Friday 18 December 2009
Idiots Indeed
Looks like my lack of confidence in the security of robotic warfare systems is fully justified.
Robert O'Callahan. Christian. Repatriate Kiwi. Hacker.
robert@ocallahan.org ... Follow on X, Follow on Bluesky
Friday 18 December 2009
Comments
And letting your enemies know what your drones are looking at and where you're interested in is the kind of thing that can lose a war. (not that I care for their war, but it be nice to think that at least the military could get basic security right)
The guys who work on this know more about the problems than we do. I'm a whole lot worried about war than about specific weapons. This probably won't mean the end of civilization (or war, alas) as we know it.
1) Complacency.We are used to thinking of ourselves as "the" world superpower. This attitude makes us vulnerable regardless of the technology we use or don't use.
2) Historically, the nations with the largest populations tended to become the world superpowers. Exceptions have existed, but according to that rule of thumb, China should probably be the next superpower.
3) Each generation of weaponry has become more potent and less controllable that the previous. Consider the progression from sticks to swords to guns to missiles. Each step has been more deadly than its predecessor, but has also been less specific and controllable.
I vote that we get the UN to pass a resolution that as honorable citizens of this planet, we all dispose of our weaponry and proceed to fight our wars with sticks and boxing gloves. This would, of course, allow the most devious and power hungry to instantly gain full control of the whole world.
Hey wait. Isn't that where we already are?
As I see it, the US is financially bankrupt, complacent and outnumbered. To me it looks like the security glitches are a symptom of these deeper problems, and are not themselves the real problem.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html
It's also worth noting the army might have been on the leading edge adopting this stuff, and if so that would explain why this line couldn't be easily encrypted, due to one-off (or few-off) component use. Anything being designed today, or recently, doubtless doesn't have this issue and, if it had the issue, could be retrofitted significantly more easily than it sounds like here. I'll cut a little slack for the army often being a first mover in these things.