12 ms·
Report: Iran Hacked, Hijacked U.S. Drone
- ck2 15y agoWhy not just EMP it to crash it and collect it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compres...
- rosser 15y agoBecause you want it intact, and don't want its circuitry cooked?
- jgrahamc 15y agoSo, they spoofed GPS and jammed the rest of the communications to make it land automatically. Given that there are test transmitters for GPS devices used when consumer devices are being created it's not a surprise that they managed to do this. Not very long ago there was a GPS jamming exercise in the UK done on a military range. I realize that as a Westerner I shouldn't be rooting for the Iranians but if they did spoof GPS, jam the rest of the communications and get this thing to land thinking it was at its home base then it's at least a neat hack. Also, in the article there's a quote from someone dissing the Iranians' technical ability. This seems like a mistake. Iran is not a 'stone age' country like Afghanistan.
- blhack 15y agoThe chances of this machine relying completely on GPS for navigation is closer to none than slim. I'm not saying the article is completely wrong, just that it's probably missing a giant part of what happened.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- jgrahamc 15y agoYou are likely correct. I doubt it relies on GPS for complete navigation, but it might rely on GPS to correct drift in an inertial system in which case if you spoofed GPS a little bit for a while (hours?) you might be able to trick the drone into thinking it was somewhere near where it should have been. Given that Iran and Afghanistan have a border and the Iranians say it was captured in the NE of Iran then it's not impossible that they simply managed to get it to drift off course into their territory and land.
- einhverfr 15y agoIf course it is missing a giant part of what happened. Do you think the Iranians would tell about all aspects of it to a newspaper?
- BrianLy 15y agoThere is some more information on GPS jamming at http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-GPS-Guided-Weps.html http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-GPS-Guided-Weps.html.
- johno215 15y agoHmm, the GPS signal the military uses is supposed to be encrypted and un-spoofable. I wonder if Iran cracked it. If so, can the US reset the key easily? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Precision_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals#Precision_code
- cr4zy 15y agoMaybe there's a safety fallback to normal GPS when the encrypted GPS goes out. The alternative would be no GPS at all in which case they'd need to send an actual human in to shoot it down or capture it.
- cameldrv 15y agoThe P code is on a different frequency, so the Iranians could have just jammed the P code, and then presumably the drone would rely on the the unencrypted C/A code which they spoofed.
- johno215 15y agoSigh.. I hope it was not that insecure.
- cameldrv 15y agoAll of the military GPS receivers also use the civilian signal to initialize their position to lock on to the military encrypted signal. I would assume that in the event that they lose the P code, that they would revert to the C/A code.
- johno215 15y agoStill a horrible security design if that is the case. Simply jamming something should not by-pass an authentication mechanism.
- stcredzero 15y agoIf a human being lost GPS signal, they'd start using landmarks, or based on their last known position, just use dead reckoning to get over friendly airspace, then ask for help. Programming that into a drone takes time and so costs money. Maybe the drone was the victim of cost cutting?
- gaius 15y agoNot very long ago there was a GPS jamming exercise in the UK done on a military range I am on The List for notification of these exercises, and they are happening with increasing frequency. Someone has decided that a GPS denial scenario is looking probable and is preparing accordingly.
- rbanffy 15y agoRelying on GPS or any external source of navigational data is risky. I cannot believe the vehicle didn't have working inertial navigation that would clearly indicate the GPS was off by quite a lot. Simple rule - if you have no contact with home and your GPS says you are a couple hundred miles away from where your inertial navigation, your compass and all visual cues (if cruise missiles have it, so should this bird) tell you should be, something is definitely fishy and you should self destruct. Spoofing GPS signals is an interesting idea, but falling for them continues to be unacceptable for a UAV full of very sensitive information.
- andrewcooke 15y agoi am also confused about the emphasis on GPS (see my comment), but i would guess that restricting the technology used in these things keeps the price down. GPS is good enough to label images, and probably good enough to guide something flying at a moderate altitude. it may have made more sense to keep these things (relatively) cheap (that also means if they are lost, there is less technology lost too).
- caudicus 15y agoIt's probably just "failure of imagination" in preventing this hack - inertial navigation tech isn't exactly new (was pioneered in WWII and really came to age building ballistic missile navigation systems) so I doubt cost/classified technology would be a factor. It's just sad because having an intertial navigation system and a GPS system working to agree with each other or else some fallback (inertial homeward bound since that's an internal system, your accuracy would be off but it'd get back to friendly territory at least) would have prevented an attack like this (I believe at least - please tell me if I'm wrong). Found this through a quick Google search - "DIY drones" http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/autopilot-system-for-full-inertial-guidance-and-platform http://diydrones.com/forum/topics/autopilot-system-for-full-... I'm not sure what hardware in the system is really making the Iranian's mouths water - obviously the stealth tech has to have a great monetary and military value...I wonder how much the internals of this system compare to a predator drone that they already have captured many of as the article stated.
- andrewcooke 15y agothis sounds odd. other reports said that the final landing for these drones is done with a local, direct link (which was a possible candidate for how it was hacked), but this article implies (if i am reading it right) that by faking GPS it was misled into thinking it was landing in its normal place. also, in the linked article it says that the underbelly was damaged because the altitudes differed by a few metres, but gps doesn't offer that kind of vertical resolution (as far as i know, particularly not from something that cannot sit in one place and integrate over time. this is (partly) why GPS is not used for landing - it's simply not precise enough). perhaps the gps was spoofed, but it was only part of something more complex? like enabling the radio control for landing because the drone thought it was near the airfield? [edit] this seems to be the original source that mentions direct landing control, although i've never seen that site before (am pretty sure i read it on the bbc or guardian): http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/12/how-iran-probably-acquired-a-stealth-drone.html http://www.moonofalabama.org/2011/12/how-iran-probably-acqui...
- marshray 15y agoSome of the speculation I've heard is that these drones have an auto-return-and-land mode that could be triggered by successfully jamming the communications links. It may be that the auto-land was designed with the hope that the legitimate operator would take over with a direct control when then drone got close enough to home base. It may be that the thing wasn't really able to make a completely graceful landing on its own. Sounds plausible to me. Russian-made GPS jammers have been reportedly on the market for over a decade now. Alternatively, it might also be enough to simply fly your own plane and GPS receiver some relative distance away from the drone and rebroadcast the signals received from there with a higher strength. Of course, this type of forwarding attack could end up with the Iranians landing a plane of their own at the US base. That would be bonus points for style. :-)
- harichinnan 15y agoThis is the joke of the century. LOL
- sehugg 15y agoOne American analyst ridiculed Iran’s capability, telling Defense News that the loss was “like dropping a Ferrari into an ox-cart technology culture.” An ox-cart technology culture that is allied with China and Russia. I hope this kind of hubris is counterbalanced by more realistic attitudes in the defense world.
- marshray 15y agoWasn't OXCART the code word for the 60's spy plane program that operated the U-2 and SR-71? Hmmm... http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html
- anigbrowl 15y agoExcellent catch, and linkage. Thanks.
- 46Bit 15y agoIndeed. It seems to me that even if Iran fails to get much useful out of it, there'll be buyers queuing up for it ready to pay anything.
- MichaelApproved 15y agoPayment would be in the form of alliances and protection from US aggression.
- azernik 15y agoI wouldn't downplay Iran's technological capability as this anonymous analyst seems to. By Middle Eastern (and developing world) standards, it's a fairly technologically advanced society - GDP per capita 4 times that of Egypt, 3 times that of Iraq - and this is a country where (unlike, say, Iraq in the 80s or Syria in the 2000s) its nuclear development program and missiles are indigenous. That said, I'm sure China and Russia would also pay very well in both cash and political favors to get a look at the drone, which might end up being more worthwhile to the Iranians than pulling it apart themselves.
- SriniK 15y agoThis page 2 comment is making me not believe what I am reading. Data stream is not encrypted? Can anyone confirm? The US military has reportedly been aware of vulnerabilities with pirating unencrypted drone data streams since the Bosnia campaign in the mid-1990s. Top US officials said in 2009 that they were working to encrypt all drone data streams in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – after finding militant laptops loaded with days' worth of data in Iraq – and acknowledged that they were "subject to listening and exploitation." edit: fixed the format
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- kristofferR 15y agohttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/predator-drones-use-less-encryption-than-your-tv.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/predator-dro...
- SriniK 15y agoThanks for the link. Wow, I am surprised they didn't fix it so far.
- tantalor 15y agoI thought that the "unencrypted data streams" was video channel, not the control channel. Is that not true?
- randomtyler 15y agoYou are correct. As far as we know, the "unencrypted data" was just video, NOT control codes.
- blhack 15y ago(Prelude edit: A few people seem to be missing the point I'm making here. I know quite a lot about the predator, and a bit about the Global Hawk. I do not know much about the Sentinel. The jab about building a drone with parts on my kitchen table is a joke, meant to illustrate that this is either an absurd level of incompetence on the part of Lockheed Martin [not likely] or the article is incorrect, the latter being most likely. The Global Hawk, for instance, uses inertial navigation as well as GPS. Spoofing GPS against that platform would be annoying to the people controlling it, it would not get you a free Global Hawk. It is a near-certainty that the Sentinel has a similar navigation system.). Some clarification on these drones: Some of them require a human being with Line Of Sight to land them. "Predators" (what a lovely name), for instance. This thing is basically a gigantic R/C plane, and a pretty nice one at that. You taxi it to the runway, take it off, and fly it via remote control. There is a human watching it the entire time (although the human may not be in close proximity to the plane. The militarized versions, for instance, have pilots living in Nevada, and planes living in Afghanistan). Another plane, called a "Global Hawk", is much larger, and requires almost no human intervention at all. You open the hanger door, press the go button, and then leave it alone. It taxis itself to the runway, powers up, takes off, flies its mission, comes home, lands, taxis back to the hanger, and powers down. If this article is accurate, it would mean that this drone model requires no human intervention, which makes sense if it's primarily a passive, camera-platform. What becomes really really scary about this is the idea that they're relying solely on GPS to fly. How do I get into defense contracting, again? I have the parts for a "drone" sitting on my kitchen table right now that, from the sound of things, is about navigationally equivalent to this thing. (By that I mean a $30 'duino, $50 worth of gyros and accelerometers, and $60 worth of a GPS. Hey government, here's a cost cutting measure: hire me to build you some drones.)
- jsiarto 15y agoExactly! Building GPS-guided RC drones is actually WAY simpler than most people realize (relatively). See: http://www.openpilot.org/ http://www.openpilot.org/, http://www.kkmulticopter.kr/ http://www.kkmulticopter.kr/
- nosequel 15y agoI won't comment on the UAV in the article, but you'd have to be a pretty wealthy person and have some really weird stuff on your kitchen table to have what is on the global hawk. I won't comment on specifics, but there is nothing simple about its gps and inertial navigation systems. Your categorization of UAV's was fairly simplistic and there are many more categories than two. The Global Hawk is a much more expensive aircraft than the RQ-170 and is in a completely different category of aircraft. What happen to RQ-170 could not be done to the Global Hawk with they way its navigation works. I don't want people thinking that autonomous aircraft are some simple thing that anyone can do. If that was the case, other countries would make them instead of buying them from the US. Good luck making a laser ring gyro with a walk of < .002 deg/hr for $50 (or even $20,000) http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/MilitaryAC/HG9900_IMU.pdf http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospace...
- daenz 15y agoJust throwing this out there, maybe the drone was intended to be caught as part of another kind of intelligence gathering operation. It's easy to blame this on incompetence, but the other angle is that the drone being caught was made to look like an accident in order to collect intelligence (gps, audio, etc) from wherever the Iranians took it, and this data could be offloaded to someone that could gain access to the drone. Just a possibility.
- thematt 15y agoI've heard that suggested before, but it's probably in a warehouse on some military base being examined. It's unlikely we'd gain any valuable intelligence from the environment they bring it to. It's not like they're going to park it in their nuclear facility to do the dissection.
- alphaBetaGamma 15y agoThat does not seem plausible. But there is the possibility that this is a clever ploy to give erroneous technology to Russian and China...
- marshray 15y agoOr they could have its storage seeded with misinformation, or information that tricks those who obtain it into leaking information of their own. For example: http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/4/2537647/darpa-fake-documents-security-wikileaks http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/4/2537647/darpa-fake-documen... But it seems more likely that they really didn't intend to lose the thing in one piece like that.
- smackfu 15y agoI don't quite understand how CS Monitor can vet any source inside the Iranian government as being non propaganda.
- marshray 15y agoIt may be propaganda, but it also has some plain technical claims that may be independently verifiable.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- grecy 15y agoLets flip the tables here and imagine Iran is flying surveillance drones over mainland USA, gathering photos and who knows what else. Would it be unreasonable to think the USA would try with everything they've got to shoot them down and/or capture them? Who would be the bad guy in that scenario? I find it amusing nobody has thought to question what right the US have to fly a surveillance drone over Iran to spy on the country/people. Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear if you choose to cross a well established border and put something in my country without my permission, for the express purpose of spying on me, you better know I'm going to try hard to capture it as my own. Is it even "legal" for the US to be doing this? Who judges who can spy on who, and who is the "bad" guy when one side captures gear from the other side?
- brown9-2 15y agoI don't see anyone saying that what Iran did is wrong, do you? It seems that prevention is expected. The secret of international law is that it doesn't really exist. Or that the "law' in "international law" does not mean the same meaning as the "domestic law" within a country's borders. All you have are agreements between countries but with no true external body that can enforce penalties or punishments without the threat of war. So what happens is that the most powerful win arguments.
- grecy 15y agoYou are correct in that this (and many other related articles) are not directly saying what Iran did is wrong... however, I feel the general tone and overall implication is that Iran have "taken" a drone that doesn't belong to them, and clearly are not about to give it back. So as you say, "law" doesn't really apply, it's more of a moral decision as to whether a country should spy on another country. We can clearly see the outcome of that decision here.
- thesis 15y agoWhat's your point? Do you think Iran doesn't have spies?
- danielschonfeld 15y agoI don't get it. With a budget of millions for these UAVs was it so hard to fit the thing with an IRS unit, or even an older INS unit to augment the GPS? Then one could add a single if statement checking if the GPS location has diverged greatly from where it was in the last NMEA statement? What am I missing here???
- littlebird 15y agoIt no doubt has an EGI - a combined GPS INS. It will depend entirely on the software interpreting that data.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- DrCatbox 15y agoIt is suprising that many americans, for the lack of a better term, seem to be "butthurt" over this event. Look at this news on reddit for example, first it was ridiculed, and speculation was high that it might have been a crash or accident, that the Iranians had luck, and that it in fact never happened, just propaganda. Then the Iranians showed it, and many comments said "its old tech any way". Why the butthurtness? And now, "the takeover wasnt so high tech anyway".
- gk1 15y agoSome people on Reddit != All of Reddit. Reddit != America.
- dekz 15y agoThe OP was clearly describing the hive-mind of reddit, which does in fact follow American ideologies due to the overwhelming number of Americans who do use it.
- rdtsc 15y agoHowever at the same time a lot of them claim to be critical of US govt's policies on war, drones, extra-judicial killings and so on. All that taken into account is surprising that they as a group would rush to discredit Iranians' capability and ridicule this situation. It is interesting that they are essentially playing along to the US govt. propaganda. The govt. knew what had happened but lied, telling the media a malfunction occurred, and the drone 'drifted' randomly into Iranian territory. I expected them to lie and make shit up. That's fine. But is is interesting that groups liberals are also doing that, without being coerced or forced to do so. It illustrates an interesting process that happens were supposedly fairly liberal individuals still end up White House lapdogs without even realizing it. It is also funny how after more evidence comes out, neither the media, nor say, Redditors, go back and admit their previous mistake, instead the strategy moves to "ridicule".
- trotsky 15y ago
- JL2010 15y agoChristian Science Monitor: is this a reputable source known for good journalism?
- simonsarris 15y agoIn spite of the title - Yes. It's a very well written newspaper that I've been reading my whole life. (My father used to make us read it to him on the way to school even...) They are well known for being anti-sensationalism. The religion bit has no bearing on the paper except that an article on religion must be in every issue, but they don't attempt to advance/preach the christian scientist faith in any way.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoI too have been skeptical of this publication. Others have told me that despite the name, it is quite good. The title is more meant to be "The Monitor" but it is owned by the Christian Science church. That is why the domain is csmonitor. Their FAQ page also says: "Is the Monitor a religious publication? No, it’s a real news organization owned by a church – The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., USA. Everything in the Monitor is international and US news and features, except for one religious article in the weekly magazine and Daily News Briefing – a version of which has appeared each day since 1908, at the request of the Monitor’s founder, Mary Baker Eddy. In an age of corporate conglomerates dominating the news media, the Monitor’s combination of church ownership, public-service mission, and commitment to covering the world (not to mention the fact that it was founded by a woman shortly after the turn of the 20th century, when US women didn’t yet have the vote!) gives the Monitor a uniquely independent voice in journalism."
- joejohnson 15y agoYes. CSM is actually a very good newspaper.
- Kroem3r 15y agoYes it is. It is one of the best US papers and is read internationally. It doesn't have an agenda, but is a little conservative. In other words, the traditional values of journalism are still held there - like breaking stories and original research and writing. I think importance of web-publishing there, and its success, is fascinating.
- guscost 15y agoIf this is indeed a problem, just put a secure QR code on every runway. Easy enough. HEY ECHELON
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- MichaelApproved 15y agoThis is what the US congress should be investigating instead of passing bills that have no chance of becoming law or reaffirming "in god we trust".
- nvk 15y agoMeh, seems very simple to me (after some research). Allow me to speculate. - American Drone was destroyed with a hack tentative - Iran built a replica for internal advertising of nationalism and for international press - America won't comment and say it was a replica because it needs all the uneducated "Right" to believe Iran has some "power" so there is a reason to invade. Come on haven't you guys seeing this movie before?? (updated for format)
- Aloisius 15y agoI for one welcome the next generation GPS satellites that the military will no doubt now put up. Edit: It appears the first GPS III satellite will be launched in 2014.
- presidentender 15y agoIn the early to mid 2000s, the US rendered military aid to Georgia, in both training and equipment. This included unmanned aircraft. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, and presumably captured some of those aircraft. No security system should rely on the secrecy of its function, but in practice, many do. If any agency in the world can break the security of US UAVs, it'd be Russia. Remind me again how the Russians and Iranians get along?
- whatgoodisaroad 15y agoCorrection, in 2008, Russia invaded PART of Georgia. If my memory serves, they only invaded as far as one military base, and that only temporary.
- davnola 15y agoNo, the Russians occupied several Georgian cities, including Poti, Gori, Senakie, and Zugdidi.
- einhverfr 15y agoEvery security system relies on some secrecy to function. For example, we keep passwords and private keys secret for a reason. The question is what pieces should be kept secret. Biometrics has a pretty impressive false positive rate, so are generally considered the weakest form of strong security. But this then brings one to the heart of the problem.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- slug 15y agoIt almost seems that someone read my comment here on HN a few days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3330669 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3330669
- robk 15y agoThis all seems really fishy. You'd think if this was really top-secret level equipment, there would be several failsafes and an inevitable self-destruct mechanism in the event it was out of contact enough to reasonably assume capture. The fact it's wholly intact makes me wonder if it's some sort of honeypot.
- grandalf 15y agoThere is a campaign underway to raise funding for the next round of drone development. These stories are hitting the press to help drum up support for spending on drone R&D and production. There are also stories that are intended to pave the way for drones being used on American soil.
- feralchimp 15y agoTis the season for peace on Earth, or at least some good sportsmanship. If they hacked it as described, the engineers who pulled it off deserve our congratulations on a hack well played. If it's all some elaborate ruse for the sake of internal PR, well, good to know those exist outside the U.S. also. :)
- mikescar 15y ago> “We have a project on hand that is one step ahead of jamming, meaning ‘deception’ of the aggressive systems,” said Gholizadeh, such that “we can define our own desired information for it so the path of the missile would change to our desired destination.” The thought of this leads to some conspiratorial thoughts: from various sources, we might know where a missile originated from, but who knows what might happen to it during flight?
- JabavuAdams 15y agoWhy is it unpainted?
- rajpaul 15y agoI've seen a lot of these drone stories and discussion threads. The most interesting thing about them is the assumption that America has the right to violate other countries territory.