Slashdot Mirror
Most US Drones Still Beam Video Unencrypted
An anonymous reader writes "Four years after discovering that militants were tapping into drone video feeds, the U.S. military still hasn't secured the transmissions of more than half of its fleet of Predator and Reaper drones, Danger Room has learned. The majority of the aircraft still broadcast their classified video streams 'in the clear' — without encryption. With a minimal amount of equipment and know-how, militants can see what America's drones see."
Coinurl.com?
you linked us to coinurl?
and used to feed false ....feeds?
Somebody is hoping to get a lot of click-through hits on their ads, thanks to Slashdot. Good to see we are helping out the friendly anonyous submitter.
The real Wired article is here.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/hack-proof-drone/
Moderator asleep at wheel?
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Stop that.
Link is spam. :|
We got a Glenn Beck link earlier today in the form of a voting machine calibration story. This does not bode well for Slashdot. Either that, or they've been hacked, and they haven't been able to tell anyone yet. I'm not sure which has happened.
When they start linking to dodgy russian warez sites, it'll become more obvious who's in control of the site.
moox. for a new generation.
Why the hell is the initial link a re-direct?
I can picture the Taliban watching the back of their heads on a screen, like in the Mel Brooks film. "Prepare to fast forward!" http://tinyurl.com/cqbwm5y
Gently reply
Welcome to slashdot. Also don't be shocked when a troll gets +5 and a reasonable post keeps getting buried by the same troll's sockpuppets.
Direct link to the article http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/hack-proof-drone/
Wait, are those cross-hairs? Oh shit...
It's a shame there isn't a flag to indicate the story was edited to correct this stupidity. I often feel like a complete idiot for coming back to this site (since 1998).
I'm pretty sure more than video is unencrypted
I believe that its illegal to transmit classified data in the clear, so can we arrest the vendor for a security violation?
Four years is probably barely enough to form a committee to plan the budget for a new feature. Maybe in another four years they'll actually start looking for an implementer.
I'm controlling one right now. Don't believe me? Post your address, I'll buzz your house.
Seriously, who cares if they can watch the video feed right before they get bombed.
If the drones aren't encrypted, can't they be jammed?
God spoke to me
Ivan would have owned these. RIP Ivan .
...these drones are build so cheap, they have the same wired remotes that their civilian counterparts my cheap uncle would buy me ffor Christmas - the ones that only turn in reverse.
Why yes, I'm till bitter about that.
Any more details about this? My guess is a cheap USB DTV receiver.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The real trick is that the gov can track video receiving equipment (by the frequencies they use to decode the video) - so anyone attempting to receive video from a drone, is probably a worthwhile target :) Gotta love counter intelligence. Remember when we discovered (and thus told the russians) spent uranium bullets did not work? You guys are so gullible.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
This was the first story I down voted on the recent submissions page when I looked in there today. It really wasn't that hard to click on the link and see the spam site and that this was spam. I even chose the binspam option on the down vote. Whoever is the editor today is slacking. I know I'm not the only voting on those but you'd think anything with a vote of binspam should get an automatic closer look. The second story I down voted was the Glenn Beck trash story. At least for that one I had to highlight the "theblaze" site name and right click on search google to get to the wikipedia link (third or fourth site down the google search) to see that it was bullshit.
Is this lameness the result of the new ownership? Or is it because it's Friday night and they're network gaming and only spending a few minutes here and there posting stories so they look like they're working?
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Wouldn't it make sense to leave some drones unencrypted, so the enemy can think they are seeing everything? If everything was encrypted, they might try harder at decryption.
Or you can let them see unencrypted signals of a trailer park, while your encrypted drones circle a hillside. If the enemy sees the trailer park on his eavesdropped TV, he'll comfortably sit outdoors on that hillside, knowing nothing threating has him in its sights.
I think it's a brilliant strategy to leave them unencrypted.
On this episode, stir-fry and crispy fried wontons.
So what if the video is transmitted in the clear? What does that get you...
- against a sophisticated enemy? They already know you're there (radar, DF on the transmitted signal). You're flying around in a racetrack centered on your target, so even without the video they know roughly what you're looking at. Problem is solved by an enemy air-to-air missile, or they ignore you and watch you watching them.
- against an unsophisticated enemy? They don't even know to look for the signal in the first place.
- against an enemy marginally capable of receiving the video signal? Use more channels, change encoding schemes so that COTS equipment can't pick it up so easily. Or yeah, encode it. But encoding video is fairly difficult considering the need to do it in realtime with limited processing capability and no tolerance for latency (and this is the real reason video is still transmitted in the clear - it's expensive to do anything but!). Or embrace it. Maybe your enemy can see you watching him - that can be played to an advantage.
Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
It is probably done to strike fear into those who are thinking of joining or feel the effort is worth it, when they know at anytime there is a drone waiting to kill them. Maybe after a few years they will encrypt some of the video feeds and intentionally leave others without encryption. Not sure why this is a big deal or even worth reporting. The US is fully aware of how tech savvy the middle east is, they have some of the best hackers, so if you have a silly notion that they are dumb neanderthal like people you are arrogant.
It would be more interesting to find out if the domestic (those being used intentionally to spy on US citizens or whatever else there evil minds decide to do) drones video feeds are encrypted.
I say it is not a big deal because 60% of war is all about mind games. Either getting your troops to rally and conquer, or you demoralize the enemy not with a body count but with fear.
Brings up other question!! Why is the US fucking around allowing them to live? Why aren't these attacks being carried out on the training camps, and why are they not destroying targets when they encounter them? I guess the do not want to end this, or at least fracture it, making it somewhat easier for allied forces, or the countries own military/police force to manage the remaining small groups, seems like the US want to continue to prolong terrorism.
The Taliban is restructuring into more of a policing group, they even allow and print there own newspaper, blending in with everyone else, and trying to eliminate there old testament (if you will) of death, destruction, censorship, and ridding oneself of modern life. To a more open, and commonly shared view of mainstream Muslims. PBS and Frontline has a video on this new Taliban.
Remember the introduction to the Borg? Imagine while we think of broadcasting false aerial photos to make baddies flee from their outhouses, some smart kid on the other side comes up with a gadget to "return to sender" all this love.
Slashdot has always been like this. In fact, things have arguably gotten better, as hard as that is to believe. Back in the early days, there was quite a bit of outcry over the incredibly lazy editing and numerous dupes. CmdrTaco's response? That amateurish nonsense was part of the charm of the site, and he steadfastly refused address those concerns (or pretty much any other complaints or feature requests, for that matter). Now that he's finally gone, we might see the sight getting a little more professional, but I kind of doubt it. The remaining editors are probably just as philosophically opposed to looking professional (and doing work). Making it to the point where the site is even halfway presentable is quite amazing, and I suppose we should be thankful that anything at all on this site works, given its history.
Still, linking to outright spam sites is a new low, even for Slashdot. However, Slashdot has been linking to pointless blogspam for years and years, which is only marginally better. And that's not even counting the slashvertisements...
"Holy %$&^! Achmed, look! We're live on Drone TV! Look, there it is. Hi Mom!"
I was deployed in Afghanistan in 2010, had a bunch of prototype "advanced" receiver equipment that I was volentold to test. When I asked how I'm supposed to load keys into the decoder, "Oh you don't need that" Confused, I looked in the unit to see the keyfiles empty. Somehow the unit still worked. After playing with the equipment, even in-theater, our drones were broadcasting completely in the clear on UHF. Whenever there was one overhead, I could simply fire up this heavy POS attached to my kit, and watch us on the ground walk around, (Or whatever female medic on one of the local FOBs the UAV operator was stalking)
Actually most of the time, the UAV was watching the chicks on the big FOB.. Yeah.
I've been saying for a while that there should be something like version control on the summaries. Maybe just show a "diff" link underneath and last edited hh:mm.
These videos would make a wonderful advertisement for Ron Paul's 2016 campaign.
Would something similar to an ssh tunnel for the video signal suffice?
We have identified their location, it's the moon of vega. Set a course and prepare for our arrival! By high noon tomorrow, they will be our prisoners!
Almost as bad as if they had revealed the number of Americans they spied on.
You misunderstand. Pinhedd is saying that with an unencrypted signal .. unlike a digital encrypted signal .. if the signal is weak and lossy you can still see usable information.. it may have image noise .. but you'll be able to make out rough outlines. But if the signal is encrypted .. with most forms of encryption you either get a perfect imagery or nothing. Either you will see a clear image or random total image noise. If you make the signal more resilient to noise, the weaker the encryption quality. This also means you lose out on range too since you need a clear strong signal.
We need better ways to encrypt.
Look ma, no hands!
Is the navigation commands also sent "in the clear"? I would think the military would of made sure not just anyone could tell a drone where to go - seems if that's the case, just use the same encryption for the video. No fuss, no second list of codes or new launch procedures to worry about, just make the change in the drone software and the base side software. Updated base side hardware could then operate any drone, updated or not, and set updated drones to check the version of the base side software and fallback to unencrypted video if not supported. This is the army, things should work no matter what, and this accomplishes that without changing anything in current deployment procedures. Schedule the update for the next hardware maintenance, problem solved.
Hey, look at this, Ali, you're on TV!
Add redundancy (something like par2), transmit more information- well, this requires faster links. Then you can recover more frames. Don't encrypt entire monolythic stream, encrypt each 10 second chunk of video separately (or something similar). If one chunk gets garbled and unecryptable, you can still see others. If you have two way link, you can monitor link quality and adjust the amount of recovery/redundant information sent. Or adjust resolution/quality to lower the amount of information sent.
Anyway, with some research and experimentation this can be made to work well encrypted.
--Coder
Unencrpyted and barely legal! LOL
I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
you don't need to encrypt your stuff.
So do you really want to pay a major defense contractor to add encryption to a tiny dronw, increasing botht he ddesign and production cost, and the challenges for the folks using it? We don't do half-assed encryption. We super-insane NSA encryption or none. The super-insane crypto has an attitude problem and disables itself after a few days to prevent the system from using old (potentially compromised) crypto.
The comms links, however, are encrypted to prevent spoofing. Those, since the UAV and the operator see eachother before flight, work, since it can get new crypto from the operator.
I heard rumours they also tried cheaper Hollywood-style encryption, but they had to many casualties because the drone wasn't operational fast enough.
They had to watch too many FBI warnings before they could start it up.
Sorry, this is vaguely true, but dead wrong in practice. Any block of unencrypted data received successfully could have been encrypted byte-for-byte. Only key negotiation requires additional data, and this is a truly miniscule amount relative to a video feed of any resolution (assuming a reasonable renegotiation period)
Yes, when it spews leftard garbage left and right Slashdot is da shit. Now, a solitary Glenn Beck link? OMG it's the end of Slashdot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!
Why not use a SSH tunnel to secure the data being channeled to the pilots?
ummmm very good www.film4y.blogspot.com
Hah, get a look at this, they're nowhere near us. Relax guys, put down that portable SAM....kaaabooom!
A decade or so ago it was even worse.
There was a continuous feed of 4 of those drone video streams on a Telstar satellite at 37.5 degrees west.
All over Europe (and maybe also on the US Eastcoast, I don't remember the actual footprint details) it was
possible to watch a live stream of drones hovering over ex-Yugoslavia with a standard DVB-S receiver, and
a 2-3ft dish pointed at that satellite.
I was amazed when I first installed a steerable dish, scanned the different satellites for programmes and
stumbled upon that (of course not knowing what it was at first).
However, another hobbyist viewer spoiled it by bringing the matter to the attention of the BBC who aired an
item on the evening news, taken over by lots of other news programmes. Then, they put some form of
encryption on the satellite transmission (which was a relay of the signal received locally on the ground, not
an immediate relay from the drones themselves).
But apparently it was only fixed for the satellite stream, not for the drones.
That depends on whether their Schwartz is as big as ours.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
The US military obviously does not care if the Taliban are watching drone footage. Now if drone footage was being viewed by US citizens the signals would all be encrypted within a month. Shows you just who our own government considers its true enemies doesn't it.
If they encrypt it, then the bad guys will just get it from the Pirate Bay.
Back when this was happening from piloted aircraft broadcasting video streams 10+ years ago some speculation here was:
1/ Encryption gets in the way of any military unit that wants to see it so if it's for general distribution don't encrypt.
2/ None of the stuff shown in the videos belongs to the US and their allies so it often won't matter if somebody else gets it.
There's plenty of counterarguments and edge cases, (please don't try any on me since I tunnel just about everything through ssh as a matter of habit so you'll be preaching to the converted), but I can see those two points that came up in earlier discussions have some validity.
It's a "needle in a haystack" situation so the "Why is the US fucking around allowing them to live?" question is answered by the problem that they have to be found first, and there is no magic to find them quickly, only hard (and deadly) work.
The US is paying off locals, even threatening locals with imprisonment for being terrorists (when they are not) to become spies, who sole purpose is to find and join terrorist groups, rely what they know back to the US. Not to mention all the other Intelligence/satellite/and other whys to track or spy in on targets, add to that the other countries outside the ones claiming to be helping out. The "needle in a haystack" is more like a 10' knitting needle.
The sad part are the men and women who are getting killed, and even they ask the same question as the above statement. I find it hard to believe that once they find a target they somehow "lose" it, with all the things at there disposal.
The camps are being reported by the spies or informants.
So then, how do you find a reliable spy for sale instead of one that is just looking for a buck or wants to turn in their personal enemies?
As I said, needle in a haystack, and it's a pity I have to go as far as stating the incredibly obvious to cure that magical thinking.
"Broadcast" is the wrong word. No doubt these signals are intended to be received by US satellites. The drones would probably have a vertical antenna with an omnidirectional pattern because a dish would be too large and would need to be aimed. The omni antenna would allow reception from any direction but the interceptor would still need to be within line of sight range and have a satellite type receiver on the right band with appropriate filtering and demodulation. This is not impossible, but it is not that easy either, and when the drone moves away the signal drops out.
My guess is that while it can be done, it is too much trouble for the small gain involved. Better to just let the Yankees think we do it all the time. Google "RC FPV" and see what our hobbyists are doing - mostly with stuff that is made in China.