Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2614 > unrolled thread

Secure comms over ham radio?

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Secure comms over ham radio? RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-02 20:17 +0000
    Re: Secure comms over ham radio? john <nospam@no.net> - 2014-05-02 12:46 -0800
      Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-02 21:02 +0000
        Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-03 08:02 +0100
        Re: Secure comms over ham radio? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-04 21:33 +0000
          Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-05 15:22 -0700
            Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-06 07:51 +0100
              Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 03:18 -0700
                Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-06 11:51 +0100
                  Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-05-06 16:09 +0100
                    Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-05-06 21:49 +0000
                      Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> - 2014-05-08 16:12 +0200
                  Re: Secure comms over ham radio? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-06 16:43 +0000
                    Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-05-06 18:00 +0100
                    Re: Secure comms over ham radio? Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-06 17:02 +0000
                      Re: Secure comms over ham radio? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-06 18:41 +0000
        Re: Secure comms over ham radio? john <nospam@no.net> - 2014-05-07 14:09 -0800
      Re: Secure comms over ham radio? john <nospam@no.net> - 2014-05-07 14:08 -0800

#2614 — Secure comms over ham radio?

From the «dot-dash-dot» department:
Title: Anonymous develops system for secure data over ham radio
Author: Anonymous Coward
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:15:18 -0400
Link: http://pipedot.org/story/2014-05-02/anonymous-develops-system-for-secure-data-over-ham-radio

In the Snowden era, it's pretty clear that the Internet as a worldwide
communication medium that would permit activists to securely communicate and
disseminate information has not been effective: governments appear to be
surprisingly and increasingly effective[1] at clamping down on, censoring,
controlling Internet information as well as using it to track down
dissidents. Mobile telephony isn't much better as it's a related technology
that suffers many of the same ills as TCP/IP with regard to anonymity. So the
privacy gurus are turning to a technology you'd probably forgotten: Ham Radio[2]
.Airchat, they call it, and it's got a few characteristics that make it very
interesting and useful[3] . The group states:

The goal of the project is to communicate directly, without using Internet
or cellular infrastructure. ... We traded bandwidth for freedom, simplicity
and low cost.

It's not a fast protocol, since packet data over audio channels is
necessarily low bandwidth. But its promise to offer real anonymity is a big
deal. And not surprisingly, these enterprising hackers are having fun with
it. For starters, to anonymise communications and handle encryption and error
correction, the system uses a packet they call the Lulzpacket .Curious? go
check out the code for yourself on github[4] .

Links:
[1]: http://dictatorshandbook.net (link)
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio (link)
[3]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/01/anonymous_to_world_go_pirate_radio_for_datacomms/ (link)
[4]: https://github.com/lulzlabs/AirChat/blob/master/README.md (link)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2617

FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one exception 
is RC airplane control)

I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start 
something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms 
to connect house to house.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2618

john <nospam@no.net> wrote:
> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one exception 
> is RC airplane control)
> 
> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start 
> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms 
> to connect house to house.

Actually aircraft control signals are not to be encrypted.  The only
allowed use of encryption in amateur radio is for spacecraft control.

While it isn't illegal to publish the code it would be illegal to use
encryption on the air.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2620

On 2014-05-02 22:02, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> john <nospam@no.net> wrote:
>> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one exception 
>> is RC airplane control)
>>
>> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start 
>> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms 
>> to connect house to house.
> 
> Actually aircraft control signals are not to be encrypted.  The only
> allowed use of encryption in amateur radio is for spacecraft control.
> 
> While it isn't illegal to publish the code it would be illegal to use
> encryption on the air.

And everything the NSA and GCHQ do (to us, in our names, using our
money) is entirely legal?

Sauce for the goose...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2622

On 2014-05-02, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> john <nospam@no.net> wrote:
>> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one exception 
>> is RC airplane control)
>> 
>> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start 
>> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms 
>> to connect house to house.
>
> Actually aircraft control signals are not to be encrypted.  The only
> allowed use of encryption in amateur radio is for spacecraft control.
>
> While it isn't illegal to publish the code it would be illegal to use
> encryption on the air.

Looking at the article, it seems they know it's illegal, but if you're a
dissident in - say - Syria, that's the least of your problems if you
need to get a message out.  Something like that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2641

On 2014-05-04 21:33:48 +0000, RS Wood said:

> On 2014-05-02, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> john <nospam@no.net> wrote:
>>> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one exception
>>> is RC airplane control)
>>> 
>>> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start
>>> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms
>>> to connect house to house.
>> 
>> Actually aircraft control signals are not to be encrypted.  The only
>> allowed use of encryption in amateur radio is for spacecraft control.
>> 
>> While it isn't illegal to publish the code it would be illegal to use
>> encryption on the air.
> 
> Looking at the article, it seems they know it's illegal, but if you're a
> dissident in - say - Syria, that's the least of your problems if you
> need to get a message out.  Something like that.

Seems like there are better ways to come up with secure communications 
using already existing and compatible modes.  CW and one time pads are 
still the best after all these years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2643

On 2014-05-05 23:22, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2014-05-04 21:33:48 +0000, RS Wood said:
>> Looking at the article, it seems they know it's illegal, but if you're a
>> dissident in - say - Syria, that's the least of your problems if you
>> need to get a message out.  Something like that.

Syria may be a poor example. Many of the genuine "dissidents" in Syria
have aligned themselves with Assad because the "dissidents" which the
US, UK and Saudi Arabia have been sponsoring are a mix of
fundamantalists, butchers and cannibals.

> Seems like there are better ways to come up with secure communications
> using already existing and compatible modes.  CW and one time pads are
> still the best after all these years.

That method relies on individuals learning CW. Today's revolutionaries
could be encouraged by an alternative more along the lines outlined.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2644

On 2014-05-06 06:51:17 +0000, Hils said:

> On 2014-05-05 23:22, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> On 2014-05-04 21:33:48 +0000, RS Wood said:
>>> Looking at the article, it seems they know it's illegal, but if you're a
>>> dissident in - say - Syria, that's the least of your problems if you
>>> need to get a message out.  Something like that.
> 
> Syria may be a poor example. Many of the genuine "dissidents" in Syria
> have aligned themselves with Assad because the "dissidents" which the
> US, UK and Saudi Arabia have been sponsoring are a mix of
> fundamantalists, butchers and cannibals.
> 
>> Seems like there are better ways to come up with secure communications
>> using already existing and compatible modes.  CW and one time pads are
>> still the best after all these years.
> 
> That method relies on individuals learning CW. Today's revolutionaries
> could be encouraged by an alternative more along the lines outlined.

The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate to 
say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?

It's not easy but if they are serious they can practically learn to fly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2645

On 2014-05-06 11:18, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate
> to say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?

I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to exclude
people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a good deal
of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do their
communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2649

On 2014-05-06, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 11:18, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate
>> to say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?
>
> I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to
> exclude people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a
> good deal of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do
> their communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)

WiFi-enabled smartphones have already been used to create ad hoc
unofficial networks.  Hardware hackers have been extending the range of
802.11 type 'access points' for years.  MicroSD cards must be very easy
to smuggle across borders.  We can move information much faster, and in
vastly greater volume, than ever before - and at less risk to the people
concerned too.

But that's no reason not to maintain older skills as well.  Governments
may yet regret telling their soldiers and spies to forget morse code and
semaphore and signal flags and so on.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2664

Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> On 2014-05-06 11:18, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>> The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate
>>> to say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?
>> 
>> I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to
>> exclude people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a
>> good deal of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do
>> their communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)
> 
> WiFi-enabled smartphones have already been used to create ad hoc
> unofficial networks.  Hardware hackers have been extending the range of
> 802.11 type 'access points' for years.  MicroSD cards must be very easy
> to smuggle across borders.  We can move information much faster, and in
> vastly greater volume, than ever before - and at less risk to the people
> concerned too.
> 
> But that's no reason not to maintain older skills as well.  Governments
> may yet regret telling their soldiers and spies to forget morse code and
> semaphore and signal flags and so on.


Smuggling SD cards and chain-linking many short range consumer wireless
devices.  While this may work to some degree, I would hardly say that it is
less risky than CW / OTP.  Of course you move less data over the radio
pounding a key, compared to the consumer wireless gadgets, but the
equipment can be made at home, the emissions are less likely to be jammed,
and the range is hundreds to thousands of km.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2699

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> writes:
> Smuggling SD cards and chain-linking many short range consumer wireless
> devices.  While this may work to some degree, I would hardly say that it is
> less risky than CW / OTP.

Reading this thread and the previous on mesh networking, I can't help
but think of the short story _Unwirer_ by Charles Stross and Cory
Doctorow (published in Stross's anthology _Wireless_ and available
online in bits and pieces).

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des@des.no

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2653

On 2014-05-06, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 11:18, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate
>> to say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?
>
> I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to
> exclude people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a
> good deal of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do
> their communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)

Help me with some remedial acronyms?  I don't recognize either CW or
OTP.  Best I could do with DuckDuckGo was continuous wave pulse and
over-temperature protection.  ?!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2654

On 2014-05-06 17:43, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-05-06, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> On 2014-05-06 11:18, Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>> The poor, poor folks who can't even be bothered to learn CW.  I hate
>>> to say it but if they can't do that, what can they do?
>>
>> I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to
>> exclude people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a
>> good deal of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do
>> their communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)
> 
> Help me with some remedial acronyms?  I don't recognize either CW or
> OTP.  Best I could do with DuckDuckGo was continuous wave pulse and
> over-temperature protection.  ?!

I was about to go out and made that acronym up on the spur of the moment
thinking readers would refer to the upthread article. :-) CW (morse
code) sending messages encrypted with one-time pads.

It's a mode commonly used by Israeli intelligence (and some other
spooks). There's often some here (among other frequencies):

http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/?tune=6606usb

Though at time of writing it's only sending an idler and its callsign.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2655

On 2014-05-06, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2014-05-06, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> I found learning Morse easy, but I wouldn't use it as a test to
>> exclude people from expressing dissent. OTOH the CW+OTP option has a
>> good deal of merit: if any revolutionary groups want to hire me to do
>> their communications, they can show me their manifestos. :-)
>
> Help me with some remedial acronyms?  I don't recognize either CW or
> OTP.  Best I could do with DuckDuckGo was continuous wave pulse and
> over-temperature protection.  ?!

CW is continuous wave, the practice of sending data by turning a
carrier on and off.  Generally used interchangeably with the term
Morse Code.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

By OTP he's referring to a One-Time Pad, the encryption method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2657

On 2014-05-06, Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> CW is continuous wave, the practice of sending data by turning a
> carrier on and off.  Generally used interchangeably with the term
> Morse Code.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave
>
> By OTP he's referring to a One-Time Pad, the encryption method.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

Ah, much obliged!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2681

Oregonian Haruspex wrote:

> john <nospam@no.net> wrote:
>> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one
>> exception is RC airplane control)
>> 
>> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start
>> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser
>> comms to connect house to house.
> 
> Actually aircraft control signals are not to be encrypted.  The only
> allowed use of encryption in amateur radio is for spacecraft control.
> 
> While it isn't illegal to publish the code it would be illegal to use
> encryption on the air.

Huh, You're right :) Part 97.215

Back when I took my test, The right answer was space stations and RCs.

And heres an example:
http://www.hamradiolicenseexam.com/question_pools/technician_2010/T1D-2010.htm 
question T1D03

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2680

john wrote:

> FCC rules generally forbid encryption on amateur frequencies. (one
> exception is RC airplane control)
> 
> I like the idea though. Didn't the L0pht-crack hackers try to start
> something similar 10-15 years back? Using short range infrared laser comms
> to connect house to house.

Huh, You're right :) Part 97.215

Back when I took my test, The right answer was space stations and RCs.

And heres an example:
http://www.hamradiolicenseexam.com/question_pools/technician_2010/T1D-2010.htm 
question T1D03

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web