radio to listen in anymore. There are dozens of shortwave radios hooked up to web servers located all over the world running WebSDR, allowing anyone with an Internet connection and little to no knowledge of radios to hear this kind of stuff.

    5. Re:Crowdsourced intelligence by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Isn't that just what I posted?

      lets check:
      "You use it to broadcast coded messages."

      Why, there you go. Next time read pas the first 8 words.

      And sure, you could go through all those hopes..but instead, just use a one time pad or a variant.

      Hide in plain sight does not work for people who are trained to look in plain sight.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  15. UFOs explained by Phylarr · · Score: 1

    According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.

    No shit it's orders for Russian troops. The mystery remains: what orders?

    --
    "Choosing to refrain from producing another person demonstrates a profound love for all life" [vhemt.org]
    1. Re:UFOs explained by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.

      I am to understand that they occasionally flip out and kill people.

    2. Re:UFOs explained by dyingtolive · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.

      I am to understand that they occasionally flip out and kill people.

      Nah, those are Ninjas, not UFOs

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    3. Re:UFOs explained by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.

      I am to understand that they occasionally flip out and kill people.

      Nah, those are Ninjas, not UFOs

      Arrr, they be Pirates, not Ninjas, ye landlubber!

    4. Re:UFOs explained by butalearner · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.

      I am to understand that they occasionally flip out and kill people.

      Nah, those are Ninjas, not UFOs

      I'm not convinced anybody can tell the difference. Nobody that lived long enough to verify it, anyway.

    5. Re:UFOs explained by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They're Republicans who think the war they have isn't the war they want.

    6. Re:UFOs explained by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

      Well, it's safe to say that while ninjas are often UFOs, UFOs are rarely ninjas.

      --
      ad astra per alia porci
    7. Re:UFOs explained by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Some sources have pointed towards the possibility of a keep-alive signal for the Dead Hand system. The station broadcasts a tone at a regular interval (kinda like a ping). The messages might be one-time pads for other purposes (change of nuclear codes etc.). The fact that there have only been a handful of messages might suggest that this might only be used for emergency procedures. The recent increase in messages might have to do with the current political situation in Iran vs. the USA (where Russia is providing the nuclear material) or other things that are currently happening in Russia. It might also have to do with a sleeper cell spy network or something similar.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  16. Still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were having a discussion in Russian on the blog page, and the guy who was answering seems to believe that there are 15 levels divided into 6 zones each under the station.

    Definite fodder for the theorists among us. But yeah, seems to be another Numbers Station that we probably won't know anything about, seeing as it's 40ish clicks from Moscow, making it a protected installation.

    Pardon me... I have to go fashion my tin-foil hat.

  17. Seriously, if you want to keep a secret... by Primitive+Pete · · Score: 1

    ...don't broadcast it. "Secrets on the shortwave band" just seems like an oxymoron.

    1. Re:Seriously, if you want to keep a secret... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So uh, you've figured out the coded message then?
      No? It's almost like there's some secret here we haven't figured out. But, that can't be because it's on shortwave. Damn.

  18. I feel sorry by houghi · · Score: 2, Funny

    for the military personnel that will be executed just because somebody send them an order.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  19. That's why that guy in Salt Lake shot the server! by wiredog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was listening!

  20. UVB-76's real purpose revealed: by kheldan · · Score: 1

    It's actually a psychological attack on the West. The numbers and such are completely random and meaningless, they're trying to make all the amateur radio guys paranoid, chasing their own tails trying to figure out what it all means OMG TEH COMMIES!!!!11!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:UVB-76's real purpose revealed: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...amateur radio guys paranoid"

      You are being redundant.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:UVB-76's real purpose revealed: by vonart · · Score: 1

      It's not paranoia if they really /are/ out to broadcast coded messages at you. 73, K1PUP

      --
      The American Dream has too much grinding and the leveling makes no sense. -GameboyRMH (1153867)
    3. Re:UVB-76's real purpose revealed: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sure it is. Just becasue someone is uot to get you, doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.

      Is you think some is out to get you using invisible helicopter, then you are paranoid. Even if there are actual people out to get you.

      Or if you have a long standing mistrust of everyone. Then you are being paranoid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:UVB-76's real purpose revealed: by vonart · · Score: 1

      Well, you know what this means...

      My attempt at humor failed. Curses, foiled again!

      Admittedly, it wasn't very funny to begin with...

      --
      The American Dream has too much grinding and the leveling makes no sense. -GameboyRMH (1153867)
  21. Yo mean to say by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A military broadcast from a military base was for military personnel? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Yo mean to say by malakai · · Score: 1

      I read someplace, back when this station first stopped transmitting, how it had been tracked down within Russia to be a scientific installation. It's broadcast were used to measure some some sort of distortion or atmospheric change on radio waves, possibly coinciding with something to do with the sun. The frequency is broadcast on was even found registered in some book and referenced in some scientific papers published in the 70s/80s.

      I just spent about 15mins looking for the articles I read about this and I can't find them. The Google searches are filled with paranoia crap that didn't exist a few months ago when it first went silent.

    2. Re:Yo mean to say by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's where about are known, and it's on a military installation. 56458N 37522
      And yes, when ever something changes at a numbers station, the wackos pollute Google.

      It is THOUGHT that this was original a Dead Hand switch for a second strike. Meaning that if the US nuke the Soviets, the buzz would stop broadcasting and there Nuclear Launch would automatically happen. While it is a fact that Russia had these, it is unknown if this was one.

      dead Hand Was brought about buy the US arming Subs with Nukes that could get close enough to Russian soil where the attack would only take seconds instead of minutes. Send ICBMs over the caps would take enough time for the Soviets to launch.

      Sorry to ramble.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. Re:That's why that guy in Salt Lake shot the serve by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    That's why that guy in Salt Lake shot the server!

    Are you talking about this?

    That's hilarious. My favorite part is that he's getting charged for "carrying a dangerous weapon while under the influence" -- oh, sure, carry dangerous weapons all you want, but no drinking.

    Hell, I didn't even think you could drink in Utah. Might that not lead to dancing or something? :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. Occam says... by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Occam's Razor:

    Option A) The numbers station UVB-76, in operation for almost 30 years, was used solely to send a grand total of 23 military orders of very short length.

    Option B) The numbers station UVB-76, is used to fuck with the West. Military orders are broadcast on Russian cable TV.

    I have to say, I am leaning toward option B.

    1. Re:Occam says... by moogied · · Score: 1, Troll

      Two things. 1. ITS *WILLIAM* of Ockham. Ockham was his home. 2. Thats not what William's idea was. His idea was that the solution that has NO leaps is always correct. Both of your options require leaps of faith. You have no direct proof of a situation so you assume a likely story. We don't know its used for anything at all beyond transmitting a signal. So trying to answer that with no real evidence is directly going against William of Ockham's theory. In short, you used the wrong idea to present your argument.

      --
      So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
    2. Re:Occam says... by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Informative

      In reference to the razor, both spellings are correct.

      And BTW, learn how to read! Even wikipedia could have resolved your gross misunderstanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

      The requirement is not no leaps of faith, which would translate to, "nothing is ever correct unless it is already 100% proven." That would have been totally useless and never would get cited.

      No, instead, what he said was, "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Note the key word, "unnecessarily."

      The mhttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/08/26/159205/UVB-76-Explained#odern understanding of Occam's Razor is as Newton understood it: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

      Or in the words of another great person, "What a maroon!"

    3. Re:Occam says... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      They just sent 4 8 15 16 23 42

    4. Re:Occam says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, those are my lottery numbers chosen...

    5. Re:Occam says... by atomicthumbs · · Score: 1

      but we don't call him Leonardo of Vinci do we

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
    6. Re:Occam says... by dontbgay · · Score: 1

      With a sig like that, I'm aghast you'd ssubmit such a post.

      --
      Sig not found.
    7. Re:Occam says... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Option C) The simplest wrong answer is still wrong, and Occam’s Razor does not apply.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  24. correlation with solar events? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the end of the wiki suggests maybe this is related to ionosphere studies. Has anyone correlated this with solar activity? Two hypotheses to test: 1) people only poke the system when the solar activity is interesting or 2) high solar activity takes out some other form of comm and UVB is the backup channel.
     

  25. Military? by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This seems rather odd, broadcasting military orders in the clear. OK, they are using a code. So we don't know what they are saying. But military units usually have encrypted transceivers. If I were designing a military radio system, I would not include a clear broadcast mode to eliminate the possibility of some critical information going out that could be easily intercepted.

    I'm guessing that these broadcasts are targeted at people who can not reasonably be expected to carry secure radio gear with them. Like spys. In some countries, possessing crypto equipment can get you arrested. In many, it will attract undue attention. So they use shortwave. Everyone can get their hands on a shortwave receiver. And there's always the plausible deniability of tuning to BBC when you're not receiving orders.

    The continuity of the broadcasts can easily be explained as a method to thwart traffic analysis. Most of the stuff they broadcast is garbage, just to keep the traffic going. If one broadcasts only when orders are to be sent, then the enemy can deduce that something is afoot when traffic picks up. Its possible that UVB-76 may not have issued an order for years, but is being kept alive 'just in case'. If they only powered up the transmitter when they needed it, that would be a dead giveaway that sleeper agents were being activated.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Military? by bendodge · · Score: 1

      The continuity of the broadcasts can easily be explained as a method to thwart traffic analysis. Most of the stuff they broadcast is garbage, just to keep the traffic going. If one broadcasts only when orders are to be sent, then the enemy can deduce that something is afoot when traffic picks up. Its possible that UVB-76 may not have issued an order for years, but is being kept alive 'just in case'. If they only powered up the transmitter when they needed it, that would be a dead giveaway that sleeper agents were being activated.

      It also makes it really hard for the sleeper agents to know when they're being activated.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    2. Re:Military? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...targeted at people who can not reasonably be expected to carry secure radio gear...

      Don't forget, the signal is also streamed over the Internet. For those spies who cannot reasonably be expected to carry unsecure radio gear.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    3. Re:Military? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Yes, except they know what change to look for that means 'you've been activated' that pretty much everyone else will ignore or not notice.

      Just because it appears to be the same message broadcasting over and over again doesn't mean it is, it just means you haven't noticed a change. That doesn't mean the intended recipient didn't notice the signal, just that you didn't.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Military? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems rather odd, broadcasting military orders in the clear. OK, they are using a code. So we don't know what they are saying. But military units usually have encrypted transceivers. If I were designing a military radio system, I would not include a clear broadcast mode to eliminate the possibility of some critical information going out that could be easily intercepted.

      This isn't really odd at all. Until very recently the British Army used to use a similar system called Clansman. The system transmits in clear, though the operators were required to use BATCO to encrypt important information. (locations, orders, etc.)

      These systems are still being used in both the UK and some operational theatres as a fallback when the secure stuff fails.

    5. Re:Military? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      One time pads.

      Station are kept active to reserve the freq for their use.

      There is no difference between having a constant buzz, occasionally broken with a sequence, and restarting the broadcast with a sequence. In both cases, a pattern was broken.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Military? by gefafwysp · · Score: 1

      OK, they are using a code. So we don't know what they are saying.

      The code has been cracked - it turns out they were sending messages in Russian.

  26. Get out your TFHs by kelarius · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe that this numbers station is actually a countdown timer for the army of robots created by the soviets in the 80s. When the buzzing sounds end and another codephrase is sent the army will rise up from their vaults that were placed strategically around the world by traveling vacuum salesmen and spread the glorious message of communism, with lasers.

    I for one welcome our new robot overlords...

    --
    Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    1. Re:Get out your TFHs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet New World Order, robot overlord welcomes YOU!

  27. Ack by DG · · Score: 1

    As someone who has written his fair share of military orders over the years, and then subsequently transmitted them over a radio, this is highly unlikely to be a military orders station - and for one basic reason:

    An order broadcast into the aether is useless. An order must be confirmed as having been received and understood.

    Where's the "Ack"?

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Ack by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You'll get your ack when you see the mushroom cloud.

    2. Re:Ack by PPH · · Score: 1

      Where's the "Ack"?

      That's another good point. Spys will 'Ack' the message by drawing an 'X' on a mailbox somewhere. Their radio channel only has to be one way.

      The military 'Ack' will most likely be on the same system. But it will be encoded, encrypted, etc. Nobody wants a Russian tank crew near the Ukrainian border accidentally acknowledging the commencement of "Operation Reconquista" in the clear.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  28. Data in the tones? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    I doesn't seem like anyone has attempted to find digital data in the 'buzz' described in the article. If you look at this spectrograph, you'll see that the buzz consists of many discrete tones, not just a simple buzzing sound. This looks to me like an implementation of one of many multitone digital modes like MT63, MFSK16, Olivia, Throb, Piccolo, Domino, etc used on HF.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Data in the tones? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It looks to me like harmonics on a waveform with sharp corners (i.e., a buzz, not a beep).

      It certainly doesn't seem to have any pattern reminiscent of digital data, and given how long ago it started, and how susceptible the signal is to amplitude noise, I highly doubt they were using multi-valued bits in the encoding.

    2. Re:Data in the tones? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Agreed it looks like harmonics, but they have changed the buzz over the years. It would be interesting to analyze a few hours/days/years of it to see if there are changes in the pattern. Of course I'd have to look for phase changes as well as bits going missing.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    3. Re:Data in the tones? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      I'd bet they'd expect the NSA to be all over that sort of thing, and the pulse-width modulation as well.

      So I'd expect they wouldn't bother. The buzz could just be there to be different from the numbers, making it easy for a recording receiver to record days of info then play back as a high-pitched (or ultrasonic) whine, from which any spoken transmissions would stand out clearly. The spoken numbers are probably the coded info most of the time, and the worded announcements likely convey information the code in the numbers couldn't, like telling agents which new codebook to use in case they'd lost the use of the old one, or making it abundantly clear that something has to happen immediately without bothering to decode the numbers.

      Pretty basic communications-theory stuff regarding noise and synchronization over a carrier that's simple to access from almost anywhere. In fact, I wonder what parts of the Earth it doesn't reach.

  29. Analysis of tones? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    OK, the submission is a pile of BS, but it's a good place to discuss UVB-76. So...

    I have been wondering if anyone has looked at the frequency of the beeps themselves. They're about a second or two apart, but do they vary at all? It occurs to me that the average beat timing could be a carrier, and a (very slow) frequency modulation on top of it would be a subtle way to inject other messages.

    Anyone?

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Analysis of tones? by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 1

      It's changed a few times, but it has essentially just been broadcasting the same thing for decades, excepting the spoken word transmissions.

      Subtle encoding are completely useless for number stations, so it's unlikely it does that anyway. The point of number stations is that they broadcast to huge areas using shortwave, in easily recordable formats. This way, agents in foreign territory can use basic shortwave radios that can be found anywhere, and decode the messages using the one-time pads they are issued with. This method of encryption is impossible to break, and can be done with essentially no equipment.

    2. Re:Analysis of tones? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      No, I realise all of that--I've been following the numbers stations for years.
      The thing is, UVB-76 has always been a bit of an anomaly, since it's _not_ broadcasting obvious information 99.9% of the time. It's bugged me for a long time that this station has been broadcasting for 30 YEARS, and has only had about 90 seconds of useful information. That's some serious overkill there!

      Now it may be that it's being used primarily for ionosphere research, and is usurped by the government for important messages. It could also be that the tone is a placeholder, just to keep people from using that frequency. Still, either of those mean that only five or six times in the known history of this station, have there been events important enough to use it for transmitting military information.

      Furthermore, those verbal broadcasts don't appear to be OTP-encoded strings. They appear to at least partly be in plaintext (but entirely without context).

      How about saying that the average period is 2.4 sec. 2.5 sec could be a dash or a one (depending on whether Morse code or binary was being used), and 2.3 sec could be a dot or a zero. That would be easy enough to decode with a digital counter or even a good metronome and a sharp ear. If that was being done, then suddenly we've be looking at 30 years of real data, not 90 seconds of it.

      Easy enough to test, but I don't have a counter or metronome at hand. I'm just curious if anyone has done an investigation into the timing of the blats.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    3. Re:Analysis of tones? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      That's a better guess than the spectographic analysis. FM is far less susceptible to noise. And you could easily build a pulse-timing receiver out of parts you find at Radio Shack.

      But that limits your activities to places with stores like Radio Shack (or akihabara).

    4. Re:Analysis of tones? by tftp · · Score: 1

      How about saying that the average period is 2.4 sec. 2.5 sec could be a dash or a one (depending on whether Morse code or binary was being used), and 2.3 sec could be a dot or a zero. That would be easy enough to decode with a digital counter or even a good metronome and a sharp ear.

      First of all, I dare you to reliably tell the difference between 2.3 and 2.5 seconds in an HF signal. There is a good reason why Morse code uses 3:1 length ratio of elements. Some straight key operators like to increase it to as high as 4:1. Even worse, while it's hard for the intended recipient to receive the signal, it's very easy for the eavesdropper, who has computers, recorders and everything else. This doesn't make any sense.

      Secondly, there is no reason for the numbers station to obscure its nature. If anything, UVB-76 attracts more attention than any numbers station just because it is so unusual.

      is usurped by the government for important messages

      As I (and others) said earlier, important messages are not broadcast into aether just once, with no confirmation and no authentication. Do you think the military will execute a nuclear launch order just because they heard a short message on a radio? I'm sure that order would have to come over three different channels, and it would be heavily encrypted and authenticated. Besides, most of nuclear installations are fixed objects, so they already have multiple fiber (and other) links to receive such a message.

      I'd rather think those messages are just a practical joke. Or it could be a low importance broadcast related to expected propagation conditions.

    5. Re:Analysis of tones? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Thought I replied to this yesterday.

      Anyways, while it's very difficult to tell the difference between 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 second intervals by ear, it's easy to do comparative tests.

      Set up a metronome at exactly 2.4sec period and sync it to the pulses. Then as the message comes in, you only have to determine if the tone is before or after the tick of the metronome. For comparisons like this, 1/10 second is a pretty easy interval.

      Just tossing out random thoughts. However, I can't believe that it's a practical joke. It's too expensive to run a broadcasting station for 30 years as a joke.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    6. Re:Analysis of tones? by tftp · · Score: 1

      However, I can't believe that it's a practical joke. It's too expensive to run a broadcasting station for 30 years as a joke.

      The "joke" part was about voice messages, not about the buzz itself. The GRU would love to task its counterparts in the USA, UK and elsewhere with an impossible challenge, at cost of merely calling someone and ordering him, once in several years, to transmit a certain nonsense message. The structure of the message suggests use of a code book, and with so few messages they can't be correlated with anything else (if they were for real; distractors would be always random.)

      The buzz itself is probably useful enough to justify the power and the maintenance of three transmitters (like this one, looks like in this photo though the photo shows a different transmitter.)

      Set up a metronome at exactly 2.4sec period and sync it to the pulses. Then as the message comes in, you only have to determine if the tone is before or after the tick of the metronome.

      I'm not sure how a spy, if he is not a musician, can explain the metronome :-) Anyway, I see your method, and indeed with careful selection of phase shifts on the transmitter side it would be possible, kind of, to demodulate by hand. But as I mentioned earlier, this "secret" will not hold for more than several minutes in hands of NSA because phase modulation is very common, and they'd be specifically looking for this. Many people specifically mentioned in this thread that the signal was analyzed to death and nobody was able to find anything of value in it.

      There is another catch with this partially concealed phase modulation thing. It's dog slow. You can transmit only a few bits per minute; at most, assuming an ideal receiver, you can transmit about 25 bits per minute. This isn't much by anyone's standards. A spy, to receive a highly condensed all-caps message of 100 characters at the rate of 10 phase shifts per minute (5 bits assuming Manchester coding,) would need to listen for 100 minutes, assuming that he copied everything the first time. I'm unsure if any spy can afford to spend that much time glued to the radio.

      If the signal is encrypted and NOT intended for spies but instead is electronically decoded, then the signal - such as the dead man switch - must be modulated clearly enough so that when someone in a city 100 miles away plugs a shaver in this doesn't start the World War III.

  30. scramble it for f* sake! by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...don't broadcast it. "Secrets on the shortwave band" just seems like an oxymoron.

    Ever heard of something called a cipher? Or stenography? A combination of both?

    1. Re:scramble it for f* sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think some of the "buzzes" aren't burst transmissions of morse code?

      How often does Russia have to burn a high-level agent? For all we know, these messages are naming intelligence assets to no longer be trusted, or telling agents they have been compromised.

      Someone in deep, in the field, might not know that their handler/supervisor has been discredited. A one-way link from Moscow to the agents in the field could tell them not to trust their contact, to ignore his orders, etc. A rare event, one-way communication by pre-arranged codes, sent from a central authority (so they would be hard to forge or conceal). ("Everybody who works for Simon ought to know he is no longer authorized to give orders. Do not trust him" type messages)

      Then again, just about any uncommon pre-arranged instruction could be contained in this. Not complicated orders, but "go" orders, as in "that mission we talked about years ago, on page XYZ.... has been authorized." Other things might make sense, such as: "Agent 78, we haven't heard from you for a while, time to check in," etc.

      Other possibilities:
      1) Prank. Someone with access to the facility just read the conspiracy theories on teh intarweb, and decided to provoke more.
      2) Accidental transmissions. The messages that occasionally go out are intended to be sent on some other channel, but a) bureaucracy/paperwork mixups (typo or crossed signal causes message to be sent by wrong channel), or b) sometimes when Ivan gets drunk he presses the button on the wrong microphone when he sends the regular message.
      3) Automated station - if it is set up as a repeater/automated transmitter, maybe it accidentally picks up some other signal and broadcasts that too, (i.e. the old "wireless microphone picking up the fast food drive-through intercom")

      Does anyone know of messages in a similar format being sent elsewhere? If the message length and syntax looked like broadcasts on some other medium, it would be a big clue. (What are the odds they would go to the trouble of coming up with a complicated message format, and not reuse it?)

  31. Deciphering the Code by tobiah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The codes read out on UVB-76 are a bunch of unrelated words and numbers, which reminds me of the codes we'd use back when I played rugby, and similar to how baseball codes work. Most of the content of our calls were nonsense, thrown in to confuse it. We'd designate ahead of time, for example, that the third and fifth words were the meaningful ones, or simply mix in non-code words with the codes, although there was always some syntax (order mattered). Similarly we'd memorize calls our opponents used in lineouts and scrums, and try to parse them out at halftime. A halftime code crack almost always meant winning the game by a good margin.

    So my guess is that not all of the UVB-76 code is meaningful, but there's an underlying template which is probably switched between transmissions. Still crackable, but can it be cracked before the game is over?

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Deciphering the Code by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      You know, you lost most of us here at 'rugby'; here we work better with car analogies...

      Oh and you played rugby? GUARDS! Seize him!

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    2. Re:Deciphering the Code by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      UVB-76, unlike sports playbooks, is probably not crackable actually. The methodology you're describing is similar to one-time pads or code books. There are two ways to crack it:

      1. Monitor enough messages to be able to do statistical analysis and decipher any patterns (not possible with true one-time pads)
      2. Correlate monitored instructions with the resulting actions of the recipient
      3. Get a copy or reverse engineer the codebook

      Cracking sport playbook codes is a great example. You were able to reverse-engineer their basic "code book", as most plays in any particular sport are well understood across teams. You were able to monitor the coded instructions and correlate them against the carried out orders. You also had the benefit of statistical analysis. Two different calls with the same resulting play gives you the pattern.

      You're right that it's very likely that UVB-76 is using a similar methodolgy to sports teams if it is broadcasting covert information. A codebook is amost certainly involved. However cracking the meaning of its messages is nearly impossible because

      1. Russian/Soviet intelligence is very smart and almost certainly using a true one-time pad, making a crackable common pattern between messages unlikely
      2. Extremely few transmissions (a handful spread over decades) means source material for statistical pattern analysis is very limited
      3. There are roughly 6 billion potential recipients of the messages - who's actions are a result of the transmission?
      4. Few clues as to what realm of information is being transmitted. "Spy Stuff" is a very vague term that encompasses literally every human behavior

      If UVB-76 is transmitting covert data, they are certainly doing it in very sophisticated ways and the only way it will be cracked is if there is a human mistake or revelation.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    3. Re:Deciphering the Code by billybacs · · Score: 0

      That's great; I wish my team had done that. We had two people who tried it, but we'd never figure anything meaningful until halfway through the 2nd half, so the "knowledge" didn't do much until we got some subs in.

  32. New version of CRM-114 by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    UVB-76 must be the new and improved version of the CRM-114.

    Peace On Earth

  33. Might that not lead to dancing or something? by wiredog · · Score: 1

    Well, "Footloose" was filmed there...

  34. Ever heard of Tempest? Covert timing channels? by Primitive+Pete · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I have, and they don't change the fact that exposing information to people that don't need it is just stupid. You can avoid the risks of having your message decrypted or extracted by not exposing it to attack. You can avoid hostile signal analysis by not sending. Often, a recipient doesn't need to know the specific content of a message--just the simple fact that it was sent is useful, potentially damaging information. Ever heard of Tempest? Covert timing channels? Or a combination of both?

  35. So what are we being distracted from watching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously... this must be a red herring. By paying attention to this stupid thing, we are missing the the real information. using such a well known radio transmission for anything real makes about as much sense as robbing a bank after you have given them your account information.

  36. John Le Carré: A perfect spy by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

    I think you've been reading too much Le Carré. Time to file away that old copy of Grimmelshausen.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  37. Re:Nothings confirmed... UZB-76 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the Geocities article is in reference to UZB-76, not UVB-76.

  38. Censorship of tags? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An hour or something ago there were good and significant tags attached to this story like "!explained". Now it's vacuous blah blah like "encryption". Is there some sort of censorship going on?

  39. That station is sending a slow DoS attack by Suomi-Poika · · Score: 1

    When I read the Wikipedia article the first thing I thought was that it would be great way to hog resources from *other* spy agencies. Like MI6 and CIA. It makes a lot of sense financially, operating a station like UVB-76 is cheap in Russia! They are using Soviet-era transmitters and those are built to last. Most likely the operating costs of that station consist mainly the electricity and wages of couple technicians who maintain the equipment and the facility itself. Perhaps the electricity is free for military installations in Russia so all they have to do is to recycle some 40 year old spare parts and pay $15k per year for a couple of technicians. That would make UVB-76 operating costs less than $100k per year!

    Let me guess what the other side is doing: it is more than likely that each "number station" has its own department in western spy agencies which employs at least ten people. I don't think that they are working with the beginners salary, most likely those men and women have a lot of experience and their wages are somewhere between $80k-$150k per year. The information they produce from that complete nonsense is still nonsense, yet it is also hogging resources when it is passed to the higher levels on their agencies. See the equation now? Every rouble that is spent keeping that station on air is converted directly to negative USD, Euro and Pound at the same time. There is no risk losing any agents or secrets and yet they know that some bright minds are completely tied on that nonsense, now what could be better way to literally *attack* other spy agencies?

    Running a number station is a very effective way to employ the *other* side and bleed their resources from the real business that is going on that shadowy world of theirs.

    1. Re:That station is sending a slow DoS attack by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      All that you say is true. But the allies are using them too, so if it's all an elaborate cost-eating bluff, everyone's eating each other's budgets.

      Also, if you're going to go to the effort of setting up stations and you can distribute one-time-pads, then why _not_ use it for actual data transmission? You're then depleting your enemies' resources, transmitting information, and staying secure (OTP) all at the same time.

      Also, number stations have been implicated in spy cases in the past. Look up the Atencion numbers station case.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  40. Lottery Numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it be bad idea to play the numbers in these transmissions as my lottery numbers?

  41. Maybe it's function is for... by cjjjer · · Score: 1
  42. Cheap shortwave to wikipedia converter by krilid · · Score: 1

    The purpose is quite straightforward, anything spoken into the uvb-76 mic is automatically posted to wikipedia within 24 hours, it's like a russian Twitter.

  43. maybe... by kodomo · · Score: 1

    Skynet emerged from a VB Trojan in a very infected PC.

  44. And so the world turns by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    If so, Slashdot is not the only organization that does it. Fox broadcasts American Idol, and a thousand Slashdotters complain about how it demonstrates the emptiness of American culture. Fox News broadcasts easily parodied "news" and a million Daily Show viewers laugh at how dumb and desperate American conservatives are. In the meantime, the owners of News Corp are carrying out their real mission with little notice.

  45. This post was so funny..... by metasonix · · Score: 1

    ....that I started a thread about it on Wikipedia Review.

    Mr. Malda, you're not as smart as you think you are.

  46. My take on it. by Arimus · · Score: 1

    Final proof someone in the Russian military has a good sense of humour, they saw their nice ionosphere sounder and thought... "hm we could broadcast a code on this which means nothing... and watch the rest of the world (including our own sigint) spend decades trying to work out what it means"

    One day it will broadcast... "fooled you!" then go silent for the rest of time...

    (Either that or someone started the programme off and left a note saying do not turn off. Only problem was they forgot to put that they only meant do not turn off for a few days as a soak test)

    --
    --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  47. The Buzzer by CargoCult · · Score: 1

    You can listen to the Conet Project's recording of the station here : http://irdial.hyperreal.org/the%20conet%20project/disc%204/tcp_d4_32_the_buzzer_irdial.mp3

    Entertaining listen...

    --
    **Vanuatu or bust**
  48. Wikipedia became word of God or something? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    I really think you should re-consider using Wikipedia as "the only trustable source", especially regarding deep/dark stuff like that. Imagine that, it is a culture which have people living like a normal guy with family for decades until "activated".

    These "signal stations" is something really deep and all agreed that these things are in use by elite spies, simply unbreakable "one time pad" crypto using military and high level CIA etc. guys.

    They also go/up down, seemingly random. If something is brought back to life in a particular area, people have reason to get a bit paranoid.

  49. uh... you always assume Oscar can see your signal by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1
    This is just silly. The premise of tempest is on the detection of compromising signals. Just because it is in the air, it doesn't mean it is easily compromised. You still have to mount an effort in cryptanalysis to find the key (or keys)... and this assuming you are able to determine what an analyzable piece of cyphertext is like (let alone a known plaintext).

    Side channel attacks are applicable to any form of communication, either on the airwaves or by hacking into a system and get timing information from CPU spikes (assuming you can tap into the encrypting hardware). Cryptanalysis is cryptanalysis no matter the medium, and it won't do you any good to just stare or sample the signal (not unless the signal is using a poorly chosen cipher). You need a few more pieces to get the cracking going.

    Yes, communication is secure the most when it does not take place. But that's an oxymoron statement of security. When you have (and you must at some point), it won't deter you just because of the possibility Oscar is listening, will it?

    You always assume the attacker knows the encryption/decryption algorithms; you always assume the channel can be tapped; and you always assume the attacker can get a piece of plain text and its matching cipher text. Always. You never rely on the physical isolation of the channel.

    You rely on the key. You will a good cipher resistant to plain text and cipher text attacks (according to your security needs); you will use a *good* key, and you will secure it (security is always in the key).

    If the safety of your encrypted channel depends fundamentally on the insulation of your signal, there is something wrong with your security mechanism.

  50. One time pad, even aliens can't decryipt by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Number stations work in a very different way than you may think. It is close to the way Bin Laden is said to communicate with his cells. You know, if he really uses basic "snail mail" carried with donkeys, good luck with your satellites.

    Only 2 guys on whole universe can understand the message. Sender and receiver as they are the only ones who knows/have access to the particular "one time pad" used.

    It doesn't really matter how many billions of people can have a SW radio. There is no computer/technology to break it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_time_pad

  51. gps in the caspian sea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The third voice message has what may be a gps location in the Caspian Sea
    Nuclear sub?

  52. Re:**** You Taco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh.

    I don't know about you but at least I enjoyed the article and the discussion here, which is the top reason I read Slashdot. This is (or was) his project after all, he can do whatever he wants. If the quality of submissions matter to you, why don't you submit something more relevant stories yourself?

  53. That happens by saibot834 · · Score: 1

    That actually happens. See this story and this infographic.

  54. Pictures from inside of UVB-76 (???) by insignificant · · Score: 1

    For all the curious types. Here is a series of pictures claiming to be from inside of the UVB-76 station. The authenticity is not guarranteed and readinbg the Russian inscriptions on the pictures does not provide any hard evidence it actually is the station. It might be any old military/comms building of the days long gone. Some inscriptions have been redacted... which still does not prove anything. See for yourselves: http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2010/08/28/inside-the-mysterious-uvb-76-station -- insignificant

  55. The Buzzer - My take on it by TE3EJ · · Score: 1

    The institute webpage that features the Buzzer frequency is simply using a constant known signal that is transmitted on 4625 khz. The buzzer has been transmitted on that frequency for decades as is a standard set frequency and know quantity. The institute is simply using it as a set and unvariable standard. The purpose of UVB-76 is a simple and effective command and control broadcast. The frequency used as constant indicates its purpose is within the Moscow Oblast region. If it used higher HF or regularly switched for propagation conditions then it would serve a purpose outside the region that it is located.

    UVB-76 is not the only Russian command and control broadcast that utilises a unique and constant carrier in order to keep the frequency maintained and open. These other known broadcast networks are regularly active in the same codeword message format exhibited by UVB-76. The clue is in the traffic sent. The only mystery about UVB-76 is that the codewords broadcast are few and infrequent compared to others.

    All the Russian broadcasts follow the same pattern with their codeword and priority traffic. The carrier is interupted and the codeword is sent. Note the codeword traffic sent on UVB-76

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVB-76

    Note the codeword format used. UVB-76 93 882 NAIMINA 74 14 35 74

    It is exactly the same format as used on other Russian military networks in both Morse and Voice.

    Dedicated radio enthusiasts have been monitoring these Russian Military networks for years and building up the picture. It is a tried and tested, simple and effective command and control system used by all Russian forces. This includes the Russian Civil Defense network now superseded by the Ministry of Emergency Situations in the 1990s.

    The flash message pattern as transmitted on UVB-76 follow the same format as observed on other Russian networks. The same format is used on the other Russian voice networks such as 'Squeaky Wheel' and 'The Pip'. See later links.

    Example of Morse codeword traffic

    RCV 43243 SHOLAST 5301 3473

    REA4 01293 BALANVA 1958 4088

    RDL 82024 75205 BROMNYJ 1346 1872

    http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl133/nsnl133mil.html

    http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl129/nsnl129mil.html

    http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl105/nsnl105mil.html

    As you can see the frequency range covers all the the HF band. Note the VLF transmissions in order to broadcast to submerged submarines. One of the most active carrier maintained stations is REA4. Unlike UVB-76 is utilises a number of HF frequencies. The frequencies in use are maintained with revolutions. REA4 is probably the most active Russian Morse broadcast that regularly sends flash priority traffic in the same format as UVB-76. The radio enthusiasts who monitor the Russian networks regularly note the codeword activity being passed over the networks within an active time frame. Passed down from a broadcast and noted on simplex and complex networks with outstations repeating back the codewords in order for the control to verify correct receipt.

    You can see from Russian radio scanner forum that some of the Russian conscripts knew of the Buzzer being set up on their radios. The radios were located in military bases in the Moscow Defence Region and fulfilled an emergency communications system.

    http://www.radioscanner.ru/forum/topic12415.html

    Remember that the Buzzer isn't the only broadcast station in Russia that sends out the same format voice messages. Other stations such as the 'Squeaky Wheel' and 'The Pip' also function in the same manner.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8LQMDQAoVk

    The Squeaky wheel