Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly like.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."
Those models suddenly become available in Kabul and Islamabad markets.On Dec 17, 8:14 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
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...
Check out the list of PCI adapters required by PC to receive satellite
feed at bottom of page:
http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php
If I were to design a backdoor, I would put it in the hardware. Of
course, this would mean that:
1. One of the listed manufacturers is actually a wolf in sheep's
clothing: DoD posing as a legitimate company.
2. DoD has contracts unders some Homeland Security act with all the
manufacturers to put in backdoors for units sold to regions inhabited
by terrorist.
Also remember the printer ruse used in DS1. Spy-vs-Spy.#2 is more likely, as #1 would depend on getting lucky that terrorist
chose your adapter and not someone else's.
A hardware-resident virus on PC can pretty much do anything it wants
with the PC.
????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.
You echo my point. But the press, probably echoing a Pentagon pressOn Dec 17, 9:00 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:15 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
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?
Well, sure, there is no hacking, which, from a public relations
perspective, is worse than if there had been.
If you were head of tech ops for Predator program, would news report
would you rather see:
1. USA Predator data link empowered with 256-bit-Rijndael/elliptic
curve crypto broken in Afghanistan by massive super-computer in hands
of terrorists who received $50 million in funding from sympathetic
neighboring country that is hostile to the US military. The break was
lead by eminent team of crytographers, as well as specialists in
massively parallel super-computing and experts in information theory.
Break was aided by failure of field personnel to follow strict
protocols in the handling of key data on the ground.
-OR-
2. We got sniffed by some kids with $26 to spare.
They're grabbing it later in the system, but if you want it encryptedPassing 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.
There is no place in the system to put such a cipher. The onlyIf 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.
When has 256-bit Rijndael been broken? Or 128-bit for that matter? OrIn 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.
Take a look at the SkyGrabber site. It looks like the whole thing isThe 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.
Check out the list of PCI adapters required by PC to receive satelliteOn Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:05:15 -0800 (PST), Le Chaud Lapin
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...
Sorry David, this does not make sense at all.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.
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.
Well, sure, there is no hacking, which, from a public relationsLe Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:15 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
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?
There are the two major interpretations of MSU/AMSU satellite data forNow the Russians are accusing the Hadley Centre of cherry picking only
the warm stations from Russia.
http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html
/quote
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based
Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the
Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the
British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably
tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not
substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the
country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data
submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature
calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of
meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate
Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any
substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st
century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete
data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations
facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of
meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete
observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in
large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming
effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature
distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature
data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
in real time. If the video is decrypted a day or even hours latter itOn 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.
Sure there is a way to encrypt the data so that it can't be decrypted
It should be noted that decrypting in non-real time, right now, inOn Dec 17, 5:15 pm, David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:> On Dec 17, 4:11 pm, Le Chaud Lapin
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.
Sure there is a way to encrypt the data so that it can't be decrypted
in real time. If the video is decrypted a day or even hours latter it
is too late for the target.
I'm not sure how I can explain it any clearer.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.
Sorry David, this does not make sense at all.
Huh?Based on my < 5 minutes review of
http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php
...it's nothing more than a satellite Internet sniffer. If that is
true, everything is possible.
From one perspective, the so-called "link" does not exist. Saying it
does is like saying that a spread-spectrum receiver is "analog". Yes,
it is, and no it ain't, depending on what you are talking.
Cannot be done. The satellite that the predator talks to only supports1. Encrypt the data in the Predator before it leaves the Predator.
2. Send the encrypted digital data from Predator to satellite.
You're missing that the link from the satellite to the ground station3. Receive encrypted digital data from satellite to ground-based
satellite receiver.
4. Decrypt the data after it enters PC, or whatever over-priced thingy
they have waiting for the encrypted data.
????
What I am I missing?
The original question was on analog video, which is somewhatIt 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:
It may not be 'broken', but if you can steal a key and duplicate it,http://www.skygrabber.com/en/skygrabber.php
maybe they're including psychological warfare in this. so i'm someDARPA, please, you are impressing us toooo much!!!!
Ok, I just did a more thorough investigation based on the originalOn Dec 17, 7:13 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Cannot be done. The satellite that the predator talks to only supports
analog video.
3. Receive encrypted digital data from satellite to ground-based
satellite receiver.
4. Decrypt the data after it enters PC, or whatever over-priced thingy
they have waiting for the encrypted data.
????
What I am I missing?
You're missing that the link from the satellite to the ground station
is a completely different link from the link from the Predator. The
system was changed around from the one originally designed because it
turned out that the latency introduced by multiple geosynchronous
satellite links was too high for reliable operation.
Wrong. It just requires MORE FEC.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.
John has a nice little horse in Highland Technology, but he seems toOn Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:43:01 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:25 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:06:03 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 14, 10:41 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:38:06 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:53:31 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
SNIP
This would be the insult part of your bluster-and-insult contribution.
Your contributions about the scientific status of anthropogenic global
warming is - of course - the bluster, since you seem to collect it all
from denialist web-sites, rather than coming up with original
nonsense.
Sheesh. This is an engineering group. Engineers can't afford to be
sloppy like climate scientists. They can't afford the sort of politics
seen with the CRU/realclimate team.
You don't seem to have worked on any decent-sized projects.
This was a reference to Ravinghorde, not John Larkin.
John Larkin doesn't seem to have the self-control to take the time to
work out the tree structure of a thread in which he feels that he has
been insulted.
Agent lines up things vertically after a lot of indent levels.
But you still managed to ignore the line
"> >> >On Dec 12, 1:24 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid
wrote:"
But this is a discussion group.
Which excuses you from having to think about what you are responding
to?
Pretty much yes. I don't need to be careful about things that don't
matter.
Well, how _about_ you? Tell us about your biggest projects.
I've got only one big project going on at the moment - getting a new
aortic valve. It doesn't call for much creative input on my part, but
does require a certain amount of showing up at the local hospitals and
putting up with stuff, which can be distracting.
As expected; all hat, no horse.
I gave you a great pair of references which just happen to addresssnip
1% regulation looks OK to me unless you can show me the design specs.
I've been around the group long enough to have seen this card playedOn Dec 18, 2:19 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
snip
Design any interesting circuits lately?
John's regular get out of jail free card, usually played after a long
post explaining why he is free to post denialist nonsense, while the
people who respond to point out that he doesn't know what he is
talking about should confine themselves to electronics.