Back to Celestial

[Delancey]

So, turns out if you just simply leave removable media like a flash drive laying around where someone will find it they will likely plug it in just to see what is on it, then you can kiss your secure network goodbye.

Even more effective is a CD/DVD with something like "company payroll" written on it with a Sharpie marker.

Curiosity kills the cat. Apparently the original target of the stuxnet virus was a secure network. Of course infiltrating these items into a secure facility isn't hacking, it's sabotage.

Guess they're not so worried about hackers as they are worried about their own shortcomings. At least the recognize they're only human beings. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one. Maybe time to let the machines take over. Skynet anyone?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Delancey

"US Navy recruits to learn how to navigate using the stars as America grows increasingly worried about possible hacking of computer navigation systems"

I dunno. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a little fishy? To say you are worried about possible hacking of computer navigation systems implies that you think they are somehow vulnerable.

Really? The USN logs onto Active Captain every time they leave the dock? Control of the GPS satellite constellation is vulnerable to some hacker with a high speed connection sitting in a basement somewhere?

How much did we pay for these systems? Who designed them that they are inherently vulnerable to hacking? Just doesn't sound right.

you have to differentiate between reason and reasoning.
what you tell the newspaper is in a different ballpark alltogether.
backwhen GPS started it was an All-American project and NATO Partners were allowed to use it.
Those NATO Partners realised that they relied on a System that the US could shut down whenever they wanted.
So they put up their own GPS Satelites (Galileo) and of course the non-NATO "Partners" put up their own as well (GLONASS, IRNASS, BeiDu, QZSS) where some are integrated and used by your GPS and some are not.
Now guess what happens when some of these Systems start sending false Signals to spoof you because their Navy is on a large scale excersise or because there are diplomatic differencies.
when GPS started out the non-(US-)military application had a built-in offset, that only got removed when alternative providers were about.
The danger to GPS is not so much garage-hackers but that sells better than "we don't trust the EU/India/Japan to provide that service to us in a crisis"

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Delancey

"US Navy recruits to learn how to navigate using the stars as America grows increasingly worried about possible hacking of computer navigation systems"

I dunno. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds a little fishy? To say you are worried about possible hacking of computer navigation systems implies that you think they are somehow vulnerable.

Really? The USN logs onto Active Captain every time they leave the dock? Control of the GPS satellite constellation is vulnerable to some hacker with a high speed connection sitting in a basement somewhere?

How much did we pay for these systems? Who designed them that they are inherently vulnerable to hacking? Just doesn't sound right.

But in fact it is vulnerable. When GPS was conceived no one believed it would be practical to build hardware that could duplicate the required precision of GPS signal sources. Back then the cost for the uplink equipment was hundreds of millions of $. Today with high speed FPGA and digital signal processors it is possible to duplicate the GPS signal for a few thousand $. This was unimaginable 30 years ago when GPS was in the planning phase. So it never occurred to anyone that the system could be hacked. Also, they never imagined it would be in every phone, computer, plane and automobile.

All you have to do to "hack" GPS is build a small microwave radio transmitter with a digital signal processor to generate the GPS signal. All GPS receivers within a few miles radius will pick up the hacked signal because it will be stronger than the tiny signal coming from outer space. Then the hacker can make all the receivers nearby believe that are in the middle of the Pacific ocean or anywhere else on earth they choose. This is a fundamental flaw in GPS as it has no serious encryption or authentication message so that a receiver can be sure it is locked on to the one true signal. Even if they had included encryption the algorithms available 30 years ago for "unbreakable" encryption would be child's play for today's massive parallel computers.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Randy

This whole story is essentially a non-story. US Navy officers don't spend any time navigating. Even when as a senior officer and holding the title of "Navigator" few even put dividers to a chart. The Quartermasters do the navigating and the seniorchiefs and masterchiefs are navigation gods. Celestial is nothing new to the Qm's, it is one of the tools.

this totaly depends on the size of the ship / number of crew.

my OW was the Comms Officers and he knew exactly how to fix a position on the chart.
than again we had contests on the helm during his watch and other (fun) stuff to keep us busy and engaged.
i was highest ranking Navigator on that ship for a year and that was the best time in my entire service

than again on another ship the OW could not tell apart the lighthouses on the North Sea islands but asked me to do a terrestrial with them when i had told him earlier they were so far out and the angle so steep that 0.25° wasn't precise enough and i was using a combination of Decca and Radar and the Helgoland lighthouse instead.

it's a question of wanting to know how to do it and getting practice with it.
and nobody practices stuff that he knows nothing about so giving courses on the theory (again) is a good start. everything else depends on the ship and the assignment.

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by jreiter190

True. In 1966 standing the mid-watch on a Standard Oil T2 on our way back to Frisco from Ak, I said to the second mate, who was justified in his pride in his skill with a sextant, " Mate, pretty soon you'll be able to plug your sextant readings into a black box and it'll spit out your lat/long". "Kid, he says, I always thought you were full of ****. Now, I'm sure of it".

AWESOME!

Originally Posted by weavis

No. But it is more difficult for you with short arms.

HA HA!

Instructors at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, in Kings Point, New York, have continuously taught celestial navigation, said Benjamin Benson, the academy spokesman. In fact, instructor Capt. Timothy Tisch shared materials to help the Naval Academy rebuild its program.

Damn Straight Skippy!

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Delancey

"US Navy recruits to learn how to navigate using the stars as America grows increasingly worried about possible hacking of computer navigation systems"

I confess I am a bit of a word nerd and not always to my benefit.

When I see the use of "hacking" in the context of the above article cited by SaltyMonkey I presume the meaning is "to gain access to a computer illegally" because if they had meant they were concerned about "spoofing" they would have just said it.

While a "spoof" would be an example of a "hack" or a creative solution to a hardware or software problem "hacking" and "spoofing" are verbs which have distinct meanings. GPS spoofing is not new news. Hacking of the GPS system certainly would be new news.

Semantics I guess. Is it too much to expect clear and concise language from a journalist? The author of the article was posting from New York so I assume Merriam Webster is the standard.

Let's assume the author isn't a moron. The USN is afraid of hacking (not spoofing) the GPS system? That's not good.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Not that hard:

https://www.ae.utexas.edu/news/featu...poofing-of-uav

A bunch of computer geeks can spoof Civilian GPS, but it's well beyond my capability, so to me that defines hard, but I can either Barrage or Spot Jam it, that isn't hard, even I can do it, and electronics wise, I'm pretty stupid.
But we were talking military GPS, which is a whole different animal, for one thing it's secure, you have to have the correct "fill" to be able to use it, so just to begin with, you would have to have your spoof signal secure, and that isn't supposed to be easy.

[a64pilot]

Surely no ship actually uses GPS for much of anything, except maybe to dampen their INS?
Never been in one, but am led to believe Subs pretty much know where they are and they cannot receive GPS underwater, yet they can launch missiles from underwater, and knowing just a little about missiles if they are not just simply ballistic, then they really need to know EXACTLY where they are starting from.

You guys not listen to the link I provided?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Semantics I guess. Is it too much to expect clear and concise language from a journalist? The author of the article was posting from New York so I assume Merriam Webster is the standard. Did I mention my wife is an editor?

the "definition" varies with context.
the mainstream media usualy comes with the malicous introusion into computer systems context
but if you ask today's engineering / computer science students, they will all be active in some hacking community because to them it is about creative solutions to complex problems.
a self steering system consisting of some ropes and wooden planks instead of computer operated hydraulic systems comes to mind.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Delancey

I confess I am a bit of a word nerd and not always to my benefit.

When I see the use of "hacking" in the context of the above article cited by SaltyMonkey I presume the meaning is "to gain access to a computer illegally" because if the had meant they were concerned about "spoofing" they would have just said it.

While a "spoof" would be an example of a "hack" or a creative solution to a hardware or software problem "hacking" and "spoofing" are verbs which have distinct meanings. GPS spoofing is not new news. Hacking of the GPS system certainly would be new news.

Semantics I guess. Is it too much to expect clear and concise language from a journalist? The author of the article was posting from New York so I assume Merriam Webster is the standard.

Let's assume the author isn't a moron. The USN is afraid of hacking (not spoofing) the GPS system? That's not good.

I think this is more correct, remember Stuxnet I think it was called?

[Delancey]

Yup. I mentioned the stuxnet virus in post #31 as being targeted at a secure network.

[Simonsays]

stuxnet was not a hack but a targeted attack.
at least in my context

but than again it fits perfectly in every aspect.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Yup. I mentioned the stuxnet virus in post #31 as being targeted at a secure network.

Sorry, I missed it, just thought about it when I read your post on Hacking as opposed to spoofing, and Stuxnet wasn't a Hack as I understand it, I guess a Hack is to gain real time control? But I'd say it's far more dangerous than spoofing, I'd have to guess that any actual Military ship has a sophisticated INS and surely there is a protocol of what to do when the INS and the GPS disagree?

Besides I think a "bad guy" would wreck more havoc by denying the civilian GPS system than the military, military system has or had backups, a degraded operation mode if you will, but I don't think many civilian systems do.

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I guess a Hack is to gain real time control?

let's just say, you can argue about the meaning of the word "hack" as you can
argue about the advantages of different keels, rigs and build materials
and the use of the word in todays mass media corelates with todays boat mass producers ideas of what a good budget cruiser is.
or what the word priate means to a hollywood producer vs a cruiser in the PI

even the wikipedia article on the subject only reflects an idea of the idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker..._subculture%29
as the "subculture" does not restrict itself to computers as demonstrated every year at hackatons all over the US and Europe.

[jreiter190]

We could always go back to dead reckoning, which is defined as: traditional form of rough -estimate navigation used for hundreds of years by sailors, almost all of whom are dead. As practiced today the technique involves the use of three special "chart darts" which are "entered " in the appropriate region of a nautical chart from 8 feet away. The resulting holes are joined by pencil lines to form a triangle whose central point is taken as the ships' position. HACK/SPOOF THAT, AL QUIADA!!!