US Air Force Drones using unencrypted transmissions.

[Demetrious]

Although the U.S. military stateside can direct a drone aircraft halfway around the world to deliver bombs mostly on highly specific targets in Iraq, the Pentagon acknowledged in December that even after six years of war, its signals to the drone are still not encrypted. Thus, Iraqi insurgents can pinpoint drone locations merely by using ordinary computer programs like SkyGrabber, which is widely available from software retailers for about $25. U.S. officials admitted that the software could make it easier for insurgents to anticipate the timing and location of attacks. [Wall Street Journal, 12-17-09]

Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to be dangerous for blundering insurgents. In January, 14 suspected Taliban terrorists accidentally blew themselves up in Kunduz province while riding a bus carrying bombs to an intended target. And in Karachi, Pakistan, two days later, eight suspected terrorists accidentally blew themselves up while handling bombs in their "safe house." [CNN, 1-6-10] [Voice of America News-AP, 1-8-10]

This whole thing just leaves me speechless. Unencrypted transmissions mean that our own drones would be nigh useless against any enemy with even minimal electronic warfare capacity- and if they had good capacity, they could potentially hijack our own drones, or do any number of nasty things to them.

Of course, we're not exactly fighting braniac, as the second anecdote shows, so hey.

Source: http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html

[AKHog]

Just because they are "unencrypted" does not mean an enemy with "minimal electronic warfare capacity" will be able to do anything about them. There are many applications were technically 'unencrypted' signals are still very secure. There is a lot more going on than simply 'unencrypted' or 'encrypted'.

The enemy would have to spend considerable time and money (that they don't have) to develop a system that would even be able to make meaning out of a signal interception, much less disrupt a mission.

They have had better success simply shooting at the drones with their ak's.

And this is old news. Use the search feature, there have been at least 2 or 3 other threads started on the same topic.

[Fishu]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,280381.0.html

[Demetrious]

They have had better success simply shooting at the drones with their ak's.

Yes, because referring to an enemy with a "minimal electronic warfare capacity" is clearly a reference to people hiding in caves using 40 year old rifles. 

And this is old news. Use the search feature, there have been at least 2 or 3 other threads started on the same topic.

It was in last week's News of the Weird, and it's Monday. I didn't think "four or five days ago" was "old news," and this board doesn't move fast enough to push something from a few days ago off the front page (where I didn't see it.)

[ZetaNine]

Of course, we're not exactly fighting braniac, as the second anecdote shows, so hey.

Source: http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html

I saw this last week and was as amazed by this as everyone else is.

regarding "braniac".  do not underestimate al queda. ever.  lest we forget........these people blew up a chuck of the Pentagon, knocked multiple planes out of the sky, dropped both world trade center buildings, and killed 3000 innocent people.........all in less less than two hours.......and they did all this with a few carpet knives.

[Babalonian]

Yeah I read about this a few weeks ago.  Primarily what isn't encripted on our UAVs is the camera feeds from the drone back to base.  All other transmitions to the craft are encrypted via standard military encryptions and what not.  Still intercepting the camera feed can be quite useful to insurgents and upsets me a bit too.  Hookup an insurgent that may be familiar with the local terrain features with enough tech to be able to watch the feed for a minute or two and conclude from that where the drone is operating, and the mission is compromised.

On another note with this, probabley the easiest thing to compare it to, is robbers "thrwarting" cops by listening to the police dispatch radio frequencies.  It gives them a leg up, sure, maybe even will let them get away one day, but you can't keep running forever, sooner than latter the law catches up with them anyways. 

[Vulcan]

Just because they are "unencrypted" does not mean an enemy with "minimal electronic warfare capacity" will be able to do anything about them. There are many applications were technically 'unencrypted' signals are still very secure. There is a lot more going on than simply 'unencrypted' or 'encrypted'.

The enemy would have to spend considerable time and money (that they don't have) to develop a system that would even be able to make meaning out of a signal interception, much less disrupt a mission.

Yes it takes a satellite modem and a $25 program from russian you can buy over the internet.

So you are quite and totally incorrect. It HAS been done with a minimal investment in equipment and software, spending very little time and money. The signals have been intercepted. If you take time to read what happened you'll note that laptops were captured from 'insurgents' that had video streams that were captured and recorded, not only of US reconnaissance of enemy positions but of feeds showing US assets (ie bases) that no doubt is significant in its worth to the bad guys.