Live data from Hacker News

Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

rtl-sdr.com

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#81
post #8

Few 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

The amateur radio service is not permitted to encrypt our traffic. That doesn’t mean we can’t. Theoretically (not legally tested) you could post the AES256 keys for your DMR radio to the public over the internet and then do it since you disclosed the necessary tools to decode your traffic.

Modern radios sync their keys when they are within range of wifi at HQ.

Also, see: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-tow-tr...

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#82
post #3

Quick summary: > Many navigational and meteorological satellites carry a search and rescue (SAR) repeater which is intended to receive UHF emergency locator beacons and rebroadcast them in the L-band or higher. However the repeaters appear to be picking up all sorts of other signals from the ground, including voice transmissions.

Makes me wonder if these ever were used out-of-spec for transmission deliberately by parties. (Thinking spy stuff but it could also be just hijinx.)

As mentioned in the video; that would be inadvisable. Not only is it illegal and constantly monitored, but it’s almost trivial to triangulate the source of the transmissions.

You could probably get away with sending a couple messages while pretending to be someone doing it accidentally, but you’d be holding up a “pick me” sign visible to any type of scrutiny.

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#83

If anyone is interested in satellites, check out your options for amateur radio licensing in your country. The ISS has a repeater that even the most basic license holder is able to use. It's using VHF/UHF frequencies, and a low power 5W radio is enough to work it. Occasionally the astronauts will get on the radio as well and chat with you! I haven't been lucky enough to do that yet. But I have heard them talking when…

Are the any options that are small enough to make a remote contact radio ?

Basically something I can take with me while hiking, and have somebody else in civilization listen and have some conversations with ?

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#84

Earlier 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…

[deleted]

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're in the UK? The UK has this really weird law where it's legal to listen to anything but you may not repeat what you heard. I don't know of any other country that has that stipulation. In most of Europe you can listen all you want and talk about it. I think in the US some frequencies were forbidden to listen to and to this day these are blocked on scanners. Not sure why as analog cellphones are long obso…

I'm not sure we do have that law in the UK? The relevant legislation seems like it would be https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/section/48 ; but that makes it illegal to either intercept or disclose.

Ah yes it's about the intended recipient.

Of course listening to ham radio bands is allowed since they are meant to be public. But unlike in other countries the UK does mind if you speak about what you heard on the bands. I've heard several people getting berated for this on the bands.

I suppose for stuff that's actually meant to be prive it's even illegal to intercept it, I don't know. Personally I think such laws are just theater. Just like the cell band blocking on scanners in the US. Spend 2 minutes on mods.dk and a soldering iron and problem solved.

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#86

If anyone is interested in satellites, check out your options for amateur radio licensing in your country. The ISS has a repeater that even the most basic license holder is able to use. It's using VHF/UHF frequencies, and a low power 5W radio is enough to work it. Occasionally the astronauts will get on the radio as well and chat with you! I haven't been lucky enough to do that yet. But I have heard them talking when…

Are the any options that are small enough to make a remote contact radio ? Basically something I can take with me while hiking, and have somebody else in civilization listen and have some conversations with ?

Yes, lots! Depends on what you want to do. For satellites, any dual band VHF/UHF radio will work. A cheap Baofeng from aliexpress can get you started: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004895672032.html. You'd likely want to get a programming cable for it as well. They also can use Resource Road frequencies if you're going anywhere with radio controlled roads.

Ideally a radio for satellites is full duplex (you can hear simultaneously while transmitting). Those radios cost much more though. Many people just use two radios.

For shortwave radio, you could use something like the trusdx: https://dl2man.de/

Note that in both of these cases, to transmit, you'll need a license... and if you want to talk to someone specific it may be hard to do. Talking to random amateur radio operators is much easier.

The options I posted are cheap - you can easily spend tens of thousands of dollars on radios, antennas, amplifiers, towers, etc.

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#87

If anyone is interested in satellites, check out your options for amateur radio licensing in your country. The ISS has a repeater that even the most basic license holder is able to use. It's using VHF/UHF frequencies, and a low power 5W radio is enough to work it. Occasionally the astronauts will get on the radio as well and chat with you! I haven't been lucky enough to do that yet. But I have heard them talking when…

Yes the repeater has several modes by the way. Amsat shows which is active. There's also APRS and sometimes SSTV. When the astronauts are on air there's a strict protocol, they will generally call for people in a certain area. Of course the ISS has a pretty huge footprint so radio discipline is very important.

When it's a scheduled contact, yes, strict protocols are used, but I've heard them on their downtime making contacts, it basically goes:

ISS: NA1SS is listening HAM: NA1SS this is whiskey one alpha whiskey in Hartford, Connecticut ISS: W1AW, welcome board the ISS! HAM: 73

repeat for everyone trying to make a contact :-)

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#88
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTTPS is only as secure as the CA that signs the certificate. My point is, at some point you have to bootstrap the trust. That is the single most vulnerable point (and why becoming a trusted CA is quite complex and easy to lose if you mess it up)! Without the CA, HTTPS is insecure (try self-signed certs and you'll see your browser agree with me). If you try and bootstrap a CA over the radio, it is vulnerable to MITM…

Even after adjusting this statement three times it‘s still wrong. Certificate transparency has severely limited what CAs can do without being found out.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no "radio CA" in existence to adhere to "certificate transparency."

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#89
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https works because you have previously agreed on a key. The key of the Certificate Authority that signs certificates. Https (or IP for that matter) does not use the physical card to authenticate. That wouldn't make sense, except for very local networks. And since IP relies on ARP for the physical network addreess, even local IP networks can suffer MITM, by way of ARP spoofing.

A radio "hears" only the loudest signal (due to necessary filters). A packet is directed via routes; a network interface only picks up packets on that physical route. It's the equivalent of using a directional antennae ... kinda.

At the beginning of the connection, you must establish some sort of "trust" between your radio and the other radio (if you want to use encryption). Your wifi does this with a Pre-Shared Secret (PSK). Your https connection does this with CA certificates.

This 'baseline trust' allows you to know the other end is who you expect it to be. With traditional radios, there's not much of that. There's just:

- something you have (the radio characteristics)

- something shared (past experiences/conversations)

- something you are (your voice)

If you don't squint that hard, that's the basis of any kind of authentication. Thus we have that covered. So, I can "authorize" myself as my person. Then I can send my keys over the air so we can have a private conversation.

Here's the issue, as soon as I broadcast my keys, someone with a "louder" (technically, brighter) radio broadcasts my voice with different keys. Next, they do the same thing when you broadcast your keys. Bam, we've been MITM'd without even realizing it.

So, ok, you say. Maybe we'll snail mail our keys to each other. Sure, that'll work. Yet still, even then, we'd only be able to talk to each other. At that point, why not just pick up a phone or start up a telegram chat?

The weakest link in any kind of encryption is always during the key exchange. Always. Mostly because we are human... we click through warnings, get our mail stolen, misstype things, and all kinds of dumb things.

My other point about code: we can agree on a dictionary. It's virtually uncrackable and fluent to have a coded conversation. For example, there's 0% chance you'd have any idea what this actual phrase from Afganistan means:

"the dust is blowing in, so we'll need about 5 mins to pick up my sister and head home"

spoiler:

"the americans are here, so we'll need about 5 mins to set up the guns and be the rendezvous."

Code is always better than encryption. Always. The issue is the "dictionary" and the fact that it can be leaked. Encryption gives better guarantees in that regard. But when you already have 'authentication and authorization' via the things I mentioned above, code does quite well...

Re: Receiving unintentional voice transmissions from GPS satellites

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched some documentary where the US were monitoring enemy communications but didn't know what a specific code word was referring to. If I recall correctly, the US staged a fake transmission that one of their islands had some issue or other... and suddenly they picked up enemy broadcast with the code word in question. So then the US knew what the code word referred to.

As the other poster said, midway. Wasn't it that movie that just came out, by any chance? Because this featured in there as a plot point too.

It was a Netflix WW2 documentary. Most likely "WWII in Color: Road to Victory".

We switched to Disney+ at the start of the year, otherwise I'd have been able to confirm the show.

Post reply on HN