Addon: leetkey for Firefox...password= polterghosty..
ROT-13?? Gur Tubfg
ROT-13?? Gur Tubfg
Last edited:
New digital scanners decoding Digital Encryption
- Thread starter landscaperluke
- Start date
- Status
Crystals
Member
I feel particulary priviliged to have been demonstrated first hand that in at least one instance an encrypted channel here locally is capable of being monitored with equipment in existence today.
The unfortunate facts are that this equipment is only currently available from an overseas manufacturer, will likely never see mass scale production here stateside, and so far was only sucessfully demonstrated on a local system here which does not employ the use of a trunked system instead limiting their transmissions to a couple VHF freaks. I am not an electronics engineer, so don't bother asking me why it's possible on this system but not others.
The market for this software is likely to not support wide production due to the fact that the equipment is so far useless for monitoring federal freaks and even if it eventually were to, the Feds decisive and quick action would bring undesired consequences making the effort devoid of any incentive or reward. The other potential market of Amatuer Radio Operators have no desire to put their licences at risk for such a product, so no potential customer base exists there. With regard to the criminal element, most thugs have no interest in taking the time to educating themselves, as if they posessed the willpower and intelllect they would be in legitimate careers.
But it was fun to listen and know it could be done especially for a cynic such as myself who laughed off similar claims of this technology.
But at the end of the day I found myself wondering why this particular agency made the investment in such a system due to the easily apparent lack of security and discretion required of such a system due to the nature of the radio traffic I heard. This was a PATROL channel after all. Although I did hear one comment mentioned by a local that for this dept at least, the huge monetary cost for secrecy is far less costly to the city than having the public, press, lawyers and fellow cops hear any more of the goofs they have made in the past. Sounds like the superslick sales staff that sold them this system should take a trip a few miles northeast and talk to SPD, hehe.
Anyway. Bottom line is this: some can be de-encrypted, but it ain't really practical as a commercial venture so don't look for it to be encorporated into your next Bearcat anytime in the near future.
The unfortunate facts are that this equipment is only currently available from an overseas manufacturer, will likely never see mass scale production here stateside, and so far was only sucessfully demonstrated on a local system here which does not employ the use of a trunked system instead limiting their transmissions to a couple VHF freaks. I am not an electronics engineer, so don't bother asking me why it's possible on this system but not others.
The market for this software is likely to not support wide production due to the fact that the equipment is so far useless for monitoring federal freaks and even if it eventually were to, the Feds decisive and quick action would bring undesired consequences making the effort devoid of any incentive or reward. The other potential market of Amatuer Radio Operators have no desire to put their licences at risk for such a product, so no potential customer base exists there. With regard to the criminal element, most thugs have no interest in taking the time to educating themselves, as if they posessed the willpower and intelllect they would be in legitimate careers.
But it was fun to listen and know it could be done especially for a cynic such as myself who laughed off similar claims of this technology.
But at the end of the day I found myself wondering why this particular agency made the investment in such a system due to the easily apparent lack of security and discretion required of such a system due to the nature of the radio traffic I heard. This was a PATROL channel after all. Although I did hear one comment mentioned by a local that for this dept at least, the huge monetary cost for secrecy is far less costly to the city than having the public, press, lawyers and fellow cops hear any more of the goofs they have made in the past. Sounds like the superslick sales staff that sold them this system should take a trip a few miles northeast and talk to SPD, hehe.
Anyway. Bottom line is this: some can be de-encrypted, but it ain't really practical as a commercial venture so don't look for it to be encorporated into your next Bearcat anytime in the near future.
You guys have beat around the bush about this question, however none of you ever answered the question. There is a way that you can do this. It is saphisticated, done the same way that you would decryped satellite tv transmissions. I don't own any equipment capable of doing this however.
JoeyC
Senior Member
FOR SALE: 3BR 2BA Beachfront condo in NW Nebraska with awesome ocean views. Interested parties, inquire within.
N2JDS
Member
I have seen many times people on those departments who think going digital means they are encrypted. Just because their old school scanner stopped getting them. I've been asked several times how I was able to "crack the code". I Simply plunk down $500 and get newer radio. Must be the same group that isn't understanding the DTV change too.
It's not only sophisticated - it is impossible. Please slowly read through the thread again and repeat after me - it's impossible.
N
N_Jay
Guest
Isn't it interesting how a new person can join on one day, and the very next day post a well composed post about breaking encryption, obviously trolling for reaction, ten disappear just as fast.
I think someone should check the IP and if the same as an existing member, ban that person.
Wouldn't it be nice if vBulletin had module that would detect multiple registrations from the same computer, even if the IP was different.
That is the absolute possible worst thing that you can reccomend. If the radio should affilaite it will re-route the traffic from the dispatcher and it will no longer be listening to the talk-group it should be listening to. Dangerous move for all involved.
Also I can inhibit a duplicate ID that is programmed to a console and not affect its operation, but it will stun the radio.
BaLa
Member
I think generally those people don't care.
PeterGV
K1PGV
The difficulty of cracking an "encrypted" message depends on the complexity of the encryption algorithm. There are probably still departments that use speech inversion and call it "encryption."
Let's restrict our discussion to DIGITAL entryption. Some digital encryption algorithms CAN be broken, it's a matter of time and effort. For example single DES can be broken. Triple spin DES (often called 3DES) is exceptionally difficult, and is considered to be safe for all practical purposes.
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 offers a wide-variety of encryption capabilities for their radios, which have varied over the years. From simple DVI and DVP to DES to (most recently) AES with 256 bit keys. They've also implemented Fascinator and Indicator, which are government and DoD proprietary encryption schemes (which are assumed to be inferior to AES, but who really knows).
So, you see... some encrypted communciations could be broken. Other can't.
Practically speaking, there's not ever going to be a scanner that can break even the most simple digital encryption technology. You need super fast computers, lots of data samples, and lots of time.
Peter
K1PGV
Let's restrict our discussion to DIGITAL entryption. Some digital encryption algorithms CAN be broken, it's a matter of time and effort. For example single DES can be broken. Triple spin DES (often called 3DES) is exceptionally difficult, and is considered to be safe for all practical purposes.
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 offers a wide-variety of encryption capabilities for their radios, which have varied over the years. From simple DVI and DVP to DES to (most recently) AES with 256 bit keys. They've also implemented Fascinator and Indicator, which are government and DoD proprietary encryption schemes (which are assumed to be inferior to AES, but who really knows).
So, you see... some encrypted communciations could be broken. Other can't.
Practically speaking, there's not ever going to be a scanner that can break even the most simple digital encryption technology. You need super fast computers, lots of data samples, and lots of time.
Peter
K1PGV
buddyw
Member
No scanner intercepted an encrypted transmission and cracked it in real time. It was just likely just a digital signal that they thought was encrypted.
rdale is pretty much right - assuming that there is no weakness in the way that the encryption was implemented and they used a pseudo-random key there is no way to build a radio that can listen in.
DES (old technology developed in '76) uses a relatively weak 56 bit key that could be cracked by a person that has a lot of radio/computer/encryption knowledge. The problem is it would take weeks (smart and lots of money) or months to years of work to crack one key. If the site rekeys you have to start all over again. It is impractical and also extremely illegal.
AES uses a 128 bit key. If it is implemented properly it can not be cracked by any known or theoretical method. Period. This is what the government uses to encrypt classified documents. Unless there is a huge weakness is found in the Rijndael algorithm it will never be done with current or even foreseeable technology.
Keysizes are exponential. A 128 bit key has 2^128 possibilities. Every time you add a 'bit' to the key it is twice as hard to crack. A 128 bit key cannot be brute-forced. I don't think I can paint a better picture than Burt Kaliski at RSA:
"Imagine a computer that is the size of a grain of sand that can test keys against some encrypted data. Also imagine that it can test a key in the amount of time it takes light to cross it. Then consider a cluster of these computers, so many that if you covered the earth with them, they would cover the whole planet to the height of 1 meter. The cluster of computers would crack a 128-bit key on average in 1,000 years. "
That "computer that is the size of a grain of sand" he speaks of is waaaaaaaaayyyyy beyond anything we can build today and you would have to cover the earth in them a meter deep! It still won't get the key in 10 lifetimes.
There is a chance that quantum computing will change some of these numbers, but that is highly theoretical and more targeted at public key cryptography than the symmetric encryption we are dealing with. No one has come close to a prototype that actually does what mathematicians are theorizing.
And it sure as heck isn't built into anyone's scanner.
rdale is pretty much right - assuming that there is no weakness in the way that the encryption was implemented and they used a pseudo-random key there is no way to build a radio that can listen in.
DES (old technology developed in '76) uses a relatively weak 56 bit key that could be cracked by a person that has a lot of radio/computer/encryption knowledge. The problem is it would take weeks (smart and lots of money) or months to years of work to crack one key. If the site rekeys you have to start all over again. It is impractical and also extremely illegal.
AES uses a 128 bit key. If it is implemented properly it can not be cracked by any known or theoretical method. Period. This is what the government uses to encrypt classified documents. Unless there is a huge weakness is found in the Rijndael algorithm it will never be done with current or even foreseeable technology.
Keysizes are exponential. A 128 bit key has 2^128 possibilities. Every time you add a 'bit' to the key it is twice as hard to crack. A 128 bit key cannot be brute-forced. I don't think I can paint a better picture than Burt Kaliski at RSA:
"Imagine a computer that is the size of a grain of sand that can test keys against some encrypted data. Also imagine that it can test a key in the amount of time it takes light to cross it. Then consider a cluster of these computers, so many that if you covered the earth with them, they would cover the whole planet to the height of 1 meter. The cluster of computers would crack a 128-bit key on average in 1,000 years. "
That "computer that is the size of a grain of sand" he speaks of is waaaaaaaaayyyyy beyond anything we can build today and you would have to cover the earth in them a meter deep! It still won't get the key in 10 lifetimes.
There is a chance that quantum computing will change some of these numbers, but that is highly theoretical and more targeted at public key cryptography than the symmetric encryption we are dealing with. No one has come close to a prototype that actually does what mathematicians are theorizing.
And it sure as heck isn't built into anyone's scanner.
In the gaming world its called PunkBuster. :lol: And it's called a hardware ban, if you can believe it.
Except everyone would have to run the client to join the forum. But, as you can imagine there are hacks for this.
Last edited:
Nothing is "impossible" and never say never.
N
N_Jay
Guest
You are right.
However. with regard to the "IMPOSSIBLE" statement; within the abilities of the the people asking the question and those expressing the opinion that it is possible/been done/easy/ etc., and the time frame they are asking about/saying it was done/would be easy/etc., it is IMPOSSIBLE.
As for the "NEVER", maybe "not for the foreseeable future, nor in any relevant period of time worth discussing" would be more accurate.
Happy?:twisted::lol::twisted:
Crystals
Member
To The Censorship Board Chairman
You may choose to not believe me and that is fine. Had I not encountered this piece of technology myself, I too would have regarded this shared experience with some degree of suspicion. However, your obvious disdain for the subject matter is puzzling considering your volume of participation.
Most would laugh off any comments they find uncredible, however you would have it so that any one who shares an experience that conflicts with what you know to be true, you would have those comments removed, the time and resources allocated to having the poster researched investigated and their motives questioned is a bit compulsive.
I can recall the dialog when TrunkTracker was only a rumor and knowledgable folks said it would never happen because of the licensing/patent issues and technological limitations at the time. Although the challenges in this area are more complex technologically and legality barriers exist, your tone shares some similarities with the frustrated objections presented to anyone who would dare suggest that it would come to pass. Sometimes one can be so knowledgeable and educated on a subject that they are certain that something is not possible until the day they witness the technology in action. Whether you believe me or not I really don't care. My post was directed to those who may have seen the same device I had, or could offer some insight into how it worked.
Although you had no insight and no knowledge of what I saw, you chose to post anyway, expressing your anger that someone would share an experience that contradicts what you have publicly stated is not possible. Perhaps you would find a forum more interesting if it were moderated to your standards and the opposing viewpoints were deleted and the poster's motivations questioned, and where persons with limited post counts must restrict their comments to a subject matter that is more appropriate for what you would classify as a *newbie*. However I would find such limitations detrimental to the success of a free and informative exchange of ideas and experiences.
Most users are pretty good at ignoring something they determine to be not worthy of consideration and move on. Your response expands beyond the sensibilities of a well adjusted contributor, and I hope you can learn to not take such offense in the future.
But until then, I take great satisfaction in having witnessed something, firsthand, in operation, that a man with your vast knowledge and experience cannot fathom is even possible.
Relax, there Cowboy. There's no conspiracy going on here. Although I can appreciate your strategic action plan to remove posts you find step outside your personal knowledge and experiences comfort zone, I can say that your hostility toward my statement is unwarranted.Isn't it interesting how a new person can join on one day, and the very next day post a well composed post about breaking encryption, obviously trolling for reaction, ten disappear just as fast.
I think someone should check the IP and if the same as an existing member, ban that person.
Wouldn't it be nice if vBulletin had module that would detect multiple registrations from the same computer, even if the IP was different.
You may choose to not believe me and that is fine. Had I not encountered this piece of technology myself, I too would have regarded this shared experience with some degree of suspicion. However, your obvious disdain for the subject matter is puzzling considering your volume of participation.
Most would laugh off any comments they find uncredible, however you would have it so that any one who shares an experience that conflicts with what you know to be true, you would have those comments removed, the time and resources allocated to having the poster researched investigated and their motives questioned is a bit compulsive.
I can recall the dialog when TrunkTracker was only a rumor and knowledgable folks said it would never happen because of the licensing/patent issues and technological limitations at the time. Although the challenges in this area are more complex technologically and legality barriers exist, your tone shares some similarities with the frustrated objections presented to anyone who would dare suggest that it would come to pass. Sometimes one can be so knowledgeable and educated on a subject that they are certain that something is not possible until the day they witness the technology in action. Whether you believe me or not I really don't care. My post was directed to those who may have seen the same device I had, or could offer some insight into how it worked.
Although you had no insight and no knowledge of what I saw, you chose to post anyway, expressing your anger that someone would share an experience that contradicts what you have publicly stated is not possible. Perhaps you would find a forum more interesting if it were moderated to your standards and the opposing viewpoints were deleted and the poster's motivations questioned, and where persons with limited post counts must restrict their comments to a subject matter that is more appropriate for what you would classify as a *newbie*. However I would find such limitations detrimental to the success of a free and informative exchange of ideas and experiences.
Most users are pretty good at ignoring something they determine to be not worthy of consideration and move on. Your response expands beyond the sensibilities of a well adjusted contributor, and I hope you can learn to not take such offense in the future.
But until then, I take great satisfaction in having witnessed something, firsthand, in operation, that a man with your vast knowledge and experience cannot fathom is even possible.
NOBODY (who had any knowledge of scanners) ever said trunktracking would be unmonitorable.
Nobody.
So that sort of makes the rest of your post unbelievable too.
Nobody.
So that sort of makes the rest of your post unbelievable too.
Digital is not encryption. Cops are not radio techs and usually don't have much knowledge about radios.
I just had one tell me they were not going on a county trunk radio but were going to have the county freq. in their radio. No clue would be the answer. Many people have trouble understanding talkgroups vs. frequency.
I just had one tell me they were not going on a county trunk radio but were going to have the county freq. in their radio. No clue would be the answer. Many people have trouble understanding talkgroups vs. frequency.
SkipSanders
Silent Key
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 1,059
To cover 'One Time Pads'.
Concept: The pad numbers are RANDOM. (Yes, not absolutely, unless you really went all out, but close enough.)
This means, essentially, your message is random numbers. Sure, you can get a computer to try to decode it. It can, and will, produce any number of 'messages' of the same number of characters, because ANY message could have produced that same random output coded message. There is no way to 'pick' which of the massive number of 'possible messages' is the REAL message.
Message: 1 5 7 23
Meanings: Then, Them, That, Shot, Hers, and any other four letter word. No way to pick which.
Concept: The pad numbers are RANDOM. (Yes, not absolutely, unless you really went all out, but close enough.)
This means, essentially, your message is random numbers. Sure, you can get a computer to try to decode it. It can, and will, produce any number of 'messages' of the same number of characters, because ANY message could have produced that same random output coded message. There is no way to 'pick' which of the massive number of 'possible messages' is the REAL message.
Message: 1 5 7 23
Meanings: Then, Them, That, Shot, Hers, and any other four letter word. No way to pick which.
N
N_Jay
Guest
And no one said there was.
Wrong on multiple counts.
1) My interest was only in removing obvious trolling,
2) probably generated by a member with a second user name in violation of site rules.
3) You are having the same reading issues others (or maybe you) have shown.
If you are being honest, then I would believe that you must have misinterpreted or misunderstood what was being demonstrated.
I have no disdain for the topic, but do for those trolling about it.
The fact that my position "Puzzles" you further supports my position that you were either received or are attempting to decieve.
Again, you have misread what I posted.
Your comments are easily laughed off.
My objection was to a post that by its wording, placement, and the member it was from appeared to be am intentional trolling post by a user with a second user name.
Interesting. A brand new member with such deep historical understanding?
Hmmm, something smell like "troll" to me.
But to address the "facts" you present.
While you, and many people, relate these two issues, that only goes to highlight your basic misunderstanding of the encryption process.
Maybe you need to use your deep history of the posts here and review what I have said about encryption.
Not only do I take exception to the "facts" you present, I take exception to your evaluation of my position.
Again, you have not read (or found yourself incapable of understanding) what I have written.
If your intentions are honest, you have chosen a poor way to accomplish them.
Somehow I doubt you are being honest.
While there are people who THINK they are "so educated" that they are surprised by new information, those are not truly "knowledgeable" on the subject.
"Knowledge" allows you to sort out the likely from the unlikely, and to appropriately question the unlikely to determine of it is true or not.
Your post only shows you to be able to be easily deceived, and happy to share that new found "knowledge".
Yet again . . . You obviously did not both to read what I wrote. (Or are structuring this response as a continuing troll).
I have all the knowledge of what you saw that you chose to share. (How could I have more)
My disdain was to what, for multiple reasons that you continue to demonstrate here, was likely just a trolling post.
WOW, where do you get any of that (other than intentional trolling).
If you believe I have stated or implied that position, please find a thread or post to quote. Again, your imply a very deep understanding of what has been posted from your very short membership.
You misinterpreted what I posted.
I did ignore what you posted. I just took a few seconds of time to point out that I thought it was "TROLLING CRAP", and I believed, most likely was posted by someone using a second name to disguise their identity.
I maintain that belief, and this post only supports my position.
It is good you take such satisfaction.
Ignorance is bliss.
Maybe someday you will chose to take a course or two on encryption systems. (I find them much more satisfying than falling for parlor tricks.)
- Status
Similar threads
BCD325P2/BCD996P2:
BCD325P2 and Louisiana LWIN
