5 ms·
I made a comment on here not too long ago that said HAM operators are the equivalent of tech tattle-tales. This comment is exactly why I say that. > What you'
by tuxxy 7y ago
I made a comment on here not too long ago that said HAM operators are the equivalent of tech tattle-tales.
This comment is exactly why I say that.
> What you're proposing amounts to the total abandonment of all the principles that have governed amateur radio for over a century.
And this is a bad thing, somehow? In the past century, things have changed so much. For some reason, every HAM implies that encrypted communications means encrypted chatting. No one who wants encrypted comms (who I know) wants to use it for chatting, we want to use it for control mechanisms.
Quit being anti-hacker.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> No one who wants encrypted comms (who I know) wants to use it for chatting, we want to use it for control mechanisms. As VLM keeps saying time and again in this thread, there are other bands for that. And even if you really, really wanted to run control mechanisms over HAM bands and didn't want anyone to inject telemetry and control signals, you don't need encryption of all traffic for that. Only authentication. Exchange keys and then just send signed but cleartext messages. Why would you want to encrypt the control traffic so that no other HAM could listen to it and learn from it? Quit being anti-hacker.
- tracker1 7y agoWould cryptographic signing be allowed... the CnC message is unencrypted, and you add a signed signature against the message that is against a public/private key pair. The data isn't encrypted, but the signature still proves that you're authorized.
- fr0sty 7y agoISM bands are available to use with whatever encryption scheme you wish to employ. And as others have mentioned elsewhere: control mechanisms just need authentication, not encryption. Plenty of ways to skin that cat.