Legally Breaking Encryption

[57Bill]

What I always liked about the "hobby" of monitoring radio signals was being able to listen to something that was not directed to me, nor intended for me to hear (police, fire, military, business, maritime, aircraft, etc). I NEVER cared if there was some unenforceable law against monitoring, and never understood why anyone else would. I am obviously in the minority.

 

[DonS]

What I always liked about the "hobby" of monitoring radio signals was being able to listen to something that was not directed to me, nor intended for me to hear (police, fire, military, business, maritime, aircraft, etc). I NEVER cared if there was some unenforceable law against monitoring, and never understood why anyone else would. I am obviously in the minority.

18 USC 2511 again...
If it's not encrypted, there's a specific exemption for intercepting public safety communications. There are also specific exemptions for monitoring marine and aircraft.

From the post above, shall we presume that you'd be OK with the general public monitoring all of your wireless communications (encrypted or not), even though there might be "unenforceable laws" (read: are laws) against such monitoring?

 

[INDY72]

To make a very long story short- This is the problem. You crack one key, and now hear comms... Til they switch keys the next day or ten minutes later....Not to mention that your radio has to share data with the ones your trying to hear to be able to function. Thus ninety times out of a hundred they know your there... And can and most likely will kill your radio. Unenforceable? Hmmmm If the law was not enforceable how do you get so many cases in the courts? Folks can keep dreaming about being the next radio James Bond, but thats all this is... Dreams..... For example, on modern digital system, conventional... You need the proper NAC to even hear it, much less anything else.... And then you have to somehow get past network security as most newer consoles will show any radio on the system. On TRS's, there is NO way to even hear any comms at all on a P-25 system without affiliating with an radio. There isn't a way around that on P-25.... So to even have an radio just for RX, it has to have permission to be on that system. Its a lot more than just buying gear, and playing digihacker. This is fact, not just naysaying. If you ask any of the system admins for modern radio networks, youll get told this same information. In fact, a lot of the people you claim have no clue, as NJ said, actually have a lot better clue than you think. We have everyone from just scanner newbies, to extremely experienced systems people on this website,... Including currently and formerly employed federal radio people. Systems designers hire people to try to break into their nets to test security. Its all tested in real world applications not just "lab settings"... For every weakness there are at least three backups in the works.

 

[DonS]

For example, on modern digital system, conventional... You need the proper NAC to even hear it, much less anything else.... And then you have to somehow get past network security as most newer consoles will show any radio on the system. On TRS's, there is NO way to even hear any comms at all on a P-25 system without affiliating with an radio. There isn't a way around that on P-25.... So to even have an radio just for RX, it has to have permission to be on that system.

Maybe if there's encryption involved, but otherwise, it's trivial to monitor traffic on non-encrypted P25 conventional channels and trunked systems. You don't need the NAC to hear conventional traffic, and you don't need to affiliate to monitor a trunked system.

I must have misinterpreted your post, since such monitoring is the whole reason for the existence of the various "digital scanners" that are on the market today.

 

[INDY72]

Was refferring to the whole idea of buying commercial radios and using them to do what the OP suggested... Getting a scanner to "crack" encryption is just about beat to death lol.. And also proven to be impossible...

 

[rvictor]

Since this whole thing seems to be premised on not using a scanner, I would point out that I can't find the word "scanner" in 18 U.S.C. 2510-2515. In fact, 18 U.S.C. 2510(4) provides:

"(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

It doesn't appear, therefore, that the initial premise makes it past the most basic of tests. That doesn't mean that most of the rest isn't similarly without any merit. It just isn't worth the time and energy to bother debating it.

Dick

 

[N_Jay]

Hey NJ, why is it you have to insult everyone? Most of your posts are pure venom and you have lost any credibility you ever had in my eyes a long time ago. You are making false conclusions yourself without opening your mind to what it is exactly I'm talking about. Why don't you review my post and actually see where it is I'm going? There is a post in another section about Radio Know It All's, I think you are one of them because you just can't discuss anything without an arrogance of your own.

This post is going south now when I clearly indicated that I was looking for an intelligent and open minded discussion to begin with. I'm done.

Sorry if your felt insulted after carefully reading everything already posted about encryption, AND still feeling you have somehow found the holly grail of decryption.

Now, if you would like to take a few minuets and review what I am others have posted, you may understand why your posts make you look a little uneducated on the topic. (Believe me, I am not insulting you, you are doing it to yourself.)

As for being a "Know-it-all", I would disagree. There are plenty of things I don't know about. I just don't bother spouting off while ignoring all others suggestions and inputs.

This thread was going south the instant you posted the opening post.

So, if you care to disagree with me, just take a few of my points and do a little research and show where I am so wrong.

(You seem to confuse "open-minded" with "fact-less dreaming")

 

[N_Jay]

Since this whole thing seems to be premised on not using a scanner, I would point out that I can't find the word "scanner" in 18 U.S.C. 2510-2515. In fact, 18 U.S.C. 2510(4) provides:

"(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

It doesn't appear, therefore, that the initial premise makes it past the most basic of tests. That doesn't mean that most of the rest isn't similarly without any merit. It just isn't worth the time and energy to bother debating it.

Dick

WHAT????

His first premise is incorrect. Who would have guessed?

 

[N_Jay]

Because not everyone desires to work in those professions. Because anyone who does end up in those professions are all close relatives or business partners or the family of business partners of politicians. Those professions are dying anyway because of those practices, but let's keep this radio related shall we? Now I'm truly done.

Wow, every police officer, federal agent, and many first responders are "all close relatives or business partners or the family of business partners of politicians."

I did not know.

And those jobs are dying???

Sorry dude, you are far past "done"

 

[aharry]

Wow, every police officer, federal agent, and many first responders are "all close relatives or business partners or the family of business partners of politicians."

I did not know.

And those jobs are dying???

Sorry dude, you are far past "done"

LOL.. you guys are great, I don't know why they close these threads they are so entertaining!

 

[MattSR]

To determine whether DES encrypted audio is "clearaudio" you have to actually listen to a decoded sample.

This is a myth that keeps perpetuating itself - and its wrong too. There are very simple and fast ways of looking for valid data patterns in encrypted voice, all done programmatically. EFF's breaker didnt have to "read" the plaintext to see if it made sense, and nor did it use a dictionary to compare the tested ciphertext against.

 

[N_Jay]

This is a myth that keeps perpetuating itself - and its wrong too. There are very simple and fast ways of looking for valid data patterns in encrypted voice, all done programmatically. EFF's breaker didnt have to "read" the plaintext to see if it made sense, and nor did it use a dictionary to compare the tested ciphertext against.

True, but you would have to develop a test to determine if you have a valid vocoder frame.

This is significantly more difficult than just testing for the relatively simple data patterns in plain text.

Additionally, most data files and wireline data transfers are error free.
This assumption can not be made for radio systems so your test would need to be tolerant of some level of bit errors.

Not impossible, but not trivial.

Again this all refers to your test of the encryption break and does not make it any easier to break the key, just a tad easier to not miss a valid key when you stumble across it.

As for the "entertaining" comment, " Glad to be of service.

 

[MattSR]

This is significantly more difficult than just testing for the relatively simple data patterns in plain text.

Its not harder at all. It's exactly the same. EFF documented it too if you want to read their book - it will explain exactly how its done.

 

[MattSR]

As for the rest of your post, you're very correct - Its not impossible, just not trivial either

 

[Citywide173]

You need to re-read the rules. It is not scanner specific, it states that no person may intercept encrypted communications (intercept indicates that there was no privy present). It doesn't say anything about what device is used to intercept those communications (radio, scanner, computer, etc). Further, can you tell me what license permits "experimentation" under Part 90? If you are licensed under part 90, I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be licensed for the same frequencies as the public safety agencies who's encryption protocol you are trying to decrypt, so there would be no claim that you had any legal right to be using your legally owned equipment to intercept somebody else's protocol. Receive only? Yes, you have a right to put that in the radio, but you have no right to utilize other optional equipment that's installed in the radio (encryption module) that you only have the legal right to use on your own licensed frequencies

Now if you were to be licensed on a frequency, and there was another user using encryption on the same frequency causing interference to your radios, there might be a claim that decrypting for the purpose of identification was necessary, but the rules also state that the station has to identify themselves at regular intervals in the clear so unless it was an illegal user on your licensed frequency, I wouldn't try it.

 

[prcguy]

For experimenting you can get two relatively cheap Sabers, MXs or whatever you can find with DES, DVP, etc. Stick a dummy load on each radio and experiment away within the very limited range the radios will hear each other. The radiated power will be well under part15 levels and every bench tech in the world does this legally when aligning radios.

Motorola made a DES test set that can be had cheap on Epay (I sold mine this year) and you can connect this to a police scanner discriminator output to decode the data. I was able to graft the test set to several radios and essentially make them DES encrypted as an experiment.
prcguy

 

[PeterGV]

You're joking, right?

a) Even a DES key would take you YEARS to break by experimentation.

b) 3DES is considered unbreakable for practical purposes

c) The AES algorithm is considered by the NSA to be acceptable for the encryption of data classified as Top Secret, when it's used with either a 192 bit or a 256 bit key. This means it is sufficiently close to impossible to break with existing technology as to be considered "unbreakable".

Motorola radios (the only ones I know about) can be configured to use DES, 3DES, or AES with key sizes up to 256 bits.

So, just let me get this right: You, sitting at home with a couple of radios, seriously believe that you've discovered a way to break an encryption alogrithm that the NSA has declared safe for TOP SECRET information?

Forgein governments have rooms full of super-computers and mathematicians and they're not able to break AES 256 encryption. But you can?

C'mon... Does that make sense to you?

Peter
K1PGV

 

[Squad10]

Soon after Motorola Securenet was offered in the 80's, I was provided two MX300 portables with DVP, keyloader, and service manual. After six months of EE and CS technical time, it was concluded that it was an exercise in futility to attempt to "break" a well planned non orthogonal encryption key. The level of attack was predicated on one having typical technical resources at the time.

 

[prcguy]

AES is not acceptable for top secret, only Type 1 encryption, which includes VINSON and a few other algorithms
prcguy
.

You're joking, right?

a) Even a DES key would take you YEARS to break by experimentation.

b) 3DES is considered unbreakable for practical purposes

c) The AES algorithm is considered by the NSA to be acceptable for the encryption of data classified as Top Secret, when it's used with either a 192 bit or a 256 bit key. This means it is sufficiently close to impossible to break with existing technology as to be considered "unbreakable".

Motorola radios (the only ones I know about) can be configured to use DES, 3DES, or AES with key sizes up to 256 bits.

So, just let me get this right: You, sitting at home with a couple of radios, seriously believe that you've discovered a way to break an encryption alogrithm that the NSA has declared safe for TOP SECRET information?

Forgein governments have rooms full of super-computers and mathematicians and they're not able to break AES 256 encryption. But you can?

C'mon... Does that make sense to you?

Peter
K1PGV

 

[rvictor]

(intercept indicates that there was no privy present)

Actually, "intercept" is a statutorily defined term as I noted above. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2510(4) provides that:

"(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

We agree, however, that it isn't scanner specific in any event.

Dick