5 ms·

Firstly, Starlink cables are 1 Gbps ethernet with PoE [1]. This means 53V DC power over thin twisted pair cables, after a few meters the voltage drops below 48V

Firstly, Starlink cables are 1 Gbps ethernet with PoE [1]. This means 53V DC power over thin twisted pair cables, after a few meters the voltage drops below 48V DC and the cables start showing up in infrared because they are heated by the electrical resistance. Standard Starlink cables can't reach further than +/- 30 meters reliably. Those 30 meters run to the wifi router where your power supply must be. You certainly can't be mobile anymore with this setup. We use optical fiber instead but this requires a very large, heavy and warm battery to stay very close to the Starlink dish while the operator can now be kilometers away. You can now disable the Starlink Wifi router but only if you patch the encrypted firmware and spoof the account credentials. SpaceX calls that illegal and will disable and brick your hardware as soon as they find out. Doing this extensive conversion is only for very capable hackers and has been done by only three people on our planet, as far as I am aware [2][3]. If you need similar patching and optical wireing, we will be happy to eductate you, for a small fee. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_over_Ethernet [2] https://hackaday.com/2023/08/31/diving-into-starlinks-user-terminal-firmware/ https://hackaday.com/2023/08/31/diving-into-starlinks-user-t... [3] https://www.wired.com/story/starlink-internet-dish-hack/ https://www.wired.com/story/starlink-internet-dish-hack/

inemesitaffia 3y ago
Use a Yaosheng injector
throwaway-571 3y ago
I’m surprised that opening the router and physically disabling the wifi antenna is not a solution. I would understand that running the router in a faraday cage is not viable as the ethernet cable has to get from the router to the dish.
- sneak 3y ago
  A faraday cage with a hole only big enough for an ethernet cable would almost certainly still block enough wifi that the signal would only be detectable for a few meters. Probably not very much would leak through the cable. It would be dwarfed by the emanations from the, you know, space transmitter co-located with it. Locating the dish isn’t the issue, the proposal was using fiber to make the dish (detectable) and the operator (vulnerable) separated by distance.
  - throwaway-571 3y ago
    They seemed to say that a special software hack was required to block the wifi, so i was wondering why the obvious physical hacks were not worth it.
    - morphle 3y ago
      There is more to it. For example, do you trust SpaceX to not relay your location to your enemy? Do you want to broadcast your identity at all if there can be a man-in-the-middle-attack? A dozen other reasons....
      - lxgr 3y ago
        If you don't, should you be using a highly directional (Starlink achieves the capacity it does through spatial reuse allowed by directional antennas on both ends, so the satellites do need to know where you are pretty precisely), proprietary-hardware-requiring, inherently authenticated (for billing purposes), and generally very civilian focused satellite service? A military service would probably use wider beams coming from the satellite, as well as different encryption (making it impossible to distinguish which terminal is being transmitted to on which beam and not using correlatable identifiers on unencrypted protocol layers at all). Using civilian communications technology like cell phones has been a bad idea, as evidenced in the same conflict.
        morphle 3y ago
        If you don't trust the software or the server, you can reflash the firmware and deploy the hardware in your own way, similar like we do with OpenWRT. Use Starlink dishes as phased array point to point links across 500 km without the v2 Satellites? There are 200 Ukrainian drone startups alone, many more in other countries. They all hack firmware. Hacker News readers should not be surprised.
        lxgr 3y ago
        The problem isn't the firmware, it's the protocol. If the protocol requires you to reveal your precise location to the network (so that satellite beams can correctly target you), how would you get around that using your own open firmware/hardware? The same goes for authentication using (potentially) long-term stable or even public identifiers, as is the case for e.g. the IMSI with GSM (not sure if later 3GPP generations finally fixed that): A GSM network won't let you attach without revealing your IMSI over the radio interface at least once. You can spoof it, but then you won't get any service. > Use Starlink dishes as phased array point to point links across 500 km without the v2 Satellites? That's a completely different scenario than the one we're talking about here ("why can't military users relatively easily put some distance between the Starlink terminal and its users in a warzone?"), and one which I'd assume the military to have existing solutions for.
- morphle 3y ago
  Indeed, the ethernet cable and connectors are antennes too.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    The entire terminal is one big antenna, by definition! Are Starlink terminals really directional enough for EMI from an Ethernet port to be a bigger omnidirectional concern than the many watts of power they transmit skywards as part of their normal operation?
    - morphle 3y ago
      Hundreds ro thousands of antennes, actually. Different wavelengths, infrared its already a target in a warzone. >10Ghz is another type receiver.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
This all just makes it clear that a military version of Starlink is needed, and that's what the DoD and others are building. I also think UWB radio is going to be big in the future for communicating with nearby devices in warzones.
- morphle 3y ago
  And lasers, both in space and in free space.
- lxgr 3y ago
  What makes UWB better positioned than other modulation/transmission technologies?
  - morphle 3y ago
    most receivers see it as white noise, if they don't know the timing
    - lxgr 3y ago
      Is that fundamentally different from e.g. CDMA using cryptographic spreading sequences, though? In the end, any sufficiently efficient signal is indistinguishable from noise to anybody but the intended receiver(s), no?
      - morphle 3y ago
        Yes fundamentally different[1]. There are dozens of implementations under the Ultra Wide Band definition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
        lxgr 3y ago
        Can you say how, specifically with regards to "receivers seeing it as white noise without knowing the timing"? As I understand it, the same is true for e.g. DSSS (for receivers not knowing the spreading code), and the primary advantage of UWB is its precise ranging capability (due to its ability to reject multipath propagation errors and the generally high bandwidth, yielding better spatial resolution).
nebula8804 3y ago
If I am following you correctly, disabling the wifi router is to avoid detection right? If so why not encase it an an RF pouch or RF shielding netting to block the signal?
- morphle 3y ago
  Yes, why not? Its not so simple You have to science the shit out of this - Mark Watney (The Martian)
- KarlKode 3y ago
  Doesn't the device need satellite connectivity?
tristanb 3y ago
Seems easy enough to work round. Just run a fibre optic cable to the operator
- morphle 3y ago
  Not entirely easy. SFPs and FPGA's need to be in the mix, software patches, power supplies, etc.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Why? Worst case, couldn't you put the Starlink terminal, router, power supply and all in position A, together with a (worst case) Wi-Fi to fiberoptic Ethernet bridge running to position B? The Starlink terminal is already a giant transmitter, after all.
    - morphle 3y ago
      You can loop the fiber to a far of location of the rest, no need to be point to point.
lxgr 3y ago
> You can now disable the Starlink Wifi router but only if you patch the encrypted firmware and spoof the account credentials. Isn't it possible out of the box these days in "bypass mode"? https://www.starlinkhardware.com/how-to-bypass-the-starlink-router/ https://www.starlinkhardware.com/how-to-bypass-the-starlink-...
- morphle 3y ago
  Depends on the version and revision and what you need to achieve, its is not only Wifi disabling.
  - CtrlAltmanDel 3y ago
    regular version, recent revision. disabling wifi is a checkbox on the phone app not """extensive conversion is only for very capable hackers and has been done by only three people on our planet"""
    - morphle 3y ago
      English is not my native language, you might have taken me too literally. You have to be a very capable hacker to modify all the different Starlink firmware of all the chips involved. There are dozens of reasons to do that, unrelated from disabling WiFi. And no, a GUI check box has little relation to what the hardware actually does.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        > There are dozens of reasons to do that, unrelated from disabling WiFi. You're moving goal posts now. If the stock firmware/software now allows disabling Wi-Fi, you don't need to hack the hardware. And if you can't trust the stock firmware, i.e. you have reason to assume that it's actively malicious (e.g. by turning the Wi-Fi back on randomly), how can you trust the hardware? Who's to say that it doesn't, e.g., have an undocumented transponder feature that replies to a specific type of interrogation?

inemesitaffia 3y ago

Use a Yaosheng injector

throwaway-571 3y ago

I’m surprised that opening the router and physically disabling the wifi antenna is not a solution. I would understand that running the router in a faraday cage is not viable as the ethernet cable has to get from the router to the dish.

sneak 3y ago
A faraday cage with a hole only big enough for an ethernet cable would almost certainly still block enough wifi that the signal would only be detectable for a few meters. Probably not very much would leak through the cable. It would be dwarfed by the emanations from the, you know, space transmitter co-located with it. Locating the dish isn’t the issue, the proposal was using fiber to make the dish (detectable) and the operator (vulnerable) separated by distance.
- throwaway-571 3y ago
  They seemed to say that a special software hack was required to block the wifi, so i was wondering why the obvious physical hacks were not worth it.
  - morphle 3y ago
    There is more to it. For example, do you trust SpaceX to not relay your location to your enemy? Do you want to broadcast your identity at all if there can be a man-in-the-middle-attack? A dozen other reasons....
    - lxgr 3y ago
      If you don't, should you be using a highly directional (Starlink achieves the capacity it does through spatial reuse allowed by directional antennas on both ends, so the satellites do need to know where you are pretty precisely), proprietary-hardware-requiring, inherently authenticated (for billing purposes), and generally very civilian focused satellite service? A military service would probably use wider beams coming from the satellite, as well as different encryption (making it impossible to distinguish which terminal is being transmitted to on which beam and not using correlatable identifiers on unencrypted protocol layers at all). Using civilian communications technology like cell phones has been a bad idea, as evidenced in the same conflict.
      - morphle 3y ago
        If you don't trust the software or the server, you can reflash the firmware and deploy the hardware in your own way, similar like we do with OpenWRT. Use Starlink dishes as phased array point to point links across 500 km without the v2 Satellites? There are 200 Ukrainian drone startups alone, many more in other countries. They all hack firmware. Hacker News readers should not be surprised.
        lxgr 3y ago
        The problem isn't the firmware, it's the protocol. If the protocol requires you to reveal your precise location to the network (so that satellite beams can correctly target you), how would you get around that using your own open firmware/hardware? The same goes for authentication using (potentially) long-term stable or even public identifiers, as is the case for e.g. the IMSI with GSM (not sure if later 3GPP generations finally fixed that): A GSM network won't let you attach without revealing your IMSI over the radio interface at least once. You can spoof it, but then you won't get any service. > Use Starlink dishes as phased array point to point links across 500 km without the v2 Satellites? That's a completely different scenario than the one we're talking about here ("why can't military users relatively easily put some distance between the Starlink terminal and its users in a warzone?"), and one which I'd assume the military to have existing solutions for.
morphle 3y ago
Indeed, the ethernet cable and connectors are antennes too.
- lxgr 3y ago
  The entire terminal is one big antenna, by definition! Are Starlink terminals really directional enough for EMI from an Ethernet port to be a bigger omnidirectional concern than the many watts of power they transmit skywards as part of their normal operation?
  - morphle 3y ago
    Hundreds ro thousands of antennes, actually. Different wavelengths, infrared its already a target in a warzone. >10Ghz is another type receiver.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

This all just makes it clear that a military version of Starlink is needed, and that's what the DoD and others are building. I also think UWB radio is going to be big in the future for communicating with nearby devices in warzones.

morphle 3y ago
And lasers, both in space and in free space.
lxgr 3y ago
What makes UWB better positioned than other modulation/transmission technologies?
- morphle 3y ago
  most receivers see it as white noise, if they don't know the timing
  - lxgr 3y ago
    Is that fundamentally different from e.g. CDMA using cryptographic spreading sequences, though? In the end, any sufficiently efficient signal is indistinguishable from noise to anybody but the intended receiver(s), no?
    - morphle 3y ago
      Yes fundamentally different[1]. There are dozens of implementations under the Ultra Wide Band definition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Can you say how, specifically with regards to "receivers seeing it as white noise without knowing the timing"? As I understand it, the same is true for e.g. DSSS (for receivers not knowing the spreading code), and the primary advantage of UWB is its precise ranging capability (due to its ability to reject multipath propagation errors and the generally high bandwidth, yielding better spatial resolution).

nebula8804 3y ago

If I am following you correctly, disabling the wifi router is to avoid detection right? If so why not encase it an an RF pouch or RF shielding netting to block the signal?

morphle 3y ago
Yes, why not? Its not so simple You have to science the shit out of this - Mark Watney (The Martian)
KarlKode 3y ago
Doesn't the device need satellite connectivity?

tristanb 3y ago

Seems easy enough to work round. Just run a fibre optic cable to the operator

morphle 3y ago
Not entirely easy. SFPs and FPGA's need to be in the mix, software patches, power supplies, etc.
- lxgr 3y ago
  Why? Worst case, couldn't you put the Starlink terminal, router, power supply and all in position A, together with a (worst case) Wi-Fi to fiberoptic Ethernet bridge running to position B? The Starlink terminal is already a giant transmitter, after all.
  - morphle 3y ago
    You can loop the fiber to a far of location of the rest, no need to be point to point.

lxgr 3y ago

> You can now disable the Starlink Wifi router but only if you patch the encrypted firmware and spoof the account credentials. Isn't it possible out of the box these days in "bypass mode"? https://www.starlinkhardware.com/how-to-bypass-the-starlink-router/ https://www.starlinkhardware.com/how-to-bypass-the-starlink-...

morphle 3y ago
Depends on the version and revision and what you need to achieve, its is not only Wifi disabling.
- CtrlAltmanDel 3y ago
  regular version, recent revision. disabling wifi is a checkbox on the phone app not """extensive conversion is only for very capable hackers and has been done by only three people on our planet"""
  - morphle 3y ago
    English is not my native language, you might have taken me too literally. You have to be a very capable hacker to modify all the different Starlink firmware of all the chips involved. There are dozens of reasons to do that, unrelated from disabling WiFi. And no, a GUI check box has little relation to what the hardware actually does.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      > There are dozens of reasons to do that, unrelated from disabling WiFi. You're moving goal posts now. If the stock firmware/software now allows disabling Wi-Fi, you don't need to hack the hardware. And if you can't trust the stock firmware, i.e. you have reason to assume that it's actively malicious (e.g. by turning the Wi-Fi back on randomly), how can you trust the hardware? Who's to say that it doesn't, e.g., have an undocumented transponder feature that replies to a specific type of interrogation?