upvote

points

by zerobees2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby moritzwarhier2 hours ago|
next
[-]
I think it's simply because of using a public channel for encrypted communication.
reply
upvoteby ronsor2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Technically all RF communications are "public." You have to use encryption if you want security.
reply
upvoteby jjtheblunt2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Would point to point laser seem like it's RF and not readily snooped without detection?
reply
upvoteby wang_li1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Unless you are in a vacuum, a laser that can reach a useful distance can be observed due to atmospheric scattering.
reply
upvoteby 866-RON-0-FEZ1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah GPS is not the people's airwaves it is operated by the US Space Force, I suggest you read up on your history.
reply
upvoteby moritzwarhier1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
OK, I have to further narrow down my statement then: a publicly readable medium (or one-way channel).

I didn't want to imply that regular people could simply inject data into what's emitted by GPS satellites.

Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I am aware that GPS is operated by the US military.

reply
upvoteby tokai2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Yeah its not a number station at all.
reply
upvoteby Analemma_2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I disagree? The point of a numbers station is that it broadcasts in the clear and anyone with a receiver can get it, but only people with the appropriate decryption key can make any use of it. Since it's broadcasting all the time, there's no need for steganography or covert transmission. That's exactly what a numbers station is.

Where the article loses me is the implication that this is somehow sinister or beyond the pale: it's just piggybacking on a global transmitter network that exists anyway, why not?

reply
upvoteby anigbrowl1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
This implication is purely in your head. The article and the scientist whose work it describes are just pointing out the identification of some data that's been transmitted across a public channel for years without anyne noticing.
reply
upvoteby thaumasiotes1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Since it's broadcasting all the time, there's no need for steganography or covert transmission.

Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that the fact that it's broadcasting all the time is the steganography. That constant transmission of nonsense that nobody wants is what makes it fail to be suspicious when you send a message that somebody does want.

reply
upvoteby tokai1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Its all comes down to what we buy as the definition for a number station. For me a number station needs sends a message to be a number station, not a key.
reply
upvoteby sgjohnson1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>For me a number station needs sends a message to be a number station, not a key.

We don't know that it's a key that's being sent. For all we know, it could be just random data. Obviously it's most likely not random data, but ciphertext. Either way, we have no idea what the message is.

reply
upvoteby robotresearcher1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
A data payload you didn't already know is a message. This message contains a key.
reply
upvoteby anigbrowl1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
“Every receiver in the world decodes Subframe 4, Page 17,” Murdoch said in his new article. [...] “Every GPS satellite is a numbers station,” he concluded.
reply