[deleted]
Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#22A fun video and well explained.
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't there FCC regulations that forbid encryption over non-military radio?
For amateur radio, but no in general.
And it's not even actually illegal for amateur radio though there continues to be debate on the topic due to the phrasing.
I do think that encryption is firmly outside of the amateur culture in most cases, but legality is well covered here: https://www.n5dux.com/ham/files/pdf/Data%20Encryption%20is%2...
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how much progress that has been made in encrypting internet traffic radio seems painfully slow in evolving to be more secure. Edit: specifically radio protocols not carrying internet traffic
That’s because there isn’t a point. In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Doing that half a world away is rather pointless. Doing it over the air, how do I know Alice won’t intercept and broadcast her keys louder than me? Or just interfere and prevent me from sending keys? As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption. I…
You are ignoring HTTPS allows people half a world awaywo exchange keys with a server and prevents other people follow interfering other than DoS attacks.
>As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption
I was never in WWII and I'm not sure what you mean by code as typically that's just encryption but less formalized.
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#25What did the conversation overheatd in that video say?
"People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware, the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you."
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering how much progress that has been made in encrypting internet traffic radio seems painfully slow in evolving to be more secure. Edit: specifically radio protocols not carrying internet traffic
That’s because there isn’t a point. In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Doing that half a world away is rather pointless. Doing it over the air, how do I know Alice won’t intercept and broadcast her keys louder than me? Or just interfere and prevent me from sending keys? As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption. I…
> In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point.
Not since 1976.
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because there isn’t a point. In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Doing that half a world away is rather pointless. Doing it over the air, how do I know Alice won’t intercept and broadcast her keys louder than me? Or just interfere and prevent me from sending keys? As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption. I…
You are ignoring HTTPS allows people half a world awaywo exchange keys with a server and prevents other people follow interfering other than DoS attacks. >As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption I was never in WWII and I'm not sure what you mean by code as typically that's just encryption but less formalized.
Https works because there is a destination address that goes to a physical network card. Over the air, there is no 'routing'. Alice can intercept my transmission, then literally, just use a more powerful radio to 'talk over me' with her keys. Ergo, MITM. I worked with guys in the military who did this for a living...
Radio is like being able to packet sniff (and modify) packets from anywhere.
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because there isn’t a point. In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Doing that half a world away is rather pointless. Doing it over the air, how do I know Alice won’t intercept and broadcast her keys louder than me? Or just interfere and prevent me from sending keys? As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption. I…
> In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Not since 1976. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
You still need to exchange keys. You can't get around that. Otherwise, how do I know the public key you sent me over the radio is YOUR public key and not someone else with a more powerful radio?
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#29Few things evoke feelings of the early internet like intercepting unencrypted communications in the wild with off the shelf hardware and software. It's some how comforting to realize this is still possible today.
Considering how much progress that has been made in encrypting internet traffic radio seems painfully slow in evolving to be more secure. Edit: specifically radio protocols not carrying internet traffic
Most of them are pretty secure, a few really old or intentionally open (ham radio) are not, but the rest, are (wifi, 5g, ...)
Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because there isn’t a point. In order for encryption to work, you need to exchange keys at some point. Doing that half a world away is rather pointless. Doing it over the air, how do I know Alice won’t intercept and broadcast her keys louder than me? Or just interfere and prevent me from sending keys? As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption. I…
You are ignoring HTTPS allows people half a world awaywo exchange keys with a server and prevents other people follow interfering other than DoS attacks. >As we all learned in WWII, a code is better than encryption when you need complex PKI to achieve encryption I was never in WWII and I'm not sure what you mean by code as typically that's just encryption but less formalized.
[flagged]