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

Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#61

Post by lima »

tjohns wrote: post #47
giancarlostoro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been wondering why some of the radios cost way too much and now I am left wondering how much cheaper they would be if those patented codecs were banned or forced to be open for implementation.

The AMBE-3000 vocoder chip (used for pretty much all of the digital modes, including D-STAR and DMR) retails for about $50, before volume discount. Which is not a small mount of money, but isn't that bad given that most amateur radios (excluding the recent Chinese models) retail for ~$500, and commercial radios retail for $1,000+. That said, I'm pretty sure everyone would prefer to move to Codec2, but the lack of har…

At least there's open source implementations of AMBE nowadays.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#62

Post by wedowhatwedo »

tlrobinson wrote: post #38
wedowhatwedo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if encryption was permitted, there would be a ton of interest...by commercial companies. Non-licensed users would out number licensed ones by huge amounts. It would put an end to amateur radio.

Requiring messages be signed by and for keys belonging to licensed amateurs might be sufficient to discourage abuse.

That's what this project does. It does signing, just not encryption. I would argue that this is OK legally.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#63

Post by tlrobinson »

wedowhatwedo wrote: post #62
tlrobinson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring messages be signed by and for keys belonging to licensed amateurs might be sufficient to discourage abuse.

That's what this project does. It does signing, just not encryption. I would argue that this is OK legally.

I understand. I’m suggesting we could allow actual encryption if the messages were also signed such that the sender and recipient (but not the content) were known.

Abuse would require two licensed amateurs to cooperate to break the law and use the bands for commercial purposes. It would be easier to investigate suspected abuse (compared to unsigned encrypted messages, but not cleartext messages, of course)

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#64

Post by tlrobinson »

janoc wrote: post #45
tlrobinson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring messages be signed by and for keys belonging to licensed amateurs might be sufficient to discourage abuse.

And how would you distinguish licensed users from unlicensed ones if the messages are encrypted? Heck, the authorities have problems policing the bands even without having to deal with crypto.

Licensed amateurs would be required to register the public keys (not private keys, of course) they want to to sign messages on amateur bands.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#66

Post by jauer »

blattimwind wrote: post #29
Cyph0n wrote: post #2

Cool project! I have always been interested in the amateur radio scene. So encrypting amateur radio comms is illegal in the US? Is there a particular reason for this?

> So encrypting amateur radio comms is illegal in the US? Is there a particular reason for this? Encrypting amateur radio is illegal practically world-wide — every ITU member state bans it.

Notable exceptions: emergency communications in .AU and with publication of key in .CA.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#67

Post by bwann »

rtkwe wrote: post #9
Cyph0n wrote: post #2

Cool project! I have always been interested in the amateur radio scene. So encrypting amateur radio comms is illegal in the US? Is there a particular reason for this?

The amateur public radio bands are supposed to be open and useful to everyone so the broadcasts in those spectra are supposed to be readable by everyone as part of the accessible part. On top of that encrypted transmissions would be basically noise pumped into the system making the open uses more difficult and harder to police.

While I think this touches on a big part of it, I think the bigger thing is the need for identifying stations for accountability. If there was a protocol that emitted an encrypted blob followed by cleartext/phone callsign, it would probably be more acceptable.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#68

Post by boramalper »

jenkstom wrote: post #56
ysleepy wrote: post #28

Maybe messages should include a coarse timestamp to prevent replay of old messages by some adversary. Someone could resend a month old "yes" with your valid signature to a question someone asks now. Also it might be beneficial to include sequence numbers or message IDs and for example echo the last 4 ids in following messages so recipients can detect holes. - The chat could insert some placeholder to notify recipient…

This is a really great idea. Might be a good github issue to open?

I've opened one lest it gets forgotten: https://github.com/brannondorsey/chattervox/issues/10

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#69

Post by coreymatyas »

jauer wrote: post #66
blattimwind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So encrypting amateur radio comms is illegal in the US? Is there a particular reason for this? Encrypting amateur radio is illegal practically world-wide — every ITU member state bans it.

Notable exceptions: emergency communications in .AU and with publication of key in .CA.

A notable exception in the US being for the telecommand of space stations (97.211b).

There's also some grey area around encryption for telecommand of terrestrial craft --- you aren't allowed to "obscure the meaning of the communication" (97.215b), but other sections of Part 97 require preventing access to telecommand stations by unlicensed operators. This has raised questions over whether disallowing encryption is more important than risking telecommand stations being maliciously hijacked.

Re: Show HN: A new protocol for packet radio including ECDSA and compression

#70

Post by ColanR »

brians wrote: post #13
emptybits wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also illegal in Canada. With amateur radio "dying" as an interesting hobby (my opinion, but widely held) it is often speculated that if encryption was permitted in amateur radio communications, there would be quite a resurgence in interest. I predict a new generation would start to pick up the hobby and find untold uses (and abuses) for it.

There are more hams in the US, and more active hams, than ever before. That's a funny sort of dying! Joe Taylor's work on below-the-noise signal extraction has revitalized shortwave: https://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/k1jt/wsjtx.html , particularly at the nadir of the sunspot cycle. That's a funny sort of dying! Amateur satellites are accessible for $100 in parts: https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=18 ; with the sa…

Anyone else get a certificate error on the princeton website?
Post reply on HN