Hacker News Reader

Comment by bragr | Hacker News Reader

>the European Space Agency (ESA) set up a satellite test bench

>Throughout the exercise, ESA had access to the satellite's systems to retain control and ensure a return to normal operation.

Was this a test bench or on orbit? The release seems to contradict itself. Did they do it on the test bench, and then for real?

View on HN

They hacked OPS-SAT which was an experimental satellite by ESA to test different ways of operating a satellite. The very purpose of this satellite was to be a test bench for this kind of things.

The satellite was in orbit. This is an interview from the Thales CyberSecurity Manager about it. Interview is in French, but its a beautiful language to brush up on anyway, and if you can't, YouTube Autotranslate is also not bad nowadays.

https://youtu.be/g-jHapQl0ks

I was expecting a technical manager but instead it's just some ex-Mckinsey manager. I wouldn't be suprised if they gained access via some open port or a default password or whatever the equivalent is for satellites.

The mentioned satellite (OPS-SAT) is in orbit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPS-SAT

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/OPS-SAT

Launch took place on 18 December, 2019, when OPS-SAT was injected into a circular, polar orbit at 515 km altitude.

Real-time tracker: https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=44878

I wasn't doubting that is a real satellite, just whether they hacked that, or an engineering spare laid out on a table, which seems to be common for satellite hacking challenges.

Ah. That sentence you quoted:

"Throughout the exercise, ESA had access to the satellite's systems to retain control and ensure a return to normal operation."

My reading of this: ESA let the teams attempt their hacks on the real satellite under supervision.

I guess I don't understand your implicit distrust here - it's just a 2 million EUR, 7 kg satellite explicitly launched for communications experiments.

>I guess I don't understand your implicit mistrust here

It is a private press release by a company on its own site, advertising same services touted in the release. I assume every truth that can be bent in their favor has been done so by the PR and Marketing teams. However, the youtube video above with the interview seems much more unequivocal.

There are times and places that call for extreme levels of cynicism. This is not it.

Again, it's a (relatively) super cheap satellite explicitly meant for comms experiments.

Pretty sure marketing copy is exactly where it is called forl

Could be contradictory on purpose

The test bench is OPS-SAT, their wording makes it seem like their test bench is a satellite in the sky (probably airgapped from the rest of the satellites)

probably vacuum-gapped

Reply on news.ycombinator.com