5 ms·

But the risks and consequences are catastrophic. The Feds will put you away forever for even attempting it.

by qrbLPHiKpiux 7y ago

voxl 7y ago
While true, you'd think state sponsored terrorism wouldn't care about sacrificing a few people.
- vkou 7y ago
  What kind of state sponsored terrorism? Black ops programs? Air forces dropping bombs? Assassinations and decapitation strikes? Or are we talking about the boogieman that is an excuse for all sorts of paranoid crackdowns, expenditures, and questionable legislature? Who exactly are you afraid will sponsor radio jammers at airports, and why do you think they will do so?
- TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
  actually, I'd think state sponsored terrorism would have the resources to get away with it. Just send the voice data through a raspberry pi to a remote location and carry out the attack from there. You could send voice data through a TOR-like protocol or something to keep you anonymous, if that's important. You could maybe rig some explosives to go off if the FBI/FCC/FAA gain access to the attack point, to prevent them from recovering evidence. Lot's of police/fire radio systems are similarly without authentication, so you could amplify the mayhem by doing the same thing to those frequencies.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  With state sponsored terrorism, the risk isn't that the Feds will put the agent away forever, it's that the USG (and, incidentally, other particularly allowed countries) will identify that it is state sponsored terrorism and treat the attack as exactly what it is—simultaneously and act of war and a gross violation of the laws of war.
TkTech 7y ago
And most major airports have systems like RFEye or AIRPORT-SHIELD. You would be _immediately_ pinpointed with a remarkable level of accuracy from 3-6 sensors. Especially near major metro areas, unintentional interference is a daily issue. These systems immediately triangulate sources of interference in a wide band. Or you have simpler systems like UMS100 that just do alerting and you send out an engineer with a wand to walk around for a bit to triangulate it.
- AWildC182 7y ago
  These could be pretty easily defeated through a multitude of tactics. They're just being pitched as a stop gap solution against the low hanging fruit like morons with drones or a drunk person with an airband handheld.
- echelon 7y ago
  Imagine an unlicensed drone emitting GPS radio signals. Just a small amount of sophistication and an attacker can do an incredible amount of harm.
  - asteli 7y ago
    If you live in Florida, you can go down to the pawn shop, buy a gun, drive over to the airport and start shooting at planes. Doesn't take much sophistication to cause a lot of harm.
    - Piskvorrr 7y ago
      At a plane. Then you get a SWAT response and terrorism charges - consequences are also a reason this doesn't happen on a mass scale.
- tropo 7y ago
  With an omnidirectional antenna, sure. With a high-gain antenna, no. The attacker could entirely avoid the RFEye or AIRPORT-SHIELD. The attacker could pick a specific aircraft to pester, with no other aircraft able to listen. Add some fancy voice synthesis, and it gets interesting. The attacker could clone the voice and style of the air traffic controller. The attacker could provide enough power to quiet out any other transmissions. To keep the air traffic controller incompletely aware, the attacker could provide interference (just to the tower) whenever the victim aircraft begins to transmit.

But the risks and consequences are catastrophic. The Feds will put you away forever for even attempting it.

voxl 7y ago

While true, you'd think state sponsored terrorism wouldn't care about sacrificing a few people.

vkou 7y ago
What kind of state sponsored terrorism? Black ops programs? Air forces dropping bombs? Assassinations and decapitation strikes? Or are we talking about the boogieman that is an excuse for all sorts of paranoid crackdowns, expenditures, and questionable legislature? Who exactly are you afraid will sponsor radio jammers at airports, and why do you think they will do so?
TheSoftwareGuy 7y ago
actually, I'd think state sponsored terrorism would have the resources to get away with it. Just send the voice data through a raspberry pi to a remote location and carry out the attack from there. You could send voice data through a TOR-like protocol or something to keep you anonymous, if that's important. You could maybe rig some explosives to go off if the FBI/FCC/FAA gain access to the attack point, to prevent them from recovering evidence. Lot's of police/fire radio systems are similarly without authentication, so you could amplify the mayhem by doing the same thing to those frequencies.
dragonwriter 7y ago
With state sponsored terrorism, the risk isn't that the Feds will put the agent away forever, it's that the USG (and, incidentally, other particularly allowed countries) will identify that it is state sponsored terrorism and treat the attack as exactly what it is—simultaneously and act of war and a gross violation of the laws of war.

TkTech 7y ago

And most major airports have systems like RFEye or AIRPORT-SHIELD. You would be _immediately_ pinpointed with a remarkable level of accuracy from 3-6 sensors. Especially near major metro areas, unintentional interference is a daily issue. These systems immediately triangulate sources of interference in a wide band. Or you have simpler systems like UMS100 that just do alerting and you send out an engineer with a wand to walk around for a bit to triangulate it.

AWildC182 7y ago
These could be pretty easily defeated through a multitude of tactics. They're just being pitched as a stop gap solution against the low hanging fruit like morons with drones or a drunk person with an airband handheld.
echelon 7y ago
Imagine an unlicensed drone emitting GPS radio signals. Just a small amount of sophistication and an attacker can do an incredible amount of harm.
- asteli 7y ago
  If you live in Florida, you can go down to the pawn shop, buy a gun, drive over to the airport and start shooting at planes. Doesn't take much sophistication to cause a lot of harm.
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    At a plane. Then you get a SWAT response and terrorism charges - consequences are also a reason this doesn't happen on a mass scale.
tropo 7y ago
With an omnidirectional antenna, sure. With a high-gain antenna, no. The attacker could entirely avoid the RFEye or AIRPORT-SHIELD. The attacker could pick a specific aircraft to pester, with no other aircraft able to listen. Add some fancy voice synthesis, and it gets interesting. The attacker could clone the voice and style of the air traffic controller. The attacker could provide enough power to quiet out any other transmissions. To keep the air traffic controller incompletely aware, the attacker could provide interference (just to the tower) whenever the victim aircraft begins to transmit.