Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

[keystone102]

This is a link to a Wall Street Journal story on how insurgents are using $26. software to look at our video feeds from UAV's.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

[Eclipse]

Saying this is a "hack" is like saying someone listening to a CAP radio conversation is "hacking our radios".  I'm not saying they should not be concerned, but if you broadcast something without encryption, you have to expect people are listening.

The article indicates that not all drone comms are encrypted.

[Gunner C]

I have found that encryption slows down the signal point-to-point.  If the video were encrypted, they may have found that their ability to respond to real-time targets was degraded.  That, along with the nearly 100,000 mile circuit from aircraft (in Afghanistan) to satellite to ground station (in the states) to satellite to aircraft, it may have been too slow to react to something on the ground.  Just a guess, I'm in no way connected to the program.

[davedove]

There could be very good reasons for the signal to not be encrypted, but if it's not you have to expect someone to "listen in".

I would love to see the look on someone's face when he's watching the signal only to suddenly see himself on the screen.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

There could be very good reasons for the signal to not be encrypted, but if it's not you have to expect someone to "listen in".

I would love to see the look on someone's face when he's watching the signal only to suddenly see himself on the screen.

and in the crosshairs.

[blackrain]

I've never understood the need/reason for putting the operators in the states. Sure seem simpler (at least to me) to put everyone involved in theater and avoid the whole 100,000m mile daisy chain.

Think Highbird

[Gunner C]

One reason is that you don't have as many combatants in-theater.  If they're in the US, you don't have to guard them, you don't have to resupply them, they don't become targets (as easily), and they get to go home every night.  Higher morale, less expense, not as dangerous, and you still get to kill bad guys.  Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't sign up for that.

[Eclipse]

I've never understood the need/reason for putting the operators in the states. Sure seem simpler (at least to me) to put everyone involved in theater and avoid the whole 100,000m mile daisy chain.

Think Highbird

Data is cheaper to move than people.

We only use highbirds in CAP because we don't have access to the Satellites.  With the airborne repeaters they are deploying, the days of a dedicated highbird are probably at least visible.  Now any aircraft in the search area can carry the repeater with no special operator needed in the right seat.

[lordmonar]

One reason is that you don't have as many combatants in-theater.  If they're in the US, you don't have to guard them, you don't have to resupply them, they don't become targets (as easily), and they get to go home every night.  Higher morale, less expense, not as dangerous, and you still get to kill bad guys.  Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't sign up for that.

Not to mention the cost to fly them to the AOR, per diem, combat zone tax exclusion, combat zone pay.  Plus you have the world wide infrastructure....if you want to change AOR it is a matter of changing a comm path...vice moving all that equipment....something on the order of 4 C-17s.

[Eclipse]

Also:

[blackrain]

Granted my deployments were to Iraq but I'm guessing that the rules are pretty universal. Compared to the total number of troops deployed the UAV crews/equipment aren't that much number wise. Simplicity=relability. I admit I wish I could telecommute to my next deployment though. Maybe my next time........Computer Satellite feed $1,000,000, Hellfire missile $58,000, Laptop $800, smoking a terrorist in slippers and a smoking jacket............Priceless.......

[Eclipse]

Computer Satellite feed $1,000,000...

Sounds like you need the Telstar friends and family plan where you can make unlimited calls to any UAV in your circle.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Computer Satellite feed $1,000,000...

Sounds like you need the Telstar friends and family plan where you can make unlimited calls to any UAV in your circle.

Sir, you owe me that Sierra Mist and a new laptop keyboard...

[desertengineer1]

Saying this is a "hack" is like saying someone listening to a CAP radio conversation is "hacking our radios".  I'm not saying they should not be concerned, but if you broadcast something without encryption, you have to expect people are listening.

The article indicates that not all drone comms are encrypted.

Agreed.  I don't like the use of the word "Hack".  It misleads people into thinking someone is doing a matrix thing and taking control from a coffee shop or something.  Another example of hollywood paranoia.  The most these guys can do is briefly see the video if the signal is high enough.  Location data isn't shown, so you're not going to get much other than video of random houses and streets.  All of those pretty much look alike over there.  I don't think this is a big deal.

Control IS NOT like an RC plane.  It is a highly encrypted link.

Many of the video signals are unencrypted due to the technical challenges.  I personally don't agree with that, and think a simple encoding mode could have been implemented during the design phase to make it proprietary, but I'm just a ground pounder.  They don't listen to engineers anyway.

[blackrain]

I hope they have at least made some progress in encrypting the downlink. Nothing like a very public thrashing to motivate all concerned. On balance they were and are a big part of the fight downrange. I'll be glad to see the Predator C or some version of it come on line. 400Kts and stealthy. Now THAT'S a UAV.

[PHall]

I hope they have at least made some progress in encrypting the downlink. Nothing like a very public thrashing to motivate all concerned. On balance they were and are a big part of the fight downrange. I'll be glad to see the Predator C or some version of it come on line. 400Kts and stealthy. Now THAT'S a UAV.

They could have encrypted it from day one, but encrypting the video feed requires a lot more bandwidth.
So the decision was made to not encrypt it.

Like somebody said above, it's not like they could get control of the UAV.

[Pumbaa]

Much to do about nothing.

As already mentioned above about encryption.  Add to that the signal is line of sight.  The odds that they got the signal with ANY useful information is slim to none.

Hack is not the proper word either.  That makes it sound like they gained control which they CANNOT!

This is just the leftist media using nonsense information to make the military look bad.  The officers I am with in the JDC are laughing at this news.

[Strick]

liberals always like to put spin on the story....

[cap235629]

how about analyzing the information to ascertain patterns, procedures or operational parameters?  We don't know how long they have had the information and what they have done with it. Don't dismiss it without all the facts.

[Pumbaa]

how about analyzing the information to ascertain patterns.... etc...

It has already been in the works for the last decade...

[PHall]

Much to do about nothing.

As already mentioned above about encryption.  Add to that the signal is line of sight.  The odds that they got the signal with ANY useful information is slim to none.

Hack is not the proper word either.  That makes it sound like they gained control which they CANNOT!

This is just the leftist media using nonsense information to make the military look bad.  The officers I am with in the JDC are laughing at this news.

Fox News has been on this story pretty hot too. And I really don't think you can call them "liberal".

[Strick]

Must be a slow news week