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

The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 267 posts

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#41

Post by mynameisvlad »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #39
drewg123 wrote: post #16

The response from Starlink[0] was pretty amazing. I love this quote: "we want to congratulate Lennert Wouters on his security research into the Starlink user terminal – his findings are likely why you're reading this, and help us create the best product possible." A lot better than companies that would try to prosecute him.. [0]: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/StarlinkWelcomesSecuri...

Step 1: Why does Google Chrome on KDE/GNU/Linux refuse to allow me to copy text from this PDF??? So f-in annoying! That PR says: > Are these "computers" strictly controlled/owned by SpaceX? If yes, are there multiple computers per satellite? Please help me to understand this claim. In 2022, I assume when someone says "computers" they mean kernel count.

There's 2700 satellites currently deployed, so even at 1 per satellite it's still in the "thousands".

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#42

Post by detaro »

tg180 wrote: post #23

The article compares the Russian jamming of Viasat with the compromise of a Starlink UT. No, no, no... This is really wrong! > As is typically the case with any technology, the increase in use and deployment of Starlink and other satellite constellations also means that threat actors have a greater interest in finding their security holes to attack them. > Indeed, Russia saw an advantage in taking out a satellite pro…

Viasat attack was by hacking ground terminals, not jamming satellites.

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#43

Post by thedougd »

AYBABTME wrote: post #13

This reads to me like the (more complicated but ultimately) equivalent of "a user reverse engineers the website's javascript!". As in, this allows the user to mod their client but it doesn't change anything for anyone else, and wasn't meant as a real secure element. I'd assume that getting root access to the user terminal gives them no additional privileges to access the actual Starlink data & control planes.

If it gives you direct/raw access to the control plane, you then may be able to launch denial of service and other attacks that would negatively impact the network and other terminals. I don't know anything about the Starlink protocol, but a rough Ethernet analog might be an ARP attack/flood.

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#44

Post by jandrese »

colechristensen wrote: post #34
olalonde wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> connect to the Starlink network outside of their geofence I was wondering about that but can't they determine the location "server side" by triangulation? Or maybe they could in theory but they don't in practice?

Knowing the positions of all the clients and satellites is a basic requirement for operating the network.

For the satellites this is true, but it's not necessary for the clients to be geolocated when the satellite is operating as a bent pipe. Starlink will know which clients are in which footprint and can locate anybody if they want to, but it's not fundamental to the functionality of the system.

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#45

Post by 14 »

KMnO4 wrote: post #27
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #7

Is there any mitigation against these kinds of power/timing attacks? I think the Switch was originally hacked this way.

No, not without changing microprocessors. Essentially these chips are locked by setting certain flags in memory. Various flags control various peripherals, including a flag to disable read/write access to the firmware. Obviously once you disable access, it’s permanent because you don’t have access to reenable it. This side channel attack takes advantage of a flaw in the actual silicon, where branches can be skipped i…

Xbox 360 had the reset glitch hack where if you powered cycled the chip at the exact right timing you could run unsigned code. It required a small mod chip soldered to some of the smallest points on the motherboard that I have ever soldered. Different versions of the 360 worked better but most worked even if it took a minute or so before the glitched worked and booted into custom firmware. Mine worked really well and booted first try almost every time. I was very proud to successfully install it and watch my 360 boot into fsd a custom OS that allowed me to play all my games from a HDD.

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#46

Post by throwaway2037 »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #41
throwaway2037 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Step 1: Why does Google Chrome on KDE/GNU/Linux refuse to allow me to copy text from this PDF??? So f-in annoying! That PR says: > Are these "computers" strictly controlled/owned by SpaceX? If yes, are there multiple computers per satellite? Please help me to understand this claim. In 2022, I assume when someone says "computers" they mean kernel count.

There's 2700 satellites currently deployed, so even at 1 per satellite it's still in the "thousands".

Hmm... When I read "hundreds of thousands" I assume more than 100,000. Is that incorrect understanding of English?

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#47

Post by colechristensen »

jandrese wrote: post #44
colechristensen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the positions of all the clients and satellites is a basic requirement for operating the network.

For the satellites this is true, but it's not necessary for the clients to be geolocated when the satellite is operating as a bent pipe. Starlink will know which clients are in which footprint and can locate anybody if they want to, but it's not fundamental to the functionality of the system.

Both the client and the satellite use beam forming. The signal is pointed at you in a relatively narrow beam not broadcast spherically. They have to know where you are to point at you (phased array antennas so electronic not physical pointing)

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#48

Post by yusefnapora »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #39
drewg123 wrote: post #16

The response from Starlink[0] was pretty amazing. I love this quote: "we want to congratulate Lennert Wouters on his security research into the Starlink user terminal – his findings are likely why you're reading this, and help us create the best product possible." A lot better than companies that would try to prosecute him.. [0]: https://api.starlink.com/public-files/StarlinkWelcomesSecuri...

Step 1: Why does Google Chrome on KDE/GNU/Linux refuse to allow me to copy text from this PDF??? So f-in annoying! That PR says: > Are these "computers" strictly controlled/owned by SpaceX? If yes, are there multiple computers per satellite? Please help me to understand this claim. In 2022, I assume when someone says "computers" they mean kernel count.

An article from 2020 [1] claims that they had "32,000 linux computers" in orbit. At that time they had 480 satellites in orbit, so ~66 "computers" per satellite. That would put us at about 180,000 computers today.

[1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacex-weve-launched-32000-lin...

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#49

Post by gorkish »

roastedpeacock wrote: post #35

This WIRED article[1] references a release of tools and information about the research on GitHub[2] however it 404s. Hope that is not being censored. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/starlink-internet-dish-hack/ [2] https://github.com/KULeuven-COSIC/Starlink-FI

This bothered me yesterday when news broke. I'm surprised that more people are not discussing the lack of follow-on information here.

Re: The hacking of Starlink terminals has begun

#50

Post by thereddaikon »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #46
mynameisvlad wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's 2700 satellites currently deployed, so even at 1 per satellite it's still in the "thousands".

Hmm... When I read "hundreds of thousands" I assume more than 100,000. Is that incorrect understanding of English?

Satellites definitely have multiple computers onboard. Their design philosophy evolved from aircraft which tend to use discrete computer for different tasks. Communications, navigation, data logging etc. That's not counting the computers providing whatever the satellite's mission is and they almost always have redundant hardware to make up for failures which are common in space. So there are definitely far more "computers" in space than there are total satellites. Are there "hundreds of thousands"? I'm not sure.
Post reply on HN