Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Television's Most Infamous Hack Is Still a Mystery 30 Years Later (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on from the unsolved-mysteries dept.

It has been 30 years since the Max Headroom hack, arguably the creepiest hack in the television history took place. Caroline Haskins, writes about the incident for Motherboard: It was a few minutes after 9 PM on Sunday, November 22, 1987. Chicago sportscaster Dan Roan was cheerily summarizing the Bears's victory that day for Channel 9 local news. Suddenly, televisions went silent, and their screens went black. At first, it seemed like an equipment malfunction. Without warning, televisions in the area blasted loud radio static. It was overlain with the screech of a power saw cutting into metal, or a jet engine malfunctioning. At center screen, a person wore a Max Headroom mask -- a character who appeared on various television shows and movies in the 1980s. He appeared to have yellow skin, yellow clothes, and yellow slicked-back hair. As purple and black lines spun behind him, Max nodded and swayed back and forth. His plastic face was stuck in laughter, and opaque sunglasses covered his eyes, which seemed to peer through the screen. The screen went black again. After a moment, Roan reappeared. "Well if you're wondering what'll happen," Roan said with a laugh, unaware of what had happened during the interruption, "so am I." Two hours later, it happened again on another channel. This time, Dr. Who had just turned to get his companion, Leela, a hot drink, when a line of static rolled across the screen, revealing the yellow man. After 30 years and an intense FCC investigation, the people behind the Headroom hack remain unknown. The correspondent has spoken to the newscasters who were interrupted and mocked that day. You can read the interview here.

58 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Max Headroom by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Thus dude was one cool cat. Loved it!

    1. Re:Max Headroom by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Mitt Romney always reminded me of Max Headroom. I'm surprised the similarity was only lightly spoofed.

      "C-c-corporations are p-p-people, my friends."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Max Headroom by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      Really? Mitt didn't have the whole stutter thing going on though.

    3. Re:Max Headroom by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      You loved Max Headroom, or you loved the TV Pirate who wore a Max Headroom mask and exposed his bare ass to all within reception range?

    4. Re:Max Headroom by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      You loved Max Headroom, or you loved the TV Pirate who wore a Max Headroom mask and exposed his bare ass to all within reception range?

      Yes!

  2. This Hack Was... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...One of the most "Interesting" Parts of being a kid in Chicago in the 80's. It stands as one of the most successful TV hacks of all time. After 30 years. Whoever did this, was either a super genius, or should have flown to Vegas and hit the tables the day after!

    1. Re:This Hack Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank you for becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    2. Re:This Hack Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days, the most "interesting" parts of being a kid in Chicago involves trying to dodge a hail of bullets every time you walk home from school. I've actually purchased two handguns and given them to my kids to have in their backpacks, just in case.

      You stupid dumbass. This is exactly the problem.

    3. Re:This Hack Was... by fisted · · Score: 1

      Or they just resisted the urge to brag about their hack on the Internet. Wonder why that is.

      --
      CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    4. Re:This Hack Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Not really a hack per se (but phreak as fuck). They just overpowered the uplink to the transmitter with their own signal. Back in the 80s no one bothered with spread specrtum or encryption or any of that crap. No one would build a microwave transmitter in their garage and then use brute force and ignorance to overpower competing signals....

      I've heard semi-credible reports it was a pair of brothers known to area phreakers of the day.

    5. Re:This Hack Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The law was broken when the handguns were supposedly handed to the kids. Plus, they likely would have been seized by the guys manning the metal detectors.

    6. Re:This Hack Was... by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      3d printed plastic guns. nuff said.

    7. Re:This Hack Was... by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Were these "semi-credible reports" TFA?

    8. Re:This Hack Was... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really all he did was overpower the microwave input the broadcaster was using to the transmitter - which are relatively low power, but even then - it's not like building or buying that kind of equipment is easy and certainly would have left a paper trail (it sounds like the FBI investigated it as well). These days of course all those aux broadcast channels are encrypted.

      Maybe he was an ex employee who carted off backup or discarded spares or something?

    9. Re:This Hack Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You and your kids are why there are signs all over the city banning guns inside every school and business and public building.

    10. Re:This Hack Was... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Come on, T barely changed anything about the economy. The economy has been on cruse control for several years.

      And while things are good now, we are do for recession soon (AKA "business cycle downturn"), and the ugly circumstances that usually entails. The rust belt is still trailing the rest of the country: a recession would thus hit them harder.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    11. Re:This Hack Was... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      modern industry is far more automated.

      True, but it still employs hundreds of millions of Chinese, and some of those jobs perhaps would still be in the USA if we didn't permit huge trade imbalances with them.

      I will agree that "free" trade probably has net advantages even if one party cheats some, BUT the advantages are not spread evenly: some people lose, and the rust belt took it in the arse.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    12. Re:This Hack Was... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      correction: "due for a recession..."

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    13. Re:This Hack Was... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      bullets still got metal, it would still go off. I see your point but realistically, not happening, not in any school in chicago anyway

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    14. Re:This Hack Was... by hey! · · Score: 1

      A hack it may be, but I don't find it all that interesting. Interesting hacks make a point.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:This Hack Was... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The studio-transmitter links of the time were all analog, all NTSC, no security at all. The transmitters were all on the same tower. All one really had to do was get a hold of the STL hardware, set the channel, beam a signal from a nearby location, and roll tape.

      It used to also be that you could set the brakes on a freight train with a walkie-talkie, by sending the right command to a device at the end of the train. It might even still be the case. Nobody considered that someone else could get on your frequency back then.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    16. Re:This Hack Was... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Or a mace for a keychain? :D

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  3. In other news by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    it's a really slow news day.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:In other news by MobileC · · Score: 1

      A really s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-slow n-n-n-n-n-n-ews day...

      --

      Fran
      :):):)
      1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  4. The second breakin - My Story by nevermindme · · Score: 2

    I was 16, dead asleep on the couch that night, never could make it through a Dr. Who on WTTW at that started at 11pm and sometimes ran as late at 12:30 or 1. The VCR did start on time and on channel, that spinup and hum allowed me to crash to sleep at 10:55. I heard about it on the news in the morning and sure enough I had a perfect recording of this "event". Beyond a few minutes of attempting to decipher gibberish, watched the Dr Who episode and taped over it the next week. Local story, thought this happened everywhere when uplink signals were still sent up and down to national satellites in the clear.

    With about 5 to 10 thousand dr who fans in the greater Chicago area it was the local did you see it in sci fi event to talk about.

    1. Re:The second breakin - My Story by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Local story, thought this happened everywhere when uplink signals were still sent up and down to national satellites in the clear.

      The local news program does not uplink to a satellite for distribution to the transmitter. It's a simple STL - studio transmitter link. Studio in middle of city needs way to get programming to the hilltop where the transmitter is. Radio. Not magic.

      If you have a transmitter that sends the same signal, and your signal is stronger, well, you get the idea.

      Back in those days, stations did not do live link to satellite feeds, they recorded the downlink for later play. I remember watching many programs coming down and going onto two inch tape just that way.

    2. Re:The second breakin - My Story by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      They were called wildfeeds, and some of them were rebroadcast live, especially news reports with the reporter standing around waiting for their turn, fixing their hair and picking their nose and stuff.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    3. Re:The second breakin - My Story by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      They were called wildfeeds, and some of them were rebroadcast live,

      If the local anchor was interrupted in a story by hacked video, it wasn't because his video was being sent up to a satellite and the uplink or downlink was hacked. It was a simple terrestrial STL.

      If it was Dr. Who, then it was a tape delay feed from Lionheart. You would not try to do such a program live because what happens if the feed fails? If the feed fails while you are taping it you have some time to find a replacement program, or you can call the source and say you need it again. If the feed fails during a live satellite feed, you have to find something NOW.

  5. Re:Collection is only available in DVD... by Desler · · Score: 2

    What would be the point? It was finished at 480i on videotape.

  6. Easier than you think. by jrmcferren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This kind of attack was easy for an advanced electronics experimenter to pull off. All that needed done was to overpower the studio's signal on the studio to transmitter link with the appropriate signal and you were in. Most of the information was provided by the sign off program as the studio to transmitter link station identification occurred during this time and the frequency was provided. This was basically a terrestrial version of the HBO attacks.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    1. Re:Easier than you think. by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly this. The STLs (Studio->Transmitter Links) are on 900 MHz and 2.8 GHz in Chicago. The studios are in smaller buildings (not many stories) but the main TX sites are all the tall buildings (Sears/Willis, Hancock, etc.).

      The links are directional beams or dishes and they are usually directly aimed at one another, but they are not that high power and can be overridden, especially if you have equipment maintenance penthouse access and can get up to the levels those things are at. Getting that access these days is much harder, post 9/11. It would probably be impossible to replicate that hack today, plus the STL's are digital and probably encrypted these days.

      Every once in a while some of my old acquaintances used to get drunk and someone would bump into one of the STL dishes causing a momentary "outage". :)

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    2. Re:Easier than you think. by swb · · Score: 1

      I think this makes sense as the most likely explanation.

      But....where would you get the equipment able to encode and transmit the signal correctly and at enough power to override the studio signal? I'd imagine your theoretical "advanced electronics experimenter" might be able to build something like this, but I'd also guess it wouldn't be a simple project and some key parts would have been expensive. I'd also guess there's probably some encoding/modulation info you'd have to know as well.

      And if the studio-transmitter link was microwave, isn't there some direction and aiming dependency? It doesn't seem like you'd be able to aim at it from just anywhere convenient, you'd have to be fairly close to the studio to get the transmitter aimed correctly.

      I'm curious what Chicago-area broadcast techs thought about this hack in its era. I'd wager the odds were good it was a short list of people with enough know-how to do it and they might have actually known who in the community was capable of it.

    3. Re:Easier than you think. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      If it's analog, the signal will be simple UHF with a frequency shift, because that's easy for the transmitter to then shift down again for broadcast. Generating the UHF source is trivial, especially in the 80s - every VCR and home computer had a UHF modulator. Probably used a camcorder to film himself. The microwave side is harder, though. Any experienced radio amateur would be able to build the mixer and filters for a converter. That just leaves the power amplifier. How he got hold of one of those, I do not know. Built it, possibly - though it may have taken some inventive design to cobble together from a lot of low-power transistors.

      If I had to speculate, I'd say you are looking for a ham, or a friend of a ham. They'd have the skills to construct and use the equipment.

    4. Re:Easier than you think. by swb · · Score: 1

      My guess would be someone who's an actual broadcast engineer or in a closely aligned field. They would certainly understand the uplink transmitter technology well and know how to produce the right signal, and probably have sources for the parts and equipment.

    5. Re:Easier than you think. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If it's analog, the signal will be simple UHF with a frequency shift, because that's easy for the transmitter to then shift down again for broadcast.

      "UHF with a frequency shift"? The transmitter will "shift down again"? No. You send the video and audio signal via whatever band you were licensed to use for your STL (UHF, SHF, whatever), the received baseband video and audio is modulated onto the TV carrier, along with any other subcarrier signals.

      Generating the UHF source is trivial, especially in the 80s - every VCR and home computer had a UHF modulator.

      That's funny, because all of mine had VHF. You got a choice of channel 3 or channel 4. You were pretty sure to have one or the other empty because the FCC would not license two stations in the same market next to each other, to prevent interference. The receivers were not that good back then.

      I didn't get a UHF modulator until I picked up a Sony video redistribution system that was intended to put multiple sources onto a cable. That wasn't until the late 90's or early 2000's.

      If I had to speculate, I'd say you are looking for a ham, or a friend of a ham. They'd have the skills to construct and use the equipment.

      Most hams would not. Very few hams do ATV or would construct wideband transmitters. It's a better bet that someone got the transmitter equipment via surplus, all ready to go once it was tuned to the right frequency.

    6. Re:Easier than you think. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "That's funny, because all of mine had VHF. You got a choice of channel 3 or channel 4"

      Oh, right. American. We don't do VHF TV over here in the UK - it's all UHF.

    7. Re:Easier than you think. by havana9 · · Score: 1

      In Italy there was in use an analogue method of relay, called ping-pong, where the signal from the broadcast studio or the main tower was sent in a regular VHF or UHF channel and used by the local TV set, to cover the valleys and hills the signal was received and frequency converted in another VHF or UHF channel. This method was used to relay the channel from Switzerland, France or Yugoslavia.
      You could jam a signal with a CATV single-channel amplifier and a TV modulator, but the bigges problem on some sites was that sometimes weird propagation make te secondary transmitter to start broadcast other station or get a garbled signal.

  7. Re:Collection is only available in DVD... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I can upgrade all your JPEG porn to high-quality, non-lossy PNG... for a price.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  8. if still alive come clean the time for prison is o by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    if still alive come clean the time for prison is over hell the captain midnight guy did zero 0 days and he had more risk of damaging stuff

  9. Movie Used Cars by p51d007 · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  10. GOODEVENING HBO by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    GOODEVENING HBO
    FROM CAPTAIN MIDNIGHT
    $12.95/MONTH ?
    NO WAY !
      [SHOWTIME/MOVIE CHANNEL BEWARE!]

  11. Re:Collection is only available in DVD... by Desler · · Score: 1

    So it’s creimer spamming affiliate links again?

  12. Just ponder what this would get you today by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    I think it's a bit like hacking back then. Nobody really cared TOO much if you did. Getting caught meant a slap on the wrist, if that, and a stern lecture.

    Try any of this shit today and you'll probably be doing quite some time for a lot of ridiculous reasons and everything that COULD have happened. Not to mention the billions of damage you did because a network couldn't broadcast their bullshit for 2 minutes.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:Collection is only available in DVD... by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    All the best porn is animated gif. Everyone knows that.

  14. Re:Collection is only available in DVD... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Of course we do, sir!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  15. Because the hacker was SMART. by Chas · · Score: 5, Informative

    He limited his exposure.

    And he hasn't succumbed to the need to "be famous".

    The FCC had essentially NOTHING to go on.

    FLAWLESS VICTORY!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Because the hacker was SMART. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Back in the Day, fame was based on your skills, your ability to share, and signature style of the hack ( like putting up a sticker ). Not the public knowing shit but the people whom would you would respect.

      I had the best dumpsters back then, heck I could almost know the entire color code of a 64 pair twisted wire.

      funny thing is, I always look at telephone poles and try to understand some of the new devices mounted. amazing what you can learn.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
  16. It's more common than you think by plopez · · Score: 1

    See
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... for more examples. The same prankster or different prankster? Who knows.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  17. Re:Uplink hacked? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Back in the day, most studio to transmitter links were radio, unidirectional, and LOS, so not a lot of power required. Easily overridden with say... an old van with a generator in it and a transmitter aimed at the transmitter's antenna.

    Now days, it is mostly done via fiber optic links, so less of a chance there, but since most TVs still accept and work with analog signals, odds are pretty good you could just blast your own signal high enough locally to do this same thing.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  18. If you want to get away with a crime... by netsavior · · Score: 1

    It is pretty simple to get away with a crime, just don't tell anyone about it. Ever. It is harder than you think.

  19. Re:Uplink hacked? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    but since most TVs still accept and work with analog signals,

    If your TV is tuned to a channel it knows is digital, it will not switch over to analog. It will be looking for the digital stream with the specific ID code of the channel you are tuned to. If that is disrupted for any reason, you get the black screen of "no signal".

    There are very few analog stations in the US anymore. I don't know if the LPTV and translators are still analog, but they were the last holdouts. The likelyhood of anyone viewing an analog signal right when you want to take over the video is very small. If you do have a TV tuned to an analog signal, it is almost certainly the output of a DTV translator box and it would be very hard to get enough ingress into the cable between the DTV box and TV to cause issues.

  20. Obviously done by Blank Reg ! by swell · · Score: 1

    Blank Reg was the pirate television broadcaster seen in the Max Headroom TV series of the 1980s. He traveled in his well equipped broadcast van, avoiding authorities and offering 'alternative' video that competed with the big broadcasters.

    Someone at Gizmodo
    https://io9.gizmodo.com/560967...
    talks about the prescience of that TV show so long ago...

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  21. Re:Still Waiting... by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    this is bob from Windows tech support we see that your system has errors and we can fix them for only $99.99

  22. Wow by easyTree · · Score: 1

    So, the the meta-story here is: noone knows anything worth writing about? Glad this was covered so well.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  23. Blitverts by emaname · · Score: 1

    What sticks with me is the concept of the "blitvert." The Max Headroom writer(s) showed remarkable prescience by featuring that idea. Look at the commercials broadcast today. A large number of commercials are resorting to using a barrage of images many of which are irrelevant and utterly meaningless. It's not uncommon to see a commercial where they'll run a series of images at around 1 every 0.5 seconds if not faster. Then there's also the method of rapidly cycling the screen between brightness and darkness. This doesn't do anything to make me want to buy their product.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  24. Re:Uplink hacked? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "If your TV is tuned to a channel it knows is digital, it will not switch over to analog."

    My 2009 Samsung will do it any time I kick on my analog USB wireless microscope when the input is set to OTA and I'm getting digital PBS. Maybe you should try with yours.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. Re: Uplink hacked? by Khyber · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot. UHF is 300 to 3000 MHz and the signal from the analog scope runs 1,860 MHz and is broadcast at 380mW antenna power. It is designed to work with either regular plain TVs or computers.

    Piss off until you have your HAM license.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  26. Re: Uplink hacked? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot. UHF is 300 to 3000 MHz and the signal from the analog scope runs 1,860 MHz and is broadcast at 380mW antenna power.

    Then it is not a USB microscope, now is it?

    Please tell me which magical channel you watched this USB microscope on, when the top end of the old UHF TV band was channel 83 at a measly 890 or so MHz. Well below the 1.860 GHz you claim your microscope used for USB.

    It is designed to work with either regular plain TVs or computers.

    Plain TVs don't have USB input; plain computers don't have 1.86GHz inputs. Your USB microscope that outputs 1,860MHz is an, umm, odd beast, to say the least.

    Piss off until you have your HAM license.

    How does him having a ham license change what you've described? I have one, by the way. I don't need it to know about frequencies and USB and stuff.