Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 121 posts

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#41

Post by tomkinstinch »

jloughry wrote: post #39
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't put it beyond the capabilities of a nation state to tap fiber by putting a kink in it and processing the light that leaks out.

Non-invasive fibre optic tap technology has been commercially available since at least the early 1990s. I recall seeing ads for a hand-held device at that time. By carefully bending the fibre over a mandrel, a small amount of light can be made to leak out through the cladding past the angle of total internal reflection. No need to cut and splice the fibre. The ads implied the device worked on jacketed fibres; I suppo…

Bending isn't required, and the transparency of the jacket doesn't matter if it's thin enough. The term to Google is "evanescent wave coupling."

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#42

Post by jauer »

packetslave wrote: post #38
j1vms wrote: post #17

Which is amusing if you consider that a very long-distance, underwater cable which would be difficult to physically monitor (e.g. with cameras), would make a perfect use case for link encryption (at just above the physical layer). I do not see why that wouldn't be technically possible, unless someone cares to comment.

Because encrypting a 60Tb/sec data stream in real-time is computationally hard?

There isn't a single 60Tb/sec datastream though so it is quite feasible (and I'd be shocked if people aren't doing it, especially after the post-Snowden rush to MACsec).

Undersea cables are DWDM systems where you have N x 10G,40G,100G waves. 100G MACsec is available in merchant silicon and out of the box on switches from Cisco & Arista (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others).

You wouldn't even encrypt the undersea cables specifically, you'd encrypt your transport links before they leave your datacenter, that way you don't need to trust your carrier, the cable consortium, or anyone else (aside from your switch vendor...)

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#43

Post by Filligree »

jameshart wrote: post #40
sandworm101 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> I'm sure they're smaller now. I'm betting not. Ivy Bells was back in the days of copper wires being tapped by external sensors placed atop undersea cables. Today's undersea cables are optical. You'd need to splice in, or at least open up a cable to get at the individual fibers to install similar taps. I cannot see how that would be done in the pressurized world of submarines. Normal procedure for such work involv…

Avoiding detection seems simple - just engineer a plausibly-deniable break in the cable some distance away from the place where you're working on the splice - a fishing trawler dragging the cable would do. Then before the cable operator can fix the break, you splice your tap into the inoperable cable.

It's possible to find the approximate location of a break by looking at its influence on reflections. A double break, as you're suggesting, would eventually be noticed.

(If that wasn't possible, then repairing cable breaks would be insanely expensive.)

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#45

Post by bind »

sandworm101 wrote: post #16
Jerry2 wrote: post #7

If this sort of stuff interets you, I highly recommend the book "Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage". [0] It tells the story of Cold War espionage from the submarine warfare point of view. The book also covers "Operation Ivy Bells" which was a joint Navy/CIA/NSA mission whose objective was to place wire taps on Soviet underwater communication lines during the Cold War. [1] Sub placed…

>>> I'm sure they're smaller now. I'm betting not. Ivy Bells was back in the days of copper wires being tapped by external sensors placed atop undersea cables. Today's undersea cables are optical. You'd need to splice in, or at least open up a cable to get at the individual fibers to install similar taps. I cannot see how that would be done in the pressurized world of submarines. Normal procedure for such work involv…

> where it can be picked apart by hand

Could it be picked apart by a robot?

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#46

Post by Gravityloss »

tomkinstinch wrote: post #41
jloughry wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-invasive fibre optic tap technology has been commercially available since at least the early 1990s. I recall seeing ads for a hand-held device at that time. By carefully bending the fibre over a mandrel, a small amount of light can be made to leak out through the cladding past the angle of total internal reflection. No need to cut and splice the fibre. The ads implied the device worked on jacketed fibres; I suppo…

Bending isn't required, and the transparency of the jacket doesn't matter if it's thin enough. The term to Google is "evanescent wave coupling."

There is even a "laser razor" kickstarter that utilizes the effect. When a beard hair goes near the fiber, the light escapes from the fiber, and burns the hair, cutting it.

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#47

Post by dalke »

sandworm101 wrote: post #27
dalke wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's absurd, please explain p.26 of https://snowdenarchive.cjfe.org/greenstone/collect/snowden1/... where we see the USS Annapolis being used for interactive operations ("Connection via: NEPTUNETHUNDER, BLINDDATE/HAPPYHOUR", "Successful exploits at 4, 6, ad 8 NM with 4 watt access point") and for man-on-the-side operations ("Inject using BLINDDATE/NITESTAND", "Successful inject at 4NM to 100mw client computer"). O…

Those are tests, not operations. They were against friendly targets, specifically consumer wifi/bluetooth devices (based on the wattages). Had the target been actively looking for attacks, the sub would have been located within seconds. You wouldn't do this against an attacker with any ability to respond physically. The only time this would be useful would be against an unsophisticated target, but then why bother wit…

I take your point. I don't think now that it's unreasonable.

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#48

Post by zaroth »

Reading the first few paragraphs of this story reminds me how much I really can't stand WP's coverage of Trump. It's complete editorial and bordering on fabrication.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a news conference at one of his South Florida resorts. He added later, “They probably have them. I’d like to have them released.”

That's the actual quote. What WP turns that into?

"PHILADELPHIA — Republican nominee Donald Trump pleaded directly Wednesday with the Russian government to meddle in the U.S. presidential election by finding and releasing tens of thousands of private emails from his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton — an extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented maneuver in American politics."

And then this...

"When Donald Trump effectively called for Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton's emails Wednesday, the GOP nominee's remarks touched off a (predictable) media firestorm. Here was a presidential candidate from a major U.S. party encouraging a foreign government to target American interests with cyberspying — an act that could not only expose national security information but also potentially undermine the actual security infrastructure of the United States."

What he actually said? "No, it gives me no pause. If they have them, they have them."

I understand it's Bezos pushing his agenda. But at some point it's just not reporting anymore. There was absolutely no call to hack Hillary. The point was if they did hack her previously then they have the 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted before turning over the server. Hillary wipes her server and lies about having sent classified documents on her server, and the WP actually says Donald is the one undermining national security?! That is just too rich!

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#49

Post by spikels »

sandworm101 wrote: post #8

I'm calling BS on this. The stealthiness of a sub, it's only real purpose, is defeated the moment you start transmitting via a big antenna. It wouldn't happen. Subs no doubt are used for surveillance, but the concept of them sitting offshore and actively "hacking" communications is absurd. It would be a suicide mission with a billion-dollar asset. The OP reads like a funding request. It's a pitch for a world where ha…

I think you are just misreading the article. Nobody said anything about big antennas on submarines transmitting. The only new information contined is from a speech by the head of submarine operations saying that submarines are important to signals intelligence with very little detail. (Yes this is PR for submarines.) The rest is old news and somewhat confused speculation.

In reality this non-story appears to simply be something convenient for the WP to tack on 2 paragraphs of Trump attacks. Kinda weird.

Re: America uses stealthy submarines to hack other countries’ systems

#50

Post by mirimir »

Filligree wrote: post #43
jameshart wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding detection seems simple - just engineer a plausibly-deniable break in the cable some distance away from the place where you're working on the splice - a fishing trawler dragging the cable would do. Then before the cable operator can fix the break, you splice your tap into the inoperable cable.

It's possible to find the approximate location of a break by looking at its influence on reflections. A double break, as you're suggesting, would eventually be noticed. (If that wasn't possible, then repairing cable breaks would be insanely expensive.)

Right. And if the US has been doing this for a decade or more, you'd think that at least one of the taps would have been discovered.
Post reply on HN