4 ms·

I'd imagine it's trivial for a motivated nation state to locate the ground stations -- they definitely seem easier targets for physical attacks.

modeless 5y ago
I believe the ground stations are located in NATO countries so Russia better not try attacking them... Attacking ground stations could degrade or deny service to nearby areas with the current Starlink system. But V2 will be able to route signals between satellites in space in areas where ground stations are missing, so that won't work in the future.
mitchs 5y ago
IMO the motivated state wouldn't go through the trouble to attack sites physically when they could just DDOS spacex's public IPs. It isn't like their IP address blocks are a secret, and it wouldn't be that hard to narrow it down to the ones that route to Europe.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  This misses the point. The aim is not to take out Starlink. The aim is to take out the people using Starlink on the assumption that some of them at least are involved in the coordination of the defence of Ukraine. Using Starlink, or any other satellite uplink in an active warzone is essentially painting a target on your back. Doing so may very well be worth it if you are involved in the coordination of the defence of your nation, but its probably not if you're using it to read HN.
  - mitchs 5y ago
    Eh, I think of the menu of options, taking out Starlink in Europe with a DDOS has a high probability of providing value for Russia and is safer to execute compared with the theoretical attack of getting locations out of a starlink ground station. Even if they managed to gain access to the ground stations, they would then need to wade through a proprietary stack and hope that what they have access to actually has useful location data. SpaceX apparently operates on cells that are "5 miles in radius" hexagons, though people on reddit claim to get service up to 15 miles away from home. In any case, I could see a world where the ground station only knew what one of those cells a person was in, and the whole exercise of breaking into a ground station would have been for nothing.
    - r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
      I think we're talking at cross purposes. I (and presumably Musk) am talking about the Russian's targeting the starlink receivers / satellite dishes. These are (theoretucally at least) detectable using the same type of radio triangulation techniques used since WWII. Using one of these puts you in danger of attack if you are somewhere near it. And by attack I mean having a missile launched at you, being shelled, or having men with guns turn up on your doorstep. Hacking is not required.
    - tonfa 5y ago
      Isn't some part of starlink backbone on google networks? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-dea... That probably makes the bar to reach for a successful DDoS fairly high.
    - iudqnolq 5y ago
      There's relatively strong empirical evidence they aimed artillery at satellite phones in Syria. https://www.rferl.org/a/marie_colvin_death_concerns_about_safe_use_satelite_phones/24495230.html https://www.rferl.org/a/marie_colvin_death_concerns_about_sa...
- extheat 5y ago
  What would flooding requests to their IPs do? They're not hosting the internet.
  - EE84M3i 5y ago
    Presumably if starlink users are accessing services over the internet, starlink has to peer with other ISPs somewhere. So the assumption is if you can fill up all the pipes where SpaceX peers to other networks, then Starlink is cut off from the internet.
gexla 5y ago
I wonder how hard it would be to hit them though. They don't have full control over the air. Su-35 aircraft have been getting shot down. Are they still firing cruise missiles? How accurate are they? If it were trivial to locate them and take them out, wouldn't they have done that already?
- guywhocodes 5y ago
  Their cruise missiles are generally inaccurate but it doesn't matter as they are almost all out.
  - mushbino 5y ago
    What do you mean they're almost out? It sounds absurd they'd have such a small stockpile.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jorvi 5y ago
      The working theory is that massive corruption and yes-manning has led to Russia’s armed forces being a paper tiger. If someone at the top says “we need to restock 1000 additional cruise missiles”, then the person under that grifts a little and says “we need to stock 950 additional cruise missiles”, and you follow that down the chain, you might end up with 500 instead of 1000 missiles. Same would go for things like vehicle maintenance. And it might be more invisible too, like ordering cheap tires instead of quality one’s.
    - _ph_ 5y ago
      By all accounts, they are frequently running out of fuel. Which is the most basic, obvious, and also quite readily available in Russia. How bad can an invasion go if you run out of fuel on the way to your initial target? I have heard rumors, that some troups just sold off fuel on the black market before the invasion started. Whether that was just corruption or planned sabotage, no one of course knows.

modeless 5y ago

I believe the ground stations are located in NATO countries so Russia better not try attacking them... Attacking ground stations could degrade or deny service to nearby areas with the current Starlink system. But V2 will be able to route signals between satellites in space in areas where ground stations are missing, so that won't work in the future.

mitchs 5y ago

IMO the motivated state wouldn't go through the trouble to attack sites physically when they could just DDOS spacex's public IPs. It isn't like their IP address blocks are a secret, and it wouldn't be that hard to narrow it down to the ones that route to Europe.

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
This misses the point. The aim is not to take out Starlink. The aim is to take out the people using Starlink on the assumption that some of them at least are involved in the coordination of the defence of Ukraine. Using Starlink, or any other satellite uplink in an active warzone is essentially painting a target on your back. Doing so may very well be worth it if you are involved in the coordination of the defence of your nation, but its probably not if you're using it to read HN.
- mitchs 5y ago
  Eh, I think of the menu of options, taking out Starlink in Europe with a DDOS has a high probability of providing value for Russia and is safer to execute compared with the theoretical attack of getting locations out of a starlink ground station. Even if they managed to gain access to the ground stations, they would then need to wade through a proprietary stack and hope that what they have access to actually has useful location data. SpaceX apparently operates on cells that are "5 miles in radius" hexagons, though people on reddit claim to get service up to 15 miles away from home. In any case, I could see a world where the ground station only knew what one of those cells a person was in, and the whole exercise of breaking into a ground station would have been for nothing.
  - r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
    I think we're talking at cross purposes. I (and presumably Musk) am talking about the Russian's targeting the starlink receivers / satellite dishes. These are (theoretucally at least) detectable using the same type of radio triangulation techniques used since WWII. Using one of these puts you in danger of attack if you are somewhere near it. And by attack I mean having a missile launched at you, being shelled, or having men with guns turn up on your doorstep. Hacking is not required.
  - tonfa 5y ago
    Isn't some part of starlink backbone on google networks? https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-deal-for-starlink-internet-connectivity.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/13/google-cloud-wins-spacex-dea... That probably makes the bar to reach for a successful DDoS fairly high.
  - iudqnolq 5y ago
    There's relatively strong empirical evidence they aimed artillery at satellite phones in Syria. https://www.rferl.org/a/marie_colvin_death_concerns_about_safe_use_satelite_phones/24495230.html https://www.rferl.org/a/marie_colvin_death_concerns_about_sa...
extheat 5y ago
What would flooding requests to their IPs do? They're not hosting the internet.
- EE84M3i 5y ago
  Presumably if starlink users are accessing services over the internet, starlink has to peer with other ISPs somewhere. So the assumption is if you can fill up all the pipes where SpaceX peers to other networks, then Starlink is cut off from the internet.

gexla 5y ago

I wonder how hard it would be to hit them though. They don't have full control over the air. Su-35 aircraft have been getting shot down. Are they still firing cruise missiles? How accurate are they? If it were trivial to locate them and take them out, wouldn't they have done that already?

guywhocodes 5y ago
Their cruise missiles are generally inaccurate but it doesn't matter as they are almost all out.
- mushbino 5y ago
  What do you mean they're almost out? It sounds absurd they'd have such a small stockpile.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jorvi 5y ago
    The working theory is that massive corruption and yes-manning has led to Russia’s armed forces being a paper tiger. If someone at the top says “we need to restock 1000 additional cruise missiles”, then the person under that grifts a little and says “we need to stock 950 additional cruise missiles”, and you follow that down the chain, you might end up with 500 instead of 1000 missiles. Same would go for things like vehicle maintenance. And it might be more invisible too, like ordering cheap tires instead of quality one’s.
  - _ph_ 5y ago
    By all accounts, they are frequently running out of fuel. Which is the most basic, obvious, and also quite readily available in Russia. How bad can an invasion go if you run out of fuel on the way to your initial target? I have heard rumors, that some troups just sold off fuel on the black market before the invasion started. Whether that was just corruption or planned sabotage, no one of course knows.