11 ms·

Why don't they use encryption? Wouldn't it be preferable for your messages to be completely inscrutable? [Edit] To clarify my question, I'm specifically talkin

Why don't they use encryption? Wouldn't it be preferable for your messages to be completely inscrutable? [Edit] To clarify my question, I'm specifically talking about these unencrypted parts: 1. The number of "Skyking do not answer"s indicates the severity of the message. 2. The fact that it is known that messages to Skyking are for a nuclear force. I wouldn't want an adversary to know when or with what severity I am commanding my nuclear force. It leaks significant information that an adversary can use, for instance, to judge your response to some action the adversary took.

jnwatson 5y ago
Just like TLS, the payload is encrypted. The skyking stuff is just header. It has the advantage that there’s less to go wrong and doesn’t take sophisticated equipment to receive.
Harvesterify 5y ago
But they do: "Salutation, trigraph, timestamp, authentication, and then a series of letters comprising the coded message."
acapybara 5y ago
"The messages are simply a series of letters, relayed in NATO phonetics, and encrypted with a one-time cypher. The receiver would need a code book (by varying reports refreshed daily, weekly, or monthly and inches thick) to identify the key and decrypt the message."
joezydeco 5y ago
The article implies that the nuclear forces have already been deployed and targets set - this would be the final instruction to launch (the "go/no go" on that USAF cheat sheet). At that point there's not much to hide or encrypt.
- ericcumbee 5y ago
  From my understanding each bomber has a playbook so to speak along with the code book. each Play is a different target package. Just like in US football the message from Command to the bombers isn't the verbatim target package but just a code telling them which target package to select from their playbook.
eob 5y ago
Well, the payload is encrypted using OTPs. But if the gist of the question was really "why use such old tech when newer tech is available?": I suspect these methods of communication remain because of their robustness against attack and simplicity to implement. It's a guarantee that even if all the modern networks go down, commands can still be issued from anyone, to anyone using off-the-shelf hardware.
- 015a 5y ago
  Plus, you know, oftentimes the people commenting for the US nuclear defense systems to modernize are the same people who put Log4J everywhere they could (meaning: Silicon Valley engineers). Its funny how hypnotic the word "modernize" is; totally divorced from any measurable success outcomes. More efficient? Possibly. But as we learned with COVID; when you stress an Efficient system, it breaks. Militaries tend to be pretty highly stressed; and it would be best if they don't break. One thing is for certain: There is much the maintainers of these antiquated systems could learn from more recent engineering practices; but there is just as much we could learn from them.
  - Jerrrry 5y ago
    Keep It Simple, Stupid Simple systems fail expectedly, complex systems fail catastrophically.
    - euroderf 5y ago
      And, related: Fail-safe systems fail by failing to fail safe.
  - RF_Savage 5y ago
    B-1's run K8s these days.
    - treesknees 5y ago
      They don’t. There was talk of a future plane potentially running it, probably as a part of R&D purposes. This rumor was generated from a single person posting on LinkedIn. Very different than the active US military running k8 on their bombers. https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bomber/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bombe... > The B-21 is expected to fly in 2025
fatbird 5y ago
The content is encrypted with one-time pads that are constantly refreshed, which is entirely undecipherable through cryptanalysis. Encrypting the radio signal itself would require a much more extensive infrastructure than binders and radio receivers: specialized hardware that might be compromised or flawed, or simply break down, rendering you unable to listen to the channel over which your critical orders might come; harder to audit as well with more moving parts and components that aren't easily inspected or tested. This seems like a case of a very simple and robust system being more than sufficient for the task, and anything more complex is a waste of time and money.
goodluckchuck 5y ago
Sometimes you want a communication to be public, loud, and undeniable, even if you don't want it to be understood by all. It makes it difficult to later deny that the order was given, it'll be recorded many times over by friend and foe alike. Recipients can possibly confirm that their counterparts are also receiving consistent orders.
- bendbro 5y ago
  You were the sole person who understood my poorly worded question. How did you come to the correct interpretation of my question, given information was missing from my question? Did you assume that I realized the content of Skyking messages is encrypted, and then deduce that my question must relate to the other unencrypted parts?
  - nightpool 5y ago
    It could also be that goodluckchuck didn't know that the content of the Skyking message was encrypted :P
    - bendbro 5y ago
      True :) Though I think he did understand that, given "even if you don't want it to be understood by all"
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  Like the Radio 4 Doomsday protocol? https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1528497/bbc-radio-4-today-programme-off-air-doomsday-protocol-nuclear-war-shipping-forecast-spt https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1528497/bbc-radio...
aerostable_slug 5y ago
That cheatsheet is not accurate. The number of "skyking"s do not have anything to do with priority/severity. Further, SIOP was not strictly speaking retired — it was renamed, most recently to OPLAN 8010-12. I would take the linked page with a very large grain of salt.
woah 5y ago
Presumably the adversary has already launched an easily detectable nuclear attack themselves so they know something is up
DocTomoe 5y ago
For a good explanation on why you don't want these things to be too high-tech and too encrypted, see "Doctor Strangelove", and take particular notice about the roles played by CRM-114.
chiph 5y ago
The salutation is not encrypted because it's designed to attract the attention of the radio operators on the plane. They need a few moments to grab their pens to write down the message that follows so they aren't going to miss any characters. So far as leaking information - by the time these are sent as real-world communications (i.e. not as a test or during training), the planes are nearing their target. So it won't matter for much longer if the enemy knows, since the positions of the planes are (hopefully) unknown.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Why don't they use encryption? Wouldn't it be preferable for your messages to be completely inscrutable? They don't? The letters read out in a phonetic alphabet are most certainly a code that's completely inscrutable without a codebook, which is probably rotated frequently. Encryption like we use it (e.g. encode arbitrary messages) is probably unnecessary and too complicated. All they're probably trying to do is transmit an authenticated order to execute an action that's been agreed upon ahead of time.
Terry_Roll 5y ago
Its a number station of sorts, more can be found explaining them on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station) and youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQbQTv3aMkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQbQTv3aMkU) (loads on youtube) I think the reason they have disappeared is because of the satellite coverage seen today, so people need to look in new places to find them.
ericcumbee 5y ago
A clearly defined format probably prevents something like "Where is Task Force 34 the world wonders" from happening.

jnwatson 5y ago

Just like TLS, the payload is encrypted. The skyking stuff is just header. It has the advantage that there’s less to go wrong and doesn’t take sophisticated equipment to receive.

Harvesterify 5y ago

But they do: "Salutation, trigraph, timestamp, authentication, and then a series of letters comprising the coded message."

acapybara 5y ago

"The messages are simply a series of letters, relayed in NATO phonetics, and encrypted with a one-time cypher. The receiver would need a code book (by varying reports refreshed daily, weekly, or monthly and inches thick) to identify the key and decrypt the message."

joezydeco 5y ago

The article implies that the nuclear forces have already been deployed and targets set - this would be the final instruction to launch (the "go/no go" on that USAF cheat sheet). At that point there's not much to hide or encrypt.

ericcumbee 5y ago
From my understanding each bomber has a playbook so to speak along with the code book. each Play is a different target package. Just like in US football the message from Command to the bombers isn't the verbatim target package but just a code telling them which target package to select from their playbook.

eob 5y ago

Well, the payload is encrypted using OTPs. But if the gist of the question was really "why use such old tech when newer tech is available?": I suspect these methods of communication remain because of their robustness against attack and simplicity to implement. It's a guarantee that even if all the modern networks go down, commands can still be issued from anyone, to anyone using off-the-shelf hardware.

015a 5y ago
Plus, you know, oftentimes the people commenting for the US nuclear defense systems to modernize are the same people who put Log4J everywhere they could (meaning: Silicon Valley engineers). Its funny how hypnotic the word "modernize" is; totally divorced from any measurable success outcomes. More efficient? Possibly. But as we learned with COVID; when you stress an Efficient system, it breaks. Militaries tend to be pretty highly stressed; and it would be best if they don't break. One thing is for certain: There is much the maintainers of these antiquated systems could learn from more recent engineering practices; but there is just as much we could learn from them.
- Jerrrry 5y ago
  Keep It Simple, Stupid Simple systems fail expectedly, complex systems fail catastrophically.
  - euroderf 5y ago
    And, related: Fail-safe systems fail by failing to fail safe.
- RF_Savage 5y ago
  B-1's run K8s these days.
  - treesknees 5y ago
    They don’t. There was talk of a future plane potentially running it, probably as a part of R&D purposes. This rumor was generated from a single person posting on LinkedIn. Very different than the active US military running k8 on their bombers. https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bomber/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/03/kubernetes_b_21_bombe... > The B-21 is expected to fly in 2025

fatbird 5y ago

The content is encrypted with one-time pads that are constantly refreshed, which is entirely undecipherable through cryptanalysis. Encrypting the radio signal itself would require a much more extensive infrastructure than binders and radio receivers: specialized hardware that might be compromised or flawed, or simply break down, rendering you unable to listen to the channel over which your critical orders might come; harder to audit as well with more moving parts and components that aren't easily inspected or tested. This seems like a case of a very simple and robust system being more than sufficient for the task, and anything more complex is a waste of time and money.

goodluckchuck 5y ago

Sometimes you want a communication to be public, loud, and undeniable, even if you don't want it to be understood by all. It makes it difficult to later deny that the order was given, it'll be recorded many times over by friend and foe alike. Recipients can possibly confirm that their counterparts are also receiving consistent orders.

bendbro 5y ago
You were the sole person who understood my poorly worded question. How did you come to the correct interpretation of my question, given information was missing from my question? Did you assume that I realized the content of Skyking messages is encrypted, and then deduce that my question must relate to the other unencrypted parts?
- nightpool 5y ago
  It could also be that goodluckchuck didn't know that the content of the Skyking message was encrypted :P
  - bendbro 5y ago
    True :) Though I think he did understand that, given "even if you don't want it to be understood by all"
Terry_Roll 5y ago
Like the Radio 4 Doomsday protocol? https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1528497/bbc-radio-4-today-programme-off-air-doomsday-protocol-nuclear-war-shipping-forecast-spt https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1528497/bbc-radio...

aerostable_slug 5y ago

That cheatsheet is not accurate. The number of "skyking"s do not have anything to do with priority/severity. Further, SIOP was not strictly speaking retired — it was renamed, most recently to OPLAN 8010-12. I would take the linked page with a very large grain of salt.

woah 5y ago

Presumably the adversary has already launched an easily detectable nuclear attack themselves so they know something is up

DocTomoe 5y ago

For a good explanation on why you don't want these things to be too high-tech and too encrypted, see "Doctor Strangelove", and take particular notice about the roles played by CRM-114.

chiph 5y ago

The salutation is not encrypted because it's designed to attract the attention of the radio operators on the plane. They need a few moments to grab their pens to write down the message that follows so they aren't going to miss any characters. So far as leaking information - by the time these are sent as real-world communications (i.e. not as a test or during training), the planes are nearing their target. So it won't matter for much longer if the enemy knows, since the positions of the planes are (hopefully) unknown.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Why don't they use encryption? Wouldn't it be preferable for your messages to be completely inscrutable? They don't? The letters read out in a phonetic alphabet are most certainly a code that's completely inscrutable without a codebook, which is probably rotated frequently. Encryption like we use it (e.g. encode arbitrary messages) is probably unnecessary and too complicated. All they're probably trying to do is transmit an authenticated order to execute an action that's been agreed upon ahead of time.

Terry_Roll 5y ago

Its a number station of sorts, more can be found explaining them on wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station) and youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQbQTv3aMkU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQbQTv3aMkU) (loads on youtube) I think the reason they have disappeared is because of the satellite coverage seen today, so people need to look in new places to find them.

ericcumbee 5y ago

A clearly defined format probably prevents something like "Where is Task Force 34 the world wonders" from happening.