191–200 of 267 posts
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
It shouldn't count as a vulnerability that you can get root of a device that you have physical possession of. If there's any real vulnerability here, it's that having root of your terminal gives you any extra privileges to the rest of the network.
Microsoft and Sony appear to have solved it for their gaming consoles. Satellite TV providers definitely solved it by now after learning from their mistakes. All in all there are plenty of devices in the world that are protected against physical access, so if Starlink tried doing that and failed, then that's definitely through an exploited vulnerability.
I don't know if they really "solved" it. I think the appetite for new hacks dwindled with broadband internet everywhere and streaming services.
Cat doesn't care for the mouse so much when there's kibble everywhere.
Remember 20+ years ago when people did this with cable modems?
The approach used for the Starlink terminal is more like what was done to reprogram satellite TV smart cards. Get a copy of the ROM, count the processor cycles and find the operation you don't want happens and mess with the voltage or frequency at that point to let you send in unsigned/unauthorized updates.
Relevant presentation on DEFCON Media server: https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2030/DEF%20CON%2030%20pre... https://media.defcon.org/DEF%20CON%2030/DEF%20CON%2030%20pre...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft and Sony appear to have solved it for their gaming consoles. Satellite TV providers definitely solved it by now after learning from their mistakes. All in all there are plenty of devices in the world that are protected against physical access, so if Starlink tried doing that and failed, then that's definitely through an exploited vulnerability.
> Satellite TV providers definitely solved it by now after learning from their mistakes. I don't know if they really "solved" it. I think the appetite for new hacks dwindled with broadband internet everywhere and streaming services. Cat doesn't care for the mouse so much when there's kibble everywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_access#Digital_sys...
EDIT: More than that, some recent ones even solved so called 'card sharing' which is basically using a legitimate card to transmit control words over network to many users.
Certainly it did not cost $25 to develop the modchip. If you put in the labor and software related cost it's not $25.
The article specifically uses the phrasing "uses off-the-shelf parts that cost around $25". It doesn't say anything about the cost to develop, it doesn't say anything even slightly misleading or ambiguous about this.
Like, what should the article have done instead? How could it possibly be clearer and more explicit about what $25 referred to here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Satellite TV providers definitely solved it by now after learning from their mistakes. I don't know if they really "solved" it. I think the appetite for new hacks dwindled with broadband internet everywhere and streaming services. Cat doesn't care for the mouse so much when there's kibble everywhere.
Using this table for reference and the fact that proper smartcards like banking cards and SIM cards are secure I'm pretty confident calling modern CA systems secure too. If some providers don't have one of those, then it's probably because it's not worth it for them to switch or upgrade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_access#Digital_sys... EDIT: More than that, some recent ones even solved so called 'card…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia does not have the capability of destroying Starlink because the amount of upmass required to destroy them is larger then what the Russians can actually do. SpaceX replacement rate would be higher then Russia destroy rate.
Except Russia already proved they can shoot satellites out of space as they did almost a year ago with their Nudol ASAT weapon test: https://archive.ph/1tdHl
Assuming of course that SpaceX will not increase its launch cadence, and that this act of war will not provoke a response that stops is. The concept is laughable. It is intractable at every level of execution.
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
archive.org only ever captured 404s for that page. i wonder if it was a typo in the article. does Starlink use TI’s SimpleLink? because there’s a very similarly-named repo doing similar fault injection here: https://github.com/KULeuven-COSIC/SimpleLink-FI