Face It: IRAN PWNED the CIA's Drone!

[William Gaatjes]

I continue to see no evidence at all that Iran hacked the drone.

What I think is most likely to have occurred is that the US was flying this drone over Iran, not Afghanistan. For some reason they lost contact and the drone decided it was going to safe land in Iran instead of friendly soil (stupidly). and that was that.

I find that a design flaw if the drone does not use internal sensors to fly back using gathered sensor data to for sure end up in friendly territory(but of course outside cities). The drone does not have to land. When it is far away from enemy territory it will be able to find a communication signal and restore contact. If these devices really are nothing more then pure souped up rc planes. I find that disturbing indeed for such a dangerous device(when equipped with weapons). Malfunction or design flaw, that is what happened in this case, in my humble opinion.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I don't think it has anything to do with decisions being made by pussies but rather the nature of a declining super power.

We're a declining super power because out leaders only want to fight PC wars. A PC war is an oxymoron.

 

[SamurAchzar]

It sounds like complete bullshit to me.

First, the control channel is probably a frequency hopping thing with a pseudo-random pattern that you must first understand in order to jam (and its antenna is upward looking).

Second, military GPS has some kind of encryption (for added accuracy over civilian GPS), so to fool the receiver they should have probably spoofed these.

Third, I'd be very surprised if the drone didn't use some kind of inertial navigation in conjunction with the GPS.

Fourth, even if all the previous conditions held true, there are zero chances they could have made it land in one piece as it was photographed.

Theoretically it's all possible but it's damn complicated and I haven't heard of GPS spoofing before (jamming - yes, not spoofing). And even if true, why would the Iranians go on record with that?

The most plausible explanation is that it crashed somewhere and what the Iranians displayed is a mock up.

 

[jacc1234]

It sounds like complete bullshit to me.

First, the control channel is probably a frequency hopping thing with a pseudo-random pattern that you must first understand in order to jam (and its antenna is upward looking).

Second, military GPS has some kind of encryption (for added accuracy over civilian GPS), so to fool the receiver they should have probably spoofed these.

Third, I'd be very surprised if the drone didn't use some kind of inertial navigation in conjunction with the GPS.

Fourth, even if all the previous conditions held true, there are zero chances they could have made it land in one piece as it was photographed.

Theoretically it's all possible but it's damn complicated and I haven't heard of GPS spoofing before (jamming - yes, not spoofing). And even if true, why would the Iranians go on record with that?

The most plausible explanation is that it crashed somewhere and what the Iranians displayed is a mock up.

Here is a quote from the DT article:
"The approach echoes an October security conference presentation [PDF] in Chicago, in which ETH Zurich researchers laid out how to use interference and GPS spoofing to more gently down a drone."

Link to PDF: http://www.syssec.ethz.ch/research/ccs139-tippenhauer.pdf

So it seems not only is it very possible but the documentation on how to do it was already released.

 

[Exterous]

If this is true its a good thing it happened now rather than during a war

 

[Exterous]

America.. fuck yeah. Lawl you guys can't even wage war the way you guys used to.

Yeah - because this is the first time a spy aircraft has been shot down over foreign soil

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm not sure about this drone, but if the Iranians had any brains, their #1 priority should be to obtain a nuclear weapon. Considering how much the GOP candidates have been talking about bombing Iran over the last few years, obtaining a nuclear weapon would probably be in their best interest.

Iran having nuclear weapons is not in the best interests of anyone. Not Iran, not America, and not the rest of the world.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Here is a quote from the DT article:
"The approach echoes an October security conference presentation [PDF] in Chicago, in which ETH Zurich researchers laid out how to use interference and GPS spoofing to more gently down a drone."

Link to PDF: http://www.syssec.ethz.ch/research/ccs139-tippenhauer.pdf

So it seems not only is it very possible but the documentation on how to do it was already released.

Reading the document also indicates that many variables must be known in advance to work and will only work at a few locations.

The location of the target has to be known; the equipment is setup relative to the target location and the accuracy/timing be less than microseconds.

While in theory, such could be done; the paper does not indicate where the potential locations are.

Unless the drone was continually flying the same pattern multiple times; to setup the proper equipment configuration & timing becomes unlikely.

So, until a non-Iranian source can verify the physical item is not a mockup; I will have my doubts.

There are no photos of the inside of the unit; the propulsion system or the antenna arrays to actually show what was "captured". Why they have nothing to lose by displaying such and it will reinforce their claims. My suspicion is that the US has lost the drone; it may have crashed and Iran has researched enough information to convince the gullible that they have an intact unit.

There was no problems with the F117 when it went down being displayed.

Yet Iran waits 3-4 days before boasting that they have it.

 

[yllus]

I've been discussing this at work for a week now trying to figure out what the vulnerability would be and came to the same conclusion: Add RF interference to make the drone go to autopilot, and then... What exactly? Feed it fake GPS coordinates? As mentioned above, it's extremely unlikely (but possible) that the drone is using public GPS instead of the U.S. military's more precise, signal encrypted second generation GPS system.

 

[irishScott]

And if there wasn't, I'm surprised the place where it's at hasn't been bombed.

We elected Obama. Change we can believe in right?

 

[hal2kilo]

I've been discussing this at work for a week now trying to figure out what the vulnerability would be and came to the same conclusion: Add RF interference to make the drone go to autopilot, and then... What exactly? Feed it fake GPS coordinates? As mentioned above, it's extremely unlikely (but possible) that the drone is using public GPS instead of the U.S. military's more precise, signal encrypted second generation GPS system.

They must have designed the ROV on the cheap if they only had GPS without backup IMU's for just such an event. I'm still not buying it. Not sure who's GPS solution they used but there's quite a bit of anti-jamming and anti-spoofing buit into these receivers at least for military applications. Not just the chip also antenna design.

 

[disappoint]

new photo released today:

 

[EagleKeeper]

They must have designed the ROV on the cheap if they only had GPS without backup IMU's for just such an event. I'm still not buying it. Not sure who's GPS solution they used but there's quite a bit of anti-jamming and anti-spoofing buit into these receivers at least for military applications. Not just the chip also antenna design.

Multiple antennas make such spoofing even more difficult. You have to then take into account the time differential between the two receivers.

That would require having the exact airspeed and attitude of the drone at the instant of the attempted spoof.

After 9/11; these drones were designed/upgraded. People were instructed to start thinking outside the box.

 

[Jaepheth]

They crashed the drone in Iran on purpose to catalyze the degradation of US/Iran relations.

I've hired you to help me start a war. It's an prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.

[/tinfoil hat conspiracy]

 

[William Gaatjes]

After looking i found that on ABC news it was mentioned that the drone malfunctioned and glided down. Since it just glided down and even with landing gear extended, it could have been damaged. This would explain why the backside and lower side is not shown in the video from the Iran news agency ?

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-rq...one-shown-iran/story?id=15115781#.TuugE5d6g-A

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the US lost control of the drone; they have no way of stating how it came down.

All the news outlets are doing is regurgitating what they are being told by Iran.

And they are providing conflicting information. In order of revelation

• Shot down - No visible damage?
• Hijacked and under Iranian control - why not show internal components?
• Glided in on own w/ gear down - they collapsed the gear for photo op?

 

[Triumph]

I don't know who designs the CIA's stuff, but I have some experience with military fire control systems (just enough to know how involved it is, I don't know how to do any of the stuff). The safety requirements are insane, backups after backups, fault tree analyses to the extreme to lay out what could happen and what will happen to prevent that from happening, then there are many standards and regulations that must be followed to harden all of the firmware/software/hardware, then the testing in RF chambers, etc etc. I can see autonomous navigation systems requiring a similar level of complexity and involvement. Without some prior, detailed information on how this specific drone operates, I do not believe that Iranian engineers would be able to simply "hack" into it. I think it's all a sham.

 

[al981]

And if there wasn't, I'm surprised the place where it's at hasn't been bombed.

no surprise you advocate bombing/intiating hostilities/war with another sovereign nation. :biggrin:

 

[William Gaatjes]

I don't know who designs the CIA's stuff, but I have some experience with military fire control systems (just enough to know how involved it is, I don't know how to do any of the stuff). The safety requirements are insane, backups after backups, fault tree analyses to the extreme to lay out what could happen and what will happen to prevent that from happening, then there are many standards and regulations that must be followed to harden all of the firmware/software/hardware, then the testing in RF chambers, etc etc. I can see autonomous navigation systems requiring a similar level of complexity and involvement. Without some prior, detailed information on how this specific drone operates, I do not believe that Iranian engineers would be able to simply "hack" into it. I think it's all a sham.

Well, when thinking about the first generation osprey V22 , twisted hydraulic tubes and overheating engines...

And if i recall correctly, the first M1 Abrams tanks had some issues with power generation while standing by at night. The turbine was needed for internal power generation as well. The turbine could be heard from miles away. But the power consumption was also enormous even while the tank was idle. Thus later on an external auxiliary power unit (diesel generator) was added and after that the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit or UAAPU was added. One such an apu :
http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/TARDEC-Auxiliary-Power-Unit-for
And the exhaust outlet from the engine was a structural weak point as well. Probably just first generation issues that were deemed not serious but in practice turned out to be quite the error.



I think that if we look at the military over the world, we will always find that the first generations have design flaws for whatever reasons. Maybe it is the case with the RQ-170 sentinel as well.

 

[Lemon law]

In my mind this evades a larger question.

Any time humans invent flying platforms they are machines regardless if they have human pilots of rely on radio control. And any flying machine depends on all systems go, and like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, reliability will always be less that 100%.

The advantage of a drone is that no human pilot is lost in event of any failure.

The other thing to point out, is the radio jamming of a drone is well beyong Taliban type technology, but may be well within the means of Iranian technology.

AND IF IRAN CAN BRING DOWN ONE US DRONE, IT WELL MAY BE ABLE TO BRINF DOWN ALL US DRONES sent into their airspace.

After that we debate the US drones having a self mechanism, but either way, when US drones fall from the skies as fast as they are deployed, losing drones at 2-5 million per, mounts up to big money fast.

 

[Doppel]

Here is a quote from the DT article:
"The approach echoes an October security conference presentation [PDF] in Chicago, in which ETH Zurich researchers laid out how to use interference and GPS spoofing to more gently down a drone."

Link to PDF: http://www.syssec.ethz.ch/research/ccs139-tippenhauer.pdf

So it seems not only is it very possible but the documentation on how to do it was already released.

But has it been done? White papers often cover things that are possible only in extremely special circumstances. If this drone was actually fed false GPS coordinates by Iran, the entire military's GPS is facing possible compromise. And I find it damned unlikely it's the Iranians who did that.

it's extremely unlikely (but possible) that the drone is using public GPS instead of the U.S. military's more precise

I must say it's impossible. There's no way one of Lockheed's most advanced drones, at a cost of $6M are not using military grade GPS especially since the military can and has in the past shut down its GPS network, which would then make this thing blind. Is ANY military equipment using public GPS? I doubt it.

I continue to believe that, best case from Iran's side, they jammed this thing and made it blind and then it acted inappropriately in how it handled loss of communication. They didn't take control, nor do I believe they led it around like a dog on spoofed GPS.

 

[cwjerome]

I think that if we look at the military over the world, we will always find that the first generations have design flaws for whatever reasons. Maybe it is the case with the RQ-170 sentinel as well.

Yes, the Sentinel is 10 years old and if current rumors are to be believed then it may be susceptible to jamming and apparently has no onboard self destruct features. Radio jamming and GPS jamming is not overly complex... you can buy the parts for a fairly effective radio jammer at Radio Shack for $50. Personally, I'll wait until more verifiable info is learned before making a shit-ton of premature guesses on what happened. What I won't do is make silly comments like the one below your post about Iran bringing down all US drones. That's like saying "OMG!!11! SAMs can shoot aircraft out of the sky, we better not use them!!1!" Uh, no... we still use aircraft and yeah, one might occasionally be downed. You adjust accordingly, which is exactly what US military planners in this area are doing as we speak regarding the drone.

Some of the attitude in this thread is funny though, like a joyous celebration of embarrassment for the US military. Yep, it's a little embarrassing and should rightly be fixed. At the same time, proper perspective helps as well. We could be conducting a large operation against a formidable enemy where we have a U2, Ep3Orion, JSTARS, AWACS, Rivet Joint, multiple UAVs, perhaps an MC-12, and a couple tankers to keep 'em gassed all up at the same time. This is a monumental amount of activity that requires immense coordination as C2, ISR, Comm, and other areas combine to gather and deny info accordingly... it's like a dozen orchestras operating as one and not a shot has been fired. Now throw in your wild weasels, some CAS, some strike, and some superiority fighters to protect the others and you've just doubled those orchestras to 24 and the amount of sheer money, power and capability that's linked and laying down some magnificent pain is awe-inspiring. So I guess the moral of the story is, yeah, it's a bit embarrassing when the wiper blade on the Bugatti Veyron goes bad... but it's still a fucking Bugatti Veyron.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yes, the Sentinel is 10 years old and if current rumors are to be believed then it may be susceptible to jamming and apparently has no onboard self destruct features. Radio jamming and GPS jamming is not overly complex... you can buy the parts for a fairly effective radio jammer at Radio Shack for $50. Personally, I'll wait until more verifiable info is learned before making a shit-ton of premature guesses on what happened. What I won't do is make silly comments like the one below your post about Iran bringing down all US drones. That's like saying "OMG!!11! SAMs can shoot aircraft out of the sky, we better not use them!!1!" Uh, no... we still use aircraft and yeah, one might occasionally be downed. You adjust accordingly, which is exactly what US military planners in this area are doing as we speak regarding the drone.

Some of the attitude in this thread is funny though, like a joyous celebration of embarrassment for the US military. Yep, it's a little embarrassing and should rightly be fixed. At the same time, proper perspective helps as well. We could be conducting a large operation against a formidable enemy where we have a U2, Ep3Orion, JSTARS, AWACS, Rivet Joint, multiple UAVs, perhaps an MC-12, and a couple tankers to keep 'em gassed all up at the same time. This is a monumental amount of activity that requires immense coordination as C2, ISR, Comm, and other areas combine to gather and deny info accordingly... it's like a dozen orchestras operating as one and not a shot has been fired. Now throw in your wild weasels, some CAS, some strike, and some superiority fighters to protect the others and you've just doubled those orchestras to 24 and the amount of sheer money, power and capability that's linked and laying down some magnificent pain is awe-inspiring. So I guess the moral of the story is, yeah, it's a bit embarrassing when the wiper blade on the Bugatti Veyron goes bad... but it's still a fucking Bugatti Veyron.

I seriously doubt that the RQ-170 sentinel is over 10 years old. Maybe the UAV program is, but not this particular Unmanned Areal Vehicle. But what is the point of your flood of words ? Are we not allowed to gaze upon the marvels of US military equipment while giving positive critique as well on some issues ?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Most likely :

http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article544631.ece?service=print

By ANDREA SHALAL-ESA AND DAVID ALEXANDER | REUTERS
Published: Dec 7, 2011 17:24 Updated: Dec 7, 2011 17:24

The aircraft is flown remotely by pilots based in the United States, but is also programmed to autonomously fly back to the base it departed from if its data link with US-based pilots is lost, according to defense analyst Loren Thompson, who is a consultant for Lockheed and other companies.

Other unmanned aircraft have a similar capability, including General Atomics’ Predator drone, industry sources said.

The fact that the plane did not return to its base suggests a “catastrophic” technical malfunction, agreed one industry executive familiar with the operation and programming of unmanned aerial vehicles.

US officials say they always worry about the possibility of sensitive military technologies falling into the hands of other countries or terrorist groups, one reason US planes quickly destroyed a stealthy helicopter that was damaged during the Bin Laden raid in Pakistan.

Many classified weapons systems have self-destruction capabilities that can be activated if they fall into enemy hands but it was not immediately clear if that was the case this time.

In this case, the design of the plane and the fact that it had special coatings that made it nearly invisible to radar were already well documented. If it survived a crash, all on-board computer equipment was heavily encrypted.

Lockheed confirmed that it makes the RQ-170 drone, which came out of its secretive Skunk Works facility in southern California, but referred all questions about the current incident to the Air Force.

Thompson and several current and former defense officials said they doubted Iranian claims to have shot the aircraft down because of its stealthy features and ability to operate at relatively high altitudes.

Iran was also unlikely to have jammed its flight controls because that system is highly encrypted and uses a direct uplink to a US satellite, they said.

“The US Air Force has experienced declining attrition rates with most of its unmanned aircraft. However this is a relatively new aircraft and there aren’t many in the fleet, which means that malfunctions and mistakes are more likely to occur,” Thompson said.

One former defense official familiar with the RQ-170 and other unmanned aircraft said he “absolutely” agreed that the aircraft was not lost due to any action by Iran.

Exact details about the drone remain classified but industry insiders say the plane flies at around 50,000 feet and may have a wing span of up to 90 feet. Its shape hearkens back to the batwing design of the radar-evading B-2 bomber.

 

[cwjerome]

I seriously doubt that the RQ-170 sentinel is over 10 years old. Maybe the UAV program is, but not this particular Unmanned Areal Vehicle. But what is the point of your flood of words ? Are we not allowed to gaze upon the marvels of US military equipment while giving positive critique as well on some issues ?

The Sentinel is about 9 years old from the start of development, which is where much of the foundational systems would have been designed, which is where I was going as far as built-in limitations. The first flight was likely sometime in 2005.

I am all about positive critique, love it, do it myself... often. I do not consider the Op's PWNED!!! attitude or LL's usual anti-US-military ramblings to be positive critiques. Just saying.