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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81387 > unrolled thread

Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:51 -0500
    Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-21 22:42 +0100
      Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 18:19 -0500
        Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-22 03:00 +0100
          Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 22:38 -0500
            Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-22 13:32 +0100
              Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-22 12:13 -0500
                Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-01-22 20:19 +0100
                  Re: Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-22 20:59 -0500

#81387 — Checked - LOTS Of Stuff Sent Thru Sats UNencrypted - Inc Mil/Banking Data

https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring-vulnerabilities.html

With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
what they found was shocking.

Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
text messages, voice calls, as well as sensitive military
information, data from internal corporate and bank networks,
and the in‐flight online activity of airline passengers.

The research team, led by Aaron Schulman and Nadia Heninger,
two computer science professors at the University of California
San Diego, then set out to find out which companies and
government agencies were failing to encrypt data in order to
contact them and disclose the vulnerabilities.

In this study, researchers focused on geosynchronous (GEO)
satellites, which orbit Earth at a fixed altitude and position
around the equator.

. . .

   Makes you feel all warm and safe eh ?

   Are Chinese operatives running all this stuff ?

   There are lots of fast, basically transparent, ways
   to encrypt data for transmission. So why aren't
   orgs USING them ? This is the 21st century and
   'cyber-war' is now a very real thing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#81445

On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
> vulnerabilities.html
> 
> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
> what they found was shocking.
> 
> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
> text messages, voice calls,

SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers and the 
terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that they used the 
example configuration for encryption, so the key was known). The 
communications between the towers and the exchanges were not encrypted, 
unless radio transmission systems employed some encryption of their own.

Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 2000.




-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#81451

On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>> vulnerabilities.html
>>
>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>> what they found was shocking.
>>
>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>> text messages, voice calls,
> 
> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers and the 
> terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that they used the 
> example configuration for encryption, so the key was known). The 
> communications between the towers and the exchanges were not encrypted, 
> unless radio transmission systems employed some encryption of their own.
> 
> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 2000.

   At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
   this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
   anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
   around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.

   So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
   Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
   can maybe grab all your numbers.

   This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
   and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
   and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???

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

#81461

On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>
>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>
>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>
>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers and 
>> the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that they used 
>> the example configuration for encryption, so the key was known). The 
>> communications between the towers and the exchanges were not 
>> encrypted, unless radio transmission systems employed some encryption 
>> of their own.
>>
>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 2000.
> 
>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
> 
>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
> 
>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???

I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it was 
considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
Technology was naive.

At some point probably they thought that the transmission department 
would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The switching 
department needed the trunks in the clear. The available machines could 
not do encryption.

I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#81463

On 1/21/26 21:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
>> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>>
>>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>>
>>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>>
>>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers and 
>>> the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that they 
>>> used the example configuration for encryption, so the key was known). 
>>> The communications between the towers and the exchanges were not 
>>> encrypted, unless radio transmission systems employed some encryption 
>>> of their own.
>>>
>>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 
>>> 2000.
>>
>>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
>>
>>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
>>
>>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???
> 
> I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it was 
> considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
> Technology was naive.

   SMS ... CAN be important for 'authentication', but mostly
   we're just looking at a code people are supposed to enter
   into a site within minutes.

   Voice calls ... more likely to have important info for
   biz/corporate espionage and even for military. In 60
   seconds someone can speak a LOT of important details that
   can give competitors, or aggressors, an edge.

> At some point probably they thought that the transmission department 
> would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The switching 
> department needed the trunks in the clear. The available machines could 
> not do encryption.

   Typical disconnect ... too many players along
   the entire chain.

> I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.

   Good question. It it's at least https encoded then there's
   a fair advantage. I'll have to check to see whether modern
   VOIP actually uses secured packets. HTTPS probably CAN be
   decoded these days ... but there may be a time delay and
   CPU penalty that renders the info mostly useless for biz
   purposes - maybe less so for military secrets.

   In any case, it's obvious that there's no unified effort
   to make sure comms are 'secure'. This is VERY bad in the
   modern environment.

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

#81489

On 2026-01-22 04:38, c186282 wrote:
> On 1/21/26 21:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>>>
>>>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>>>
>>>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers and 
>>>> the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that they 
>>>> used the example configuration for encryption, so the key was 
>>>> known). The communications between the towers and the exchanges were 
>>>> not encrypted, unless radio transmission systems employed some 
>>>> encryption of their own.
>>>>
>>>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 
>>>> 2000.
>>>
>>>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>>>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>>>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>>>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
>>>
>>>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>>>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>>>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
>>>
>>>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>>>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>>>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???
>>
>> I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it 
>> was considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
>> Technology was naive.
> 
>    SMS ... CAN be important for 'authentication', but mostly
>    we're just looking at a code people are supposed to enter
>    into a site within minutes.
> 
>    Voice calls ... more likely to have important info for
>    biz/corporate espionage and even for military. In 60
>    seconds someone can speak a LOT of important details that
>    can give competitors, or aggressors, an edge.

Certainly, but the standard for voice and SMS are not encrypted.

The digital exchanges simply have not the power needed to encrypt all 
conversations. Encryption has to be done at the client, if he cares enough.

Nowdays, RCS, which is the successor to SMS, is encrypted at the client.

> 
>> At some point probably they thought that the transmission department 
>> would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The switching 
>> department needed the trunks in the clear. The available machines 
>> could not do encryption.
> 
>    Typical disconnect ... too many players along
>    the entire chain.
> 
>> I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.
> 
>    Good question. It it's at least https encoded then there's
>    a fair advantage. I'll have to check to see whether modern
>    VOIP actually uses secured packets. HTTPS probably CAN be
>    decoded these days ... but there may be a time delay and
>    CPU penalty that renders the info mostly useless for biz
>    purposes - maybe less so for military secrets.
> 
>    In any case, it's obvious that there's no unified effort
>    to make sure comms are 'secure'. This is VERY bad in the
>    modern environment.

AFAIK it is still up to the client.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#81501

On 1/22/26 07:32, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-01-22 04:38, c186282 wrote:
>> On 1/21/26 21:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>>>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>>>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>>>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>>>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>>>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>>>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>>>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>>>>
>>>>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers 
>>>>> and the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that 
>>>>> they used the example configuration for encryption, so the key was 
>>>>> known). The communications between the towers and the exchanges 
>>>>> were not encrypted, unless radio transmission systems employed some 
>>>>> encryption of their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around year 
>>>>> 2000.
>>>>
>>>>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>>>>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>>>>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>>>>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
>>>>
>>>>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>>>>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>>>>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
>>>>
>>>>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>>>>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>>>>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???
>>>
>>> I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it 
>>> was considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
>>> Technology was naive.
>>
>>    SMS ... CAN be important for 'authentication', but mostly
>>    we're just looking at a code people are supposed to enter
>>    into a site within minutes.
>>
>>    Voice calls ... more likely to have important info for
>>    biz/corporate espionage and even for military. In 60
>>    seconds someone can speak a LOT of important details that
>>    can give competitors, or aggressors, an edge.
> 
> Certainly, but the standard for voice and SMS are not encrypted.
> 
> The digital exchanges simply have not the power needed to encrypt all 
> conversations. Encryption has to be done at the client, if he cares enough.
> 
> Nowdays, RCS, which is the successor to SMS, is encrypted at the client.
> 
>>
>>> At some point probably they thought that the transmission department 
>>> would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The switching 
>>> department needed the trunks in the clear. The available machines 
>>> could not do encryption.
>>
>>    Typical disconnect ... too many players along
>>    the entire chain.
>>
>>> I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.
>>
>>    Good question. It it's at least https encoded then there's
>>    a fair advantage. I'll have to check to see whether modern
>>    VOIP actually uses secured packets. HTTPS probably CAN be
>>    decoded these days ... but there may be a time delay and
>>    CPU penalty that renders the info mostly useless for biz
>>    purposes - maybe less so for military secrets.
>>
>>    In any case, it's obvious that there's no unified effort
>>    to make sure comms are 'secure'. This is VERY bad in the
>>    modern environment.
> 
> AFAIK it is still up to the client.


   That's how it IS ... but that's not how it MUST
   be - and Really Soon.

   Doing passable encryption is not that CPU intensive,
   the GUI on yer iPhone uses a lot more. CARRIERS have
   plenty of CPU ... NO excuse for them not relaying
   nothing but encrypted through satellites.

   As said, super-duper NSA grade encryption may not
   be needed. The info in phone calls and SMS messages
   is generally 'volatile' - doesn't help you much if
   you decode them a month or two later. Bank and some
   mil info is less volatile and needs better protection.

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

#81508

On 2026-01-22 18:13, c186282 wrote:
> On 1/22/26 07:32, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-01-22 04:38, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 1/21/26 21:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>>>>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>>>>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>>>>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>>>>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>>>>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>>>>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers 
>>>>>> and the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that 
>>>>>> they used the example configuration for encryption, so the key was 
>>>>>> known). The communications between the towers and the exchanges 
>>>>>> were not encrypted, unless radio transmission systems employed 
>>>>>> some encryption of their own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around 
>>>>>> year 2000.
>>>>>
>>>>>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>>>>>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>>>>>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>>>>>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
>>>>>
>>>>>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>>>>>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>>>>>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>>>>>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>>>>>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???
>>>>
>>>> I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it 
>>>> was considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
>>>> Technology was naive.
>>>
>>>    SMS ... CAN be important for 'authentication', but mostly
>>>    we're just looking at a code people are supposed to enter
>>>    into a site within minutes.
>>>
>>>    Voice calls ... more likely to have important info for
>>>    biz/corporate espionage and even for military. In 60
>>>    seconds someone can speak a LOT of important details that
>>>    can give competitors, or aggressors, an edge.
>>
>> Certainly, but the standard for voice and SMS are not encrypted.
>>
>> The digital exchanges simply have not the power needed to encrypt all 
>> conversations. Encryption has to be done at the client, if he cares 
>> enough.
>>
>> Nowdays, RCS, which is the successor to SMS, is encrypted at the client.
>>
>>>
>>>> At some point probably they thought that the transmission department 
>>>> would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The switching 
>>>> department needed the trunks in the clear. The available machines 
>>>> could not do encryption.
>>>
>>>    Typical disconnect ... too many players along
>>>    the entire chain.
>>>
>>>> I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.
>>>
>>>    Good question. It it's at least https encoded then there's
>>>    a fair advantage. I'll have to check to see whether modern
>>>    VOIP actually uses secured packets. HTTPS probably CAN be
>>>    decoded these days ... but there may be a time delay and
>>>    CPU penalty that renders the info mostly useless for biz
>>>    purposes - maybe less so for military secrets.
>>>
>>>    In any case, it's obvious that there's no unified effort
>>>    to make sure comms are 'secure'. This is VERY bad in the
>>>    modern environment.
>>
>> AFAIK it is still up to the client.
> 
> 
>    That's how it IS ... but that's not how it MUST
>    be - and Really Soon.
> 
>    Doing passable encryption is not that CPU intensive,
>    the GUI on yer iPhone uses a lot more. CARRIERS have
>    plenty of CPU ... NO excuse for them not relaying
>    nothing but encrypted through satellites.

Carriers, and I worked there, did not have plenty of CPU, but just 
enough cpu for the calculated job.

Encrypting at the client is safer and more sane. If the carriers do the 
encryption, there is danger that some rogue intermediary has the key to 
decrypt.

> 
>    As said, super-duper NSA grade encryption may not
>    be needed. The info in phone calls and SMS messages
>    is generally 'volatile' - doesn't help you much if
>    you decode them a month or two later. Bank and some
>    mil info is less volatile and needs better protection.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#81525

On 1/22/26 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-01-22 18:13, c186282 wrote:
>> On 1/22/26 07:32, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-01-22 04:38, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 1/21/26 21:00, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-01-22 00:19, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/26 16:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-01-21 00:51, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2026-01-sky-full-secrets-glaring- 
>>>>>>>> vulnerabilities.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With $800 of off‐the‐shelf equipment and months' worth of patience,
>>>>>>>> a team of U.S. computer scientists set out to find out how
>>>>>>>> well geostationary satellite communications are encrypted. And
>>>>>>>> what they found was shocking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Close to half of the communications beamed from satellites to
>>>>>>>> the ground that the researchers were able to listen in on were
>>>>>>>> not encrypted. This included sensitive data including cellular
>>>>>>>> text messages, voice calls,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SMS were never encrypted. I think voice calls between the towers 
>>>>>>> and the terminals were encrypted (I read somewhere long ago that 
>>>>>>> they used the example configuration for encryption, so the key 
>>>>>>> was known). The communications between the towers and the 
>>>>>>> exchanges were not encrypted, unless radio transmission systems 
>>>>>>> employed some encryption of their own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't confirm any of this currently, but it was correct around 
>>>>>>> year 2000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    At least cell towers are kind of "local" - however
>>>>>>    this involves the geostationary relay sats, meaning
>>>>>>    anyone with an antenna kind of a third of the way
>>>>>>    around the globe can tune in to the rebroadcast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    So, you move funds from your Credit Suisse acct to
>>>>>>    Bank Of America in NYC, spies in Iceland, or Paraguay,
>>>>>>    can maybe grab all your numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This is like 1980 thinking, back when the net was tiny
>>>>>>    and only a few 'professionals' sent important stuff back
>>>>>>    and forth. Security ? Who NEEDS it ???
>>>>>
>>>>> I am only talking of SMS and phone calls. The standards are old, it 
>>>>> was considered impossible to access the cables carrying the trunks. 
>>>>> Technology was naive.
>>>>
>>>>    SMS ... CAN be important for 'authentication', but mostly
>>>>    we're just looking at a code people are supposed to enter
>>>>    into a site within minutes.
>>>>
>>>>    Voice calls ... more likely to have important info for
>>>>    biz/corporate espionage and even for military. In 60
>>>>    seconds someone can speak a LOT of important details that
>>>>    can give competitors, or aggressors, an edge.
>>>
>>> Certainly, but the standard for voice and SMS are not encrypted.
>>>
>>> The digital exchanges simply have not the power needed to encrypt all 
>>> conversations. Encryption has to be done at the client, if he cares 
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Nowdays, RCS, which is the successor to SMS, is encrypted at the client.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> At some point probably they thought that the transmission 
>>>>> department would do the encryption when possible and advisable. The 
>>>>> switching department needed the trunks in the clear. The available 
>>>>> machines could not do encryption.
>>>>
>>>>    Typical disconnect ... too many players along
>>>>    the entire chain.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if the new methods using VoIP use encryption.
>>>>
>>>>    Good question. It it's at least https encoded then there's
>>>>    a fair advantage. I'll have to check to see whether modern
>>>>    VOIP actually uses secured packets. HTTPS probably CAN be
>>>>    decoded these days ... but there may be a time delay and
>>>>    CPU penalty that renders the info mostly useless for biz
>>>>    purposes - maybe less so for military secrets.
>>>>
>>>>    In any case, it's obvious that there's no unified effort
>>>>    to make sure comms are 'secure'. This is VERY bad in the
>>>>    modern environment.
>>>
>>> AFAIK it is still up to the client.
>>
>>
>>    That's how it IS ... but that's not how it MUST
>>    be - and Really Soon.
>>
>>    Doing passable encryption is not that CPU intensive,
>>    the GUI on yer iPhone uses a lot more. CARRIERS have
>>    plenty of CPU ... NO excuse for them not relaying
>>    nothing but encrypted through satellites.
> 
> Carriers, and I worked there, did not have plenty of CPU, but just 
> enough cpu for the calculated job.


   Re-calc.

   Maybe Trump can make it a security mandate.


> Encrypting at the client is safer and more sane. If the carriers do the 
> encryption, there is danger that some rogue intermediary has the key to 
> decrypt.

   But if you encrypt at the client then the
   receiver has to have compatible decrypt
   software (CPU !). HTTPS is a fair example
   of an encrypted exchange system - though
   the algo might need updating by now.

>>    As said, super-duper NSA grade encryption may not
>>    be needed. The info in phone calls and SMS messages
>>    is generally 'volatile' - doesn't help you much if
>>    you decode them a month or two later. Bank and some
>>    mil info is less volatile and needs better protection.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web