Driver to drive?

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:04:44 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip

I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.

snip

I have no desire to talk to JT.

Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact. It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)

If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.

I'm a hobbyist. Is that a problem for you?

Like Sloman.

You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?

If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.

And I never talk with JT.

You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.
Can't say until you try. Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill. I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it. So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.

As I said, you need to look in a mirror or go after other big fish on
this subject, if you really care that much to change the tenor. There
are much better prizes to be had, John.

You put no personal work into them, that much is
obvious, and I see no reason why anyone else should care when you
respect yourself and what you say so little as that. It may be simply
because you don't even believe in your own abilities to understand any
of it.

I believe that nobody can get usefully predictive data from bad models
of chaotic systems, even people who don't cheat.

Which of course you pretend to know without a shred of personal work.

If so, you have my condolences.

Oh, stop being a fathead. I'm having fun.

You imagine I'm not?

Actually, I have been
gradually taking the impression you are no longer competent to even
read the papers with understanding, anymore. But I could be wrong.
And I want you to show me just how wrong I am on that. But I doubt
you will get off your butt long enough to do so.

Get off your butt and design something. Show your work.

I have, already. And I don't think you missed it, because I remember
some comments from you. But as I said, that's not relevant. My point
(the one you started responding to, remember?) is that those posting
here about climate, like you claiming that the science knowledge
doesn't really exist, neither dares nor bothers to engage the methods,
source materials, and conclusions in a serious way. I've seen not one
single case of it, here.... okay.... except maybe one. But it wasn't
from you.

I just think you just lack confidence in your ability to engage any
serious facet of the subject. But are all too willing to make broad,
sweeping accusations all the same. You don't value your own opinions
on the subject that much, which is sad.

Jon

If you want a detailed scientific debate on climate why are you here?
It is not a climate forum.

It is not the job of engineers here to do the job that "climate
scientists" are paid to do.

It does not stop us having opinions when we see what appears to be
obvious bad science.

My objection to AGW is to the claim that the science is settled when
the temperature anomaly is clearly based on unsuitable measurements.
And the anomaly is over egged by quoting it in degrees F or C. 287K
rising by 1K or 2K on the other hand isn't so, politically, alarming.
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.

 

On Dec 17, 4:10 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Why is this article dated December 18th, 2009?
--
Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
Digital Signal Labs % goes floating by
mailto://ya...@ieee.org % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."http://www.digitalsignallabs.com% 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO

Cuz that's the date and time in China.

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Earlier this year, when I spoke to DARPA program managers and prime
contractors about secure, mobile, wirless links, it seemed that that
"their bread was not fully baked" in this area. I asked a technical
director of a $11US+ billion program if this was the case, and he was
reluctant to admit that, after $5US billion already spent, they still
had not figured out how to do secure mobile links in a way that
actually made sense. His response was something like,

"Yes, before, we had some issues around 2000-2001, but recently we
have provided demonstrations that show that we have control of the
situation."

DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!

The video down link is not encrypted. They say they're working on it.

Well, if you give me $100US million dollars, I will open a (non-Swiss)
bank account, deposit $99.5US million into the account, and use the
remaining $500,000US to hire two cryptographers for six months to get
the encryption right.

The Predator was not exactly a high-school science project.

Surely we can all agree that there is something ironic about a top-
secrete weapon lacking security that a 20-year-old computer science
student at a top engineering school could probably get right (almost)
on the first run.

What they did (not do), given rancid amounts of money given to them by
the general public, is inexcusable.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 17, 3:10 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> writes:

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

Why is this article dated December 18th, 2009?

Not sure. On my screen it says

"POSTED JANURARY 12, 2003"

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:04:44 -0800, Jon Kirwan
<jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:41:12 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:21:27 -0800, Jon Kirwan
jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

snip
_You_ are one of those helping the very most to turn this group into a
climate denial group rather than to serve as an excellent resource for
the tiny group of people who even _know_ about usenet.

What I mostly try to do is turn this electronic desihn group into an
electronic design group.
snip

I see a surprisingly large number of non-electronic posts from you,
considering that claim.

snip

I have no desire to talk to JT.

Given that he starts so many threads on a subject you suddenly seem so
focused on stemming, you might try that tact. It would, if you are
successful, certainly reduce the problem you seem so concerned about
(when it serves your interest to feign that concern.)

Why do you take this climate nonsense so seriously, especially in a
group that has nothing to do with it? The only thing I enjoy
"stemming" is fatheads who don't think.

If you don't design electronics, you're a nobody here.

I'm a hobbyist. Is that a problem for you?

Depends on hobbyist at what. If you're an amateur climatologist,
please post to a more welcoming group.

Like Sloman.

You mean the person that seems to keep you writing on a subject you
pretend to want to avoid here?

Sloman is a mess for a lot more reasons than his climate fixations. He
should get straight before his life is wasted in bitterness.

If
you don't like the climate discussions, stop pushing them along with
so much of _your_ energy and maybe go talk with Jim T and ask him to
slow down the new-thread pace a bit.

I never start climate threads. I make relatively few posts about
climate in threads that others start. Rag Sloman and the other guys
who post almost 100% off-topic, about things they only read about.

Note I didn't accuse you of _starting_ the threads.

Once they're started, what does it matter how long they are? Anybodt
is free to ignore climate threads.

And I never talk with JT.

You might improve what you claim to want to improve, by doing so.

I do. I discuss electronics a lot, and try to be helpful.

Can't say until you try. Since I've been pretty much mum on the
subject of late, you seem to be tilting at the wrong windmill. I
don't mind a rare post on the subject, but in general I have learned
that almost everyone here has no skill in the subject and isn't the
least interested in lifting a finger to change it. So I've greatly
reduced any of my contributions there.

Yut should avoid climate threads. They upset you too much.

Design any interesting circuits lately?

John

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 17, 4:41 pm, Malachy Moses <malachy.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:

From today's newspapers (Dec 17, 2009):

"Iraq insurgents hack into video feeds from US drones
"Insurgents in Iraq have hacked into live video feeds from unmanned
American drone aircraft, US media reports say."

See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8419147.stmamong many
others.

Apparently, the insurgents have been using off-the-shelf software
called SkyGrabber to view the live video feeds from the drones.  So
the word "hacked" in the article is not entirely accurate, since it
implies that effort was involved, whereas in actuality the SkyGrabber
software made it almost effortless.

Which makes one wonder what real crytographers in other countries are
thinking right now. I doubt if any of them are impressed.

Imagine:

The most powerful country in the world, your adversary, spending
enough money on their military technology annually to overwhelm your
entire GDP, only to have one of their more advanced systems "hacked"
by what are probably kids, since many older people in Afghanistan/etc.
have never used the Internet. In retrospect, the word "hacked" allows
DARPA & Company to save face, since the word "hacked", as you stated,
implies some effort by the adversary, whereas "listened in" would be
more indicative of the stupidity at play. Perhaps they should have
used "breached" instead of "hacked". The average person can appreciate
breaches.

This is not just embarrassing. It makes us look vulnerable, both in
the eyes of our adversaries, as well as our friends.

If it were not for the greediness/cockiness of DARPA and these prime
contractors who make this stuff...well, it would still be
intolerable.... but the greediness/cockiness added to it makes me want
to puke. I spent months listening to these military guys talk about
their "capability", a flowing stream of unending bombastic babble,
wasting millions (sometimes billions) of dollars.

I searched Google for "DARPA Wireless Security" and found one of the
first links that came up:

http://www.darpa.mil/STO/Solicitations/SN07-09/mod1.html

This solicitation talks about "breakthrough", "paradigm shift",
"revolutionary", "robust", and in the end, they give us Linksys.

All that money they spent to make a wireless link that my 14-year-old
niece could have set up!

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Jerry Avins]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Earlier this year, when I spoke to DARPA program managers and prime
contractors about secure, mobile, wirless links, it seemed that that
"their bread was not fully baked" in this area. I asked a technical
director of a $11US+ billion program if this was the case, and he was
reluctant to admit that, after $5US billion already spent, they still
had not figured out how to do secure mobile links in a way that
actually made sense. His response was something like,
"Yes, before, we had some issues around 2000-2001, but recently we
have provided demonstrations that show that we have control of the
situation."
DARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!
The video down link is not encrypted. They say they're working on it.

Well, if you give me $100US million dollars, I will open a (non-Swiss)
bank account, deposit $99.5US million into the account, and use the
remaining $500,000US to hire two cryptographers for six months to get
the encryption right.

What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there was
no encryption at all.

The Predator was not exactly a high-school science project.

Surely we can all agree that there is something ironic about a top-
secrete weapon lacking security that a 20-year-old computer science
student at a top engineering school could probably get right (almost)
on the first run.

What they did (not do), given rancid amounts of money given to them by
the general public, is inexcusable.

It wasn't encryption that failed, but specification.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[krw]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:44:12 -0800 (PST), Mark <makolber@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

It can obviously be done. It just requires different, perhaps less
efficient, error correction algorithms which may mean lower S/N
required.

 

[krw]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there was
no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone to
do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be that
young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists could
put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in it...

Perhaps it was intentional. They can sell electronics to the
terrorists. Who knows what backdoors lurk...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

"Smile! You're on Candid Camera!"

 

[David Schwartz]

On Dec 17, 4:11 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Surely we can all agree that there is something ironic about a top-
secrete weapon lacking security that a 20-year-old computer science
student at a top engineering school could probably get right (almost)
on the first run.

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

 

[krw]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
<rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote:

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

I don't believe anyone suggested using civilian encryption for
military applications, though it would have been better than nothing.

 

[Rick Jones]

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for
unencrypted analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I
know, there exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken
already. The problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing
information so that no part of the output looks like any part of
the input. The satellite link is filled with errors and distortion
that have to be contained to retain adequate video quality.

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Is it "known" that the GI stuff (irony isn't cracked?

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.dsp Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
(someone wrote)

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already.
(snip)

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15
years ago for HBO?

He said "that has not been broken already". As far as I know,
both the analog in digital encryptions have been broken.

It slows down most people, though, so it still works.

The usual analog encryption reverses the polarity of some scan
lines and/or frames. It isn't hard to figure out fairly reliably
a polarity reversal.

-- glen

 

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On Dec 17, 7:44 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

What do you mean "get the encryption right"? I understood that there was
no encryption at all.

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone to
do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be that
young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

Maybe they should leave it as it is. That way, the terrorists could
put it up on YouTube. Maybe there is a Hollywood show in it...

"So You Think You Can Out-Run A Hell-Fire Missile."

The Predator was not exactly a high-school science project.

Surely we can all agree that there is something ironic about a top-
secrete weapon lacking security that a 20-year-old computer science
student at a top engineering school could probably get right (almost)
on the first run.

What they did (not do), given rancid amounts of money given to them by
the general public, is inexcusable.

It wasn't encryption that failed, but specification.

Hmmm...that's a bit like a surgeon leaving a person's gut open after
an appendectomy and saying,

"Well, technically, you never explicitly said to stitch him up, geez."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[Mark]

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

DS

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15 years
ago for HBO?

Mark

 

[Rick Jones]

In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

I just assumed that, since it is the US military, employing a drone
to do semi-stealth reconnaisance, that a basic requirement would be
that young kids who probably earn < $100/month should not be able to
intercept the stealth video. My bad.

It isn't as if the presumed young kids who earn < $100/month came-up
with the way to grab the feeds - they are simply using something that
someone else produced. Not too unlike say the potentially young kids
in the U.S. military who might be receiving the drone feeds "in the
field."

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:19:40 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

Design any interesting circuits lately?

Let's just take you at your word that you sincerely mean to avoid
discussing climate here and that you will do your part to avoid _any_
further ignorant comments about a subject you haven't spent any time
at. I'll buy it for the next day or so, until I see otherwise. So
let's go with that.

So what's interesting?

I'm thinking about using the headphone jack output (since it often
disables the speakers on many of the audio systems we have, unlike the
line outputs) and conditioning that signal (controlled by the existing
volume control in the device I attach to) for a specialized 2-3 watt
output amplifier (into 8 ohm speakers let's say, so about 5V peaks)
that auto-mutes in a settable 1-15 minutes. No volume control on the
unit, itself -- depending instead on the input signal which does have
a volume control. (I may need to have a front end that can be adapted
easily by the change of a single pot, for example, to accomodate
variations between headphone jacks.)

I have designed my own common-emitter amplifier stages (including one
or two with emitter to base bootstrapping to stiffen the input) for
voltage gain and have done a class-A pair of complimentary emitter
followers for output drive before. (I think I've got my terms right,
but then I'm just a modest hobbyist.) I'd like to do a quasi-
complimentary output stage this time. (For personal education.) And
I need to do some thinking about the first stage that needs to mediate
between the headphone jack output and the intermediate stage (which
I'm kind of thinking about using a diff-amp pair for, prior to the
quasi-comp output stage.) I'd love some constructive thoughts,
questions, and input. The circuit needs to detect significant changes
on the input level to manage the auto-mute. Care to offer some
constructive ideas? I know a little and I may get there on my own
after some more learning, but there's a lot I can learn from you
without as many mistakes along the way, yes? Suggest some directions
and I'll pony something up and let you know what I find out. I'd like
to stay with what I know better -- BJTs. No ICs or opamps. (I am not
looking for high fidelity. It's Petula Clark, for gosh sake.)

Meantime, show me you are serious about moving the group (which only
5% of those using the internet even know about, and far, far fewer
still ever bother to even look at) away from drawn out ad hominems and
uninformed commentary on the quality of climate science. I'd be very,
very happy to see the subject entirely dropped from the group where
essentially noone has spent a nickel's worth of their own time on it,
anyway. None of it is really worth listening to. And I really like
learning electronics. I really do.

Jon

 

[krw]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:33:53 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
<jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:15 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

????

Data encryption of the kind that they need for someone who is
experienced in cryptography is near-trivial. The biggest problem,
which is not a problem in this particular case, is key distribution.

Even that is no problem for an experienced cryptographer. A little
public key magic and all done. ;-)

Maybe I misunderstand, but the system, based on this link:

http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php

...looks like it is entirely in the digital domain.

If that is true, encryption, under the scenarios required by US DoD,
would take maybe 3 weeks using Rijndael or other symmetric cipher for
a rough run, and maybe a month more by a crypto expert to remove the
fatal flaws.

Likely wouldn't even need that. The video has a shelf life. It
needn't be secure for a generation.

The more I think about this, the more I find it hard to believe that
the people who designed the communications of the Predator could be
so...ahem....

A more plausible, conspiracy-theorist, explanation might be this:

The US Military realizes that al-Quaeda/Taliban are becoming more and
more sophisticated in their employment of technology such as laptop
computers, desktoop computers, networks, smartphones with Internet
connections, etc. Ideally, one could inject a nerd-mole into these
groups to infiltrate their computer systems, but that would be
expensive, hit-or-miss, and if he is caught, he would be surely
executed.

A much easier alternative would be to fake a breach of your own
security system, then publicize widely exactly how it was breached:
via software that is readily avaialble on Internet. Make the software
ridiculously cheap, since most terrorists do not have Bin Laden's
billions. Then wait for the fish.

That's my conspiracy theory of the day. ;-)

Every terrorist and wannabe-terrorist who wants to be able to break
into US military satellite com's will visit the web site, whereupon IP
addresses and times of visit will be collected into a database,
creating a nice map (using Google Earth of course) of distribution of
terrorists. Furthermore, by clandestine agrement with author of
software, a root-kit will be built into the software. When terrorists'
computers become infected by the download, the military will be able
to receive highly valuable information from infected computers. If
military is fortunate, these computers will occasionally become
networked, in which case, the virus could propagate.

Yes, it's a long shot, but give me a break...a $10 million drone,
under a multi-billion-dollar program, designed by Ph.D's in electrical
engineering, computer science, and aero/astro, and they forget
something as simple as a little symmetric crypto? NSA, which has last
say in all crypto/data security matters, would have/should have never
allowed this.

Smells fishy.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 

[krw]

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:54:53 -0800 (PST), David Schwartz
<davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

On Dec 17, 6:33 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already. The
problem is that encryption works partly by diffusing information so
that no part of the output looks like any part of the input. The
satellite link is filled with errors and distortion that have to be
contained to retain adequate video quality.

Maybe I misunderstand, but the system, based on this link:

http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php

...looks like it is entirely in the digital domain.

They're grabbing it later in the system, but if you want it encrypted
later in the system, you have to encrypt it earlier in the system.

Why? A bit is a bit.

If that is true, encryption, under the scenarios required by US DoD,
would take maybe 3 weeks using Rijndael or other symmetric cipher for
a rough run, and maybe a month more by a crypto expert to remove the
fatal flaws.

There is no place in the system to put such a cipher. The only
practical way to do is to encrypt the analog uplink. The satellite-
based system from the uplink from the Predator to the downlink to the
operator is simply not encryption-capable. Essentially, the problem is
basically that they chose a completely unsuitable system to handle the
image downlink to the operator.

I'm not buying what you're selling.

 

[Jerry Avins]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

On Dec 17, 8:15 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
In comp.dsp Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(someone wrote)

Passing encrypted video over a satellite network built for unencrypted
analog video is not a trivial challenge. As far as I know, there
exists no scheme to do this that has not been broken already.
(snip)

um,, is that why General Instrument was able to do it did it 15
years ago for HBO?
He said "that has not been broken already". As far as I know,
both the analog in digital encryptions have been broken.

It slows down most people, though, so it still works.

When has 256-bit Rijndael been broken? Or 128-bit for that matter? Or
RC6? Or many other symmetric ciphers?

The usual analog encryption reverses the polarity of some scan
lines and/or frames. It isn't hard to figure out fairly reliably
a polarity reversal.

Take a look at the SkyGrabber site. It looks like the whole thing is
based on satellite Internet access, which of course, is entirely in
the digital domain:

http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php

"Hacking" is the wrong term for that. Am I hackinf usenet with Thunderbird?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ