8 ms·

Seems more likely that the code is just a [part of] decryption key for the parameters, rather than some weird hashing scheme.

• monocasa 6y ago
  I think the design goal was to never have a decryptable set of the parameters stored with the device.
  • megous 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_Action_Link Dunno, wikipedia says the parameters are encrypted. Anyway it would probably be good enough to just rip all the safety/firing electronics out, and replace it with your own best effort attempt at controlling the fireset capacitors charging and firing. What's there to vary anyway? Charge voltages, and discharge timing? Odds would be you could probably make it go boom in a more controlled manner than what happened in past accidents when the bombs exploded after hitting the ground. The trouble would be getting past the tamper-proof barrier, because the modern bombs are probably made to self-destruct, from what I've read, so instead of a nice ready-made bomb internals waiting for a simpler arduino control circuit for a fireset, you'd be dealing with a hot mess, after trying to get in. Just some uninformed thoughts. I also found some images of fat man firset online: https://lanlmuseum.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/3D33BB7F-ABB3-4D52-A7C2-678145610359 https://lanlmuseum.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/3D33BB7F-... Interesting device. :)
    • monocasa 6y ago
      > Dunno, wikipedia says the parameters are encrypted. Laymen refer to any use of crypto as "encrypted". > Anyway it would probably be good enough to just rip all the safety/firing electronics out, and replace it with your own best effort attempt at controlling the fireset capacitors charging and firing. It's really not though, it's very very specific to the design of the warhead, and the electronics are embedded in it in a way that you can't just take it apart and put it back together. It's all nasty stuff like FOGBANK that if you could remanufacture, you wouldn't need to steal a nuke in the first place. > What's there to vary anyway? Charge voltages, and discharge timing? Odds would be you could probably make it go boom in a more controlled manner than what happened in past accidents when the bombs exploded after hitting the ground. Yep, nanosecond precision detonation on the shaped charges, and not just "all at the same time", but a very specific sequence that's dependent on the exact geometries, isotopes and these days, how they've decayed over decades. That's what Oak Ridge uses those fancy super computers for. > The trouble would be getting past the tamper-proof barrier, because the modern bombs are probably made to self-destruct, from what I've read, so instead of a nice ready-made bomb internals waiting for a simpler arduino control circuit for a fireset, you'd be dealing with a hot mess, after trying to get in. They are very much not designed to self destruct. Really the opposite. And yes, the threat model is that without the codes, you leave someone with components that they essentially have to remanufacture into a new bomb, which takes a well funded state actor. Or they just use the bits as a dirty bomb, which is why that gets so much play in the age of terrorist cells. But you don't get a full on usable nuke by just sticking a microcontroller on a stolen bomb.
      • drran 6y ago
        Old bombs have much simpler designs, which can be hacked. Moreover, A bomb have core and blanket. Blanket can be reused. The core can be replaced with a few kilos of plutonium and deflectors. Plutonium is easy to extract from waste of weapon grade reactor. Yeah, it's easier to remanufacture.
        • megous 6y ago
          Yeah, I was astonished that they managed to get such a successful experiment on the first try with trinity, despite 40s technology and computers. I expected that there'd be a few failures before the first successful nuclear explosion.
      • megous 6y ago
        Interesting, thank you!