This is a discussion on US Airforce Drones Hacked! within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Drones flying in Iraq were hacked by Shia fighters. They were only able to hack into the video feed. What ...
Drones flying in Iraq were hacked by Shia fighters. They were only able to hack into the video feed. What are the chances of someone actually taking over the control of these drones? Most things connected to net are hackable. BBC News - Iraq insurgents 'hack into video feeds from US drones'
It was a video feed only, not the control feed. Also, the Predator (or any other sat linked drone) is not vulnerable to this, only smaller, non-sat, drones.
Still remarkably stupid, & the quotes from officials that they didn't think the insurgents would be able to do it shows that some senior people in the US military haven't advanced beyond the "Japanese are too short-sighted to be good pilots" level of thinking.
The Iraqi insurgents now know exactly how good the images sent back by those UAVs are, which is valuable in itself.
Still remarkably stupid, & the quotes from officials that they didn't think the insurgents would be able to do it shows that some senior people in the US military haven't advanced beyond the "Japanese are too short-sighted to be good pilots" level of thinking.
the sin of hubris is alive and well it seems.
OTOH, I cannot believe that any platform that has comms links and capability did not go through SHAR, systems integrity approval and risk analysis on sensitive sub system issues.
thats just plain dumb, irrespective of whatever spin they seek to put on it now.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Try to localize a foto or film without knowing where the fotografer stands. I guess it´s nearly impossible.
And Jamming may be much harder than just receiving. It needs a strong antenna to do this. And strong antennaes are easy to localize. An encrypting the the data should be very easy as every homecomputer can do that.
The jammer has to be between the sender and receiver... not going to happen. Remember that this cannot intercept sat comms which is what the Predator & Reaper use (any uav with a bulbous nose.
The jammer has to be between the sender and receiver... not going to happen. Remember that this cannot intercept sat comms which is what the Predator & Reaper use (any uav with a bulbous nose.
not necessarily true re bulbous nose, the assumption (and probably correct, and in the pic shown demonstrates state ) is that the sat gear is under the cupola as its the most likely spot as the bulk of the gear is serviced from one location for ease of maint.
however, the uplinks don't need to be under the cupola, eg the Beast has various uplinks scattered around its body
a sat uplink can literally be the size of a kiwi fruit (cut in half)
my academic concern is that when we assess comms gear or any gear that is part of a data migration/transfer loop, we have to clear it via a number of sanity and security tests. they are normally tested for external hooks, corruption of the links, and if tactical, issues of jamming and spoofing. the sign off for acceptance means that these systems have to comply with a number of predetermined safety and system reqs.
Perhaps these were fielded because vid feeds are regarded as benign, but there is a fundamental principle that you don't give away info unless it is for a tactical purpose (eg as was done in GW1 and GW2). Theatre systems are also supposed to be set up so that someone knows if they are being probed or harvested.
As benign as these feeds may have been, I have some fundamental concerns that any comms active system was fielded without having what would normally define accreditation for going gold having been considered, let alone done.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
does anyone know the exact platform in question? (legacy?)
has it been the same platform/spec that this has been a reoccurring issue with? - or is it across multiple platforms/specs.
would it have anything to do with forward deployed ops' video receivers - or lack of training of infantry and using the lowest common denominator functionality (e.g. turn off encryption due to setup/configuration difficulties from those manning the receivers)? or anything of that nature?
does anyone know the exact platform in question? (legacy?)
I'm assuming that its local overheads being used, so local feeders, no sat comms (so counts out predators and herons)
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
has it been the same platform/spec that this has been a reoccurring issue with? - or is it across multiple platforms/specs.
not enough public data yet
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127
would it have anything to do with forward deployed ops' video receivers - or lack of training of infantry and using the lowest common denominator functionality (e.g. turn off encryption due to setup/configuration difficulties from those manning the receivers)? or anything of that nature?
Personally, I suspect that it was a legacy of fast fielding a COTS solution without the normal management and integrity checking that comes with MOTS accreditation.
Someone determined that the feed was benign and not a high security risk.
the drivers would have no idea about setup, these things are simplified to the max when locally fielded because they want the dumbest rock in the pile to be able to drive them if necessary. they're sophisticated RC model planes, they're nothing like the teams needed to drive herons etc....
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
It was a video feed only, not the control feed. Also, the Predator (or any other sat linked drone) is not vulnerable to this, only smaller, non-sat, drones.
Both Predator and the Reaper are vulnerable. The feeds came from Predators.
but it's a general press article - is it accurate regarding the predator platform specifically? or is the writer/editor assuming the predator - as it's the most common/discussed UAV in the mainstream media.
