4 ms·

Looks like a marketing stunt. Not much details available online but I found this: https://www.spacesecurity.info/thales-demo-at-cysat-what-was-the-point-again/

Looks like a marketing stunt. Not much details available online but I found this: https://www.spacesecurity.info/thales-demo-at-cysat-what-was-the-point-again/ https://www.spacesecurity.info/thales-demo-at-cysat-what-was... It looks like that they didn't do a hack of the ground station, or anything like a radio signal hack. My understanding is that ops-lab is like a kind of "SDK", and so they had allowed access to this special satellite that is a kind of shared projects machine, like a mainframe or a virtual machine host. So, basically they did a chroot escape. The computer being a satellite instead something else is just a detail. They did not hack to get a remote access.

rzimmerman 3y ago
I hate being a critic when someone actually does something, but I have a lot of trouble justifying the effort on this one as well. It seems like the mission did a great job of checking off some ESA goals. I'm skeptical these tasks were actually useful. A lot of these things don't need to be demonstrated. Using an outdated linux kernel or OS image is going to be vulnerable if you have direct access to the machine. Security here comes in layers (encrypted links, being judicious about what changes persist through resets, good+signed firmware that won't let you break things). Saying "don't forget about the OS" doesn't need a multi-million euro endeavor. It's also a bit frustrating because (assuming it is a useful exercise) there are plenty of private companies that could have built this for ESA much more quickly and cheaply. Planet and Spire could have dedicated or loaned out one of their satellites. Starlink certainly has spares and coverage. I suppose these companies are US-based, so it wouldn't help develop ESA capabilities. Feels a little like a handout to Thales. It's neat that I can borrow a satellite to train a neural net, but is it useful? And if it is, do I need a demo to prove it's possible?

rzimmerman 3y ago

I hate being a critic when someone actually does something, but I have a lot of trouble justifying the effort on this one as well. It seems like the mission did a great job of checking off some ESA goals. I'm skeptical these tasks were actually useful. A lot of these things don't need to be demonstrated. Using an outdated linux kernel or OS image is going to be vulnerable if you have direct access to the machine. Security here comes in layers (encrypted links, being judicious about what changes persist through resets, good+signed firmware that won't let you break things). Saying "don't forget about the OS" doesn't need a multi-million euro endeavor. It's also a bit frustrating because (assuming it is a useful exercise) there are plenty of private companies that could have built this for ESA much more quickly and cheaply. Planet and Spire could have dedicated or loaned out one of their satellites. Starlink certainly has spares and coverage. I suppose these companies are US-based, so it wouldn't help develop ESA capabilities. Feels a little like a handout to Thales. It's neat that I can borrow a satellite to train a neural net, but is it useful? And if it is, do I need a demo to prove it's possible?