Iraqi resistance hacks into US drones

[Ecofarm]

“If you’re an insurgent, you need to know when and where [aircraft] are flying and then be within the line-of-sight footprint of the feed for any chance of successfully using the information real-time,” one officer writes. “This is much to do about nothing. You have bigger fish to fry.”

“The ranges on these signals is not very great, they are low-power and intended for line-of sight communications. A risk has been identified, [but] it poses limited immediate operational or tactical risk, and certainly does not outweigh the value of thee capabilities,” a second notes.

Well the benefits definately outweigh the risk, but I'd rather just not have the risk. I hope this gets completely fixed soon.

 

[Shekwan]

This thread delivers.

Its amazing like how quick some people were to lay on the excuses. I especially got a good laugh at the comparison of Predator drones to the average soliders razor or iPod.

Now I'll admit that this was probably not the huge intelligence cockup that some would want to paint it, but it was definately a stupid mistake. I would say it was a case of underestimating the enemy. Sure what could a bunch of religious fanatics stuck in the 9th century figure out?

 

[Ecofarm]

Actually, it was 12th century Iranians and 20th century Russians that figured it out.

Then the Iranians brought the gear over and taught them how to use it.

 

[Patroklos]

I always appreciate coming back to a thread the next day and finding everything I stated earlier was completely verified in every way.

 

[RedRalph]

I always appreciate coming back to a thread the next day and finding everything I stated earlier was completely verified in every way.

like what?

 

[Patroklos]

Like literally everything I said on pages 1 and 2.

 

[really]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2041754.stm
It's not exactly new - this guy in the UK was able to watch surveillance footage from the Balkans from the comfort of his home in 2002. I don't think it came from UAVs though.

(short version - not enough space on military satellites - they were using commercial satellites)

 

[onedreamer]

Listen, if you want to start installing world class encryption on every grunts ipod/camera/electric razor be my guest. In the real world things don't run off of ore collection, we have to allocate resources, it a fact even the American has to live with (and needs to do a better job of).

the actual encryption of network data is costless, just so you know. You may inform the Pentagon, as well. What may cost are the configurations and people needed to do it. I'd assume the military (including the military in the Republic of Congo) had such people available and that it would cost nothing to do it.

We have identified an enemy tactic and will adapt accordingly.

Kudos. Out of curiosity, what enemy tactic did you identify ? Interception ? Hacking ? And what is the countermeasure you will adopt ? Encryption ? Kudos again.

 

[Ecofarm]

Kudos. Out of curiosity, what enemy tactic did you identify ? Interception ? Hacking ? And what is the countermeasure you will adopt ? Encryption ? Kudos again.

I think 'interception' is a better description. We are almost done encrypting the bigger drones. Some of the delay was the speed of dloads encrypted; I presume both issues have been addressed.

We will continue ass-whupping without delay, maintaining recon capabilities far beyond anything experienced on the battlefield before.

 

[onedreamer]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/business/17uav.html?_r=1&em=&pagewanted=all


I hear encryption is already present in most drones, and the rest will have it soon. The "hacking" required line-of-sight, so terrorists only saw their own death coming when it was too late.

http://video.foxnews.com/12604793/hack-attack

another FYI: when communications are unencrypted, anyone that intercepts them can read them and use them. Anyone isn't limited to terrorists, it defines... anyone.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then the Iranians brought the gear over and taught them how to use it.

I love this aspect of the latest defense of the indefensible by the military apologists. Not only are they trying to rationalize away the mistakes caused by the $4.5M predator being rushed into service by using commercial parts instead of military counterparts 15 years ago, they are now trying to blame Iran for providing the $29 program that made it all possible!

George Orwell would be so proud.

 

[onedreamer]

I think 'interception' is a better description. We are almost done encrypting the bigger drones. Some of the delay was the speed of dloads encrypted; I presume both issues have been addressed.

We will continue ass-whupping without delay.

In the video games you describe these steps are done in WW2 games. In modern world games this component is so implicit that it's not even present.

 

[Ecofarm]

another FYI: when communications are unencrypted, anyone that intercepts them can read them and use them. Anyone isn't limited to terrorists, it defines... anyone.

Yes, however, "it looks like that drone is about to strike that building" is only useful information for a few seconds... about the same time as it takes to locate the bird and dload. That is why:

"There did appear to be a vulnerability," the defense official said. "There's been no harm done to troops or missions compromised as a result of it, but there's an issue that we can take care of and we're doing so."

In the video games you describe these steps are done in WW2 games. In modern world games this component is so implicit that it's not even present.

I was a paratrooper, airborne infantry, from '90 to '94. I know a little about real military stuff.

I love this aspect of the latest defense of the indefensible by the military apologists. Not only are they trying to rationalize away the mistakes caused by the $4.5M predator being rushed into service by using commercial parts instead of military counterparts 15 years ago, they are now trying to blame Iran for providing the $29 program that made it all possible!

George Orwell would be so proud.

CNN is a military apologist?

The breach by Iranian-backed Shiite militants was discovered late last year, according to U.S. military and defense officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/17/drone.video.hacked/index.html

The Independant is a US military apologist?

In July, they found pirated feeds on other militant laptops, leading some officials to conclude that groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds and sharing them with multiple extremist groups.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraqi-insurgents-hack-us-drones-1844556.html

By the way, that is where your article and quotes are from RRW ^^ Not BBC, as the OP claims.

Timesonline.uk is a US military apologist?

The Wall Street Journal reported that the hackers were Iranian-backed Shias in Iraq

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6961254.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=2015164

 

[onedreamer]

And apparently, because I am not a para, I know more than you do about encryption.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like literally everything I said on pages 1 and 2.

You mean like this statement?

They are obviously talking about hand held tactical or locally launched drone type used by tactical units, not Global Hawk and the like. These are like little remote controlled planes built to be cheap, disposable, and easily usable by the lowest common denominator. I would like confirmation of this however.

CNN is a military apologist?

They get their information from the same apologists which you do. I seriously doubt that predators are being used to hunt and kill Shia in Iraq, which have ostensibly been our "friends" since the supposed surge "saved" Iraq. And to claim that they are helping the Sunnis or the Sunni-backed Al-Qaida is basically preposterous.

 

[Patroklos]

the actual encryption of network data is costless, just so you know. You may inform the Pentagon, as well. What may cost are the configurations and people needed to do it. I'd assume the military (including the military in the Republic of Congo) had such people available and that it would cost nothing to do it.

1.) It is not costless, as the NSA and Navy Cryptology spend lots of money producing it. It changes often.

2.) The only people who can handle such data have to be CSM qualified (or whatever the equivalent is in the other services) which requires TS clearance. It also requires extensive schools to get the qualification.

3.) The accountability for maintaining cryto or transporting it to include storage is demanding in the extreme. Managing the program is a full time job, and every independant unit would have to devote one of their best people to this.

Kudos. Out of curiosity, what enemy tactic did you identify ? Interception ? Hacking ? And what is the countermeasure you will adopt ? Encryption ? Kudos again.

Them intercepting the signal (there is no hacking involved), and us encrypting it if that is deemed beneficial to do so which it seems it has been.

 

[Formaldehyde]

1.) It is not costless, as the NSA and Navy Cryptology spend lots of money producing it. It changes often.

2.) The only people who can handle such data have to be CSM qualified (or whatever the equivalent is in the other services) which requires TS clearance. It also requires extensive schools to get the qualification.

3.) The accountability for maintaining cryto or transporting it to include storage is demanding in the extreme. Managing the program is a full time job, and every independant unit would have to devote one of their best people to this.

As they already must do to support the predators? Or did you miss the latest information finally divulged by the military to help explain away this embarrassment that only the LOS video feed is still unencrypted? Or that it is due to the predator originally being assembled from commercial components instead of their military counterparts over 15 years ago as a proof-of-concept instead of something which was supposed to be operational?

I think it is much safer to stick to the fully vetted excuses officially profferred by the military.

 

[Ecofarm]

And apparently, because I am not a para, I know more than you do about encryption.

I don't care what you know. I'm telling you what the military tells us.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military has fixed a problem that allowed Iraqi militants to use cheap software to intercept the video feeds of US-operated drones, a defense official said on Thursday.

"This is an old issue that's been addressed," the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told reporters.

The problem has been "taken care of," he said.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091217/usa/iraq_unrest_us_weapons_iran_afghanistan

And note:

WASHINGTON – The top U.S. military officer said recent computer hacking of information from U.S. drones caused no significant military damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_drones_hacked_mullen



Like I said, problem solved... ass-whuppings will continue with best recon ever.

Which part do you not understand?

 

[onedreamer]

1.) It is not costless, as the NSA and Navy Cryptology spend lots of money producing it. It changes often.

it is costless. The fact that NSA spends on it doesn't mean it isn't costless. It doesn't have to be a proprietary encryption protocol, top class or whatever you called it. Just an open standard encryption protocol is better than nothing, and costs zero, like the nothing that has been used up to now.

2.) The only people who can handle such data have to be CSM qualified (or whatever the equivalent is in the other services) which requires TS clearance. It also requires extensive schools to get the qualification.

and ? You are saying there are no qualified IT experts in the army ? When everyone knows that IT is at the base of modern warfare ? The DoD invented the TCP/IP Protocol because it knew that IT is key, and this was ages ago.

3.) The accountability for maintaining cryto or transporting it to include storage is demanding in the extreme. Managing the program is a full time job, and every independant unit would have to devote one of their best people to this.

no, it isn't. Also, managing the program would be transparent to people. People don't decrypt messages, computers do.

Them intercepting the signal (there is no hacking involved), and us encrypting it if that is deemed beneficial to do so which it seems it has been.

If it is so expensive and demanding to encrypt such data as you say, and if it is so useless and not dangerous to not do so as your eagle eye mate says, why the heck are you both saying that encryption will be added to thousands of communications channels in a matter of days ? Can you explain this highly contradictory fact ? Thank you.

 

[onedreamer]

I don't care what you know. I'm telling you what the military tells us.

Which part do you not understand?

The part I understand well is the one where you say "I am telling you what the military tells me"