warpedskydiver 0 #1 February 14, 2010 Iraqi insurgents have reportedly intercepted live video feeds from the U.S. military's Predator drones using a $25.95 Windows application which allows them to track the pilotless aircraft undetected. Hackers working with Iraqi militants were able to determine which areas of the country were under surveillance by the U.S. military, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, adding that video feeds from drones in Afghanistan also appear to have been compromised. This apparent security breach, which had been known in military and intelligence circles to be possible, arose because the Predator unmanned aerial vehicles do not use encryption in the final link to their operators on the ground. (By contrast, every time you log on to a bank or credit card Web site, or make a phone call on most modern cellular networks, your communications are protected by encryption technology.) Meanwhile, a senior Air Force officer said Wednesday that a wave of new surveillance aircraft, both manned and unmanned, were being deployed to Afghanistan to bolster "eyes in the sky" protection for the influx of American troops ordered by President Obama. (CBS) When a Predator unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, is far from its base, terrain prohibits it from transmitting directly to its operator. Instead, it switches to a satellite link. That means an enterprising hacker can use his own satellite dish, a satellite modem, and a copy of the SkyGrabber Windows utility sold by the Russian company SkySoftware to intercept and display the UAV's transmissions. The Air Force became aware of the security vulnerability when copies of Predator video feeds were discovered on a laptop belonging to a Shiite militant late last year, and again in July on other militants' laptops, the Journal reported. The problem, though, is that the drones use proprietary technology created in the early 1990s, and adding encryption would be an expensive task. The implications of the Predator's unencrypted transmissions have been known in military circles for a long time. An October 1999 presentation given at the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies in Alabama noted "the Predator UAV is designed to operate with unencrypted data links." In 2002, a British engineer who enjoys scanning satellite signals for fun stumbled across a NATO video feed from the Kosovo war. CBS News correspondent Mark Phillips reported then on the apparent surveillance security shortfall, and the U.S. military's decision to essentially let it slide. The Air Force had hoped to replace the Predator with a stealthier, high-altitude version nicknamed "Darkstar," and the 1999 presentation by then-Maj. Jeffrey Stephenson noted that the new "high altitude UAVs will be capable of encryption." But the Defense Department informed Lockheed Martin that year that the Darkstar program would be terminated. Iraqi interest in intercepting U.S. military transmissions is not exactly new. A report prepared for the CIA director after the U.S. invasion and occupation noted that Saddam Hussein assigned a young relative with a master's degree in computer science to intercept transmissions from U.S. satellites. The relative, "Usama," was secretly given office space in the Baghdad Aerospace Research Center, which had access to satellite downlinks. The 2005 CIA report compiled by special advisor Charles Duelfer quotes Abd al-Tawab Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of industry, as saying he was shown real-time overhead video supposedly of U.S. military installations in Turkey, Kuwait, and Qatar before the invasion. A likely explanation, the report concludes, is that "Usama located and downloaded the unencrypted satellite feed from U.S. military UAVs." A 1996 briefing by Paul Kaminski, an undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, may offer a hint about how the Iraqi's interception was done. Kaminski said that the military had turned to commercial satellites -- "Hughes is the primary provider of direct (satellite) TV that you can buy in the United States, and that's the technology we're leveraging off of" -- to share feeds from Predator drones. "What this does is it provides now a broader distribution path to anybody who's in that downward receiving beam, for example," Kaminski said. So why, after the CIA publicly reported that Predator transmissions had probably been intercepted in Iraq, did the Air Force do so little? One explanation is that the contractor, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems of San Diego, built the system in the early 1990s before encryption was common and easier to include. (Computer scientists had warned at the time that the U.S. government's anti-encryption laws were counter-productive because they discouraged the development and routine use of that technology.) Bureaucratic inertia is another. As CBSNews.com reported last month, messages from President Clinton's entourage were intercepted in 1997, but Secret Service agents continued to use unencrypted pagers to share sensitive information about threats to the president's life on September 11, 2001. Perhaps it takes a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal to prod government officials into rethinking their views on the desirability of encryption. Update 1 p.m. ET: A spokesman for the Air Force, Maj. Cristin Marposon, sent us this statement: "The Department of Defense constantly evaluates and seeks to improve the performance and security of our various (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems and platforms. As we identify shortfalls, we correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security. As a matter of policy, we don't comment on specific vulnerabilities or intelligence issues." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/17/taking_liberties/entry5988978.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #2 February 14, 2010 DOH!!! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #3 February 14, 2010 Story is two months old and was discussed at that time. Got anything new on it?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #4 February 14, 2010 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3755889;search_string=predator;#3755889... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #5 February 14, 2010 Yes. And now? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #6 February 15, 2010 QuoteYes. And now?How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u allI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #7 February 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes. And now?How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u all If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #8 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Yes. And now? How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u all If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Well, that's OK then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Yes. And now? How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u all If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Well, that's OK then. I didn't say it was ok, either - but take good care of that strawman, I'm sure you'll need it someplace else.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #10 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Well, that's OK then. Should Hitler have not been opposed in WWII, because it couldn't be done without some civilian casualties? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #11 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Well, that's OK then. Should Hitler have not been opposed in WWII, because it couldn't be done without some civilian casualties? Times change.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 187 #12 February 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes. And now?How about 10 civilians killed yesterday in a missed strike from a drone? Collateral damage? War is lovely ain't it. Fuckin war mongering MF ers Fuck u all If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Uh, I think the point is that collateral damage is a given in war, therefore war leaves something to be desired. It strikes me that only a moron would opt for warfare when equally (or more) satisfactory results could be obtained by other means. War is a particularly ineffective means of population control, tends to be an economic disaster for all involved, leaves survivors on both sides with lasting grudges, and generally has little to recommend it. In fact, the punch line of Sun Tzu's work is that the goals of warfare are best achieved by other, more ignoble, means (subterfuge). The classic remark is translated that if you want peace, prepare for war. It does NOT say ENGAGE in warfare. The incursion into Afghanistan, however justifiable, was poorly thought out in terms of the end-game. The invasion of Iraq was a case study in applied stupidity. If a country is subject to invasion if in possession of WMDs, we're in deep kimchee - we have more of them than anybody, and we're the only country that has ever intentionally nuked anyone (Chernobyl doesn't count). If we had oil in the same quantities as we do stupidity, we would be self-sufficient and able to supply the world with plenty left over. Since stupidity has become a virtue on both sides of the aisle, we should be proud of having it as our only limitless resource. Back to drone-hacking; this is nothing new. During the Southeast Asian War Games, we were so sure of our dominance in all things that we took it as a given that the opposition was dumber than us. It never dawned on us that the empty jungles we bombed so ferociously had been teeming with targets shortly before, but that the area was cleared the moment we made the radio calls that announced our inbound status. We won a variety of conflicts by virtue of seemingly limitless resources (quantity with occasional quality), resources we no longer have. Go to a department store and see if you can find something made in the US of A. von Falkenhayn's claim to have tried to bleed the French white was first made long after he failed to break through at Verdun (if you want to make fun of the French, go there). The dreadful people we now face have stated that goal up front. How are they doing so far? Let's see. They spent less than $500,000 to drop the World Trade Center and nail the Pentagon, while we have racked up over $2,000,000,000,000 in DEBT to fail to prevail over them (they're still in business at a reduced level). If we manage to "win" ("Mission Accomplished" anyone?) it will by a Pyrrhic victory at best, and I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything resembling a victory. Since there is no IQ test required to run for office (not that I'm saying that would help - intelligence is grossly overrated), we have a real dog's-breakfast of talent making key decisions in this fair land. Idiots tend to elect idiots, thus you have our current array of representatives. Unfortunately, the nitwits we put in charge are functioning under the illusion that they are at the pinnacle of decision-making skill, so it should come as no surprise that the our foreign policy, such as it is, is such a train wreck. Thus, there is no example of dunderheaded hubris that should seem unfitting on the part of those in charge. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 February 15, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote If you think war can be waged with absolutely no collateral damage, then you're living WAYYYYY out in Fantasy-land. Well, that's OK then. Should Hitler have not been opposed in WWII, because it couldn't be done without some civilian casualties? Times change. How so?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #14 February 16, 2010 QuoteShould Hitler have not been opposed in WWII, because it couldn't be done without some civilian casualties? Someone who justifies Iraq war by mentioning Hitler and WWII shows his obvious lack of historical knowledge.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #15 February 16, 2010 QuoteShould Hitler have not been opposed in WWII, because it couldn't be done without some civilian casualties? He wasn't that opposed in the US. As a matter of fact, many prominent American families got very rich doing business with him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
