Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

Councilman · Dec 17, 2009

Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones - WSJ.com

I find it hard to get into this without the use of some pretty, shall I say colorful words. I don't (expletive) believe this. We have without question the best trained most well equipped most modern military on the face of the planet and this happens?

Give me a (bleeping) break.

The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control.

Can I get a big double DUH here please. I'm sorry but this sounds like amateur hour and at the Pentagon. You would think that in a day and age of realistic video games a Private or Corporal fresh from the Video arcade would have asked about how secure the down links are.

An episode of the TV show Chuck last season had a computer whiz hacking control of Predators, I wonder when we hear about the real ones being used against us?

By SIOBHAN GORMAN, YOCHI J. DREAZEN and AUGUST COLE

WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

U.S. officials say there is no evidence that militants were able to take control of the drones or otherwise interfere with their flights. Still, the intercepts could give America's enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

The drone intercepts mark the emergence of a shadow cyber war within the U.S.-led conflicts overseas. They also point to a potentially serious vulnerability in Washington's growing network of unmanned drones, which have become the American weapon of choice in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Obama administration has come to rely heavily on the unmanned drones because they allow the U.S. to safely monitor and stalk insurgent targets in areas where sending American troops would be either politically untenable or too risky.

The stolen video feeds also indicate that U.S. adversaries continue to find simple ways of counteracting sophisticated American military technologies.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

This is what happens when we put too much stock in hi-tech gagetry, instead of fighting the enemy the old fashion way: by using speed, terrain, tactics and firepower to close with him and destroy him.

Me, kinda old fasioned like that.

TOJ · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
This is what happens when we put too much stock in hi-tech gagetry, instead of fighting the enemy the old fashion way: by using speed, terrain, tactics and firepower to close with him and destroy him.

Me, kinda old fasioned like that.

Give me a break. Even with this development, a person would have to be an idiot to believe drones have not been hughly successful.

How many US and allied personnel, especially special ops, would have been killed, wounded, or captured trying to take out the same number of enemy, especially high value targets, that drones have?

What other high-tech equipment should the US not be using? Stealth aircraft, advanced helicopters, smart bombs, advanced tanks, etc... ?

That said, those responsible for letting this equipment get into the field without securring the data feeds should be shot.

.

Catz Part Deux · Dec 17, 2009

The military has difficulty recruiting geeks, but definitely needs to make the same kinds of strides that the CIA, SS, and FBI have.

Worse case scenario, create a geek squad with its own internal structure and rules.

Ockham · Dec 17, 2009

This was an obvious gap - someone at the Pentagon, and probably many someone's flagged this a long time ago and then a decision was made to not encrypt the data. Why? When all sensitive ground based or sattelite based communications are encrypted - why the heck would someone think that drone uplink information won't be tapped at some point?

Someone decided to cut corners - or never followed up with this obvious gap and now every 10 year old script kiddie around the world is downloading hacked software and running to their local AFB with hopes of tapping into a drone. This is an embarassment to the brass in the AF IMO... amature hour.

Ikari · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
This is what happens when we put too much stock in hi-tech gagetry, instead of fighting the enemy the old fashion way: by using speed, terrain, tactics and firepower to close with him and destroy him.

Me, kinda old fasioned like that.

I think high technology is very important. I can't believe they didn't encrypt the data link though. That seems like quite the oversight.

BWG · Dec 17, 2009

And to think we do all that with a budget that is almost equal to ALL THE REST OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

TOJ said:
Give me a break. Even with this development, a person would have to be an idiot to believe drones have not been hughly successful.

How many US and allied personnel, especially special ops, would have been killed, wounded, or captured trying to take out the same number of enemy, especially high value targets, that drones have?

What other high-tech equipment should the US not be using? Stealth aircraft, advanced helicopters, smart bombs, advanced tanks, etc... ?

That said, those responsible for letting this equipment get into the field without securring the data feeds should be shot.

.

When did I say that haven't been successful?

However, if the enemy finds a way to defeat the drones, then something will have to change. All I'm saying, is that we can't become too dependent on hi-tech weapons, thereby deteriorating our infantry's war fighting skills.

At the end of the day, wars are won by an infantry soldier and his rifle.

Arch Enemy · Dec 17, 2009

Drones alone cannot win.

The technology gives America a strong advantage, but if we re to rely only on technology, then we realize that just because we build it does not disallow our enemies to manipulate it.

bhkad · Dec 17, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
The military has difficulty recruiting geeks, but definitely needs to make the same kinds of strides that the CIA, SS, and FBI have.

Worse case scenario, create a geek squad with its own internal structure and rules.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk7DVpCkgwQ"]YouTube- Air Force "Above All" ASAT commercial[/ame]

ConservaBill · Dec 17, 2009

Those guys are pretty crafty... they might be able to put together a couple rocks,and old mortar shell and a few donkey hairs and build something that might be able to hack into a drone which they have no idea what frequency it is operating on! :2wave:

bhkad · Dec 17, 2009

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgQaqmhtVs"]YouTube- Space and Missile Defense Command[/ame]

TOJ · Dec 17, 2009

ConservaBill said:
Those guys are pretty crafty... they might be able to put together a couple rocks,and old mortar shell and a few donkey hairs and build something that might be able to hack into a drone which they have no idea what frequency it is operating on! :2wave:

What?

They are doing it with off-the-shelf software, according to the reports.

Did you forget they were crafty enough to get saboteurs into the USA, get them trained to fly jets, take over four planes, and fly three of them into the Pentagon and WTC.

Underestimating your enemy's capabilities is not common before you get your nose bloodied.

.

rathi · Dec 17, 2009

Although drones certainly are vulnerable to certain communications based attacks, this is simply a bone-headed mistake that has nothing to do with technology. Secure communications isn't easy, but broadcasting important data in the clear is unacceptable.

Goobieman · Dec 17, 2009

BWG said:
And to think we do all that with a budget that is almost equal to ALL THE REST OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED.

Better to spend money than men.

TOJ · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
When did I say that haven't been successful?

You implied they should be fighting the old fashioned way; having ground troops close with the enemy. If that is not what you was saying, what exactly was you trying to say?

However, if the enemy finds a way to defeat the drones, then something will have to change. All I'm saying, is that we can't become too dependent on hi-tech weapons, thereby deteriorating our infantry's war fighting skills.

The drones have not been defeated. They are still doing jobs that would either not get done or put USA and allied military personnel at high risk if done the old fashioned way. The only thing that has happened is the data feeds have been intercepted which will let them pattern the way the drones are used.

At the end of the day, wars are won by an infantry soldier and his rifle.

Are you advocating the USA and allies march into northern Pakistan with enough strengh to take it over and thereby deny the Taliban and AQ refuge in that area?

.

MsRetro · Dec 17, 2009

rathi said:
Although drones certainly are vulnerable to certain communications based attacks, this is simply a bone-headed mistake that has nothing to do with technology. Secure communications isn't easy, but broadcasting important data in the clear is unacceptable.

Agreed.

Most technological vulnerabilities, from having your twitter phished and hijacked by spammers up to this incident with the drones, can be traced to the human element.

I don't think we need less reliance on technology; we need better understanding of how it can be used.

My guess is no one ever thought to encrypt the signals. It's sloppy.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that the military needs a geek squad, and I agree. Even having one person who's job is reading hackaday & instructables & the like, then reporting what they find, would be a nice step.

danarhea · Dec 17, 2009

Catz Part Deux said:
The military has difficulty recruiting geeks, but definitely needs to make the same kinds of strides that the CIA, SS, and FBI have.

Worse case scenario, create a geek squad with its own internal structure and rules.

We don't need to create one. We already have one. Just draft 'em. :mrgreen:

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

TOJ said:
You implied they should be fighting the old fashioned way; having ground troops close with the enemy. If that is not what you was saying, what exactly was you trying to say?

What I meant, is that you can't venture too far from the fundementals of ground combat. There is one tried and true way to destroy the enemy and that is to engage the enemy in close quarter combat, utilizing speed, tactics, firepower and maneuver to destroy the enemy.

The drones have not been defeated. They are still doing jobs that would either not get done or put USA and allied military personnel at high risk if done the old fashioned way. The only thing that has happened is the data feeds have been intercepted which will let them pattern the way the drones are used.

Relax. I never said that. Read my comments above.

Are you advocating the USA and allies march into northern Pakistan with enough strengh to take it over and thereby deny the Taliban and AQ refuge in that area?

.

No, but that's not a bad idea.

Goobieman · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
What I meant, is that you can't venture too far from the fundementals of ground combat. There is one tried and true way to destroy the enemy and that is to engage the enemy in close quarter combat, utilizing speed, tactics, firepower and maneuver to destroy the enemy.

This is best summed up by:
If you aren't infantry, you're support.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
This is what happens when we put too much stock in hi-tech gagetry, instead of fighting the enemy the old fashion way: by using speed, terrain, tactics and firepower to close with him and destroy him.

Me, kinda old fasioned like that.

No, this is what happens when people bitch too god-damned much about the cost of the defense budget and corner cutting ensues.

Now we spend some bucks, not many, to encrypt the video down-links.

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Goobieman said:
This is best summed up by:
If you aren't infantry, you're support.

Exactly right! Every other branch--branch of arms and branch of service-- exists to support the infantry's mission.

Thanks for pointing that out.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, this is what happens when people bitch too god-damned much about the cost of the defense budget and corner cutting ensues.

Now we spend some bucks, not many, to encrypt the video down-links.

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.

Another great point, thank you!

Goobieman · Dec 17, 2009

apdst said:
Exactly right! Every other branch--branch of arms and branch of service-- exists to support the infantry's mission.
Thanks for pointing that out.

The AF guys really hate it when you point that out.

apdst · Dec 17, 2009

Goobieman said:
The AF guys really hate it when you point that out.

Army POG's hate it too...lol.

Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones

Councilman

apdst

TOJ

Catz Part Deux

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Ikari

BWG

apdst

Arch Enemy

Familiaist

bhkad

ConservaBill

Active member

bhkad

TOJ

rathi

Count Smackula

Goobieman

TOJ

MsRetro

Active member

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

apdst

Goobieman

Scarecrow Akhbar

apdst

apdst

Goobieman

apdst