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

Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

cryptome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#81

Post by michaelcampbell »

jbooth wrote: post #71
rospaya wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When politicians sing about "bomb Iran" these are the innocent people they are talking about killing Isn't that every country?

For the 2nd part, yeah, for the first part Iran's the only place you hear glib talk about how we should bomb it to prove how tough we are in presidential debates.

I haven't been keeping up with the GOP speeches (I assume you're referring to the GOP nominees), but all I've been able to come up with is Santorum mentioning Iranian nuclear sites, and only if they weren't open for inspectors rather than some sort of display of machismo. Are there others I've missed?

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#82

Post by jonknee »

cameldrv wrote: post #76
vbtemp wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right - no one wants to consider this null hypothesis. Not exciting enough, I suppose. Actually spoofing GPS - which would involve masking the actual GPS signal and producing the precise nanosecond differentials from a simulated fleet of satellites needed to give a false location, seems highly unbelievable. GPS jamming is possible, which may have led to a loss of nav (although I would have thought there may be some i…

Spoofing GPS, at least the C/A code is not such a huge challenge. You can buy the hard part off the shelf from many vendors. For example, http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/206805

That works to spoof GPS for your phone in a controlled location, but not for a drone that's flying unpredictable routes.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#83

Post by rpeden »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #81
jbooth wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the 2nd part, yeah, for the first part Iran's the only place you hear glib talk about how we should bomb it to prove how tough we are in presidential debates.

I haven't been keeping up with the GOP speeches (I assume you're referring to the GOP nominees), but all I've been able to come up with is Santorum mentioning Iranian nuclear sites, and only if they weren't open for inspectors rather than some sort of display of machismo. Are there others I've missed?

It was John McCain a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#84

Post by jbooth »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #81
jbooth wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the 2nd part, yeah, for the first part Iran's the only place you hear glib talk about how we should bomb it to prove how tough we are in presidential debates.

I haven't been keeping up with the GOP speeches (I assume you're referring to the GOP nominees), but all I've been able to come up with is Santorum mentioning Iranian nuclear sites, and only if they weren't open for inspectors rather than some sort of display of machismo. Are there others I've missed?

At a couple of the debates, basically everyone except Paul was competing as far as how badly they wanted to bomb Iran. I'm hoping that they weren't serious and were just cynically talking about killing lots of people in order to get a good soundbite for the rubes, but it's scary any way you interpret it. It's like these people are totally disconnected from the fact that they're talking about war.

First article for "republican candidate iran" from Google: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/07/us-usa-campaign-re...

EDIT: Here's an account of the exchange I was thinking of, Paul made the extremely controversial statement that he wasn't in favor of starting a war, and they all piled on him immediately. The fox news guy said he "jumped the shark" by not advocating immediate war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1216/G...

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#85

Post by burgerbrain »

zalew wrote: post #6
ck2 wrote: post #3

Iran is not some backwater and it's not north korea. When politicians sing about "bomb Iran" these are the innocent people they are talking about killing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v6kF8i-mbw http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/01/a-view-inside-ira... Before 1970 you would not be able to identify pictures of iran from parts of the usa http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/iran-in-1970s-before-islamic-... Currently…

> Before 1970 you mean before 1979 > but let's show some care and understanding for innocent people under their rule first. if they cared, they'd lift the embargo on aircraft parts so these people don't die because of badly maintained passenger planes

"if they cared, they'd lift the embargo on aircraft parts so these people don't die because of badly maintained passenger planes"

Huh? He is saying that we should show care... I think you should re-read what he wrote.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#86

Post by burgerbrain »

jonknee wrote: post #82
cameldrv wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoofing GPS, at least the C/A code is not such a huge challenge. You can buy the hard part off the shelf from many vendors. For example, http://sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/206805

That works to spoof GPS for your phone in a controlled location, but not for a drone that's flying unpredictable routes.

Any well funded group of HAMs should be able to iron out the implementation details.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#87

Post by stdgy »

dextorious wrote: post #43
dendory wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. You simply cannot, in any modern society, discriminate against someone because it happens to be a woman, or throw stone at someone until they die because you didn't like his opinion. You can defend ideals, you cannot defend barbarism. Some of the things these people do (and others in…

"""When people talk about Iran it's more about the things that are, by any definition, wrong, than their traditional or religious choice. """ Actually, people weren't talking that much about Iran before --it's just because it happens to be the current target, so western media plays Iran a lot. It's also for the same reason why people DON'T talk about Saudi Arabia, which is 10 times worse in those aspects than Iran --…

While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed in your post, I must take issue with: Still, americans have the right to do those things (to one another), if that's what their society wants and believes in. People are not justified to call them "evil" because of that, nor to try to topple their government. The same should hold true for any practice of any SOVEREIGN nation.

Can a society really be said to 'want and believe in' something if the society isn't structured to allow for a reasonable form of self-government? We shouldn't be looking to protect sovereign nations. We should be looking to protect sovereign peoples. If a group is truly sovereign and self-governing, then their choices should be respected. Not incidentally, the requirements for a sovereign, self-governing people align closely with principles of human rights.

I find it difficult to conclude that countries like Iran(rampant electoral fraud), North Korea(dictatorship) and Saudi Arabia are home to sovereign peoples. Sovereign nations, sure. But a border seems like a poor substitute to the collective wills of a people. And it's far from clear that these countries' actions are the expression of that will.

I suppose a rebuke to this point would be to question whether any nation is truly governed by a sovereign people, or if this is merely another form of Western projection? But I think that would be a difficult argument.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#88

Post by Luc »

Luc wrote: post #20
avit wrote: post #11

One thing I've never understood all along is how Iran managed to capture the drone intact. Was it guided into a runway landing somehow? Or else how did they not crash it?

The wings appeared to be held on by duct tape. Perhaps it didn't fall from very high.

This is being downvoted, but I am serious. In the pictures you can see the wings have been crudely reattached to the body using a white tape to cover up the supposed break. Hence it seems possible that the plane crashed, but not from an altitude that would do major damage.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#89

Post by burgerbrain »

shareme wrote: post #34

I have some conjecture based on some prior knowledge/connections.. First the info: Phil Zimmermann has a company working on Secure VOIP. I was contacted past 18 months ago to build the android mobile client. Project never lifted off due to some large distraction and the excuses I was given never matched up to reality. I submit because of Phil's connections to other RSA inventors and break-ins that occurred in the pas…

A "RSA hole", as far as I am aware, would be "somebody found a fast way to factor numbers". There wouldn't exactly be a fix for that except to move to another trap door function.

Re: Drone captured by Iran may mean military GPS RSA "red key" has been compromised

#90

Post by zalew »

burgerbrain wrote: post #85
zalew wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before 1970 you mean before 1979 > but let's show some care and understanding for innocent people under their rule first. if they cared, they'd lift the embargo on aircraft parts so these people don't die because of badly maintained passenger planes

"if they cared, they'd lift the embargo on aircraft parts so these people don't die because of badly maintained passenger planes" Huh? He is saying that we should show care... I think you should re-read what he wrote.

In the context as a whole it looks different for me. But does it really matter?

offtopic: from the fluctuation of upvotes/downvotes on my few last comments in the last few hours, I see some people treat hn like reddit - downvoting based on opinion. Not that I care about those 3 karma points, just sayin'.

Post reply on HN