# Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones



## Retired AF Guy (18 Dec 2009)

Not good news. The Wall Street Journal has a write-up about how insurgents in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan, have been able to hack into the video feed from American UAV's . The usual caveats about Fair Dealings under the Copyright Act. 



> *Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones
> $26 Software Is Used to Breach Key Weapons in Iraq; Iranian Backing Suspected*
> 
> By SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE
> ...



The thing is, that about eight years ago during NATO operations in the Balkans, civvies in Kosovo and Italy were picking-up video feeds from our drones on their ordinary TV set! You would have thought they would have solved the problem by now!


----------



## rampage800 (18 Dec 2009)

Obviously this isn't good but  encrypting may just cause a whole host of other problems and I'm pretty sure theres already ways to defeat this. 

I wouldn't think the device that the INS are using has nearly any range nor does the average INS group have the map network or IA capability to know when or where the MQ-1/9 is even looking.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chrisf (18 Dec 2009)

I'm sorry, what? Why aren't these encrypted?

Encrypting it should pose no problems at all, and the fact that these feeds aren't encrypted is absurd.

Give me a week, and I can produce for you a flying reconaisance drone which provides an encrypted video feed, and that's not an exageration.


----------



## Dean22 (18 Dec 2009)

Maybe it's just the lack of thinking by the intelligence community towards the other side. Who would have thought insurgents would be intercepting predator drone feeds. Most people (civilian) would agree on the stereotype that insurgents are idiots who live in caves. This is an attempt by the insurgents to knock down one of the many gigantic advantages the modern militaries have against them. Next thing you'll know they'll be listening to our communications.

"We didn't know they knew how to use a laptop or a radio so we didn't encrypt our communications."


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> and the fact that these feeds aren't encrypted is absurd.



No it is not. I have practical experience with these types of datalinks. Do you ?


----------



## CBH99 (19 Dec 2009)

Keeping in mind that there is a fair amount of OPSEC around datalinks & encryption...any way you could elaborate a bit Aviator??  (About what is absurd/not absurd about it??)

I have to admit, I assumed data being transmitted from a UAV would be rather well protected also...but I have ZERO experience in operating UAV's.  Any chance you could elaborate without violating OPSEC?


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2009)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> any way you could elaborate a bit Aviator??



Not being sure, i will say no.


----------



## CBH99 (19 Dec 2009)

Fair enough.


----------



## Loachman (19 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, what? Why aren't these encrypted?



It's a massive amount of information.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Encrypting it should pose no problems at all, and the fact that these feeds aren't encrypted is absurd.



Not if one wants a high-quality image with minimal delay at affordable cost.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Give me a week, and I can produce for you a flying reconaisance drone which provides an encrypted video feed,



So why have you not done so, and made yourself fabulously wealthy?



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> and that's not an exageration.



No?

And, lazy/ignorant media notwithstanding, these are not "drones". Drones are pre-programmed; these are Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs). Both are sub-categories of UAVs.


----------



## chrisf (19 Dec 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No it is not. I have practical experience with these types of datalinks. Do you ?



Yes. It's not that hard to encrypt a video stream.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2009)

A retired USAF Lt Gen stated on TV on Wednesday that these video feeds are not a security risk as they are just video feeds. No targetting info, location data etc. Several years ago I stumbled on a similar feed, and as it was coming from Russia, I immediately closed it down and ran a security scan.

The videos may be like the old insect joke: "what's the last thing a bug sees as it hits a windshield?" Based on the interview, I doubt it. Like the article states, this has been known for over ten years.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (19 Dec 2009)

Maybe this will make insurgent command posts less efficient as the insurgent staff gather around the laptop to watch live feed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2009)

Maybe they will realize we can see in the dark and planting bombs in culverts at 3 am is a bad idea and why we magically see them and blow them up.


----------



## rdtul (19 Dec 2009)

Why don't they bury a virus into the feed, it's easy enough to filter out if you know it's there.  Minimal processing power would be required and the upgrades wouldn't take more than a few minutes while they're being serviced.


----------



## rampage800 (19 Dec 2009)

Yea as I stated earlier it would cause quite a bit of difficulty just in trying to encrypt the VDL receivers (not that it can't be done but you can imagine the headache of trying to swap receivers out all over theatre). As I also eluded to not all these UAVs are flown from theatre and use specific data links (some are, Loach and Cdn Av would know what I mean with ways to defeat this INS cape already)  and it should also be noted that these feeds don't just come off of UAVs.

Sig Op, I'm pretty sure I too can can fly a remote controlled plane with a camera gun taped underneath, I'd be interested in your results though once your trying to send that feed 40 km out with a couple GBU-12s and some AGM-114s on, just for good measure. I'm sure your well up to speed on our VDL capes, right ?


----------



## chrisf (19 Dec 2009)

I never claimed if I did it,  it would be perfect, but the fact that it CAN be done, begs the question why it's not being done.


----------



## Jammer (19 Dec 2009)

It slows down the data stream causing a delay from the TX to the RX.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Give me a week, and I can produce for you a flying reconaisance drone which provides an encrypted video feed, and that's not an exageration.



Once you have built a working UAS capable of MALE operations complete with a fully functional Ku band full motion video datalink that provides video in h.264 format, can provide a feed to any allied receiver and can be broadcasted to authorized stations half a world away, you let me know.

 :


----------



## Jammer (19 Dec 2009)

..not to mention getting everyone to agree on clearances. NATO does not mean compatability


----------



## Jammer (19 Dec 2009)

...till then I'll fire up the ROVER (doesn't everyone have one?) and watch Pred Porn instead of the endless Christmas specials.


----------



## chrisf (19 Dec 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Once you have built a working UAS capable of MALE operations complete with a fully functional Ku band full motion video datalink that provides video in h.264 format, can provide a feed to any allied receiver and can be broadcasted to authorized stations half a world away, you let me know.
> 
> :



I think you missed my point, I might be over simplfying this, and I'm not going to bother pushing this any further after this, but bare with me. For the purposes of the moderators, nothing I'm about to cover is classified in any way, what so ever, it's just a theoretical way of solving this problem.

I'm not boeing, I'm not general dynamics, I'm not a major defense contractor, my point had nothing to do with building a useful UAV, that's been done,  my point had more to do with the fact that you can take the UAV data stream, and encrypt it, quite easily and cheaply.

Since the apparently the stream isn't encrypted now, we're not talking about including NSA approved encryption gear, if the stream were that secret, then it's been done.

16 bits of encryption in a rotater stream cipher would suffice, and shouldn't slow down the data feed, inline with the video, and you're good to go. The electronics to accomplish such wouldn't take up much room, control it with on board DIP switches set before the flight, and you're good to go. Don't want to encrypt feed, either have the rotater set to 0 or have a switch to by pass the encrypter. Use GPS time for synchronization.

The receiving electronics in turn, decryption inline with the video stream, again, no need for NSA certified electronics, just simple stuff..

16 bits isn't going to keep the information secure forever, but 16 bits should be just enough to keep it secure long enough to keep somone from watching somone watch them, live at least, so for example, sufficient UAV providing overwatch for a patrol and that seems to me to be what's needed, unless I've missed somthing.

Have the 16 bit number changed per flight, in a similar manner to patrol passwords, and you're good to go.


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point,



Well, what _*was*_ your point?

You made a promise:



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Give me a week, and I can produce for you a flying reconaisance drone which provides an encrypted video feed, and that's not an exageration.



How's it coming? You only have five days left, and parts are not going to be available on the 25th.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I might be over simplfying this,



Just a tad.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> but bare with me.



No offence, but I'm not into that with guys.

I might be convinced to _*bear*_ with you, however.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> my point had nothing to do with building a useful UAV



I have a reasonable grasp of the English language, and there is little in the quote from your earlier post, as reproduced above, that is open to differing interpretations.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> my point had more to do with the fact that you can take the UAV data stream, and encrypt it, quite easily and cheaply.



*Opinion*, not fact.

Unless you have far more experience with UAV video feeds than you've included in your profile.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> and shouldn't slow down the data feed, inline with the video



_*Any*_ slowing or degradation of video feed and telemetry is _*completely*_ unacceptable.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> should be just enough to keep it secure long enough to keep somone from watching somone watch them, live at least, so for example, sufficient UAV providing overwatch for a patrol and that seems to me to be what's needed, unless I've missed somthing.



From what has appeared in open sources, many "Taliban supporters" are simply ordinary people who have been offered money to carry out tasks. They are paid far less than a laptop would cost, no matter how cheap the critical software is. These guys are completely expendable.

There are lots of aircraft bumbling around providing feeds. Any expendable hole-diggers who miraculously have a suitably-programmed laptop would have to pick the right one, be able to recognize the area under observaton from a completely unfamiliar vantage point, be able to recognize themselves, be able to interpret unfamiliar thermal imagery, and be able to react in a timely fashion.



			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Have the 16 bit number changed per flight, in a similar manner to patrol passwords, and you're good to go.



With multiple aircraft, manned or otherwise, up and about around the clock, conducting overlapping missions of varying length, taking off and landing at vastly different times from several widely-scattered airfields, and providing feed to many different agencies around the world this is not so easy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> No offence, but I'm not into that with guys.
> 
> I might be convinced to _*bear*_ with you, however.



Before you're convinced to be a bear with Sig Op you might consider looking up what a "bear" is in the homosexual community.

Just saying  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_%28gay_culture%29


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2009)

But that's not what I said, was it...?


----------



## Jammer (21 Dec 2009)

...anyone have a ROVER freq?


----------



## rampage800 (21 Dec 2009)

Jammer

Squawking on C Band 5211, call Good Handshake.  ;D

Sig Op

While I applaud your effort to come up with a way to encrypt the VDL its really not that simple, as a matter of fact your idea might lead to the ACC having a massive heart attack. Theres a lot more going on over there with regards to this stuff than I think you realize.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Dec 2009)

The story has been updated on Wired Online
Shared in accordance with copyright regulations.


> *Not Just Drones: Militants Can Snoop on Most U.S. Warplanes (Updated)*
> By Noah Shachtman  December 17, 2009
> 
> Tapping into drones’ video feeds was just the start. The U.S. military’s primary system for bringing overhead surveillance down to soldiers and Marines on the ground is also vulnerable to electronic interception, multiple military sources tell Danger Room. That means militants have the ability to see through the eyes of all kinds of combat aircraft — from traditional fighters and bombers to unmanned spy planes. The problem is in the process of being addressed. But for now, an enormous security breach is even larger than previously thought.
> ...


Complete article at LINK above


Apparently some high-priced folks have already been giving this some thought (not that I doubt _a Sig Op_'s capabilities   )


----------



## chrisf (21 Dec 2009)

I'm not going to bother to push this one any further.

If you want to use the standard military logic of "if we're not doing it now, it can't be done" then carry on.


----------



## rampage800 (21 Dec 2009)

> If you want to use the standard military logic of "if we're not doing it now, it can't be done" then carry on.


I guess maybe you just know more about this stuff than some of the guys on here do eh  :-\





> I'm not going to bother push this one any further


That's the best idea you've had, you may have strayed just a touch outside your lane.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> If you want to use the standard military logic of "if we're not doing it now, it can't be done" then carry on.



After you are done sulking, take a good look and see that no one said it couldnt be done. Encrypting a signal is not that difficult from a technical standpoint.. It is the ramifications that harder to deal with.

Whatever, you're the expert.


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Dec 2009)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> but the fact that it CAN be done, begs the question why it's not being done.



Perhaps because...



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> some high-priced folks have already been giving this some thought



Therefore...



			
				rampage800 said:
			
		

> There's a lot more going on over there with regards to this stuff than I think you realize.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Dec 2009)

The vulnerability is with our smaller UAV's like Hunter/Shadow.The bad guy has to be in line of sight of the UAV to hack the feed. This begs the obvious as to how the taliban can access the internet from a mountain top where electricity is spotty at best.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2009)

The Taliban probably really like those stupid MAC commercials too.

What kind of operational security dangers does the Taliban having our UAV footage mean for us?
What kind of advantages will it give? For the life of me I know this must be a big deal but I can't exactly think how. Probably just something simple that I'm over looking.
Could someone explain it to us less technically savvy types?


----------



## PanaEng (22 Dec 2009)

> Opinion, not fact.
> 
> Unless you have far more experience with UAV video feeds than you've included in your profile.


Fact! and he dosn't need to put anything in his profile to have experience on something.
video feeds are easily encrypted real-time with imperceptible delay.
The technology is old and is cheap. It does not require a lot of processing or power.

What makes retrofitting this to existing platforms difficult is the cost - not because the technology is expensive, it's because it is old (yes, it is old technology and old production runs for the exact chips and modules may have to be re-started/contracted), has to integrate with existing components (many of those as alluded to by the article posted by Journeyman) and has to withstand mechanical stress.  

You can encrypt a video stream with AES at 256 bits with commodity HW - a cheap Arm processor, like in the Blackberry (hey, a good example right there: all the comms are encrypted). You can even do it smaller with a little ASIC or FPGA. No need to talk about other components in the data chain like the TX or sat link - they only take what you give them and send it along - red herings (there should be an emoticon for that   :christmas happy: )

So, I think Sig Op is right - but it might not be able to talk to the existing infrastructure without some serious hacking.
I don't know why you guys are piling-on to him - hi might just know what he is talking about (are any of you Elec Eng ?)

disclaimer: I know what I am talking about but maybe I just misunderstood the issue  ;D

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Jammer (22 Dec 2009)

Sure you can encrypt it. That's not the issue. It has to be the following:

1: Encrypted without losing ANY live data streaming.]

2: Make it compatible with existing coalition systems.

3: It has to be meet or exceed existing security requirements.

4: Be adaptable to required changes (I won't elaborate on this).

PanaEng
I don't think you know about the standards that have to met for implementing a new cryptosecurity system.
You don't have to be an electrical engineer as you profess.


----------



## KingofKeys (22 Dec 2009)

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/17/wsj-militants-used-26-software-to-hack-u-s-drones/

Watch the video. Very interesting. Some interesting twist in there too.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Dec 2009)

KingofKeys said:
			
		

> Watch the video.



CNN is to news what McDonald is to food.......




> Very interesting.



Yes it is....if by interesting you mean that CNN still calls them "drones" after all this time.




> Some interesting twist in there too.



Not sure what you mean by that. That Iran is involved ?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2009)

Just a point that is lost in this whole discussion, right from the git go:  A DRONE is a UAV that is NOT controlled from the ground.  It has a preloaded flight path programmed into it prior to its take off and will fly that mission.  There is no further ground communication to change/amend its flight path.  The video feed is not in anyway related to the flight controls of this vehicle.


----------



## Jammer (23 Dec 2009)

....so to alleviate any confusion, henceforth and from this day forward the term "drone" will be replaced by the term "worker bee"... ;D


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2009)

The terminology for UAVs is being used incorrectly in most conversations/discusions.  UAVs have two classes: Drones and RPVs.  Drones have their flights preprogrammed on the ground and sent off to fly a fixed flight with no further control from the ground.  Remote Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) are what we are most familiar with in Predator, Global Hawk, Reaper, Heron, Spewar, etc. where they are actually piloted remotely from a ground station.

All are "worker bees".     :camo:


----------



## PanaEng (23 Dec 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> ....so to alleviate any confusion, henceforth and from this day forward the term "drone" will be replaced by the term "worker bee"... ;D


I'll have a hive of the killer type...

 :christmas happy:
couldn't resist...

good morning everyone

and I don't care if the video feed is encrypted or not:
Abdul: "Muhamad, Ali, Ahmed come here and look at this."
Ali: "Hey! it looks like our house. Ahmed, go outside and wave your arms"
Muhamad: "Crap! that's him - its getting closer - Shit - Allahu akbar!..... EOT

cheers,
Frank


----------



## KingofKeys (23 Dec 2009)

> Not sure what you mean by that. That Iran is involved ?


Yup. That is exactly what I meant. Not that I was surprised but I wasn't expecting it either. :camo:


----------



## Jammer (23 Dec 2009)

Do you have another source that can lend some consistancy to your analysis?


----------



## rampage800 (23 Dec 2009)

Flawed Design

To answer your question, in my opinion its nothing really more than an early warning receiver and for the most part I would think that the average INS or even MVT for that matter, doesn't have this cape. Its also highly unlikely that the HVTs have the corresponding maps to know where the UAV is actually looking, I would think that it more that they have a guy watching the screen and when all of a sudden a picture appears they know that an airframe of some sort is fairly close (because I doubt this device has an external antenna so has very limited range and also has to be outside to view).

There already is a way to defeat this so the INS seeing this might just lull them into a false sense of security as well...........a few of the reports I've read have mentioned the US capturing laptops from raids in Iraq over a year ago with footage yet they still seem to be dropping GBU-12s and AGM-114s so that in itself I would think speak volumes towards the effectiveness of this "device".

For the pers who are saying that it can be done, you're absolutely right, it can, but if you read the article Journeyman posted you'll see the problems it would create. There are thousands of receivers in theatre right now, not all of them are made by L-3, as well not all the footage is coming off of UAVs, I'd bet theres over a dozen different pods being used right now over there...........it'll get fixed or rectified but trying to do it in the middle of a war might be the wrong time and you certainly don't want to isolate any of your allies who decide not to encrypt because I dunno, maybe they don't want to spend the money because they're pulling out soon or maybe the software they are using isn't compatible with everyone elses. Just a couple of I'm sure many problems that come to mind.

Anyhow a few assumptions on my part and kind of long winded but you can draw your own conclusions, mostly just my opinion.

Happy Holidays  :christmas happy:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Dec 2009)

Here is a report from security expert on the UAV video feeds. As he points out the problem is not encrypting the video feed, but managing all the encryption keys. Having worked with crypto material I know how much of a pain it can be making sure you have all the proper keys, they are keyed at the proper time, properly stored, etc, and what to do if problems happen, and they will.  Then imaging you have dozens of different units spread all over Afghanistan, and of different nationalities who may or may not be very fluent in English. 

Here is his report in whole (under the usual caveats about Fair Dealings, etc). 

_Schneier on Security __

December 24, 2009
Intercepting Predator Video

Sometimes mediocre encryption is better than strong encryption, and sometimes no encryption is better still.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Iraqi, and possibly also Afghan, militants are using commercial software to eavesdrop on U.S. Predators, other unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, and even piloted planes. The systems weren't "hacked" -- the insurgents can’t control them -- but because the downlink is unencrypted, they can watch the same video stream as the coalition troops on the ground.

The naive reaction is to ridicule the military. Encryption is so easy that HDTVs do it -- just a software routine and you're done -- and the Pentagon has known about this flaw since Bosnia in the 1990s. *But encrypting the data is the easiest part; key management is the hard part. Each UAV needs to share a key with the ground station. These keys have to be produced, guarded, transported, used and then destroyed. And the equipment, both the Predators and the ground terminals, needs to be classified and controlled, and all the users need security clearance.*

The command and control channel is, and always has been, encrypted -- because that's both more important and easier to manage. UAVs are flown by airmen sitting at comfortable desks on U.S. military bases, where key management is simpler. But the video feed is different. It needs to be available to all sorts of people, of varying nationalities and security clearances, on a variety of field terminals, in a variety of geographical areas, in all sorts of conditions -- with everything constantly changing. Key management in this environment would be a nightmare.

Additionally, how valuable is this video downlink is to the enemy? The primary fear seems to be that the militants watch the video, notice their compound being surveilled and flee before the missiles hit. Or notice a bunch of Marines walking through a recognizable area and attack them. This might make a great movie scene, but it's not very realistic. Without context, and just by peeking at random video streams, the risk caused by eavesdropping is low.

Contrast this with the additional risks if you encrypt: A soldier in the field doesn't have access to the real-time video because of a key management failure; a UAV can't be quickly deployed to a new area because the keys aren't in place; we can't share the video information with our allies because we can't give them the keys; most soldiers can't use this technology because they don't have the right clearances. Given this risk analysis, not encrypting the video is almost certainly the right decision.

There is another option, though. During the Cold War, the NSA's primary adversary was Soviet intelligence, and it developed its crypto solutions accordingly. Even though that level of security makes no sense in Bosnia, and certainly not in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is what the NSA had to offer. If you encrypt, they said, you have to do it "right."

The problem is, the world has changed. Today's insurgent adversaries don't have KGB-level intelligence gathering or cryptanalytic capabilities. At the same time, computer and network data gathering has become much cheaper and easier, so they have technical capabilities the Soviets could only dream of. Defending against these sorts of adversaries doesn't require military-grade encryption only where it counts; it requires commercial-grade encryption everywhere possible.

This sort of solution would require the NSA to develop a whole new level of lightweight commercial-grade security systems for military applications — not just office-data "Sensitive but Unclassified" or "For Official Use Only" classifications. It would require the NSA to allow keys to be handed to uncleared UAV operators, and perhaps read over insecure phone lines and stored in people's back pockets. It would require the sort of ad hoc key management systems you find in internet protocols, or in DRM systems. It wouldn't be anywhere near perfect, but it would be more commensurate with the actual threats.

And it would help defend against a completely different threat facing the Pentagon: The PR threat. Regardless of whether the people responsible made the right security decision when they rushed the Predator into production, or when they convinced themselves that local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, or when they forgot to update their Bosnia-era threat analysis to account for advances in technology, the story is now being played out in the press. The Pentagon is getting beaten up because it's not protecting against the threat — because it's easy to make a sound bite where the threat sounds really dire. And now it has to defend against the perceived threat to the troops, regardless of whether the defense actually protects the troops or not. Reminds me of the TSA, actually.

So the military is now committed to encrypting the video ... eventually. The next generation Predators, called Reapers -- Who names this stuff? Second-grade boys? -- will have the same weakness. Maybe we’ll have encrypted video by 2010, or 2014, but I don't think that's even remotely possible unless the NSA relaxes its key management and classification requirements and embraces a lightweight, less secure encryption solution for these sorts of situations. The real failure here is the failure of the Cold War security model to deal with today's threats._ [My emphasis]


----------



## PanaEng (29 Dec 2009)

I think this sentence sums up the POV on the article:


> There is another option, though. During the Cold War, the NSA's primary adversary was Soviet intelligence, and it developed its crypto solutions accordingly. Even though that level of security makes no sense in Bosnia, and certainly not in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is what the NSA had to offer. If you encrypt, they said, you have to do it "right."



i.e. stuck in cold war process and controls.

Today encryption is a commodity technology. You don't need special clearance or technology to handle it, produce keys, distribute them. Anyone can use encryption and anyone can attempt to break it with free or commercial sw.  You use encryption every day you log in to your bank from your pc; when you use your BB; when you video chat using skype.

The issue here is that the video feed is not considered important enough to encrypt and tedious to do so due to the impositions of the respective MIL-SPEC (see quote above) and the Key handling problems when the information is required by many parties. ( Re MIL-SPEC: In the 80's there was this push to have all SW written in Ada - where is that today? still around but very rare)

What I say is that it does not have to be black or white (open or TS). Encryption keys can be negotiated on the fly - per session. It does not have to be "secret" or "top secret" grade - just like in the web browsers we use every day and just hard enough to make it a pain to hack into.  A receiver from a third party would need to authenticate itself with the owner of the feed and obtain the appropriate key. There is enough bandwidth in the current systems/channels/bands so there is no need to alter any other component - theoretically speaking since a plug in module will still need a receptacle created  ;D  - and it could all fit in nothing more than the "Enter" key on your keyboard.

However, that's all theoretical. We can list all kinds of examples of how it is available but the bottom line is that some company(s) ha(s/ve) a contract for systems and support, including inter-working with other systems and unless the specs are changed and new projects/contracts awarded, it is not going to change.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## rampage800 (29 Dec 2009)

Frank

I guess you missed the part of the article in bold stating that encrypting would be the easy part.

 If you could show me an 'Enter' key on some of the receivers it might work but guess what......


----------



## PanaEng (29 Dec 2009)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Frank
> 
> I guess you missed the part of the article in bold stating that encrypting would be the easy part.
> 
> If you could show me an 'Enter' key on some of the receivers it might work but guess what......


True enough. 
I think I did allude to that but did not make it clear that I understand that. Anyway, with todays technology it is easy and cheap - but compatibility, standards and ongoing contracts makes it very hard to implement and the value of the data does not justify it at the moment.

 ;D on my Mac it is exactly 2 keys to the right of my right pinky (i was just comparing the size of an equivalent component)

cheers,
Frank


----------

