Even though I'm new...

[JohnneLee]

Hi Guys,

I'm new to the site/forum and I have been away from SWL for sometime (My limited radio time was spent on the ham bands.) I am retired due to injury so my radio time is unlimited. Yeah...

It is amazing what has transpired in the RF spectrum and the commo biz in a decade! I'm quite excited about all the challenges out there today.

I have a fair bit of "professional" experience with digi/encryption. I thought I would share something, though you all are probably well aware of this.

There are, in fact, a couple of encryption systems that will only be decoded by the users, or by one of my employers from the distant past. (And hobbyists like us would be insane to even think about trying.) However, the overwhelming majority of encrypted communication uses similar simple encryption systems. Software to decode those systems are readily available (if it is legal in your locale).

Because of the very mixed legal issues involved, those individuals who write (or even possess) this kind of software don't advertise the fact. And they sure don't advertise the fact on any public forum that is probably being code-word tracked. If anyone here has ever made the trek to "Lost Wages" at the right times of the year I'm sure you fully understand this (and are probably far better informed than I.)

Just my $00.02 on the subject.

You can tell I'm still a bit paranoid around the edges, huh?

73 to all

jl

 

[kb2vxa]

You should be paranoid to the core. Decryption by any means is a federal felony and we really don't like to talk about it. "And they sure don't advertise the fact on any public forum that is probably being code-word tracked." Yeah, now STHU. (;->)

 

[achard]

Really?

I was under the impression that most encrypted systems are near impossible to decrypt.

Are you maybe confusing the term encrypted with encoded?
If that was the case, a discussion of decoding the signals you talk of (I imagine) would be quite OK.

And anyone feel free to jump in and tell me I'm wrong, and we should not be talking of such things.

 

[N0IU]

I believe this forum is for the discussion of working with digital communication schemes such as RTTY, PSK31 and the like, not bypassing systems that are meant to provide secure communications. But then again, there are folks at the Pentagon who don't believe in any type of communications security!

http://forums.radioreference.com/world-news-events/167272-uavs-hacked.html

 

[SCPD]

Not advocating

With the advances seen in technology, I would not be surprised to learn someday, that some forum of encryption could be hacked. I started putzing with computers as a hobby in 1978, and from that point forward has been nothing but excitement as technology advanced.

Last week I learned that the might Linux had taken a fall, in that a screensaver was created and uploaded to gnome-look.org, this innocent looking screensaver was anything but innocent, as it contained an exploit which installed itself to the system. Exactly what the payload was, I am unsure of, but the point is (or was rather) that Linux is/was not vulnerable to viruses. Okay, it's a fine line between a virus and a trojan (or malware delivery), but the proof in concept was made, Linux can be vulnerable too.

It may take a long time to break encryption, and I don't condone or endorse trying to break encryption for obvious reasons. But as technology changes we should probably recognize that someday it could happen.

As I was taught along time ago, nothing is impossible, just improbable.