Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents
maruben    12/17/2009 4:01:23 PM
US drones hacked by Iraqi insurgents? Insurgents used software such as Skygrabber to hack drones ? American official says flaw has been identified and fixed Buzz up! Digg it Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 December 2009 20.02 GMT Article history Insurgents in Iraq used software such as Skygrabber to hack into American drones. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty One of America's most sophisticated weapons in the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the unmanned drone, has been successfully hacked by insurgents using software available on the internet for $26 (£16). Insurgents in Iraq have intercepted live video feeds from the drones being relayed back to a US controller and revealing potential targets. A US official said the flaw had been identified and fixed in the last 12 months. The problem only came to light after the US found hours and hours worth of videotaped recordings on militant laptops late last year and earlier this year. The insurgents used software programmes such as Skygrabber, developed by a Russian company, originally intended to download music and videos from the internet. The drones, which cost about $4.5m each, have become one of the most important parts of the US armoury. Their use by the US military has increased 600% in the last five years. They are able to hover over suspect locations and missiles can be launched against alleged militants in Iraq and alleged al-Qaida and Taliban members in Afghanistan and in the border region of Pakistan. The potential problem with the hacking was that insurgents, if they knew the locations being targeted, would be able to take evasive action. A US source with knowledge of the programme today confirmed the report, first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, but said that the quality of the pictures seen by the insurgents would have been of limited value. The source said the pictures would have been fuzzy, making it near impossible to determine the location of a target in the deserts or mountains. The US air force is responsible for drones in Iraq and Afghanistan and the CIA for those in Pakistan. The CIA ones are reported to have been encrypted while some of the air force ones have not. The Pentagon had been aware of the problem for at least a decade but assumed the insurgents would not have had the technical knowledge to hack into the drones. The drones, from being a relative novelty at the start of the decade, have become one of the favourite methods of the US military and the CIA in tracking and killing suspected insurgents. Their use in Pakistan is particularly controversial, in part because some Pakistanis see it as US infringement of the country's sovereignty but also because civilians are often hit. Pakistan security officials said that a drone, assumed to be American, fired seven missiles today at a cave complex, a compound and a vehicle, killing 12. Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright, a Pentagon spokesman, asked about the hacking of drones, indicated the problem had been addressed. He said: "The department of defence constantly evaluates and seeks to improve the performance and security of our various ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] systems and platforms. As we identify shortfalls, we correct them as part of a continuous process of seeking to improve capabilities and security. As a matter of policy, we don't comment on specific vulnerabilities or intelligence issues." The first the US apparently knew about the hacking was last year when they found video feeds from a drone on the laptop of a Shia militant allegedly backed by Iran. The US and Britain have both accused Iran for years of interfering in Iraq. More laptops were found in the summer that suggested insurgents sharing the video feeds. While the US is hinting that Iran, with its sophisticated technology, is the explanation, it could simply be that an Iraqi searching for a football game or other broadcast came across the signal.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Reactive       12/17/2009 4:14:29 PM
Should read "unencypted feed accessible". An exploit they knew about - I guess watching yourself getting blown up on a laptop has to be a pretty special experience.
 
"hey isn't that our house?"
 
Encryption is a bandwidth hog, uses more data, when it makes little difference to operational effectiveness it is easier to send live feeds unencrypted. This is not a hack in any respect of the predator platform itself, just a matter of using software to monitor broadcasts. 
 
Not a major issue IMHO - easily rectifiable. 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/17/2009 4:16:28 PM
More laptops were found in the summer that suggested insurgents sharing the video feeds.

While the US is hinting that Iran, with its sophisticated technology, is the explanation, it could simply be that an Iraqi searching for a football game or other broadcast came across the signal.
 
 
They just used Skygrabber - nothing to do with Iran whatsoever - you can buy it online... Hardly a "hack" by "insurgents" just a matter of them doing the equivalent of listening to police scanners. 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Actually   12/17/2009 4:18:47 PM
That Skygrabber product is from the UKRAINE. Just a small piece of a lot of sloppy reporting.
 
See what I mean about telemetry vulnerability, NOW, some of you who screamed that we didn't need to worry about data streams, encryption and bandwidth? That was a low grade security hack easily fixed with the better encryption and modified transmission protocols, but that did and does eat into bandwidth. 
 
Everything is an exploit.      
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       12/17/2009 4:20:35 PM
Hearing from people in theater that use this stuff, they're not concerned about it and it's their lives on the line. The UAV's controls are not at risk and the data is often too time late to be of any good to those who get it. 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       12/17/2009 11:37:22 PM

That Skygrabber product is from the UKRAINE. Just a small piece of a lot of sloppy reporting.

 

See what I mean about telemetry vulnerability, NOW, some of you who screamed that we didn't need to worry about data streams, encryption and bandwidth? That was a low grade security hack easily fixed with the better encryption and modified transmission protocols, but that did and does eat into bandwidth. 

 

Everything is an exploit.      



Is it possible that since we have known about this for years the reason we have not simply did something about it is because we are feeding old/incorrect data streams to these devices we know are doing this, therfore useing this so called hack to our advantage and the joke is still on the flip flop wearing bearded idiots?

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Reactive   12/18/2009 2:27:42 AM
<i>when it makes little difference to operational effectiveness it is easier to send live feeds unencrypted. This is not a hack in any respect of the predator platform itself, just a matter of using software to monitor broadcasts. </i>

Concur with this much.  Encryption has been viewed as a bottleneck that might cost lives due to the challenges presented by timely exchanging keys given all the disparate vendors and users.  Exception CIA.  As our military gains experience and replaces its older systems the problem will fade away.  However, the insurgents and their sponsors probably have learned quality information about how we work that may help them in the future.  We have underestimated our opponents in this way before.  0.02
 
v^2
 
p.s. Beazz - only in the movies in all likelihood ;>)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/18/2009 2:40:41 AM
for the system to go gold it means that someone signed off on safety, hazard and risk analysis as part of part of security checking. (I'm assuming that any asset with comms connectivity in theatre is bound by an approval process).
 
if so, IMO, you still don't want to send stuff in the clear unless its of zero benefit if retrieved.  granted there are events where you strategically do send clear for various reasons (as in GW1 and GW2), but I don't see any similarities in the way it was used with intent in GW1 and GW2 and now.
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/18/2009 9:40:45 PM
Hearing from people in theater that use this stuff, they're not concerned about it and it's their lives on the line. The UAV's controls are not at risk and the data is often too time late to be of any good to those who get it. 

I guess I get a bit twitchy on a philosophy that deems unsecured feeds as benign, any unsecured feed provides red team with intel that they didn't have before, and where they can start to pattern presence and effect with timing etc...
 
eg: (purple bits)
 
edited section: "The image on Scan Eagle does more harm than good; I can?t honestly tell what is going on the screen. The sound will compromise continually and the folks from MEB love flying it over your patrols and when you tap into the image it is only focused on your guys, not the surrounding area. Easy fix for this is to get on the radio and tell your CP, to get on the mirc and task them to go somewhere else. Have them push off where it will not notify everyone of your patrols location but they can support contact. Push them to an area where you expect the bad guys to be operating in since you aren?t there.
 

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       12/18/2009 11:40:26 PM
Scan Eagle is a different bird, and that circumstance is a bit different. I have worked with Scan Eagle a bit, so I don't want to get into it because I don't remember exactly where the FOUO/public knowledge line lies. In the interest of not crossing the line, I won't discuss it.

I haven't worked with Predator. What I know is just what the news reports are saying. 
The reports are that they are receiving a Predator satellite signal. Think about it for a moment. If the Predator is uplinking and then the sat is downlinking the signal then you're getting one of the Predator signals that happens to be in the satellite's footprint. How many Predators are airborne at any given time? How many countries are we operating Predator in in theater? So even if they're getting a video feed, there is no guarantee that they're getting one in their AO or even their country!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       12/18/2009 11:52:55 PM

Scan Eagle is a different bird, and that circumstance is a bit different. I have worked with Scan Eagle a bit, so I don't want to get into it because I don't remember exactly where the FOUO/public knowledge line lies. In the interest of not crossing the line, I won't discuss it.

eminently sensible

I haven't worked with Predator. What I know is just what the news reports are saying. 
 
The reports are that they are receiving a Predator satellite signal. Think about it for a moment. If the Predator is uplinking and then the sat is downlinking the signal then you're getting one of the Predator signals that happens to be in the satellite's footprint. How many Predators are airborne at any given time? How many countries are we operating Predator in in theater? So even if they're getting a video feed, there is no guarantee that they're getting one in their AO or even their country!
 
 I suspect that the reporter has had a loss in translation at this point as some of what has been said doesn't gel  I'm assuming rhat he's now merged different reports and extrapolated by association
 
 
a secondary feed on this:
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy