Comments on: Using SkyGrabber to Hack Unmanned Drones?

By: Pablo

Pablo — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:54:26 +0000

Greg, you wrote “…I don’t understand how they would be able to capture the drone signal. It’s above them and the dish is pointed up…” That’s underestimating an enemy, a potentially fatal strategic flaw.

By: Pablo

Pablo — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:07:37 +0000

Playing safe means to assume that, if there is any doubt, the drones were hacked.

By: Wesley McGrew

Wesley McGrew — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:00:14 +0000

Wow, thanks for the input, Ace! Really great insight.

By: Ace

Ace — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:43:16 +0000

While it is possible and even probable that the video was repeated by the satellite, I find it difficult to imagine that insurgents would be able to hijack the video with any length or clarity to it.

I’ve done some research on satellites, and, you would essentially have to be in the downstream range of the satellite to receive its traffic, as it’s in orbit (or geosynchronous orbit). Typically these downstream ranges only last a few minutes, unless you know the satellite path and drive as fast as it’s orbiting.

Drake Anubis used some stuff similar to SkyGrabber (something home brew) and tried to pick up images from weather satellites. Here’s what he got:

http://drakeanubis.com/?q=node/22

Apparently he recently made a mess of his site (drakeanubis.com). If you can find a cached copy of the above URL, you’ll find the results.

There’s also an internet radio show where he discusses it here:
http://hackerpublicradio.org/eps/hpr0136.mp3

I think its more likely that there was a third party involved, or that this was already saved footage, or footage being exchanged over the internet as opposed to via a satellite feed that was captured. It may have originated from a satellite feed, but it doesn’t seem very feasible.

By: Ali Abbasi

Ali Abbasi — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:00:13 +0000

this is not just about video ,
satellite communications has some inherent vulnerability in their initial design!

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:14:09 +0000

The only thing I can think of is a lag in the computers having to decrypt the message but this is so slight and if its really a problem just do a 16 bit encryption. It would keep them from seeing the video at real time at least.

Could there be issues in ensuring that the American war fighter on the ground must see the video as well and to ensure that no Americans were kept out of the loop on the video due to not having a log in or what not in critical times they just kept it unencrypted? This explanation doesn’t seem like a good one tho.

To me it sounds like someone just messed up and now its time to fix it.

By: fixer

fixer — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 23:48:08 +0000

so you wanna play games newfag, THIS MEANS WAR

OPERATION WeSlay McGrew

By: Brad Reaves

Brad Reaves — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:10:47 +0000

Schneier has an interesting clarification here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html

Apparently, the command and control link is encrypted, but not the video feed. He provides an interesting analysis as to why — but it boils down to key management and the idea that it’s better for the allies and the insurgents to have the video feed than for the allies not to have it.

By: Voulnet

Voulnet — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:02:54 +0000

I don’t see the interception of live feeds as the greatest risk at hand. If the drones indeed communicate over unencrypted channels for video, what is the probability that the drones also receive control commands over unencrypted signals? Would the insurgents be able to carry man-in-the-middle attacks this way?

By: Seal

Seal — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:37:26 +0000

UAVs of multiple sorts are being used in the area of operations. They’re not all advanced Predator drones.

Not all companies who develop these devices think of securing their communications. It’s just not a serious consideration during development. It could be that this is the video feed from one of these /other/ drones.