This is beyond fail by the USAF....
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/exclusive-computer-virus-hits-drone-fleet.ars
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/exclusive-computer-virus-hits-drone-fleet.ars
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Predator and Reaper drones hit with computer virus.
- Thread starter Allen
- Start date
aeromed202
SOH-CM-2014
Were they the only ones on the planet who didn't see this coming?
"We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back," says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. "We think it's benign. But we just don't know."
Well, I'll give them half credit for being partially truthful.
"We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back," says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. "We think it's benign. But we just don't know."
Well, I'll give them half credit for being partially truthful.
Were they the only ones on the planet who didn't see this coming?
No. I saw it comming when the video if the UAV was cracked with off the shelf part that are less than 100 USD.
bearcat241
SOH-CM-2023
Interesting...this whole program seemed to me like a house of cards from the start. I've always anticipated that someone would eventually take the 'high-tech' approach and hack the satellite connections somehow.
I found this part of the article puzzling:
"The Air Force declined to comment directly on the virus. “We generally do not discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats, or responses to our computer networks, since that helps people looking to exploit or attack our systems to refine their approach,” says Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for Air Combat Command, which oversees the drones and all other Air Force tactical aircraft. “We invest a lot in protecting and monitoring our systems to counter threats and ensure security, which includes a comprehensive response to viruses, worms, and other malware we discover.”
Now, this policy makes perfect sense to me, so i'm curious, if they don't discuss these things publicly, how did this story make it to the general public and why? Are we looking at a classified information breach as well as a low-tech software compromise? The U.S. military and the media...strange bedfellows :mixedsmi:. Just how much sensitive information does the general public have the right to know?
I found this part of the article puzzling:
"The Air Force declined to comment directly on the virus. “We generally do not discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats, or responses to our computer networks, since that helps people looking to exploit or attack our systems to refine their approach,” says Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for Air Combat Command, which oversees the drones and all other Air Force tactical aircraft. “We invest a lot in protecting and monitoring our systems to counter threats and ensure security, which includes a comprehensive response to viruses, worms, and other malware we discover.”
Now, this policy makes perfect sense to me, so i'm curious, if they don't discuss these things publicly, how did this story make it to the general public and why? Are we looking at a classified information breach as well as a low-tech software compromise? The U.S. military and the media...strange bedfellows :mixedsmi:. Just how much sensitive information does the general public have the right to know?
Predator and Reaper drones hit with computer virus
If memory serves USAF suffered another blow in the fairly recent past when it was revealed evidence had been uncovered that terror groups had managed to access imagery feed from drone aircraft and store it. Turns out the feed from the drones, presumably up to the satellite plus back to local commanders directly using the imagery, had never been encrypted and so was available to anyone who happened to point a dish into the air in the vicinity of the aircraft. This is an inexpensive and elementary precaution and I can't understand why this action was never taken. In the current situation, if what we're hearing is true the technical competence of the system engineers should be examined, unless this story is part of a hoax to make someone think their efforts to hack the system have been successful. If the intruders think they can't have their virus removed they may not be working as hard as they could be on efforts to modify it to make it even more effective - plus this disinformation campaign could be giving USAF more time to study it to learn the virus's weaknesses. Practical experience in this line of work indicates these are definite possibilities. Plus, defense money is tight right now and this could be a ploy on the part of administrators to have USAF comptrollers and/or Congress cough up more funding for the program, for the REAL bells and whistles they want to add. There could be a real "Peyton Place" environment behind this rather simple announcement. Welcome to the wonderful world of intelligence analysis!
If memory serves USAF suffered another blow in the fairly recent past when it was revealed evidence had been uncovered that terror groups had managed to access imagery feed from drone aircraft and store it. Turns out the feed from the drones, presumably up to the satellite plus back to local commanders directly using the imagery, had never been encrypted and so was available to anyone who happened to point a dish into the air in the vicinity of the aircraft. This is an inexpensive and elementary precaution and I can't understand why this action was never taken. In the current situation, if what we're hearing is true the technical competence of the system engineers should be examined, unless this story is part of a hoax to make someone think their efforts to hack the system have been successful. If the intruders think they can't have their virus removed they may not be working as hard as they could be on efforts to modify it to make it even more effective - plus this disinformation campaign could be giving USAF more time to study it to learn the virus's weaknesses. Practical experience in this line of work indicates these are definite possibilities. Plus, defense money is tight right now and this could be a ploy on the part of administrators to have USAF comptrollers and/or Congress cough up more funding for the program, for the REAL bells and whistles they want to add. There could be a real "Peyton Place" environment behind this rather simple announcement. Welcome to the wonderful world of intelligence analysis!
... And that, my dear friends, is why I remain utterly sceptical about all of the announcements of the demise of manned combat aviation, or the future prospects of unmanned airliners...
Just imagine a future war, where the USAF (or any other involved force) would exclusively be using UAV's, only to find at the onset of the operations that the satellite connections have been cracked and their UAVs are suddenly on their way back... under new ownership. <.<
Just imagine a future war, where the USAF (or any other involved force) would exclusively be using UAV's, only to find at the onset of the operations that the satellite connections have been cracked and their UAVs are suddenly on their way back... under new ownership. <.<
Predator and Reaper drones hit with computer virus
You may be interested to hear that some high-ranking USMC general who has had some input into the specifications for the next generation of USAF long-range bombers (?) has been trying to convince USAF to go unmanned with the aircraft in an attempt to cut unit costs and thereby boost numbers - also, presumably, performance would be boosted due to the lack of bodies aboard the aircraft, thereby allowing them to perform maneuvers at a much higher g-loading. Don't know what's to power them, but if it's a long-range strike aircraft that brings up without question the absolute certainty of aerial refueling. Anyone want to fly an aerial bomb full of JP-8 or whatever in the vicinity of some winged robot that might get an electronic hiccup and decide to come up and give your tanker bird's belly a hug? What's going on here, as has been said, is an excellent argument for manned military flight, and this should quash the general's rather ridiculous position. If this can be done to a reconnaissance drone it's for sure it can be done to a pre-programmed - or remotely-controlled - strike aircraft that might pay a surprise return visit to its owners - or land abroad after being hijacked and present the new owner with platforms/technology they did not previously possess, not to mention the weapons aboard.
Also no mention has been made of the Navy's recent fiasco wherein their remotely-piloted (or possibly autonomously-controlled) surveillance/fire-control vehicle - similar to an unmanned helicopter, a small version of DASH (look that up) - undergoing flight test from Pax River strayed into restricted airspace in the DC capitol region and caused a major kerfuffle, failing to respond to ADC and ATC hailings, until control was regained at almost the last moment. RPV problems are not confined to the USAF.
Anyone remember the Luckup Aircraft Co's drone in "Deal of the Century"?
You may be interested to hear that some high-ranking USMC general who has had some input into the specifications for the next generation of USAF long-range bombers (?) has been trying to convince USAF to go unmanned with the aircraft in an attempt to cut unit costs and thereby boost numbers - also, presumably, performance would be boosted due to the lack of bodies aboard the aircraft, thereby allowing them to perform maneuvers at a much higher g-loading. Don't know what's to power them, but if it's a long-range strike aircraft that brings up without question the absolute certainty of aerial refueling. Anyone want to fly an aerial bomb full of JP-8 or whatever in the vicinity of some winged robot that might get an electronic hiccup and decide to come up and give your tanker bird's belly a hug? What's going on here, as has been said, is an excellent argument for manned military flight, and this should quash the general's rather ridiculous position. If this can be done to a reconnaissance drone it's for sure it can be done to a pre-programmed - or remotely-controlled - strike aircraft that might pay a surprise return visit to its owners - or land abroad after being hijacked and present the new owner with platforms/technology they did not previously possess, not to mention the weapons aboard.
Also no mention has been made of the Navy's recent fiasco wherein their remotely-piloted (or possibly autonomously-controlled) surveillance/fire-control vehicle - similar to an unmanned helicopter, a small version of DASH (look that up) - undergoing flight test from Pax River strayed into restricted airspace in the DC capitol region and caused a major kerfuffle, failing to respond to ADC and ATC hailings, until control was regained at almost the last moment. RPV problems are not confined to the USAF.
Anyone remember the Luckup Aircraft Co's drone in "Deal of the Century"?
Time for a follow up and it is big bomb of fail again...
"Officials at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada knew for two weeks about a virus infecting the drone “cockpits” there. But they kept the information about the infection to themselves—keeping the unit that’s supposed to serve as the Air Force’s cybersecurity specialists in the dark."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-dont-tell-drone-base-didnt-report-virus.ars
"Officials at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada knew for two weeks about a virus infecting the drone “cockpits” there. But they kept the information about the infection to themselves—keeping the unit that’s supposed to serve as the Air Force’s cybersecurity specialists in the dark."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...d-dont-tell-drone-base-didnt-report-virus.ars