Print 116 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Dec 22 at 10:16 PM

Officials say there is no evidence that flight control systems were compromised

The U.S. military makes heavy use of UAVs in many areas of the world for reconnaissance duties. The UAV is widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Somalia and other locations. The drones are used to track and sometimes attack targets when needed.

The Wall Street Journal reports that enemy insurgents have been able to use a commonly available piece of software to intercept the unencrypted feeds that the drone uses between the aircraft and ground control. The software used by the insurgents to capture the video feeds was a $26 app available online called Sky Grabber.

One of the developers of the Sky Grabber software told the WSJ in an email, "It [Sky Grabber] was developed to intercept music, photos, video, programs and other content that other users download from the internet -- no military data or other commercial data, only free legal content."

The military claims that there is no indication that he insurgents were able to take control of the drones or interfere with their flight in any way. However, some fear that the ability to capture the live video feeds will allow the insurgents to track the position of the drones to better avoid attack and surveillance. The big fear is that intercepted feeds could be used to discover allied troop surprise attacks and lead to the death of allied soldiers.

The interception of the video feeds from the aircraft was apparently not a onetime occurrence. In the summer of 2009, the WSJ reports that the military found "days and days and hours and hours of proof" that the video feeds were being intercepted on a laptop that was recovered from a Shiite militant.

A defense official James Clapper was asked to assess the interception of the feeds and concluded, "There did appear to be vulnerability. There's been no harm done to troops or missions compromised as a result of it, but there's an issue that we can take care of and we're doing so."

The military is working on encrypting all feeds from its drone aircraft, but adding encryption to the feeds requires not only updates be added to the drones, but updates to the control systems on the ground as well. The U.S. first learned of the flaw in unencrypted drone feeds in Bosnia during the 1990s, but the Pentagon assumed that the insurgents wouldn't know how to exploit the vulnerability.

While the evidence of feeds found was most prolific in Iraq, there is evidence that the feeds have been intercepted in Afghanistan as well. "There was evidence this was not a one-time deal," said a person close to the matter.

Fixing the security gap in the drones during the program development would have added delays according to former security officials and would have added to the cost of the drones. Even the new generation of drones called Reaper have feeds that are unencrypted.

It's unclear whether the successor to the Reaper called the Avenger will suffer from the same issue with unencrypted security feeds.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By donxvi on 12/17/2009 10:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
Great idea, "It is not hard in the slightest to encrypt video using SRTP" you say.
SRTP came out about a decade after the Predator, so unless some of these guys fired up the captured alien time machines at Area 51 (which the Predator probably didn't rate, it was being used for B2s or Aurora or something) they couldn't have done it. How would SRTP run on those hot 100MHz processors we were using in our PCs back then ?

By weskurtz0081 on 12/17/2009 11:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Also, keep in mind, most of the computers used in military aviation are already old by consumer standards by the time they hit the street (I know first hand, I have experience in aviation/avionics).

So, depending on when it came out, the hardware might have been 5 years or more outdated. There are many good reasons for this, and some downsides as well, but fact remains that it's generally the way it is.

By SlyNine on 12/18/2009 3:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
Encryption has been around since WW2. It could have been encrypted.

By weskurtz0081 on 12/18/2009 5:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Video encryption has been? Do you think any encryption that was around in the 80's would take more than a minute for a modern computer to break?

By SlyNine on 12/19/2009 4:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
It does not matter what the medium is, we are scrambling the transmission data ( the data packets them self) and it wont be known what kinda data it is until its decrypted on the other end. AES 128 and DES doesn't care WHAT the packets contain.

By weskurtz0081 on 12/20/2009 6:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
So, then, I ask the question, is ANY of the encryption that was available then secure today? Would the hardware that they were able to use on the drone able to handle such encryption?

By SlyNine on 12/21/2009 6:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
Encryption isn't particularly hard to do, if you add a specialized chip to do it.

The Encryption isn't persay secure today, however its certainly better then none, you do not have to broadcast what kind of encryption you are using during the transmission just as long as you know what it is.

The insurgents would have to have a ridiculous amount of money and resources to figure out what encryption it is. The only way that would be possible is if you broke the encryption either through brute force ( not happening) or other means. I am not a cipher cryptography expert so I couldn't tell you everything, anything was safer then broadcasting standard video container files and codecs with no encryption and any encryption would have been better then none.

Remember this is time sensitive data, if you don't decrypt it in a week, its useless to you. As it stands any nut with a laptop and this program can capture the feeds.

By SlyNine on 12/21/2009 6:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
But I will say this, The first part to breaking encryption is knowing what encryption is being employed. Otherwise you are using multiple methods to decrypt and probably avoiding the ones that are less likely to succeed. This adds a lot of time and complicates the process.

We have to remember that this is 2009 going on 2010. Even in 2000 if they didn't have encryption because of whatever reason, they should have added it before deploying it to Afgan and Iraq.

By weskurtz0081 on 12/21/2009 10:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
They were set to replace the original drone around the turn of the century, but the funding ended up getting cut. This would have fixed the encryption problem.

By Smilin on 12/18/2009 12:52:34 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the stuff I saw when working on military aircraft was 10-20 years outdated not just 5.

But..they have a lot of really specialized hardware. The general purpose CPUs of the day (386/486/Pentium) would not have handled such encryption but specialized chips would have no problem. Think IPSec module on a router.

Regardless the technology for encrypting a video stream was available to the USAF in the 90s. Somebody made a design decision not to use it.

By SlyNine on 12/19/2009 4:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just like a current CPU would struggle to produce graphics that a radeon 9700 could.

Our desktops would probably struggle doing things that specialized processors in the early 90s could do.

By Smilin on 12/18/2009 12:47:40 PM , Rating: 2
Easy there wise-ass. SRTP is the first thing that came to mind and I used it to make a point. I do not even know if it would be applicable for what they are doing.

The real point:
Encryption is not that hard and does not require much computing power.

Heck the computing power to actually process video in realtime is far worse. If they could send video in the 90s they could encrypt it...and if they don't encrypt it then at least send it using frequency hopping (70-80s technology).

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch
Related Articles
Air Force Debuts New Jet-powered UAV
April 29, 2009, 12:00 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki