Hackers Briefly Controlled US Government Satellites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers Briefly Controlled US Government Satellites

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 27, 2011 @05:42AM from the this-is-the-part-they're-telling-us-about dept.

Orome1 writes "Two U.S. satellites have been tampered with by hackers — possibly Chinese ones — in 2007 and 2008, claims a soon-to-be released report by the the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The two satellites, Landsat-7 and Terra AM-1, had been interfered with on four separate occasions, allowing the attackers to be in command of the satellites for two to over twelve minutes each time. Luckily, both of the satellites are used only for observing the Earth's climate and terrain, and the hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way."

261 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

WTF! by GregC63 · 2011-10-27 05:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

WTF!
1. Re:WTF! by jhoegl · 2011-10-27 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  I like how there is a subtle implication of Chinas involvement because they may have made them.
  
  What... people really yearn for the good ole days of the Cold war or something?
  That and our doublestandard that we have come to enjoy... China sucks, they take all our jobs, all our money, and are growing at a crazy pace, so they are evil.
  But lets buy from them anyways... what?
2. Re:WTF! by Lumpy · 2011-10-27 06:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  WTF? it's not hard to start messing with a satellite C&C. IT's not like they are on the internet and the older ones have completely open interfaces.
  All it takes is a PC with a sound card, custom software, and some ham radio gear and a nice big antenna array. if you can overwhelm the C&C signal from the main control point you can certainly start messing with it, non GEOSYNC birds typically are only communicated with when needed so it's easy to just contact it and send a command.
  Hell if a hacker made a big enough antenna array they can screw with Mars rovers.
  A little bit of education in how things you rely on work will turn your WTF! into a DUH!. mostly because most older satellites don't even require a username and password to connect and control it.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
3. Re:WTF! by h5inz · 2011-10-27 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  May somebody please explain why this dude got modded down? The fact that there was one sentence that almost suggested that there was no misuse, was indeed worth of being ridiculed.
4. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  You made me smile reading this post. I want to know more.
5. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:51 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I refuse to buy any made in China product. China's government is hostile towards the US (and towards other nations). All loyal Americans boycott China.
6. Re:WTF! by MichaelKristopeit420 · 2011-10-27 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  this site is run and moderated by ignorant hypocrites who game the system to their own ends.
  slashdot = stagnated.
7. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. Simple was more reliable. Although the old Navsats used a challenge answer sequence to udate kepler readout. Still with enough power you could always knock them offline.
8. Re:WTF! by greentshirt · 2011-10-27 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  All it takes to go to the moon is a government who's willing to fund the project, some custom software, a national space program and communication. Hell if you build a big enough antenna array you can even send a rover to Mars.
9. Re:WTF! by Culture20 · 2011-10-27 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn't modded down, his Karma is poor because he's one of the 400 MichaelKristopeit clones that insults everyone for using pseudonyms when he clearly stole the name MichaelKristopeit from some poor schlub.
10. Re:WTF! by instagib · 2011-10-27 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Why getting worked up over moderation? Browse at -1 and be done with it. Also, threads make more sense this way.
11. Re:WTF! by mug+funky · 2011-10-27 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  browsing at anything higher would deny your own existence :)
12. Re:WTF! by mug+funky · 2011-10-27 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  that's all well and good, but so long as the majority don't care enough to also boycott, nothing will change.
  and it's our bosses that decide it's cheaper to do it overseas... and they're correct in that decision.
  i'm increasingly of the opinion that outsourcing to countries with cheap labour is actually capitalism's version of communism. it's raising the standard of living in the cheap countries and lowering it at home. when the standard has raised to the point that it's no longer competitive to outsource there, they find somewhere cheaper.
  china is outsourcing a big chunk of it's clothing business to various African countries. you'll be surprised to find "made in China" may actually be a lie.
  china wont be the world's factory for long - its skill set and wages are increasing very fast.
  is this a bad thing or a good thing? certainly it's bad for us 1%'ers. it's most likely very bad for the global environment, but in the medium term at least it's good for the majority of people.
13. Re:WTF! by MichaelKristopeit506 · 2011-10-27 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  you're an idiot.
  cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen malodorous drinkware based pseudonym, feeb.
  you're completely pathetic.
14. Re:WTF! by LongearedBat · 2011-10-27 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so that's how come super villains manage to hijack satellites so often.
  
  ;)
15. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI
16. Re:WTF! by digitalchinky · 2011-10-27 19:31 · Score: 2
  
  Being a former ELINT drone of many years I'd like to point out one aspect where you are quite wrong Lumpy - the C&C uplinks for near on every bird launched in the last 15 years are encrypted and use quite a few layers of security beyond that to authenticate command and control codes, particularly so for those owned and operated by the US. Not only that but pretty much all of them use entirely different line codes (for want of a better term) so it's not like there is a published standard methodology one can follow to 'own' one.
  A little bit of education on the subject would certainly reveal that you can indeed beam a signal out to the Clark belt using cheap off the shelf kit these days, but there is no way in hell the average individual is going to pull this off without some serious know how and a lot of leg work to intercept and analyze the uplink.
  I think you are confused between C&C and simply relaying a signal across a transponder, the latter having no security at all in just about every instance, the former being secure as hell in the majority.
17. Re:WTF! by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-27 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  people really yearn for the good ole days of the Cold war or something?
  Yes, they do. Neocons believe that people need fear to behave well. Back in the 1950s fear of God was decreasing, but fortunately the cold war was there to take his place. Once the cold war ended there was a vacuum, which was eventually filled by Islamic terrorism. The same tactic was used in Nazi Germany. Tell people they are being attack, keep them afraid and you can control them.
  Beyond that the cold war was good for business. Billions pumped into R&D, new weapons, space technology, expanding the military... It took us to the moon and gave us the Internet. The best part is that now the war is against terrorism and China there is little chance of the US being nuked.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
18. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 23:39 · Score: 0
  
  Err, you're trolling with different Slashdot usernames and you're calling the other guy pathetic? Man, go look in a mirror if there's one in your mom's basement.
  Seriously, what you're doing here is futile. Like everyone else you'll fade away and no one will recall your presence. You're not memorable or witty.
  You may have issues. Go see a counsellor or a therapist.
19. Re:WTF! by robthebloke · 2011-10-28 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was half expecting "posted from my iPhone" at the end of that comment....
20. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-28 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  He wasn't modded down, his Karma is poor because he's one of the 400 MichaelKristopeit clones that insults everyone
  Well, I don't call him Michael Kristodipshit for being such a jolly good fellow.
  
  he clearly stole the name MichaelKristopeit from some poor schlub
  No, I'm reasonably certain that's really Michael Kristopeit.
  Him and Alexander Peter Kowalski are the only two trolls I can think of which I wouldn't be at all sympathetic or upset if anything bad were to befall them.
21. Re:WTF! by MichaelKristopeit506 · 2011-10-28 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  ur mum's face may have issues.
  prescribing medical treatment without a license is a felony. you are a criminal.
  cower in my shadow some more, feeb.
  you're completely pathetic.
22. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-28 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Kill yourself.
  Medical disclaimer: The information presented in this post is not meant to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. Talk to your doctor, pharmacist, or health care professional before starting any exercise program.
23. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-31 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Have you taken the state bar association's exam to be licensed to practice law in Wisconsin? Are you employed as a judge in any local, state, or federal jurisdiction? What ability do you have to convict someone of a felony? None, you're nothing but a neer-do-well armchair quarterback. Go back to Wikipedia, because you seem to know even less about practicing law than the AC above knows about prescribing medical treatment.
24. Re:WTF! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-01 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  you're still here, blathering your ignorance of the law for everyone to read? if you watch someone murder someone else unprovoked, they're not a felon until they're convicted.
  you don't cast enough of a shadow for me to cower in. you are, truly, completely pathetic.
No death ray. by www.sorehands.com · 2011-10-27 05:45 · Score: 1

Of course, they would have told us of the hackers took control of the satellites that had the death rays. Oh, never mind, they told us that those satellites don't exist.
Except, we have a house full of popcorn that says otherwise.

--
Fight Spammers!
1. Re:No death ray. by ackthpt · 2011-10-27 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, they would have told us of the hackers took control of the satellites that had the death rays. Oh, never mind, they told us that those satellites don't exist.
  Except, we have a house full of popcorn that says otherwise.
  Title: Hacker
  Publisher: Activision
  Year: 1985
  Player attempts to take over robot to gather information to save world, and has to intereact with a security satellite.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:No death ray. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Real Genius. '85.
3. Re:No death ray. by Pope · 2011-10-27 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus? Is that really you?
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
4. Re:No death ray. by www.sorehands.com · 2011-10-27 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes it is me Kent.
  Stop touching yourself.
  
  --
  Fight Spammers!
Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:46 · Score: 1

I get it now, the Chinese don't want us to know that global warming is their fault!
1. Re:Global Warming by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  China is only consuming about half as much oil as the US - assuming oil/energy production and consumption play a major role in global warming. On the other hand, most of that consumption is being done to produce goods to be shipped to the US and Europe. Can you really blame someone for bleeding if you're the one that cut them?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Global Warming by X0563511 · 2011-10-27 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Look at you, bleeding all over the carpet. How rude of you! You could at least go bleed on the tile!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  But darn it all... they got us beat in the coal consumption. /shucks
4. Re:Global Warming by spitzak · 2011-10-27 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  China is burning a lot of coal
5. Re:Global Warming by egamma · 2011-10-27 06:30 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  China is only consuming about half as much oil as the US - assuming oil/energy production and consumption play a major role in global warming. On the other hand, most of that consumption is being done to produce goods to be shipped to the US and Europe. Can you really blame someone for bleeding if you're the one that cut them?
  Quite true--we are outsourcing our production to them. The Chinese government could have chosen to put stronger (or any) pollution controls in place, however. So much for communism being about the people.
  
  --
  Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
6. Re:Global Warming by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Pollution controls increase the cost of manufacturing, which means you wouldn't be using them to outsource production. It's a catch-22.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
7. Re:Global Warming by Dishevel · 2011-10-27 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  And much of their coal burning is done in a dirtier way than in the US.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
8. Re:Global Warming by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, I'm fine with never ever buying something with "Made in China" written on it. Take away that excuse. Its a race to the bottom anyway - one race I don't want to win.
  Mean while, ironic how China blames us for not being careful with finances.... Um, we got rid of our manufacturing sector and we are buying all your cheap plastic junk, what more do they want from us?
  Other irony - the only power tools sold in Home Depot that are made in the USA are built by Makita!!!!
9. Re:Global Warming by Idbar · 2011-10-27 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Or they wanted to know if the US was hiding something and mandating other countries while not being an example. It all depends on perspective.
10. Re:Global Warming by cavreader · 2011-10-27 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  For a country that has gotten rid of their manufacturing how come they are still ranked is #1?
Pardon me, but by chispito · 2011-10-27 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

the hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
Can we agree that that hacking into a satellite is, by definition, misuse? That there is no proper use in this scenario?

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
1. Re:Pardon me, but by alphatel · 2011-10-27 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever I hack into a US observational satellite I get bored because you can't do anything cool with them. I did get a nice picture of Emily Blunt naked on Mount Everest though.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
2. Re:Pardon me, but by Spy+Handler · 2011-10-27 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  no, anything is possible. I mean, sure in this case the satellites were being used for innocuous purposes (weather observation), but suppose they were being used to spy on someone prior to assasination, or something like that. Would it be unethical to hack into a satellite to prevent an evil act from taking place?
3. Re:Pardon me, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you are spying on someone using Landsat, you're doing it wrong.
  Maybe the target is in *this* 30m pixel?
4. Re:Pardon me, but by ajs · 2011-10-27 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's still misuse. You might be entirely justified in your actions, but it's other than the intended use. From the point of view of Chinese hackers (I'm suspicious of always attributing these attacks to the Chinese...) what they're doing is a patriotic act, but it's no less misuse.
5. Re:Pardon me, but by benjamindees · 2011-10-27 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  No, we can't.
  And as an example of why your interpretation is ridiculous on it's face, consider this scenario. You have a dog. You train your dog to respond to voice commands -- sit, roll over, heel, and attack. Would you say that I have "hacked" your dog if I tell it to "sit"? Of course not. Would you consider that "misuse"? Of course you wouldn't.
  There is absolutely no distinction between "hackers briefly control satellite" and "milk man briefly controls dog". Control is not the issue. The issue is the intent and consequences of that control.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
6. Re:Pardon me, but by houghi · 2011-10-27 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  No we can not agree on that. Why would hacking a machine be bad just because it is a satellite. That is unless you think that ALL hacking is bad.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
7. Re:Pardon me, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  You have a dog. You train your dog to respond to voice commands -- sit, roll over, heel, and attack. Would you consider that "misuse"? Of course you wouldn't.
  Of course I would. You don't have my permission to order my dog around. He's mine, not yours.
8. Re:Pardon me, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Keep in mind these are commercial/scientific satellites. CIA/Defense Department watchdog satellites use encrypted signals for communication and command.
  Even GPS uses an encrypted signal (along side a less accurate public signal).
9. Re:Pardon me, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  That is a nasty skewing of words only a crooked douche would do.
  1. Replace "harmed" with "misused", but keep the meaning.
  2. Declare entering something without harming to always be "misuse", fully aware of what it stands for.
  3. Go back and act like entering a satellite without harming anyone would actually harm somebody.
  4. ... (FUD)
  5. STALIN'S LOCK-AWAY TIME, BABY!
10. Re:Pardon me, but by benjamindees · 2011-10-27 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have my permission to order my dog around.
  Now consider that the situation is exactly equivalent. I don't have permission to order your satellite around, either. But I have the ability -- just as I have the ability to order your dog around. You may not like it. You may not even believe it. But that doesn't change the fact. The fact that I have the ability to order your dog around is not the issue. As long as I don't actually use that ability, the same is true of the ability to control your satellite.
  The issue only exists in your mind, in the cognitive dissonance between the fact that your dog (or your satellite) will respond to the commands of others, and your magical wishful thinking that that were not the case.
  
  --
  "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
11. Re:Pardon me, but by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-27 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Can we agree that that hacking into a satellite is, by definition, misuse? That there is no proper use in this scenario?
  It may be 'unauthorized' but there's a fair bit of difference between your unauthorized presence on my porch and your lighting a bag of dog shit on fire on it.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
12. Re:Pardon me, but by Yvanhoe · 2011-10-27 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  In an interview, Assange claimed to have knowledge of a hacked satellite that was used to provide Egypt with an internet access during the internet black-out of the country. And indeed, one ISP (used by about 10% of the population ) stayed online when Mubarak pulled the plug. Medias explained it was because it was providing internet access to the stock exchange and several big companies, but it sounds like it should not have been up at all.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
13. Re:Pardon me, but by Syberz · 2011-10-28 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think that being able to say "I can see my house from here!" would be considered proper use.
  
  --
  ~Syberz
related? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:46 · Score: 0

If memory serves me, a few years ago the US blew one of its own satellites out of the sky. I wonder if the dates correlate.
1. Re:related? by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-27 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I know the event you are thinking of, and it was actually China. Just about the whole world complained about it because of the additional space junk produced, but... China is a superpower, not a lot you can do to stop them.
2. Re:related? by Jeng · 2011-10-27 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  We did it, but just in a more polite manner.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#United_States
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Just testing ... by perpenso · 2011-10-27 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
So they are at an early testing stage. That is not overly reassuring.
1. Re:Just testing ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
  So they are at an early testing stage. That is not overly reassuring.
  The fact that it was detected is. Next up is blocking their access and firming up the "who did it". The obvious bet is the PRC, but it never hurts to be positive...
2. Re:Just testing ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:24 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
  So they are at an early testing stage. That is not overly reassuring.
  The fact that it was detected is. Next up is blocking their access and firming up the "who did it". The obvious bet is the PRC, but it never hurts to be positive...
  Isn't it strange that we don't get stories about the undetected hacks?
3. Re:Just testing ... by robthebloke · 2011-10-28 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of undetected stories about undetected hacks. You should try undetecting them sometime!
Not this time: by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-10-27 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

the hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
No... they were just trying out a proof-of-concept. Now they know how to take over the satelites though- the Chinese will have us in their grasp if we ever go to war... ... think about it- next time we consider going to war with China- they will take over our satellites and force us to watch Chinese Opera on our TV sets. ... our surrender will be so quick the French will call US surrender monkeys.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
1. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  our surrender will be so quick the French will call US surrender monkeys.
  Sigh. I guess you've never been to Paris, huh? What is the name of that place, ahh yes, Place Charles de Gaulle, there's a big monument there. They call it the arch something. The arch of surrender I think. It symbolizes all the times the French have run away, and all the battles they have lost, around the entire globe, right? Why do they still speak French from the Caribbean, across Africa, to Indo-China, I wonder?
  As for "Case Yellow", I doubt very much that the US would have fared much better had it had Germany for a border instead of Mexico and Canada. In fact, the US generally does very badly when at war unless surrounded with a sea of allies it can shoot at (oops sorry hur hur). Please list the wars won by America since 1946. Back to the trailer park with you.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  French from the Caribbean, across Africa, to Indo-China, I wonder?
  They are afraid to speak anything else!
3. Re:Not this time: by MikeyC01 · 2011-10-27 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  Is it true that like the Eskimos have a dozen words for "ice" that the French have dozens of words for "surrender"? ;)
4. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Let me help you out with that...
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1945.E2.80.931949
  Btw 1946 would have been the end of ww2 and the sound defeat of Japan. Who were busy taking over China...
  Also you may have missed the news for the past 10 year or something but the US did defeat 2 countries. Right or wrong that was a successful campaign...
  Most of those military operations were started by the French. Then they 'gave up' then handed many over to 'nato' which means the US. Most NATO operations consist of the US going thru someone elses airspace thus making it a NATO operation...
  Would you care to revise your history anymore?
5. Re:Not this time: by Moby+Cock · 2011-10-27 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Proof-of-concept? I think not. This was an actual intrusion. The two satellites are both controlled by the same base station -- there is no real 'concept' to prove.
6. Re:Not this time: by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-27 06:25 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Those two countries were seriously mismatched. Being proud of defeating Iraq and Afganistan is like being proud of beating up someone in a wheelchair.
7. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  Also you may have missed the news for the past 10 year or something but the US did defeat 2 countries.
  Which two countries? Oh you mean the ISAF destroyed the Afghan military. Yeah ok that's true. Way to forget your allies there, which include France by the way. And yes, the US destroyed Iraq's puny army - the one that was previously destroyed in 1991 and he was not permitted to rebuild but managed to scrape together with ancient equipment? Yeah ok, you got that one too. Next I suppose you will be claiming astounding victories in Grenada and Panama too?
  By the way, what is the plan with those countries that you "won"? I mean like you said, it's been 10 years...
  No, the long and short of it is that in 1812 while all of Europe and most of North Africa was firmly under the French boot and Napoleon was sitting pretty in Moscow, the US was busy getting it's ass kicked by - Canada. Way to go there, eh? Yeah, I'm Canadian. French Canadian.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
8. Re:Not this time: by Baloroth · 2011-10-27 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Please list the wars won by America since 1946.
  Are you sure? It's a pretty long list. Just off the top of my head? Korea. Defense of Taiwan. First (depends on how you count it, Second too) Gulf war. Afghan war (by proxy) against the Soviets. Afghan war (not by proxy)... again, depends on how you define "won". And, of course, dozens of minor military operations (SEAL Team-6 against Osama, would be one example.)
  Oh yeah, and while it wasn't technically a "war", there was the little incident with the USSR. What was that called again? The Frozen... no, Cold War! Yeah, and that too. You were saying about a trailer park?
  Just because there hasn't been a full-scale war by the US since 1946 doesn't mean there weren't a lot of victories. Quite a few defeats, too, although most were because of either politics (Vietnam is a good example) or failed covert operations (Operation Eagle Claw, for instance.)
  You're right though, we shouldn't rip on the French for what happened in WWII. Their resistance was actually pretty badass. Plus, there are oh so many other, much better reasons to make fun of the French :)
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
9. Re:Not this time: by ajs · 2011-10-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. I guess you've never been to Paris, huh? What is the name of that place, ahh yes, Place Charles de Gaulle, there's a big monument there. They call it the arch something. The arch of surrender I think. It symbolizes all the times the French have run away, and all the battles they have lost, around the entire globe, right? Why do they still speak French from the Caribbean, across Africa, to Indo-China, I wonder?
  Still, it can't help that they're cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
  Get over it. It's a Simpsons reference. I promise not to jump all over you when you claim you can create a time machine by sticking a fork in a toaster.
10. Re:Not this time: by Martin+Foster · 2011-10-27 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Source: http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/surrender
  surrender, yielding, capitulation, giving up, resignation, fall, forsaking, concession, surrender, resignation, conceding
  Depending on your point of view these can apply as well: Withdraw, fall back, retreat.
  So what does that say about English speaking countries?
11. Re:Not this time: by CRCulver · 2011-10-27 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  they will take over our satellites and force us to watch Chinese Opera on our TV sets.
  
  Chinese opera's popularity is now quite miniscule among the Chinese. It would be like saying that an antagonistic Britain would force morris dancing on a subjugated population.
12. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Korea? You won the war with the two countries that are technically still at war? Lol. Gulf war? Yeah, the coalition won that.
  Depends how you define won? Ah ok. Well if you define "won" as "not won" or "almost won" or "won" then yeah, the US has won every single war it has been in. I won't bother, the rest of your post is a mine-field.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
13. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  As for "Case Yellow", I doubt very much that the US would have fared much better had it had Germany for a border instead of Mexico and Canada. In fact, the US generally does very badly when at war unless surrounded with a sea of allies it can shoot at (oops sorry hur hur). Please list the wars won by America since 1946. Back to the trailer park with you.
  Americans don't even know their own short history.
  They got their asses kicked in the war of 1812 against the British and Canada.
  Tried to invade Canada and failed several times with dire consequences. The White House got burned by the British while the american militia (you guys didn't even have a proper army) ran away like cowards. Fort Detroit got conquered by the British without firing single shot, the american officer in charge of the defense of the city just surendered. ;)
  Of course things like these are better forgotten.
  Now we can say "Surrender like William Hull".
14. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  I have French blood, I just couldn't resist such an epic trolling opportunity.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
15. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  Please list the wars won by America since 1946./quote
  Korea, Grenada, Panama, the Cold War, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, ...
  That's just off the top of my head, the ones I can remember the media covering.
  Oh, yeah--vi vs. emacs, too.
16. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  While I agree with you that the stereotype of French surrendering frequently is ignorant and offensive, what you said is likewise idiotic.
  You imply that the French are skilled at battle by listing places that were conquered by the French when the French had explosive based weapons and the locals did not. Then you say that America would have fared poorly had it shared its border with Germany. America had (has) four times the population, and a fuck-ton more space than Germany. So were America and Germany suddenly neighbors it would still not have worked out in favor of Germany.
  And then you finish up by asking how many wars has America won since 1946. How many has France won since 1946? Can you even count them as winning WWII, since they had surrendered during it?
  France and America have often helped each other in war. And the world would be a much sorrier place without France and its involvement in various armed conflicts. France deserves more appreciation then they get, especially when it comes to armed conflicts. However, you approach it in entirely the wrong way, which makes you sound petty and ridiculous.
17. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  while the american militia (you guys didn't even have a proper army) ran away like cowards.
  Do you think that Canada is the real reason why the US feels it needs to keep a huge standing army - even if it's bankrupting them? Now it all makes sense!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
18. Re:Not this time: by Jeian · 2011-10-27 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  FWIW, Landsat and Terra AM are operated by civilian agencies (NASA/NOAA/USGS), not by the military.
19. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  The yanks lose so many wars, they just stopped formally declaring them wars.
20. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  conquered by the French when the French had explosive based weapons and the locals did not.
  Can't that be compared to when someone has well over 2000 all weather 4th generation fighter aircraft deployed in the theatre and the locals do not? Or when someone has recon satellites and AWACS/JSTARS and the others do not? How come the US gets a break and France does not?
  
  America had (has) four times the population, and a fuck-ton more space than Germany.
  I'm not so sure. I mean, the weather in the US is much milder than the Russian steppes, even though the Soviet Union had "a fuck-ton more space" and more population that Germany. I mean, once the industrial areas are captured exactly how was Kansas and Nebraska going to fight off the panzer divisions?
  
  How many has France won since 1946?
  Quite a few, most of them in Africa. But the French don't brag about it because they were nothing to be proud of. Unlike Grenada.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
21. Re:Not this time: by Lumpy · 2011-10-27 06:44 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  we steal all the other languages words.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
22. Re:Not this time: by pburghdoom · 2011-10-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  They got their asses kicked in the war of 1812 against the British and Canada.
  Totally schooled the Brits at the Battle of Plattsburgh, woot.
23. Re:Not this time: by turbidostato · 2011-10-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  "the long and short of it is that in 1812 while all of Europe and most of North Africa was firmly under the French boot and Napoleon was sitting pretty in Moscow"
  Pardon me? Counting Russia under Napoleon belt is a bit of a (big) stretch. And regarding occidental Europe, you surely forgot about Spain and the strain it meant for Napoleonic army.
24. Re:Not this time: by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-27 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Don't retreat! Let's just advance to the rear in the American way...
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
25. Re:Not this time: by khallow · 2011-10-27 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Korea? You won the war with the two countries that are technically still at war?
  Yep. Wars don't always end with the losers going away.
26. Re:Not this time: by Lumpy · 2011-10-27 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  we are also winning the war against poverty...
  Shock and Awe... Tomorrow we nuke the poor people!
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
27. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Oooh, oooh, pick me! I've been to Paris!
  It's the Arc de Triomphe! It commemorates a whole slew of Napoleonic victories, but is probably best known as "that thing in the background as German troops paraded through Paris in 1940". Given that, it's hardly something I'd point to as an example of French military strength since the days of horses. I found it to be more of a catalog of changing attitudes: The older entries honor battles, the newer ones honor the dead.
  
  Why do they still speak French from the Caribbean, across Africa, to Indo-China, I wonder?
  Same reason there's also a ton of spanish speakers in South America, but Spain is hardly intimidating anyone (unless you hold their debt).
28. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Do you think that Canada is the real reason why the US feels it needs to keep a huge standing army - even if it's bankrupting them? Now it all makes sense!
  I think that Americans love to hate Canadians the same way the French love to hate the Americans. :)
  The French would love to have the same kind of worldwide empire and influence that the modern US has but of course thats not possibile anymore. And they envy them because of this. In the same way Americans look at Canada and see a country that at least works better, cares for its citizens, has a good healthcare system, has balanced copyright system (at least for now) etc... than their own. And that must hurt deep down, because their own ideas of freedom and liberty, governed by corportations are not accepted by those pesky Canadians.
  Tell me I'm wrong !! :))
29. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, learn to take a joke, asshole.
30. Re:Not this time: by Bill_the_Engineer · 2011-10-27 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think the anti-french sentiment in the US has been exaggerated. Maybe like the anti-american sentiment in France prior to recent events were exaggerated.
  The city I live in has history as a french colony and we celebrate it as a part of our history.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
31. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Napoleon captured Moscow. It was a victory, just like Borodino was. Now - the fact that he had stretched his neck out too far, that Kutuzov had retreated and saved his army, and that winter was coming - all of these turned his victory into a logistical nightmare and defeat. However up until Moscow the French were doing just fine. Except for that damned Wellington in Spain...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
32. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  As for "Case Yellow", I doubt very much that the US would have fared much better had it had Germany for a border instead of Mexico and Canada.
  Actually, given that the US was selling weapons to Germany right up until Pearl Harbor, I bet that they would have done substantially better in France's shoes than France did - they would have immediately allied with Germany.
  USians seem to forget that, up until Japan bombed them, the US people were nearly universally against helping the allies in Europe. It was seen as a "European problem" and not something that they should be involved in.
  In fact, their delay in entering the war was the only reason the US did well in WW2 - they essentially waited until every other nation was war-weary, and then came in with fresh supplies and fresh soldiers. It would be the equivalent of jumping into a boxing match in the fifth round and sucker-punching one of the combatants. Congrats, US, you won. Against a wounded opponent. Good for you.
  Then there's the method used to defeat Japan which again amounts to effectively cheating, so, yet again, the US proved to be incapable of fighting a fair fight.
  The US has literally never won a war against an opponent of equal strength. All US victories throughout its entire history were against opponents significantly weaker than they were. (The Revolutionary War wasn't a US victory, idiots, you know who won that? The French. But nice try.)
33. Re:Not this time: by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-27 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Now I'm depressed and will never have anything to be proud of.
  I've taken on those mugging others (at night in Las Vegas in 1989), but never beaten up anyone in a wheelchair.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
34. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  I love France. But the French of the 1940's were a peaceful bunch and the Americans of the 1940's all had guns. The Germans would not have invaded the U.S. because they would have been slaughtered! At this point, modern Germans would be slaughtered if 1940's Germans walked in.
35. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Gulf war? Yeah, the coalition won that.
  Sorry, I guess I forgot that it only counts if it's a strictly isolationist country with ultimately no help winning a war. Because that worked well in medieval times/the middle ages, which is the last time anyone cared about European military victories. That'll work so well in the modern day, I'm sure.
36. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  You're wrong?
  The French tried to have a worldwide empire but every time they were making progress the Brits would find another excuse to go to war with them. If it wasn't the Brits, it was the Spanish, who hated the French almost as much as they hated the British. I think they pretty much held their own though. I just wonder what the map of North America would look like had Napoleon not sold the Louisiana territories to the Americans. America would be surrounded by French in Quebec, and French all up the Mississippi river down to New Orleans. Possibly the Spanish would still own the west coast. It would be quite different!
  
  because their own ideas of freedom and liberty, governed by corportations are not accepted by those pesky Canadians.
  Eh I live in Costa Rica but I'm Canadian. I always tell people that Canada is what the US could have been, had they not been rebels. It's not so bad. I think the best example is seen by driving in a car from Buffalo NY to Toronto, Ontario. The minute you're over the border at Niagara Falls everything looks - different :)
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
37. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  "Why do they still speak French from the Caribbean, across Africa, to Indo-China, I wonder? "
  Because the french ran so fast they didn't stop to take their language with them.
  Do they have language laws in those places to protect French the same way they do in France and Canada? By "protect", I kind of mean "force the law to favor french in all instances, regardless of how dominant and not-in-danger-of-dying-out it may be in any given region."
  Seriously, in parts of new brunswick, some towns that were always fairly french dominant had gotten to the point where the town was 85% french speaking. So the natural response was to add extra language laws forcing all public commercial signs to be in french. It may have any other language optionally, but it MUST also be in french if so. To prevent the only sector that would be able to fight the law from doing so, they added a grandfather clause such that only new signs were affected by the law.
38. Re:Not this time: by sdguero · 2011-10-27 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  How many enemy combatants have been slain by French military since 1946?
  Tens of thousands. And that's counting the mess we inherited at Dien Bien Phu.
  
  What about by Americans?
  Several million.
  
  Arguing that the France's military (or any single nation's military) is anywhere near a match for the United States' since 1949 is absurd. Based on 2010 numbers, the US Armed forces had 3x more troops and 10x the budget of France. Just because we speak English in the United States doesn't mean England has military supremacy over us. Similarly, France has very little global power outside of North Africa. It is an old nation that has withered since the 19th century. Is the US on the decline now? Certainly, but our trailer parks are still protected by the most powerful military in the world.
  
  I've never been to France, but I do have a lot of friends and family in England and New Zealand.
  How many of them have seen combat?
  Zero.
  How many close friends/family of mine in US that have seen active combat (as in people shooting directly at you)?
  Four.
  
  Hell, the guy sitting next to me was a marine. Semper-fi and all that bullcrap.
  
  So what I'm getting at is Americans have seen France as a pushover, military-wise, since WWII and that isn't likely to change as long as the United States has the world's strongest (and most active) military and is running all over the planet killing people in the name of democracy and freedom. Taking offense to a little quip like the parent posted just shows how sensitive the pro-French crowd is. Perhaps you see the truth in the jest and that's why it stings so much...
39. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Totally schooled the Brits at the Battle of Plattsburgh, woot.
  Doesn't change the fact that the US tried to invade Canada 3 times, and failed 3 times. ^_^ They even had the presumption to tell the Canadians they came to liberate them. How arrogant is that ?
  I guess that this american feeling hasn't really changed in 2 centuries. Every time you go to war its to liberate someone, even if he doesn't want to be liberated. The more things change, the more they stay the same eh ?
40. Re:Not this time: by Skewray · 2011-10-27 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  the hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way
  No... they were just trying out a proof-of-concept. Now they know how to take over the satelites though- the Chinese will have us in their grasp if we ever go to war... ... think about it- next time we consider going to war with China- they will take over our satellites and force us to watch Chinese Opera on our TV sets. ... our surrender will be so quick the French will call US surrender monkeys.
  It is good to know that, in an emergency, someone actually responsible can taker over out satellites.
41. Re:Not this time: by Arlet · 2011-10-27 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think the French were just smarter to stay out of Iraq. How much did that cost the US so far ? And for no good reason at all.
42. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  As for "Case Yellow", I doubt very much that the US would have fared much better had it had Germany for a border instead of Mexico and Canada. [...] Please list the wars won by America since 1946.
  There's also the War of 1812, the centenary of which is coming up. While the US did okay nautically, things didn't go so well on land. I believe the British/Canadians/First Nations managed to get down to Washington, D.C., and burn a large part of it to the ground.
43. Re:Not this time: by Darinbob · 2011-10-27 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
44. Re:Not this time: by Zancarius · 2011-10-27 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Korea? You won the war with the two countries that are technically still at war? Lol. Gulf war? Yeah, the coalition won that.
  The Korean War was a proxy war with the Soviet Union and ended with an armistice very shortly following the death of Stalin, likely because the North Koreans were then uncertain about the stability of their war supplies. While it technically wasn't a win for either side, there are reasons why the US was hesitant to engage in exceptional force since this occurred fairly early on in the Cold War, and the degree of Soviet involvement wasn't well known until the release of their archives circa 2000 although it was suspected, most especially by US pilots. Calling it a stalemate is probably most accurate, although being critical of the US for how the war ended is silly. The political clime of the period was dangerous and uncertain.
  Source.
  
  --
  He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
45. Re:Not this time: by LastGunslinger · 2011-10-27 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  During the War of 1812, Canadians (not British regulars) never crossed onto American soil and only won a single battle on Canadian soil in which the forces were primarily Canadian rather than British. Those facts notwithstanding, the American effort to invade Canada during that war was inept and embarrassing.
46. Re:Not this time: by tizan · 2011-10-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm colonization is not war on equal footing per say...
  thus following your logic
  because they speak English in Paris and there is a McDo on Champ Elysees...then France lost some war to the Anglo-Saxons then.
47. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Americans tend to not understand why the French were so defensive in the begining of WW II. In WWI they suffered MASSIVE civilian and military casualties. France lost more than 4% of its population in WW I. Thats a lot, so its no surprise that during the 20s and 30s they kept an eye on germany, not only occupying the Ruhr but also constructing a massive defensive line (The Maginot line) which in its time costed an astronomical amount of money.
  Lets see what would happen to the US if you lost 12 000 000 people in war (4.3% of the current us population). You would have a mighty disdain for war and be much more defensive, just like Stalin was. Think of the losses the russians suffered in WWII.
  The US in its entire history has never endured the kind of losses certain european countries suffered during the 20th century. Thats why you're still trigger happy to go to war with anyone for the most stupid of reasons, and why the europeans are not.
48. Re:Not this time: by chrb · 2011-10-27 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Please list the wars won by America since 1946.
  Are you sure? It's a pretty long [wikipedia.org] list.
  
  That is a list of "military operations". Military operations are not the same thing as a "war". If you want a list of wars, grep for "war" in this list. Also note that "war" has a legally recognised status in international law. A war ends when one side is defeated, one side surrenders, or both sides sign a peace treaty. None of those apply to North Korea.
49. Re:Not this time: by LastGunslinger · 2011-10-27 07:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The French have not won a major war in nearly 300 years in which the United States was not their ally. French-Indian / Seven Years War - lost; Napoleon - kicked major ass and wreaked havoc for years and still lost; Franco-Prussian War - lost; Algeria - lost; Vietnam - lost before the US made the same mistake. We don't even need to mention WWII, the collapse of the Republic, and the whole Vichy collaborationist thing. What's that you say? The French made a major contribution towards the American War of Independence, fought valiantly in WWI, and have been good allies to the US during wars of the past few decades? And none of that really has to to do with the US being their ally any more than the US winning wars has to do with the bit part the other nations play in our coalitions, save perhaps Britain.
50. Re:Not this time: by Zancarius · 2011-10-27 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. I mean, the weather in the US is much milder than the Russian steppes, even though the Soviet Union had "a fuck-ton more space" and more population that Germany. I mean, once the industrial areas are captured exactly how was Kansas and Nebraska going to fight off the panzer divisions?
  Panzers aside since 1) the US' main battle tanks of the period weren't nearly as capable and 2) the German tank divisions were lost early on, it's still apples and oranges. WWII broke out at a time when Stalin had eliminated all but about 20% of his army's officers during the Great Purge. Soviet industry was shoddy at best, and many of the front-line soldiers had little or no ammo. The only saving grace the Russians had was their winter, for which the Germans weren't equipped.
  It's difficult to say how matters would have turned out had Germany been next door to the US and invaded, but I highly doubt it would have looked anything like the Russian front.
  
  --
  He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
51. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Get over it. It's a Simpsons reference.
  Actually, its more than that.
  Remember the context of the phrase's popularity. Prior to the run-up to the second gulf war, it remained an obscure Simpsons reference. However, in the lead up to the war, to which France objected and threatened Security Council veto, the mainstream Anglo media derided the French for their independent stance.
  Curiously, its the French courage that earned them this unfortunate slur, along with Freedom Fries.
  It is the consequence of compliant and dysfunctional press/journalism that the phrase remains in use today. Almost ten years its clear who took the enlightened approach, and equally clear those who cannot yet identify that they are the product of media manipulation.
  Enjoy your freedom fries, while I enjoy my fois gras :-)
52. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Anybody can build a monument. In fact some of the biggest and nicest monuments at the Gettysburg battle field were erected to honor troops who were held in reserve.
53. Re:Not this time: by Zancarius · 2011-10-27 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  So what I'm getting at is Americans have seen France as a pushover, military-wise, since WWII and that isn't likely to change as long as the United States has the world's strongest (and most active) military and is running all over the planet killing people in the name of democracy and freedom. Taking offense to a little quip like the parent posted just shows how sensitive the pro-French crowd is. Perhaps you see the truth in the jest and that's why it stings so much...
  I think the offense-taking is endemic to the apologist mindset. The OP claims he has French blood, but I suspect he's American. After all, American apologists who take it upon themselves to champion a cause are some of the most obnoxious people you'll ever meet.
  I say this only because I've known a few Canadians and French over the years, and both of them have been very polite peoples--with the exception of French Canadians, but I've never met any that I am aware of and outside obligatory jokes, I'm reluctant to make a judgement. Moreover, of those whom I've met (French and Canadian), both have been able to take a joke related to their own countries.
  Of course, it should also be noted that the OP mentioned in a reply a little further up the chain that he couldn't resist but to take the opportunity for "really epic trolling," so that suggests he probably has little interest in useful discourse and more interest in creating dispute. Such is the way Slashdot has become as of late. Indeed, it's gotten so bad that half of the really ludicrous cruft I've seen posted is stuff I honestly don't believe the posters actually adhere to, much less believe themselves.
  
  --
  He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
54. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  Vietnam is not an example of politics. The Vietnamese were willing to die and die and die and not give up. They lost over 1 percent of their population - a historically unprecedented number in a war of attrition on the general populace, and continued to fight. The "politics" meme is just a way for military brass who were befuddled by the failure of sheer firepower to break the will of another nation to excuse their inability to wage an effective psychological war.
55. Re:Not this time: by Big+Smirk · 2011-10-27 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ah yes, Charles de Gaulle. When he got France out of NATO, and told US President Johnson that he wanted all US troops out of France, Johnson ask "Does that include the ones buried there?"
  French view of history seems to be very myopic.
  
  --
  TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
56. Re:Not this time: by biek · 2011-10-27 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Many people don't seem to care either way, but they'll echo any "Fuck the French" sentiment that comes up whether they have a reason to or not. It sort of brings the same swelling of nationalistic pride as chanting "USA! USA!"
57. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  NATO - Needs Americans To Operate
58. Re:Not this time: by Big+Smirk · 2011-10-27 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Its not necessarily anti-French, its probably more anti-Paris, and from the attitudes in Paris the feeling is mutual. Go a few kilometers outside the city and suddenly is friendly.
  
  --
  TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
59. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Do they have language laws in those places to protect French the same way they do in France and Canada? By "protect", I kind of mean "force the law to favor french in all instances, regardless of how dominant and not-in-danger-of-dying-out it may be in any given region."
  Seriously, in parts of new brunswick, some towns that were always fairly french dominant had gotten to the point where the town was 85% french speaking. So the natural response was to add extra language laws forcing all public commercial signs to be in french. It may have any other language optionally, but it MUST also be in french if so. To prevent the only sector that would be able to fight the law from doing so, they added a grandfather clause such that only new signs were affected by the law.
  You say that like its a bad thing. Its not. Keeping our own cultural heritage, and that includes the language is a good thing. Otherwise what happens is what we have in Italy, where politicians, journalists and VIPs don't speak italian anymore. Instead every second word is english. How is this better ? Sometimes you have to stand up to cultural hegemony, lest you see your culture wither away.
  Thats why some countries dub foreign films (spain, italy, france, germany for instance), thats why some countries have laws to encourage domestic cultural production (film, music, litterature), thats why the French instead of accepeting willy nilly foreign terms in the language try to find a french term that works the same.
  And if its not possibile then they use the foreign term.
  Cultural diversity is good. But this is a concept quite alien to the Americans or the english speaking countries in general.
60. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  "won" as in obliterated the enemy's army to pieces and had free roam of the country, yes, US won in both Iraq and Afganistan, recosntruction of those countries is failing but that's not just US' doing
61. Re:Not this time: by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2011-10-27 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so sure. I mean, the weather in the US is much milder than the Russian steppes, even though the Soviet Union had "a fuck-ton more space" and more population that Germany. I mean, once the industrial areas are captured exactly how was Kansas and Nebraska going to fight off the panzer divisions?
  Gee, we got our tanks and planes over to Europe to fight the Germans, so how on earth would we manage to get them to the middle of Kansas or Nebraska?
62. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  Well no, the Brits have the killing joke as their ultimate weapon. Don't sell them short.
63. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  I can't tell what part of the post you're even responding to, but what the hell.
  
  Lets see what would happen to the US if you lost 12 000 000 people in war (4.3% of the current us population). You would have a mighty disdain for war and be much more defensive, just like Stalin was. Think of the losses the russians suffered in WWII.
  OK. The Russians lost some 20 million people in WWII, yet then proceeded to hold up their end of the cold war, with all the brinksmanship that went with that. They also poured lives into Afghanistan, a mistake others made both before and after them. Then there's Chechnya. You would think that the country that endured the horrors of Stalingrad would abhor scorched earth stuff, but then you get Grozny. Go figure.
  
  The US in its entire history has never endured the kind of losses certain european countries suffered during the 20th century.
  Not a bad thing. Love us or hate us, we do manage to stay out of bleeding contests with our neighbors.
  
  Thats why you're still trigger happy to go to war with anyone for the most stupid of reasons, and why the europeans are not.
  Maybe that's true, or maybe you're just taking a breather. (I guess we'll put aside any NATO or UN actions.) Maybe we're exiting a period of European peace imposed by the cold war. Even if France and Germany manage to play nice for another 60 years, you have to consider that several of the Balkans and the Baltic states are now in the EU. (Or weren't you counting them?) How long do you think they'll get along before going back to beating the hell out of each other? How about with a failing Greece in the mix?
64. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  LandSat 7 and Terra-AM1 are a broad area imaging satellite, not a communications satellite. The hackers would not be able to broadcast anything to your TV using these satellites. What they may have been able to access is the areas which the satellites had recently been capturing images over, and possible insert their own requests for data into the queue. The problem with the idea of them using the satellite to capture images is that it relies on them being able to download the data from the satellite prior to the genuine groundstation communicating with the satellite. There is also a possibility if they were able to gain deep enough access that they could cause the satellite to fall out of orbit.
  If the chinese were after actual high value satellite images, they would be better off hacking some of the Israeli. I would agree that this was an excercise in espionage as proof of concept. But that there are minimal practical applications.
  Resources:
  Terra-AM1 -> http://terra.nasa.gov/
  LandSat - > http://landsat.usgs.gov/
65. Re:Not this time: by Amouth · 2011-10-27 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  considering that Russia has used it's winter as a weapon many many times over history i would not count Napoleon's capture of Moscow as "sitting Pretty in Moscow" as you originally stated..
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
66. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  I read that as Chinese Oprah, and was quite amused before I realized my mistake.
67. Re:Not this time: by Kagura · 2011-10-27 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Also you may have missed the news for the past 10 year or something but the US did defeat 2 countries.
  Which two countries? Oh you mean the ISAF destroyed the Afghan military. Yeah ok that's true. Way to forget your allies there, which include France by the way. And yes, the US destroyed Iraq's puny army - the one that was previously destroyed in 1991 and he was not permitted to rebuild but managed to scrape together with ancient equipment?
  ISAF and NATO had nothing to do with the take-over of Afghanistan. Within 30 days of 9/11, a small handful of CIA paramilitary operatives with JTAC operators were dispatched to Afghanistan, with the ability to call in precision air strikes. These handful of operatives had already been meeting with anti-Taliban warlords for the better part of ten years, stretching back over Clinton's administration. With the help of U.S. airstrikes, the modest forces of each of the separate warlords were able to completely shock and overwhelm personnel and materiel of the Taliban forces. There was very, very little in the way of gunfights that win on, but rather airstrikes would be enough to send the surviving Taliban running from their positions, and anti-Taliban warlords would order their forces on foot and horseback to storm the deserted positions to great celebration. Within a few weeks of the arrival of CIA personnel, Special Forces ODAs began showing up in-country (numbering in the dozens or low hundreds), providing much the same assistance as the CIA personnel were capable of providing. After more time, conventional troops were able to show up in large numbers to provide an actual U.S. security presence on the ground.
  
  NATO didn't have any forces in-country until late December 2001, and NATO was not operating anywhere outside of Kabul until October 2003.
68. Re:Not this time: by Dunbal · 2011-10-27 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Rule #1, page 1 of the book of War: "Do not march on Moscow".
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
69. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and military satellites are just as secure as these ones.
70. Re:Not this time: by zazenation · 2011-10-27 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Source: http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/surrender
  surrender, yielding, capitulation, giving up, resignation, fall, forsaking, concession, surrender, resignation, conceding
  Depending on your point of view these can apply as well: Withdraw, fall back, retreat.
  So what does that say about English speaking countries?
  You forgot ---
  "Yes, dear"
  and its variant
  "OK, honey"
71. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 19:12 · Score: 0
  
  *cough* lafayette *cougn*
72. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 20:54 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm tired of people hating on the French. Charles Martel defended Europe from the Muslims, Napoleon was the only general to conquer all of continental Europe. France has a long and illustrious military history, people who call them surrender monkeys are just fools.
73. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  > going to war with China
  easy there, johnny, easy there. Don't forget your medication.
74. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 21:47 · Score: 0
  
  So how the fuck have the Taliban been holding on for the last 9-10 years?!
  This had better be some really bad joke that I'm not privy to - as otherwise you seem quite proud that the US spent 10 years conspiring with Warlords that want to see slavery and child prostitution brought back to Afghanistan?!
75. Re:Not this time: by Amouth · 2011-10-28 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  Rule #2 - nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
76. Re:Not this time: by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-28 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  or one you might actually be able to win on your own without the RAFdoing all the low level bombing and the SAS doing the dirty work on the ground.
  North America Targets OZ.
Security through Geometry? by ThosLives · 2011-10-27 05:48 · Score: 1

Since anything wireless can only tell if the information it's receiving is what it should be to grant control, shouldn't we implement something like a geometric constraint such that a satellite will only accept commands if coming from a particular location on the planet?
Yes, this would still be possible to fake, but it should be significantly more difficult since it relies not only on information but also location.

--
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
1. Re:Security through Geometry? by ColdWetDog · 2011-10-27 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Would not have helped.
  FTFA:
  
  Since the satellites are controlled from the Svalbard Satellite Station in Norway which often uses the Internet to transfer and access files, it is deemed highly likely that the hackers have managed to insinuate themselves into the station's system through its Internet connection.
  In other words, they were doing it wrong.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Security through Geometry? by X0563511 · 2011-10-27 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not possible, unless your receiver is also directional (or you have three of them suitably far apart)
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Security through Geometry? by DaHat · 2011-10-27 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Um... unless something has changed, Landsat 7 is controlled from EROS which is outside of Sioux Falls, SD.
  
  --
  Help Brendan pay off his student loans
4. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  This is correct, the ground stations outside the US are used for offloading data when the orbit will not allow them to do so from EROS. The data is then transferred back via ftp or tape for archival. TFA makes a pretty big leap between 'taking control', 'interfering', and 'causing damage'. Interfering with this downlink, sure, flying it into the space station, no.
5. Re:Security through Geometry? by AJH16 · 2011-10-27 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, that isn't true either. If you took 3 different directional transmitters and sent the signal to the 3 different receivers with proper delays you could make it think your signal was originating anywhere you wanted to.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
6. Re:Security through Geometry? by X0563511 · 2011-10-27 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, very good point. Though doing this properly might be "difficult" (to put it lightly)
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
7. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  Landsat birds are not controlled at EROS, the imagery is archived and distributed there. Goddard controlls the birds.
8. Re:Security through Geometry? by Remus+Shepherd · 2011-10-27 07:53 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I work on the Landsat project.
  Yes, Landsat 7 is controlled from Sioux Falls. But every downlink station (and we have over a dozen of them, including one in China) has the ability to communicate with the satellite to trigger a download of recorded imagery. I assume that's all the hackers did, which means all they would be able to do is wipe some imagery out of the archive. That's a hair-raising scenario for us but not significant for most people.
  Only EROS has the ability to upload flight commands to the satellite. That's not to say that Svalbard couldn't, they just don't have the software and one would hope they don't have the documentation needed to form the command syntax. But if they had those things and a hacker took control of them, they could burn the satellite into the atmosphere or send it careening around in its orbital neighborhood. Chances of it hitting another satellite and breaking into a million disaster-causing pieces are minor but not zero.
  This is a scary news story for us. I'm interested in seeing the full report when it's finally released.
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
9. Re:Security through Geometry? by Remus+Shepherd · 2011-10-27 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not to get into too much detail, but I believe that Goddard writes the command upload scripts which are then sent to EROS for upload.
  I'm a scientist, not an engineer, so I could be wrong about how all the bits and bytes are made. But I don't remember Goddard having an upload station of their own.
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
10. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  I work at the site and know this very well: the command chain does not interface Internet in any shape or form. Look up the term " closed io net ".
11. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe its time you got to work upgrading the security on Landsat-7 instead of sitting around posting on Slashdot and waiting for some report to be released???
12. Re:Security through Geometry? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-10-27 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  one would hope they don't have the documentation needed to form the command syntax
  This is different than saying, "and they don't have the command signing key, so it doesn't matter what they throw at it." Security through obscurity then?
  Is there enough fuel onboard that we should worry?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
13. Re:Security through Geometry? by Remus+Shepherd · 2011-10-28 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The security at EROS is quite good. :) Svalbard was hacked, not us.
  
  --
  Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
14. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-28 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  "That's not to say that Svalbard couldn't, they just don't have the software and one would hope they don't have the documentation needed to form the command syntax"
  Dont tell me there is nothing more that protocols and documentation missing here? No crypto keys, or even a password?
15. Re:Security through Geometry? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-30 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  And I work at SvalSat. We did not get hacked. My assumption is that a pass over Svalbard suffered RF interference or similar not local to the station.
I wonder... by Haedrian · 2011-10-27 05:48 · Score: 1, Funny

With all these satellites falling out from the sky lately...
Very little info by binaryhat · 2011-10-27 05:48 · Score: 1

The article is weak on facts...Need better evidence. And yes China, state-sponsored or not is hacking away at our infrastructure...
1. Re:Very little info by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  American people are slowly getting conditioned to think that all "hacking" is done by China and that anything bad that happens to US currency is somehow the fault of the Chinese. Interesting. I wonder why.
2. Re:Very little info by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  I stubbed my toe on a leg of my dining room table this morning.
  Are you claiming that that WASN'T the fault of the Chinese? That doesn't sound very plausible.
3. Re:Very little info by turbidostato · 2011-10-27 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  But, but... that can't be! We never were at war against Eurasia... now, were we?
Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

When GE built Nimbus (an early weather satellite) my grandfather was one of the engineers. He had security clearance high enough that it got him out of the draft and an armed guard was required when he went to the dentist (to shoot him should he start saying the wrong things under the gas). As he put it: "there's no way it's just looking at the clouds".
1. Re:Nimbus by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-27 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Someone out to up this comment even though it may have a little BS thrown in but I doubt those satellites were just looking at the weather. You know our military relies on that stuff and the Chinese definitely have the ability to disable or jam GPS. Well we have a solution for that. Our guided missiles with thermonuclear warheads use inertial navigation. Some of these will work no matter what.
  The real threat to us is some terrorist driving into DC with a van with a simple uranium gun type device and parking it next to the capitol and pushing a button. Pakistan has had the bomb for how long now and if North Korea gets a good working version don't think China didn't help them or anyone else who is our enemy. We think short term. The Chinese take their time until it just right and maybe help some terrorist organization get one of what they want.
  Maybe we need to warn them right now that any country that can't keep a handle on their nukes and one of theirs happens to go off in DC or NYC that we will send that country back to the stone age.
2. Re:Nimbus by chill · 2011-10-27 06:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Really? My grandfather essentially told me the same story. He was a radioman specializing in radar in the early 1940s. He, too, had armed escorts to dentist appointments. Nor was he allowed to leave the base during the training period. No visitors, either.
  Damn near everything he was doing was classified out the wazoo. Times were different then.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
3. Re:Nimbus by decsnake · 2011-10-27 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  no, the GP post wasn't a little bit of BS, it was almost all BS. Nimbus 7 was a weather and atmospheric science spacecraft. In fact, with today's technology and the user's guide (which was an unclassified document widely available within NASA - I still have a copy on my bookshelf just for old time's sake) it would have been pretty simple to take it over. You can read the introduction to the Nimbus 7 User's Guide here: http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/n7toms/nimbus7tech.html - it was that unclassified. It was a sad day when Nimbus finally died - it was a great program that was responsible for a lot of groundbreaking science, perhaps the most notable thing being discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.
  Now, if I remember correctly, Nimbus 7 WAS built by GE-Astro in Valley Forge PA, which also did a lot of work on classified DOD missions - check out the recently declassified information on GAMBIT and HEXAGON. They had their fingers in both of those programs (perhaps the film return capsules?) which would explain the security at the plant.
  Its completely conceivable that even a motivated individual could command all but the most recent NASA science satellites - the only real security they have is through obscurity. However, this is not true about any manned NASA spacecraft or joint missions. Those have had hardware encryption on both the up and downlinks for as long as I am aware of. All NASA science satellites since 2001 have encryption on the uplinks - the downlinks are still unencrypted, so if you had the right antenna, receiver, demods and such, and wanted to reverse engineer the telemetry format, you could.
4. Re:Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Nimbus did IR photography. There's a lot of useful data you can get from high quality IR photos.
5. Re:Nimbus by jergason · 2011-10-27 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  I have played around with accessing satellite imagery, including the data provided by Landsat-7. They do both commercial and government imagery. They told me it gets down to about .4 meter resolution, but US law forbids them from selling anything lower than .5 meter resolution. The higher-resolution stuff is for government use only, and you could definitely see some pretty interesting things if you had access to a satellite like that. That is quite scary.
6. Re:Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Why not shoot the dentist instead?
7. Re:Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Someone out to up this comment even though it may have a little BS thrown in but I doubt those satellites were just looking at the weather.
  /facepalm, spare me the conspiracy theorist bullshit.
  As somebody who has actually done some remote sensing with data from these satellites, please understand that Landsat 7 and TERRA are very famous well known platforms. They are NOT military spy satellites, and couldn't be even if the military wanted them to be. Landsat's ETM+ only has a spatial resolution of 30 meters, TERRA's MODIS sensor is 250 meters and TERRA's ASTER is 15-90 meters depending on which band you're dealing with. You can't use any of these sensors to spy worth a damn (but they are useful for ecological research). You can download their images for free, for fucks sake. It has zero value for spying.
  And besides, Landsat 7 has been broken since 2003 when it's on-board scanline corrector unit failed. Ever since then, the images have been covered with huge zig-zag lines.
  The CIA has spy satellites of course, but they're dedicated platforms, nothing that's piggybacking on science platforms. From what little I can gather, spy satellites are basically telescopes aimed at the Earth. I don't see how you can discretely piggyback a big ass spy telescope on Landsat 7 or TERRA.
8. Re:Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  Our guided missiles with thermonuclear warheads use inertial navigation. Some of these will work no matter what.
  Believe it or not, but they actually have -gasp- redundant systems.
  Inertial navigation, while extremely accurate over short time frames, suffers from error buildup over time, making relying on it for flying 5000+ km somewhere between "good luck with that" and "breaking into MJ's garden as a 10yo kid".
  They have GPS, inertial navigation, comparing maps to pictures, compass, communication (just have a satellite tell you where you are), comm. to ground, comm. to planes, they can actually navigate by the stars, and a few others.
9. Re:Nimbus by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-28 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The inertial navigation on our nuclear stuff is close enough. I think I heard someone say within 1000 meters but all of that data is classified but the military said they could put one close to a building with that. No GPS on Trident missiles but of course redundant systems. I think you are confusing the inaccuracy of Soviet inertial navigation to what we have.
  You know we figured this stuff out before GPS. Like I said exactly how they navigate is classified but we can get into the door of a building but most people that have knowledge on the subject say we can get close to a building whereas the Russians had to use larger warheads and larger boosters just to hit the city. Hell for nukes we could just use the EU's civilian system or the Russians civilian one. Even though the accuracy is not as good as military grade GPS but our nukes don't rely on that.
  I mean think of it. They don't use GPS to send missions to put a lander on Titan? It would be my guess that they take star shots and adjust on the way down across the North Pole. Not much time involved as they are only going to reach low earth orbit. We also have this new plane thingy that could possibly capture an enemies satellite and we can also destroy them with missiles as the Chinese can probably also do.
  You heard it here first, it's just brinkmanship. I don't worry about China but I would worry about them supplying the Taliban/El Quiada (sp error) or whatever a nuke more or less to ruin one important city and cause us to topple the rest of the way down economically but who knows?
10. Re:Nimbus by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-28 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well all I have seen so far is one news story without much data. Like those weather balloons that people thought were pieces off a UFO. They were balloons but to monitor when and if the Russians got the bomb which they did in 1949. Spy satellites can also aim ground penetrating radar at the earth. Landsat 7 or TERRA may have been hacked by the Chinese to make sure they didn't do other stuff, who knows why they or anyone else would want to break into one of those unless it's a cover story for something else or pure stupidity from the hackers.
11. Re:Nimbus by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-28 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  It would take a lot of equipment for that, but why those particular satellites? Why would you even want to try? GAMBIT and HEXAGON sounds cooler and the Chinese probably have the ability to break that encryption especially with some inside help. If BlueRay can be broke, anything can eventually.
12. Re:Nimbus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-28 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  Surely it would be more cost effective to shoot the dentist?
Obligitory Soviet Russia comment... by The+Joe+Kewl · 2011-10-27 05:51 · Score: 0

This could never happen in Soviet Russia...
Because in Soviet Russia, the Satellites control YOU!
1. Re:Obligitory Soviet Russia comment... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, these belong to the NSA...
2. Re:Obligitory Soviet Russia comment... by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-27 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  They do that in Soviet/Nazi USA too but it makes no difference.
3. Re:Obligitory Soviet Russia comment... by swilly · 2011-10-27 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Da. But Soviet mikrochip has limited window with which to communicate with satellite. Also, have problems with interference with cell phones.
  If you don't get the joke, you should start watching Archer.
4. Re:Obligitory Soviet Russia comment... by volcan0 · 2011-10-27 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I do. And I still don't get it. I doubt I am alone ( not getting it, that is. ).
Possibly Chinese by broginator · 2011-10-27 05:53 · Score: 0

Also possibly wearing hats. Details are sketchy.

--
s/[stupid comments]/[intelligent discourse]/gi
That's an act of war by geekoid · 2011-10-27 05:54 · Score: 1

debts absolved!
All Imports from china now have at 200% tariff
economy... FIXED!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
1. Re:That's an act of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  debts absolved!
  All Imports from china now have at 200% tariff
  economy... FIXED!
  You might be on to something...
2. Re:That's an act of war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Which would we put up with more? Sending our kids off to die, or cutting off the supply of cheap plastic trinkets?
3. Re:That's an act of war by subl33t · 2011-10-27 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Wal*Mart loses access to most of it's stock, America devolves into chaos.
4. Re:That's an act of war by garyebickford · 2011-10-27 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Wal*Mart loses access to most of it's stock
  - that would be ... interesting. Good basis for a movie! Don't know if the SF or the comedy approach would be better though.
  
  --
  It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
"only for observing the Earth's climate" by G3ckoG33k · 2011-10-27 05:55 · Score: 1

I see what you mean, but "only for observing the Earth's climate" rings a worrisome bell if we will have to trust the data.
Yes, there might well have been a more belligerent outcome...
Yet, tampering with climate data satellites is bad enough, considering the financial implications surrounding it. BTW, does Ron Paul have any hacking skillz?
I hacked a satellite once by Oswald+McWeany · 2011-10-27 05:56 · Score: 1

I hacked a satellite once- Toshiba isn't very good on security.

--
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Truth is stranger than fiction department by bshell · 2011-10-27 05:56 · Score: 1

Just read John Grisham's http://www.amazon.com/Broker-John-Grisham/dp/0385510454 The Broker which is based on this idea, only the hackers are Pakistani. They all got killed in the book.
1. Re:Truth is stranger than fiction department by grcumb · 2011-10-27 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just read John Grisham's http://www.amazon.com/Broker-John-Grisham/dp/0385510454 The Broker which is based on this idea, only the hackers are Pakistani. They all got killed in the book.
  
  All of them? Inside the same book? They must have been very small....
  
  --
  Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Or did they? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:57 · Score: 0

Luckily, both of the satellites are used only for observing the Earth's climate and terrain, and the hackers never actually misused their control over them in any way.
That's what they want us to think! But in fact all the global warming data have been planted by the Chinese to destroy Western economy.
Possibly +120, Incredible by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 05:59 · Score: 0

Aliens from an another UNIVERSE.
Yours In Escanaba,
Kilgore T.
1. Re:Possibly +120, Incredible by ackthpt · 2011-10-27 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Aliens from an another UNIVERSE.
  Yours In Escanaba,
  Kilgore T.
  This wouldn't hava happened if they stuck with programming these things in COBOL.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Imagine if we had satellite based weapons.. by monzie · 2011-10-27 06:03 · Score: 1

.. then the scenario would begin to look really really scary. ( The 007 movie "GoldenEye" comes to mind )
1. Re:Imagine if we had satellite based weapons.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 09:41 · Score: 0
  
  Warzone 2100 comes to mind actually.
  Sort of like a mix between this and Terminator with an AI who is obsessed with immortality.
  The intro of a possible scenario
  Have to say, haven't played a better RTS than this. Play many of them every so often, but nothing beats it for me.
  Shame that was the end of it. Just really glad they open sourced the game, the community has done so much for it.
Garth Algar by Chaymus · 2011-10-27 06:04 · Score: 1

If you know a better way to get the Crucial Taunt signal into Mr Bigg's limo I'd like to hear it.
1. Re:Garth Algar by pburghdoom · 2011-10-27 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Awesome, I would mod you up if I could.
Was hackers right? by jeesis · 2011-10-27 06:04 · Score: 1

Can we finally hack the world?
Skynet... by ackthpt · 2011-10-27 06:11 · Score: 1

This is how it began, self aware computers, etc.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Hacking is Hacking by jimpop · 2011-10-27 06:14 · Score: 1

How is this different than the hacking that Steve Jobs did? Communications hacking is communications hacking, no?
1. Re:Hacking is Hacking by pionzypher · 2011-10-27 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC Steve Jobs wasn't Chinese.
  
  --
  I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Internet? by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-27 06:14 · Score: 1

Don't run satellite data traffic through the internet and constantly background check those that have assess to these systems.
1. Re:Internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  ...background check those that have assess to these systems.
  Well played...
2. Re:Internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 18:59 · Score: 0
  
  This is how it *is* being done. This article lacks details and sources - and general credibility.
  I work with these things, and I know the Svalbard station and the missions.
  Someone must have misunderstood something here. What I suspect is that there has been RF interference jamming communications, and that this happened while being controlled over Svalbard.
  RF interference is common, mostly from other satellites. Targeted jamming is not common - and has nothing to do with the Svalbard station or actually controlling the satellites. It's a DoS attack.
  Anonymous, for obvious reasons.
3. Re:Internet? by EvilBudMan · 2011-10-28 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I felt that article was very misleading but still there is another more worrisome incident of a security breach on a military network that is not even connected to the internet and the thought was; inside job, but yet they still don't know who.
Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by Necron69 · 2011-10-27 06:15 · Score: 1

When I last worked around a satellite groundstation (Space Imaging's IKONOS) 10 years ago, the satellite control systems were damn sure not connected to the internet. Communications were encrypted and reasonable physical security measures were in place too.
Why the Hell would you connect something critical like satellite control or a nuclear reactor control system to the Internet?
This defies logic.
Necron69
1. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by ColdWetDog · 2011-10-27 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  According to TFA, they did exactly that. Whether that is actually what happened is an open conjecture (as usual, TFA was pretty weak).
  Ten years is a long time. Stupid can happen pretty quickly.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by decsnake · 2011-10-27 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  The ground system doesn't have to be connected to the internet. The spacecraft has a radio and its listening ALL THE TIME. All you need to know is how to talk to it.
3. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  According to this article (in Norwegian), they sometimes use transfer data via the internet, but they use dedicated connections for communication, and as such it should not be possible to hack into the satellites using an internet connection, according to the president of Kongsberg Satellite Services, which runs SvalSat. They heard about this when the commission contacted them, but they didn't find anything which could indicate the systems had been hacked when they checked the systems (article in Norwegian). Apparently, the source of the hacking claim is the USAF.
4. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. This is nonsense. I do work at the site and know the details. Internet is physically separated from the command chain. This is not possible through the Svalbard station at least.
5. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  thats true but the pc that has the software to manage the sats, could be infected by a troyan,
6. Re:Critical Systems and Internet Don't Mix by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  I've got news for you. Almost all of the NASA Satellite control centers including the ISS are connected to the Internet is some way. Yes, they are behind layers of firewalls and for most there is no actual direct IP route to the Internet, but they are technically connected to the Internet.
over 12 minutes? by FunkyELF · 2011-10-27 06:17 · Score: 2

Does that mean 12 and some change? If it was 13.5 minutes they would have said over 13?
Its like saying "My daughter took top 17 in the beauty pageant."... it means she got exactly 17th.
1. Re:over 12 minutes? by xyourfacekillerx · 2011-10-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Odd thing to be focused on.
2. Re:over 12 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  ...out of 17.
3. Re:over 12 minutes? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 20:20 · Score: 0
  
  Its like saying "My daughter took top 17 in the beauty pageant."... it means she got exactly 17th.
  No, it means she's a slut and you're a pedophile.
China doesn't care about subtlety by almitchell · 2011-10-27 06:24 · Score: 2

When China freely admits that it was them who took out the NE US power grid in 2003 just to see if they could (race condition, indeed), you have to wonder what they're doing that they don't tell us about. Several experts debunked that theory, but they're openly publishing papers like this: http://standeyo.com/NEWS/10_Sci_Tech/100323.CH.US.Power.Grid.pdf. I dunno. The Chinese think we're pretty laughable. I wouldn't put anything past them.

--
Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
1. Re:China doesn't care about subtlety by Lumpy · 2011-10-27 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  "The Chinese think we're pretty laughable."
  and we are. we have Retarded executives making infrastructure decisions that dont even have the IQ or education to decide how to make coffee. WE have Critical SCADA systems on public networks, we have stupid design decisions driven by managers, Security catering to users that think passwords are "hard".. etc....
  We are pretty darn laughable.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
2. Re:China doesn't care about subtlety by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Are you swallowing the US government propaganda that Chinese are evil people? Do you believe your government when they say that the American economy is in the dumpers because of China? Do you think that China is hacking into all the US systems? If so, then yup, China thinks you're pretty laughable. Heck, the whole world thinks you're pretty laughable, too.
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:26 · Score: 0

........or as the Chinese call them, "Saterrites".
The Running Man by chill · 2011-10-27 06:28 · Score: 1

Maybe they were just big fans of Dweezil Zappa in that 1980's classic The Running Man?

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
hack satellites with open source software by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:34 · Score: 0

I downloaded satahack.exe last week it works great though there is no mac version of the software yet.
Imagery not good enough... by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-27 06:39 · Score: 2, Funny

As soon as the spy satellite images are good enough to resolve pubic hairs, the Chinese hackers will be all over them.
When that happens, nude sunbathing in the decadent West might just cripple the Chinese military effort... So do your duty, girls!

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:Imagery not good enough... by Pope · 2011-10-27 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  You're assuming the decadent Western nude sunbathers still have their pubic hairs intact.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
2. Re:Imagery not good enough... by eharvill · 2011-10-27 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as the spy satellite images are good enough to resolve pubic hairs, the Chinese hackers will be all over them.
  You don't think the government satellites don't have that type of imagery yet? Google Earth scares the shit out of me b/c I cannot imagine WTF the government has with their technology.
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
3. Re:Imagery not good enough... by FireFury03 · 2011-10-27 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Google Earth scares the shit out of me b/c I cannot imagine WTF the government has with their technology.
  Google Earth uses aerial photography (i.e. taken from planes) rather than satellite photos in all the interesting places.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
4. Re:Imagery not good enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  You know that at the max zoom level on Google Earth, that it's not sattelite data, right?
5. Re:Imagery not good enough... by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-27 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You don't think the government satellites don't have that type of imagery yet?
  Nope. Do the math, the resolving power dR of an optically perfect instrument of diameter D and focal length L using light of wavelength W at working distance equal to focal length is given by:
  dR=1.22 W L/D
  So for a really thick pube of diameter 0.1mm, using blue light of wavelength 0.0004mm, the L/D must not exceed 204. For low orbit, L is at least 50 kilometers, which suggests D must be at least 250 meters. The larger spy satellites have imperfect mirrors of only 2 or 3 meters, so good luck with scaling their diameters up by two orders of magnitude (i.e. 4 orders of magnitude in area for a simple scaling).
  
  Google Earth scares the shit out of me b/c I cannot imagine WTF the government has with their technology.
  You're probably thinking of the aerial photography by USGS and others. Not satellite imagery. It's good, but more than an order of magnitude away from resolving a pube, however.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
6. Re:Imagery not good enough... by johanatan · 2011-10-27 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  You're putting words into his mouth.
7. Re:Imagery not good enough... by eharvill · 2011-10-27 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  Umm, yeah. Too lazy/not schooled enough to do the maths. I guess my point is, whatever technology Google/MS/etc has and the public has access to, the government most likely has several order of magnitudes better tech. So you say imperfect mirrors of 2 or 3 meters. what are the odds they have nearly perfect mirrors of 7 or 10 meters? Or whatever ( I have no clue what that would translate into mathematically/optically). Or some crazy ass tech that we aren't aware of yet. The government does a lot of things really poorly, but I think when it comes to spying/military/defense/etc, they do a damn good job of keeping ahead of the private sector (or buying them out) and other governments. Hell, LASERS can eavesdrop from a distance now, right? Who would have ever though light could be used to capture sound...
  
  --
  At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me
8. Re:Imagery not good enough... by AliasMarlowe · 2011-10-28 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  what are the odds they have nearly perfect mirrors of 7 or 10 meters?
  Hard to say, but probably quite low. The largest telescopes have mirrors of 10-ish meters diameter, but segmented for purposes of manufacturability and reduced mass. These are nearly perfect mirrors for visible light, and depend on adaptive optics (a technology which was originally developed for classified spying purposes). The Keck segmented mirror weighs 18 tons just for the glass part, and an additional 270 tons for the framework holding it, including the adaptive optics actuators. Putting a similar device in space would reduce the required mass of the mount, but not remarkably, as it would need sufficient rigidity (the actuators need a reference structure which yields less than the glass and does not ring).
  Given an essentially perfect 10 meter mirror, the resolving power using blue light for targets on the Earth's surface from a quite low 50km orbit would be about 2½mm. This means that two points separated by 2½mm would be just separable (the "Rayleigh" criterion). So, given sufficiently good illumination of its target, it would be able to readably image major headlines and some lesser headlines in a newspaper, but the story text would still be no more than an unintelligible blur.
  Scale these results accordingly for smaller or larger telescopes - for instance a 2½ meter mirror would be able to resolve about 1cm from 50km distance in blue light. Of course, real spy satellites operate in much higher orbits, and a resolving potential of 15cm at ground level is conjectured for the 2.4 meter mirror of the KH-11 with a 50% MTF.
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Two words. by www.sorehands.com · 2011-10-27 06:45 · Score: 1

Plausible deniability.
Worked for the Stargate program too. Everyone thinks that Stargate is science fiction.

--
Fight Spammers!
That captain midnight guy just over powered HBO by Joe_Dragon · 2011-10-27 06:48 · Score: 2

That captain midnight guy just over powered HBO and was able to show his test card on HBO.
1. Re:That captain midnight guy just over powered HBO by onepoint · 2011-10-27 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Back in 1985, I recall that someone took control of some satellite also. I can not really recall the article.
  
  --
  if you see me, smile and say hello.
2. Re:That captain midnight guy just over powered HBO by Culture20 · 2011-10-27 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  Back in 1985, I recall that someone took control of some satellite also. I can not really recall the article.
  Back in 1987, a signal from the future took control of televisions everywhere and was used to sell toys that interact with a television show (actually a temporal signal that allowed kids to control UAVs in the future to fight evil bio-dreads). Captain Power changed the course of history, so the show was "canceled".
Re:Not this time: Are you kiddin me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 06:53 · Score: 0

The Nazis would have had a hell of a time with US. Don't forget, the US citizenry is armed to the teeth. And every Redneck would grab his deer rifle and go 'hunting'.
Or let me put it another way; how would you like to invade a country where at least half the populance are snipers... And damed good ones too.
The British found out, the North and the South found, and any idiot who chooses to invade the United States will find out; the hard way.
Climate and Terrain by Darinbob · 2011-10-27 07:16 · Score: 1

So the hacked satellite was only mapping climate and terrain. You know if I were an evil genius this is exactly what I would want to hack in order to to hide my secret volcano lair. And I use the word "if" ironically.
First thing to go in all out war. by koan · 2011-10-27 07:17 · Score: 1

Practice run for something larger later, to bad everyone in Washington is primarily concerned with "copyright infringement"

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Lazy security by sl4shd0rk · 2011-10-27 07:28 · Score: 1

This should not happen on a high risk/high potential system. If it does, either your security team, or policy enforcer/makers, need to be replaced. Period.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
BPS! by nemasu · 2011-10-27 07:36 · Score: 1

Anyone else think about BPS first thing after reading summary?
Can just see it now: "In later news a satellite has randomly crashed into the [insert corp.] building this morning."
......No? ....okay, I'll go away now.

--
I made an app! Shoutium
Winning wars... or not by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 07:45 · Score: 0

That is a pretty funny list. The US has not _won_ a single war, at least not with the actual goal that they said they had by going to war in the first place.
If you change the cover-up goal of establishing democracy to getting more oil, then of course the picture changes.
1. Re:Winning wars... or not by Kagura · 2011-10-27 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  That is a pretty funny list. The US has not _won_ a single war, at least not with the actual goal that they said they had by going to war in the first place. If you change the cover-up goal of establishing democracy to getting more oil, then of course the picture changes.
  No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, being an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. (link)
  
  A random example follows: "An example of a political application of the fallacy could be in asserting that 'no democracy starts a war', then after having been proven wrong distinguishing between mature or 'true' democracies, which never start wars, and 'emerging democracies', which may start them." Also, OP is a moron.
Who hasn't? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:16 · Score: 0

Who hasn't hacked a satellite or two during his teen years? Come on, this is slashdot.
China is the new Russia by msobkow · 2011-10-27 08:18 · Score: 1

Gotta have something on the table to scare the people with. They're not believing the terrorist tales any more.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Pretty clear outcome by TiggertheMad · 2011-10-27 08:28 · Score: 1

We beat the North Koreans soundly. We tied with the Chinese reinforcements supplied with Russian hardware because we didn't want to turn the proxy fight into a full blown world war.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
It's not by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 08:43 · Score: 0

It's not misuse to hack into a system. It's unauthorized behaviour and most likely illegal to do so, but it's not misuse in and by itself. This is true even for many actions you do after having gained access. This will not matter in most cases.
What we know in this case is, that the word was used to describe a situation, in which the satellite could have been used in a way it wasn't supposed to be used as a satellite, not some compromised computer system.
Put an extra Firewall on GoldenEye by martiniturbide · 2011-10-27 09:00 · Score: 1

...you never know.... you are warned.
control by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 10:07 · Score: 0

Hackers Briefly Controlled US Government Satellites
And then suddenly, lost control.
Whew! by Greyfox · 2011-10-27 11:08 · Score: 1

Good thing they didn't fire the laser cannon on those things! The US Government doesn't like to talk about the laser cannon. It would have been a lot harder to not talk about it, if it had been fired!
And yes, the laser cannon is only used for "Observing the Earth's Climate." It often observes a very high, very localized instance of global warming.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How long do you need to be in control? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 11:21 · Score: 0

To knock it out of orbit?
landsat-7 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 11:34 · Score: 0

isn't that a ukraine satellite?
Some real info by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 11:49 · Score: 0

Most NASA satellites in orbit don't have command encryption and can't be modified remotely to have command encryption because the critical command functions are in the uplink hardware. This article is moot though, because nearly every new NASA satellite is required to have command encryption just like the DOD birds.
From the article, the C&C was on the internet by manekineko2 · 2011-10-27 12:06 · Score: 1

WTF? it's not hard to start messing with a satellite C&C. IT's not like they are on the internet and the older ones have completely open interfaces.
"Since the satellites are controlled from the Svalbard Satellite Station in Norway which often uses the Internet to transfer and access files, it is deemed highly likely that the hackers have managed to insinuate themselves into the station's system through its Internet connection."
Why didnt NASA contact KSat about the issue? by Skvate · 2011-10-27 12:11 · Score: 1

KSat(Kongsberg Satellite Services AS) are the ones maintaining communication with the satellites from Svalbard. The manager there said that they haven't been contacted by NASA about the issue, and they have also not found any evidence that that they have been hacked. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/Ble-denne-satellittbasen-p-Svalbard-hacket-6681937.html
Re:Not this time: Are you kiddin me? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-27 12:50 · Score: 0

Sorry, but around here, even active hunters are mostly not snipers. (Even purely from the perspective of accuracy with a rifle -- leaving aside positioning, camouflage, and such that are really the larger part of a sniper's skill set.) Marksmen, yes; snipers, no. And most gun owners are not even active hunters.
Your point is right, but you vastly overstate it.
satellites are open source by Hierofant · 2011-10-27 14:38 · Score: 1

whether you want them to be or not. The earth is round again!