Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsally | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have a thought. How about next time the military just flies one of these things down to Defcon and lets people have a go. The hackers get a cool toy to play with a for a day and the military gets a free fairly sophisticated penetration test. I'm sure the flaw would have been found; instructions on how to intercept satellite data with about $100 worth of hardware have been floating around for years. I'll edit this post in a minute with details for anyone that's interested.

EDIT:

* One possible LNB: http://bit.ly/7AGe7e

* Possible dishes: http://bit.ly/4NfMN1

* One possible receiver (for digital, you'll need a different one for analog): http://bit.ly/4zHyND

* Useful forum: http://www.satelliteguys.us/free-air-fta-discussion/

That setup is enough to pick up signals from satellites (locations: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=satellite+index). If you do this as a hobby you might want to spend the money on a motor to tilt/pan your dish for you. ;-) The article implies that such a setup is pretty much what the insurgents used to intercept video from the drones. The drone bounces its video up to a satellite and the satellite bounces back down to the operator. The insurgents just grab it when it's coming down to the operator from the satellite. I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) the receiver would have to be modified to decompress/decrypt the drone data properly. It'll do just fine if you're scanning for legit TV signals.

The question is, what do our defence contractors care more about: making their weapons actually work? Or merely selling them?

The later is true. There is a large, high througput, revolving door between DoD and large contractors. Yesterday's generals are today's board members and C*Os of large defense contractors.

When something is purchased, or a bid is chosen, it is often because of those conections not because a product is inherently better.

The result is a lot of overpriced, under-performing equipment. The amount of waste is just ridiculous, even for a $650 billion market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budg...).

This is also an apt description of the relationship between the FDA and large pharmaceutical companies. Also, the USDA and large food companies. There are likely many more examples. It's a systemic problem of our structure of government.

The trick is: who better to run a military contractor than former military men? Who better to run a food company than someone who has worked in the USDA?

These are natural career paths for those individuals that make perfect, natural sense and --in and of themselves-- aren't a real issue.

The real issue is that our government can too easily reward individual companies or industry groups with hand-outs.

If a single general couldn't essentially hand a contract to a supplier on his say-so, that supplier gains nothing by bribing them with a future board position.

What we really need, is for it to be more difficult for individuals to drive contract selection and for the standards for passing a bailout, tariff or corporate welfare program to be much higher.

Perhaps by requiring such legislation to be stand-alone bills, and requiring an oversight office to evaluate contract selection.

> Who better to run a food company than someone who has worked in the USDA?

Are you asking as the food company, or as the proverbial "concerned citizen?"

Because I would want the USDA to work for me, since I am paying my taxes. I want it to do its job and protect me from Kraft selling me salmonela infested cookie dough. It is hard for USDA to do that when they expect to be hired by Kraft and be payed large bonuses and salaries in the future.

> The real issue is that our government can too easily reward individual companies or industry groups with hand-outs.

The other serious problem is that individual companies can easily 'reward' (read 'bribe') their friends in high places so they can turn a blind eye and in turn harm the public.

I have the naive desire to have a government that would take care and protect its citizens. I don't have the time and the resources to carry a microscope and a bacterial toolkit to the grocery store when I buy meat or eggs. I expect to pay my taxes and USDA to do its job.

As a concerned citizen, naturally I don't want the USDA Director working for Kraft. But what do I care whether the director goes on to work at Kraft afterwards? Or even came from Kraft in the first place?

I'd prefer we have qualified people in public office. Proven managers, subject-matter experts, etc. If we erect a wall between private industry and public service, we're not going to get that.

If there's a problem with the director of the USDA being able to let his former-employer slide, that's a separate problem than where (s)he came from or is going. I'd prefer we deal with that, than try to police people's careers.

It's a systemic problem of our structure of government.

True but misleading. Regulatory capture is a feature of regulated industries full stop. It just happens faster when the players whether buyers or sellers are concentrated.

it's not necessarily our structure of government. regulation (using the law to prevent certain economic activity rather than economic incentives) is always prone to falling under the influence of those it is trying to regulate. I believe it was taleb who compared financial regulation to a chess game between regulators and the regulated.

Interestingly enough, it was just yesterday I was reading an article on Robert Gates reviewing the military senior mentor program. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-12-16-gates-mento...

Improper use of encryption has been a military problem forever. (I seem to recall problems even in Classical warfare.) It just gets bigger with more communication technology.

i'm sure lack of reliability is part of their business plan. You make the perfect humvee, and suddenly the army stops buying as many.

There is a reason the AK47 is so much more reliable than the M16. And it's been out for like 60 years now.

The AK is more reliable because it is less accurate. The tolerances on the various mechanical parts are higher, but as a result they are looser.

AK is the Perl of the weapons. I had to use AK-47 for year (serving in the Bulgarian army). It was easy to clean, assemble, disassemble, but every weapon was a bit-off due to the production (or heavy usage, don't know). So to get good results you have to learn where your weapon strays.

How much does that affect a user? I mean, if you take the time to learn how much it strays, are you at that point just as accurate as someone with a more accurate weapon?

I've never used a gun so I'm curious.

All rifles do this a bit; snipers/designated marksmen get very accustomed to their personal weapons, and need to take time to re-acclimatize with any other rifle. For a regular line infantryman in a modern army who is mainly using his rifle for suppressive fire it doesn't significantly reduce his effectiveness.

I'm guessing this is why the Riflemen's Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman%27s_Creed) is so important?

I'd say indoctrination plays a part as well.

In real close-to-mid-range combat, this matters even less (unless you're a marksman). It's rare that you'd have time to properly line up the sights and take one really good shot. What really matters in that situation is knock-down power, reliability, and the shooter's training.

They are also stupid easy to manufacture. The design has been copied numerous times as well. Basically, they are the Honda Civics of military weapons. Cheap, easy to use, reliable, easy and cheap to fix when they do break, and lasts forever.

I've seen AKs in 3rd world countries that were probably less than 20% original parts.

That's part of the design. Judging by the use and adoption of AK-47 I'd say it is a better weapon in general than M16.

Usually an inacurate weapon is better than a stuck weapon when the soldier is facing an enemy.

The M16 would've been fine, if the brass hadn't skimped on the propellant.

If the AK fires fine with cheap powder, then that's another advantage for tightwad armies.

"... There is a reason the AK47 is so much more reliable than the M16 ..."

There is nothing worse than "language" or "editor" wars, except maybe arguments over "weapon of choice" ~ http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/m16-vs-ak47-iraqi-...

I could hardly find a single person in that discussion advocating for an M16 over an AK47.

"... I could hardly find a single person in that discussion advocating for an M16 over an AK47. ..."

I wouldn't expect too many combat vets to be hanging around HN (or the NYT blog).

"... Becca: early issued M16 had jamming problems...by the time I got to Nam thing were worked out and the 16 wasa great piece ..."

It's not wise to take the advice of non-experts, "Doc" is so I listen to him ~ http://www.flickr.com/photos/13184821@N07/4011451162/in/set-... (read the comments)

I played with sky grabbing few years back.

Receiver you linked is set-top box, you need PCI receiver card, such as SkyStar (http://www.technisat.com/index381f.html?nav=PC_products,en,7...)

No, you don't have to modify the receiver, card captures IP traffic just out of the box with right software. There was another free alternative to SkyGrabber that runs on Linux, but I can't recall the name now.

edit: grammar

edit 2: I found it! Homepage http://sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynet.%3Ar32_index_e...

Screenshot: http://sites.google.com/site/skynetr32/skynetr323gh7.jpg

I remember hearing about people intercepting well feeds that the networks would send (east coast to west coast etc.). They would use the big old dishes for it.

This is probably made up, but I heard that sometimes the well feeds contained worse-case scenario what-if's that news stations would prepare content for in advance. Like meteors hitting, plagues, etc.

Maybe. I've seen some unencrypted emails (html page from web-based emails) hit my box. But it was usually junk when I run it for half an hour last time.

Well I was assuming the user was using a TV, but yeah, obviously you need a PCI receiver card if you want to interface with a computer. But thank you for the much needed technical details. I haven't played with it in a year or two and was basically just going off of memory.

If the Media found out that insurgents used Linux to hack military drones...

The article said that people knew the potential existed since the mid 90's so the problem was't ignorance it was arrogance and apathy.

Oldest mistake in the book: since the adversaries dress differently, speak a different language, and are a different race, assume they must be idiots.

The WSJ reporter fell into the same trap: Iraqis and Afghans couldn't have figured out how to tap a video feed on their own; they must have had Iranian help.

This is the mistake that allowed the Serbs to shoot down a Stealth bomber; aircrews communicating on open channels.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x...

"At times, they acted like amateurs," Dani said, listing some ways the Serbs managed to breach NATO communications security, including eavesdropping on pilots' conversations with AWACS surveillance planes.

A bit of a nitpick, but no stealth bomber has ever been shot down. That was a stealth fighter.

No need to shoot down a stealth bomber; they fall out of the sky on their own. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCp5h1gK2Q

According to Wikipedia, that is how you turn $737M into smoke.

OK, so they shot a smaller, faster moving target. The original point still stands.

It was an F-117. Yes, most "F" aircraft are air-to-air fighter aircraft. However F-117 is mostly used to attack ground targets, so it's "F" should be more like an "A" (If you want to nitpick that is ;-) )

The F designation was used to get more highly qualified pilots. (Lots of pilots would rather fly an "F" than an "A")

Though no-one knows for sure, it's also been rumored that the fighter designation was done as a security measure to hide the true purpose of the aircraft, or that the F-117 designation existed in early planning documents and was simply never changed once the aircraft became a reality.

It's also not the first attack aircraft to carry a fighter designation; the F-111 long-range attack aircraft also carried that designation (though in that case it was because the aircraft was originally meant, in part, to fill an Naval air-defense fighter role).

Actually, they are both subsonic aircraft and have a very similar top speed. The F117, however, has a larger radar cross signature, which makes it appear as a larger aircraft than the B2 in a radar return.

Closest thing I can find to a cite is [1] which indicates they have similar sized returns, about the size of a hummingbird (!).

[1] http://www.answers.com/topic/stealth-technology

It's been a decade since I read much about it, but this site states that the F-117 has a radar cross section of 30 square centimeters while the B-2 has an RCS of 14 square centimeters.

http://www.deagel.com/Long-Range-Attack-Aircraft/B-2A-Spirit... http://www.deagel.com/Strike-and-Fighter-Aircraft/F-117A-Nig...

Agreed, but philosophically, is it still a stealth fighter if the guy the flying it is stupid enough to effectively turn off some of the technology?

leading some officials to conclude that militant groups trained and funded by Iran were regularly intercepting feeds.

The officials came to that conclusion, not the WSJ. Also, see @pmorici's answer.

Well by that reasoning the reporter should think the Iranian's are idiots as well so what you're saying makes no sense.

Iran has nuclear technology now, so they're no longer idiots, just evil dobaddies.

Nobody claimed this was logical or reasonable...

> Iran has nuclear technology now, so they're no longer idiots, just evil dobaddies.

As opposed to other "smart" countries that have nuclear technology but are noble dogoodies?

I rather think it was the classic pointy-haired boss mistake. "I can't understand this video feed stuff, so those towel-heads shouldn't be able to either!"

Awesome quote: "Fixing the security gap would have caused delays, according to current and former military officials. It would have added to the Predator’s price. Some officials worried that adding encryption would make it harder to quickly share time-sensitive data within the U.S. military, and with allies."

Sounds almost like typical client demands.

"Seriously man, you're going to want to encrypt this. I know it's an extra 10k, but you've already spent 50 million. And I really think we should stick with Blue on the wings."

"Nah, ditch the encryption. We're already over budget. But please do change the wings to green... wait red... now let's see your blue again?"

I'm interested in the details.

Or someone could find a flaw, not tell about it, sell it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com