Iraqi resistance hacks into US drones

Onedreamer, the reasons listed for not having the drones encrypted are cited throughout the thread. Try reading it, it is only 4 pages.

1. We did not expect the enemy to have the tech to intercept.
2. Encryption was costing valuable dload time, AND WAS REMOVED. This was a cost/benefit decision by command.

Thus, we needed to improve dload times and standardize encryption. We have done that. What more do you want?


Maybe in your video game military world, you can have all the programmers and leet gear that you want anytime and always, but here in the real world we go to war with the army we have - and we improve it.
 
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.

Wait, so the fact that the NSA spends on it means it costs nothing?

:Crazyeye:

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.

There are, and those man hours cost money. Man hours used to do something that is deemed a lower priority means they are not doing things that are deemed a higher priority. Do you imagine we have an unlimited number of man hours to work with?

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

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no experiance with anything related to this topic. Yes, please tell me again how you learned all about CSM stewarship from your armchair sucking down a big gulp.

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.

Because now that we now they figured out a way to monitor it and may in the future use it as something other than a novelty, we are adapting according. But the fact remains these things have been in service since 1995, how many millions of man hours of talented technicians and operators were saved in that time? What were they used to do instead?
 
I am as disappointed by this event as the next guy.

However, this is not some "stupid error" or "blunder". It was simple logistics and a command decision. Like up-armoring the Humvees, it could not be done in one day. Unlike the Humvees, it was low priority... it is done now and we did not suffer for it.

USA #1
 
1. We did not expect the enemy to have the tech to intercept.

Translated, this means the US military failed.

Wait, so the fact that the NSA spends on it means it costs nothing?

:Crazyeye:

Yeah yeah, I know that it's hard for you to get to it, but what the NSA says it spends on may be something that perhaps is useless, or perhaps it's not even actually spending on it.

There are, and those man hours cost money. Man hours used to do something that is deemed a lower priority means they are not doing things that are deemed a higher priority. Do you imagine we have an unlimited number of man hours to work with?

unlimited man hours ? No, you're wrong again.

Spoken like someone who has absolutely no experiance with anything related to this topic. Yes, please tell me again how you learned all about CSM stewarship from your armchair sucking down a big gulp.

since you both showed in this thread that you are absolutely ignorant on the matter, I wouldn't speak this boldly if I were you. Just stick to tell us what your military told us to tell us, you can always say it's their fault, later.

Because now that we now they figured out a way to monitor it and may in the future use it as something other than a novelty, we are adapting according. But the fact remains these things have been in service since 1995, how many millions of man hours of talented technicians and operators were saved in that time? What were they used to do instead?

They figured out a way ? They didn't figure out anything. They intercepted communications with a common software available to anyone. Literally anyone could have done or even has done the same.
 
I am going to wait for you to actually have a point before bothering to respond to your nonsensical ranting.

Think about it and get back to us.
 
The part I understand well is the one where you say "I am telling you what the military tells me"

:rolleyes:

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.

Here are my points. You have yet to answer (Eagle Eye already answered saying that the US Military would not think the "enemy" would have the tech to intercept a signal, without thinkint that anyone can intercept a signal, not just Afghans).
Note the part where you claim it takes God knows what to implement this, and the part where your collegue says it was already implemented, then removed following a bad decision, and has been put back snapping a finger.
 
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
We're not claiming any such thing. There is no contradicting "fact". The encryption has been added over the course of months. Try reading the thread.

You're welcome.

it was already implemented, then removed following a bad decision, and has been put back snapping a finger.

It was implemented unsatisfactorily, both dload-speed and need were 'meh'. It was removed because it did more harm than good and a standardized faster system was implimented. This implementation took months and during that time some of the un-upgraded drone transmissions were intercepted; however, there was no harm done (because this was not a random accident).

Really dude, just read a few pages. We've already been over all of this.
 
I have read all your posts, and in each one of them you have changed version. Patroklos is claiming completely different stuff. But anyways, we don't really care. It was good for a laugh and that's it. Luckily none of your collegues got hurt and now they can play the war with encrypted signals. Yay.
 
Guys who manufactured and sold the things to the US government still made a pretty bundle, I bet.
 
I have read all your posts, and in each one of them you have changed version. Patroklos is claiming completely different stuff. But anyways, we don't really care. It was good for a laugh and that's it. Luckily none of your collegues got hurt and now they can play the war with encrypted signals. Yay.

Not so fast. It looks like most of the apologists will have to rework their excuses once again:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_uav_hack_122009w/

Spoiler :
Army: Working to encrypt UAV video feeds

By Michael Hoffman, John Reed and Joe Gould - Staff writers

Posted : Sunday Dec 20, 2009 10:31:25 EST

The Army is scrambling to protect the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles from being intercepted by the enemy. Raven drones will be retrofitted with encryption technology as early as this month.

Defense officials confirmed Dec. 17 that Iraqi insurgents have been capturing the nonsecure, line-of-sight communications signals from Army and Air Force drones since mid-2008.

Army officials acknowledged that the service has fielded hundreds of drones without the ability to encrypt the signals that ground forces rely upon for intelligence and surveillance of insurgent hideouts or roadside-bomb hot spots.

However, the Army will retrofit the handheld Raven and other UAVs over “at least two years,” targeting currently deployed systems first, said Col. Gregory Gonzalez, the Army’s project manager for unmanned aerial vehicles.

For the Shadow, Hunter, Warrior Alpha and the Extended-Range Multipurpose UAV, the Army will retrofit all systems with encryption, as funding permits, said Gonzalez.

“This is not the first time that we have heard about the potential threat against full motion video. The threats are ongoing, and the Department of Defense has taken some risk,” said Gonzalez. “We received specific direction from the Office of the Secretary of Defense within the last year to fix the problem.”

A report published in the Dec. 17 edition of The Wall Street Journal detailed how defense officials earlier this year discovered laptops in Iraq loaded with a $26 Russian-made software program called SkyGrabber that hacked into video broadcast by Predator cameras, which show the location of insurgents being targeted by the drones.

Besides the SkyGrabber software, insurgents have used high-tech methods to capture the video feeds.

U.S. troops found advanced electronic warfare equipment in a 2008 raid on Shiite militia, according to an Air Force intelligence officer briefed on the raid.

Army officials acknowledged the interceptions, and the Pentagon issued a general statement on the security of its intelligence gathering.

“The Department of Defense constantly evaluates and seeks to improve the performance and security of our various ISR systems and platforms. As we identify shortfalls, we correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security,” the statement said.

One Air Force official contends the insurgents’ ability to watch drone feeds has adversely affected U.S. operations in the Middle East.

“We noticed a trend when going after these guys; that sometimes they seemed to have better early warning” of U.S. actions, said the officer briefed on the raid.
“We went and did a raid on one of their safe houses and found all of this equipment that was highly technical, highly sophisticated. It was more sophisticated than any other equipment we’d seen Iraqi insurgents use.”

The militia, known as Kata’ib Hezbollah based out of Sadr City, Baghdad, has long been suspected of being a surrogate for Iran’s Quds Force, the wing of the Iranian Army responsible for conducting clandestine warfare outside of Iran via various insurgent groups.

“It was the technological know-how to make the antennas, computers and software go together and pick up the appropriate bands that was impressive,” the officer said.

Soon after the raid, top commanders in Iraq convened a task force to identify the extent of the threat and how best to deal with it, according to the officer. Initial findings showed the threat was isolated to Kata’ib Hezbollah.

“They knew that we were flying Predators over their heads 24/7, so it’s easy to say, ‘yeah, I know that I’m going to do a signals analysis search for [the drone] and take advantage of it,” the officer said.

The laptops loaded with the SkyGrabber software also had footage filmed by smaller Army UAVs as well as the Predators.

“We are well aware, and [Office of the Secretary of Defense] is well aware, and we have a well-researched response set in motion,” said Col. Robert Sova, the Army’s capability manager for unmanned aerial systems. “This ability, this is not new information.”

Ground units get the Predator feeds through a Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receiver, or ROVER, — a mobile device that looks like a laptop that can either be carried by hand or mounted in a ground vehicle.

An encryption package can be added to the ROVER; however, not all troops have the encryption package. The latest ROVER model being tested by the Pentagon comes equipped with two advanced encryption packages.

The military has not implemented encryption for drones for “various reasons,” according to Sova.

But, Sova said, the ability to hack a drone’s video feed is a “very low risk” since the insurgents haven’t figured how to hack into the command and control systems of the drones.

“It’s not like they’re going to control the payload or move it off,” Sova said. “They’re able to see a specific interval, like a camera system in the mall.”

Sova considers it unlikely that an insurgent could tap into a specific drone overhead.

“It’s happenstance, if they were able to tap into that feed,” Sova said. “Only in the best scenario, and only for a short period of time.”

The Defense Department’s Office of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics directed the services to beef up encryption. Prior to his departure last year, Pentagon acquisitions czar John Young oversaw such a push, across all services, according to Gonzalez.

“Since these systems were first introduced, we’ve known [the risks of unencrypted video feeds],” Gonzalez said. “Your average off-the-street person isn’t able to get these feeds, but with enough effort you can. The risk to the Department of Defense seemed low. Now, for whatever reason, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has decided to reduce that risk.”

According to Gonzalez, by the first of the year, the Army will field encryption-capable Ravens, and other UAV systems will follow over the coming months and years.

“The priority is to give it to every unit in theater or going into theater, so that they will have encryption,” said Gonzalez. “The whole process will take a year, and within a year, several units will have encryption.”

Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because they have technology similar to that of UAVs.

The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.

The Air Force first flew the RQ-1 Predator, the MQ-1’s predecessor, in combat over Bosnia. In published reports, local residents with satellite television told of watching Predator video feeds on their televisions.

Defense analyst Peter Singer, author of “Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century,” said, “I remember that some of the people there said it was harder to get the Disney Channel than watch U.S. military operations.”

1) The US military claims the problem with the unencrypted predator feeds will not be fully addressed until 2014.

2) The monitoring of the video feeds has apparently already been used to react to upcoming activities in Iraq, and it may have even been used for such purposes in Bosnia over a decade ago.

3) You can apparently get the video feeds by using normal off-the-shelf satellite TV equipment.

4) This problem is not just confined to UAVs. It is also apparently an issue with any airborne video feed broadcast to the ground, e.g. nearly every single US military manned aircraft suffers from the same problem.

But in all fairness, I also apparently made an incorrect assumption. I did not realize that the US military continues to harass Shia in Iraq since the time of the "surge", when most of them became our "allies" instead of "insurgents". Apparently, the ones that supposedly have ties to Iran are immune from this "cease fire".
 
No doubt your obviously true observations will be rebuffed by the usual suspects despite the fact that they are now established fact, backed by the military themselves, Form.
 
No doubt your obviously true observations will be rebuffed by the usual suspects despite the fact that they are now established fact, backed by the military themselves, Form.

Uhm. You may not realize this RRW, but the Army times isnt an Army publication. Its privately owned.

And for both RRW and Form. The story refers to the Raven UAV system needing this over the next two years....the story in the OP and what Pat was referring to was the Predator System.

The point being even the OP indicates why the Predator was being addressed earlier and first - because it was the primary known UAV in use. These others, well:

the Shadow, Hunter, Warrior Alpha and the Extended-Range Multipurpose UAV, the Army will retrofit all systems with encryption, as funding permits, said Gonzalez.

Are being done because they are lesser well known and werent targeted as much as Predator.
 
Quoting military officials.

Helps if you read the article in context:

1) The US military claims the problem with the unencrypted predator feeds will not be fully addressed until 2014.

Uhm. Not true. It helps if you read your own link since thats not what it says:

The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.

You also seemed to have missed this:

According to Gonzalez, by the first of the year, the Army will field encryption-capable Ravens, and other UAV systems will follow over the coming months and years.

“The priority is to give it to every unit in theater or going into theater, so that they will have encryption,” said Gonzalez. “The whole process will take a year, and within a year, several units will have encryption.”

Its going to take until 2014 for all UAVs because we have many varieties of UAVs. But the most important and most used ones, like Predator and Raven, are being done right now.

Thats for all UAV feeds. Predator is being addressed now since its one of the most used systems.

2) The monitoring of the video feeds has apparently already been used to react to upcoming activities in Iraq, and it may have even been used for such purposes in Bosnia over a decade ago.

Lies. It doesnt say this either. It actually says:

The Air Force first flew the RQ-1 Predator, the MQ-1’s predecessor, in combat over Bosnia. In published reports, local residents with satellite television told of watching Predator video feeds on their televisions.

3) You can apparently get the video feeds by using normal off-the-shelf satellite TV equipment.

No, this is more lies. That was in Bosnia using a much earlier version of the system. Today it takes a laptop with a russian software program called 'skygrabber'. The article also specifically says:

Gonzalez said. “Your average off-the-street person isn’t able to get these feeds, but with enough effort you can.

Please direct your attention to the bold part.

4) This problem is not just confined to UAVs. It is also apparently an issue with any airborne video feed broadcast to the ground, e.g. nearly every single US military manned aircraft suffers from the same problem.

While true, its not as much of an issue for the sole reason UAVs loiter in an area a long time allowing this to occur. Not so much with manned aircraft. In fact, the article even says this about the ability:

“It’s happenstance, if they were able to tap into that feed,” Sova said. “Only in the best scenario, and only for a short period of time.”

You sure have an odd way of reading into such articles Form.
 
It almost seems as if he would go to any length to embolden terrorists.

20030425007100510.jpg
 
Uhm. You may not realize this RRW, but the Army times isnt an Army publication. Its privately owned.
As though that actually matters.

And for both RRW and Form. The story refers to the Raven UAV system needing this over the next two years....the story in the OP and what Pat was referring to was the Predator System.
That is because it is an "Army Times" article so it dwelled on those systems used by the Army.

But if you read the whole article, you would have probably seen this section at the bottom, which I even highlighted so it would not be missed:

Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because they have technology similar to that of UAVs.

The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.

The point being even the OP indicates why the Predator was being addressed earlier and first - because it was the primary known UAV in use..
 
That is because it is an "Army Times" article so it dwelled on those systems used by the Army.

But if you read the whole article, you would have probably seen this section at the bottom, which I even highlighted:

Oops. I guess you didn't read it.

Actually, I did and didnt notice the word 'predator' in it anywhere. Please point it out to me. Here is what you cut and paste again if you needed it:

Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because they have technology similar to that of UAVs.

The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.

Come on. Lets see you use some of those elite liberal arts skillz and find the word predator in that. :lol: Dont let this non-college degree grunt show you up by educating you that the term 'UAVs', means more than just Predator.

Again, 2014 is a completion date for all UAV systems to be completed. The Army Times article is plain in that its ongoing fielding now and the most used systems will be completed long before 2014.
 
Come on. Lets see you use some of those elite liberal arts skillz and find the word predator in that. :lol: Dont let this non-college degree grunt show you up by educating you that the term 'UAVs', means more than just Predator.

Again, 2014 is a completion date for all UAV systems to be completed. The Army Times article is plain in that its ongoing fielding now and the most used systems will be completed long before 2014.
You really should do a bit of basic research before making such absurd remarks in the form of a personal attack that could come back to bite you.

Here's another article that states the same thing:

WASHINGTON: It will take at least until 2014 to encrypt video feeds from the US military's Predator and Reaper drones to prevent enemy forces from intercepting the information, the air force has revealed.
It was even mentioned in my paper this morning. I'd talk to your editor if the news of this latest revelation from the military was missing from your own morning paper. You do get and read a morning paper, particularly on Sundays. Right?
 
You really should do a bit of basic research before making such absurd remarks that could come back to bite you.

Here's another article that states the same thing:

It was even mentioned in my paper this morning. I'd talk to your editor if the news of this latest revelation from the military was missing from your own morning paper.

And you know what? I am not sure that the 'Sydney Morning Herald' writer knows as much as you do about UAVs. Which is very little to be honest.

Again, I am still waiting for your elite liberal arts skillz to identify the word predator in this:

Air Force officers and defense analysts caution that video broadcasts from manned aircraft to U.S. ground troops are vulnerable to hacking as well because they have technology similar to that of UAVs.

The Air Force has known for more than a decade that the live video feeds from its unmanned aerial vehicles can be intercepted by the enemy but opted not to do anything about it until this year. An official document puts a completion date to secure the feeds at 2014.

If you cant then this could be one of those opportunities for you to say you were wrong that you claim you do so often. I am also waiting for you to do the same on the other mistruths you stated as fact as well.

Or were you simply stating opinion? :mischief:
 
Trying to argue semantics again instead of addressing the real issues? Gee, what a surprise.
 
Back
Top Bottom