3 ms·

Actually, I have been trying to find some good in-depth sources. If you can share, I'd be much obliged.

by ArnoVW 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago
Here why they are using civilian walkie talkies: https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?t=cZPqTDg5GaoXwKmt0P3aoA&s=19 https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?t=...
- rocqua 5y ago
  If those comms are cleartext, that also means its possible to start sending disinformation. Start talking about hold-ups at cross-roads that are clear. Tell them about shortcuts that actually lead through marshes. Tell them "the attack we discussed earlier will actually happen 43 minutes earlier". Tell them, "hey we have run out of food here". Tell them, I heard that 10 miles back they are serving hot food, damn I wish I was there. Just fuck with their comms, making them either make wrong decisions, demoralize them, or make them abandon these comms for something even worse.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Well, the word was already out before I posted this ofc. But I would have hoped that this was kept a secret and that I didn't knew about this.
  - rkangel 5y ago
    > If those comms are cleartext, that also means its possible to start sending disinformation. This is a classic confusion of authentication and encryption. We can hear what they're saying (which is useful), but that doesn't mean we can pretend to be them.
    - rocqua 5y ago
      The comms have neither authentication nor encryption. So at least on a technology level it is very possible to transmit. I doubt they have robust enough authentication to determine whether you really are supposed to be speaking. Likely they won't believe you, but they will also start doubting, in general, messages sent over the channel. That means being less sure the actual authentic messages are to be believed. It's more about disrupting their faith in the comm system, rather than about having them believe your falsehoods.

Actually, I have been trying to find some good in-depth sources. If you can share, I'd be much obliged.

by ArnoVW 5y ago

Actually, I have been trying to find some good in-depth sources. If you can share, I'd be much obliged.

Here why they are using civilian walkie talkies: https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?t=cZPqTDg5GaoXwKmt0P3aoA&s=19 https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?t=...

rocqua 5y ago
If those comms are cleartext, that also means its possible to start sending disinformation. Start talking about hold-ups at cross-roads that are clear. Tell them about shortcuts that actually lead through marshes. Tell them "the attack we discussed earlier will actually happen 43 minutes earlier". Tell them, "hey we have run out of food here". Tell them, I heard that 10 miles back they are serving hot food, damn I wish I was there. Just fuck with their comms, making them either make wrong decisions, demoralize them, or make them abandon these comms for something even worse.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Well, the word was already out before I posted this ofc. But I would have hoped that this was kept a secret and that I didn't knew about this.
- rkangel 5y ago
  > If those comms are cleartext, that also means its possible to start sending disinformation. This is a classic confusion of authentication and encryption. We can hear what they're saying (which is useful), but that doesn't mean we can pretend to be them.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    The comms have neither authentication nor encryption. So at least on a technology level it is very possible to transmit. I doubt they have robust enough authentication to determine whether you really are supposed to be speaking. Likely they won't believe you, but they will also start doubting, in general, messages sent over the channel. That means being less sure the actual authentic messages are to be believed. It's more about disrupting their faith in the comm system, rather than about having them believe your falsehoods.