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."

35 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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)

    6. 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.

    7. 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?
    8. 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
  2. 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.
  3. That recipe by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

    for borscht just got a whole lot sexier.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  4. 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 SleazyRidr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, there's still Fox News.

    2. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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 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

    2. 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
  7. Dude by jewishbaconzombies · · Score: 3, Funny

    re: "geography (Bong)"

    Is this code given out at 4:20?

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 /.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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 -
  19. 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