U.S. Predator drones hacked with $26 software

[deadrats]

note: i was hesitant about posting this story but i couldn't help myself, the thought that u.s. military "predator" drones can be hacked with run of the mill software is just beyond belief:

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

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.

i want to go on such a rant right now but i know that within a few sentences i would be in violation of this forum's rules so i will control my urges.

[jman98]

I can't say I'm surprised. The military uses a lot of Microsoft based products, which always have inherent problems. Then again, this may have nothing to do with Microsoft and simply be bad code. The good news is that this isn't the worst it could possibly be and it should be fixable fairly easily. It's one thing to get video feeds. It's quite something else to reprogram a drone to not hit its target or to switch to a new target.

I worked for the Air Force some years ago and a lot of the civilian programmers that I worked with were very conscientious about security. To me, this sounds like contractor work. The US military foolishly believes that EVERYTHING is better if contractors do it and I know of cases where contractors did shoddy work and were never held accountable. Back when I worked for the Air Force we had one contractor win a bid to design an inventory system in Ada. Know what they did? The guy in charge of the project told me that the contractors wrote a tiny Ada program that basically did the equivalent of a C language system call and called an inventory program written entirely in C. I would bet almost anything that contractors and not government employees are to blame for this one.

[sambat]

The 'Blue Screen of Death' takes on a whole new meaning.

[Seeker47]

And they don't bother to encrypt such feeds ?
Preferably with something that keeps changing, rather than presenting a stationary target ?

[You'll never go wrong, underestimating laziness or stupidity !]

[Mitchum22]

Good.

Here's hoping hackers all around the world can arrange for these drones to doubleback and attack the suits sitting in McLean VA arranging for the murder of entire wedding parties, along with thousands of other innocent Afghanis.

[jman98]

And they don't bother to encrypt such feeds ?

Relating to my earlier post, I'd guess that a contractor did this and the original program spec didn't ask for encrypted video due to an oversight. See when you have government people doing the work, they might ask "Shouldn't this be encrypted?" When you pay contractors, they'll do exactly what you ask for and no more. Well, in some cases they'll actually give you less than you asked for, but they definitely won't give you more. Unfortunately the procurement system is kind of designed so that contractors can't really ask questions, so if the original spec didn't call for encrypted video, they'll never question it whereas a government employee might at least ask the question. Whether someone in charge would actually listen to that question is a whole other story, but it might at least get asked.

[videopoo]

Mellow Mitchum! I'd like to keep this thread open and not have you banned

Thanks

[stiltman]

Skygrabber $29.99

It's far from being a hack. More like putting up a set of rabbit ears to get off air TV signals

[fritzi93]

So there was an unprotected com link in "some" of the drones that allowed video to be intercepted. As jman says, that doesn't mean control of the drone is compromised.

I think the contractor scenario is rather persuasive. Not my field, but in my line of business, any spec change in mid-stream is a big fat pain in the ass. I personally never suggest changes once there's a contract.

[sambat]

Did you hear about the old lady who was arrested at the airport when they found out she was knitting an Afghan?

[Denvers Dawgs]

xx

[Denvers Dawgs]

Good.

Here's hoping hackers all around the world can arrange for these drones to doubleback and attack the suits sitting in McLean VA arranging for the murder of entire wedding parties, along with thousands of other innocent Afghanis.

Argh . . . SIGH . . .

[lordsmurf]

This story was already on an episode of NCIS this season.
It's not an unexpected turn of events.

[deadrats]

So there was an unprotected com link in "some" of the drones that allowed video to be intercepted. As jman says, that doesn't mean control of the drone is compromised.

true, but here's the rub, these drones in addition to attack duties also perform recognizance missions, if the target of the intel gathering mission can intercept the feed and see what you see, then you are no longer spying on him and you can longer launch a suprise attack on him.

it's kind of like a group of burglars or bank robbers having a police scanner or police radio or the mob being able to listen in on what the feds are listening in on.

with that information you can change your tactics, engage in counter-intelligence by feeding those spying on you false information about movements, possible use that knowledge to set up an ambush, the list is endless. the u.s. military could get false info that bin laden or some other high value target is at a certain local and then when they show up to try and take him they could find themselves in the middle of a trap, this is quite a serious laps in security, no matter what your view of any military action, conflict, operation or policy in any part of the world, may be.

and most importantly, those are our tax dollars at work, if they are going to take our money to send a million dollar drone to spy on someone then at the very least make sure that it's capable of doing so.

[edDV]

So there was an unprotected com link in "some" of the drones that allowed video to be intercepted. As jman says, that doesn't mean control of the drone is compromised.

true, but here's the rub, these drones in addition to attack duties also perform recognizance missions, if the target of the intel gathering mission can intercept the feed and see what you see, then you are no longer spying on him and you can longer launch a suprise attack on him.

it's kind of like a group of burglars or bank robbers having a police scanner or police radio or the mob being able to listen in on what the feds are listening in on.

with that information you can change your tactics, engage in counter-intelligence by feeding those spying on you false information about movements, possible use that knowledge to set up an ambush, the list is endless. the u.s. military could get false info that bin laden or some other high value target is at a certain local and then when they show up to try and take him they could find themselves in the middle of a trap, this is quite a serious laps in security, no matter what your view of any military action, conflict, operation or policy in any part of the world, may be.

and most importantly, those are our tax dollars at work, if they are going to take our money to send a million dollar drone to spy on someone then at the very least make sure that it's capable of doing so.

So you are assuming this hasn't been fixed? Or, that is wasn't intended as creative destruction? Why not show something else unencrypted like fake voyeur porno?

[fritzi93]

Yeah, it's inexplicable. The police scanner analogy is apt, it seems to me.

Doesn't look good in the newspapers, and the late night talk show jokes almost write themselves. No doubt it's been fixed. :P

[rr6966]

Good.

Here's hoping hackers all around the world can arrange for these drones to doubleback and attack the suits sitting in McLean VA arranging for the murder of entire wedding parties, along with thousands of other innocent Afghanis.

Pretty twisted!

[MJA]

as soon this site allow politics it's going to turn to a magnet for rush Limbaugh/700 club maniacs

[deadrats]

as soon this site allow politics it's going to turn to a magnet for rush Limbaugh/700 club maniacs

'

it's too bad that this site doesn't have a hidden section just for religious and/or political debates, i would welcome all the limbaugh/hannity/beck/fox faithful, they are my favorite people to debate

[videobread]

A pie tin, duck tape, some cable, a laptop computer and $26 worth of software vs a multi billion dollar arms industry. What's the lesson here?

[MJA]

A pie tin, duck tape, some cable, a laptop computer and $26 worth of software vs a multi billion dollar arms industry. What's the lesson here?

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

[Seeker47]

as soon this site allow politics it's going to turn to a magnet for rush Limbaugh/700 club maniacs

'

it's too bad that this site doesn't have a hidden section just for religious and/or political debates, i would welcome all the limbaugh/hannity/beck/fox faithful, they are my favorite people to debate

Once in awhile, there will be something posted here that you just feel you can't let go, without some response. I get that, I practice that. But, over time, I've gotten a feel for what tends to get a thread locked -- even sometimes a bit prematurely. So, I try to stay on the proper side of the line. (As in "propriety.")

Isn't there a General, "everything else" forum section here, already ? (I'm not sure, as I've never visited it.) The main thing is, what you're asking for is extremely OT in VH terms, a major distraction, and a moderator's nightmare. Certainly wouldn't wish that on Baldrick. If you're looking for free-fire zone exchanges, I'm sure they won't be hard to find online.