Well Written Opinion Article Regarding Police Encryption.

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Police Radio Encryption: Not Secure, A Transparency Failure, A Public Safety Nightmare

Ask any security expert, and they'll mention PRINCIPLE ONE: A security system is only as strong as it's weakest link. Some police departments around the world are choosing to encrypt their radio communications. Some police departments deliberately keep their channels open, and some even provide a fe

www.arlingtoncardinal.com

 

[Outerdog]

Well written?

Another possibility for security breach is the chance that the sophisticated encryption can be decoded. Motorola, the main supplier of encrypted radios, reports that it is impossible to break their AES 256 feature, as their encryption keys are very complex and can change daily. Claims are made that even if the encryption were defeated, a new code generated would require the decryption hackers to start all over again. However, there are already reports of hackers that have purchased Motorola radios, who are attempting to crack the encryption with multiple computers and specialized software.

Sorry, but no.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Nothing untrue about that statement.

"However, there are already reports of hackers that have purchased Motorola radios, who are attempting to crack the encryption with multiple computers and specialized software."

 

[Outerdog]

Citation needed.

Fantasizing on the internet is not the same as "attempting to crack" AES. If there are "already reports of hackers" doing this, and you are asserting the reporter's statement is true, surely you can provide one citation?

Here is more evidence that it is a crap article: there is no byline. It's another rant from some dweeb who can't listen to the po-po in Arlington Heights.

I'm not arguing the merits of encryption. Just saying that article is trash.

 

[n6hgg]

How about this statement? The guy seems to think that GPS is two dimensional when it is totally three dimensional:

"A “smart” and determined crook would keep moving or head for a high-rise building where GPS can’t pinpoint vertical space".

The article is over 9 years old. Fun to read but maybe obsolete on a technological level.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Citation needed.

Fantasizing on the internet is not the same as "attempting to crack" AES. If there are "already reports of hackers" doing this, and you are asserting the reporter's statement is true, surely you can provide one citation?

Here is more evidence that it is a crap article: there is no byline. It's another rant from some dweeb who can't listen to the po-po in Arlington Heights.

I'm not arguing the merits of encryption. Just saying that article is trash.

A citation? Here ya go. Here is one...

Why (Special Agent) Johnny (Still) Can’t Encrypt:
A Security Analysis of the APCO Project 25 Two-Way Radio System
Sandy Clark Travis Goodspeed Perry Metzger Zachary Wasserman Kevin Xu
Matt Blaze
University of Pennsylvania

 

[Outerdog]

A citation? Here ya go. Here is one...

Why (Special Agent) Johnny (Still) Can’t Encrypt:
A Security Analysis of the APCO Project 25 Two-Way Radio System
Sandy Clark Travis Goodspeed Perry Metzger Zachary Wasserman Kevin Xu
Matt Blaze
University of Pennsylvania

You should read it.

That paper speaks to the difficulties of operating with encryption including security challenges presented by passive and active adversaries, denial of service attacks, and general challenges with user land implementations. It has absolutely nothing to do with "cracking" AES.

Try again.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

PLONK

 

[Outerdog]

PLONK

Got it.

So your motivation in posting the "well written article" (lol) was not to have a discussion about the article, but instead was an attempt to stir **** up.

Troll.

 

[xmo]

" With encryption, it is possible that the complex encryption key code will not come across the airwaves completely with the voice transmission, and then the voice will not be accepted by the receiving radio. Instead of digital distortion being heard by the receiving parties, nothing will be heard at all. At least with unencrypted digital distortion, the receiving party can tell something is being communicated,

This alone tells us that the author of the "well written" article doesn't know what he is talking about!

 

[Outerdog]

" With encryption, it is possible that the complex encryption key code will not come across the airwaves completely

 

[chrismol1]

" dirty cops that belong to a tactical team that keep their radios with them at all times. How about a cop going through a divorce, behind on a mortgage, or a cop who needs cash? The encrypted radio communications with the inclination toward voice communications of a more sensitive nature would be a hot commodity for criminals. In exchange for cash, the dirty cop could provide just what organized crime needs "

Ha wow

Here's the follow up to the first article where commenters rip on the first article and the reporter responds, it can be pretty juicy at times

OP-ED: Crypto Cop vs. The Cardinal on Police Radio Encryption

On December 26, 2012, The Cardinal featured an OP-ED entitled Police Radio Encryption: Not Secure, A Transparency Failure, A Public Safety Nightmare. Yesterday, a reader posted a comment criticizing the article with some very good points about why police radios should be encrypted. The Cardinal's po

www.arlingtoncardinal.com

 

[AM909]

How about this statement? The guy seems to think that GPS is two dimensional when it is totally three dimensional:

"A “smart” and determined crook would keep moving or head for a high-rise building where GPS can’t pinpoint vertical space".

The article is over 9 years old. Fun to read but maybe obsolete on a technological level.

True, GPS provides an elevation, but is it actually implemented usefully in law enforcement apps? If a radio is on the 25th story of a building and sends its position, does it send the elevation, and does the receiving CAD app even display the elevation, let alone know how to map it to a floor number (i.e. does it have a 3D map database)?

 

[mmckenna]

I think the key thing here is this is an "OP-ED" article. Anyone who can put two words together can write one. It's just that, OPinion/EDitorial.
Take it with any other opinion you hear. If you like what it says, then it's gospel truth. If you don't like what it says, it's trash.

I read it. It's one persons opinion based on a lack of understanding, and a chip on their shoulder. Just like this very post right here, and almost every other one on the internet.

 

[Outerdog]

True, GPS provides an elevation, but is it actually implemented usefully in law enforcement apps? If a radio is on the 25th story of a building and sends its position, does it send the elevation, and does the receiving CAD app even display the elevation, let alone know how to map it to a floor number (i.e. does it have a 3D map database)?

It doesn't matter. The fact that the author thinks a determined crook is gonna go perch up in a high rise with his ill gotten radio and listen to the po-po is absurd on its face.

I think the key thing here is this is an "OP-ED" article.

While what you say is true, OP sold the article as "well written" -- the point of all of this is that it is not, in fact, well written by any reasonable definition. It's trash.

 

[mmckenna]

While what you say is true, OP sold the article as "well written" -- the point of all of this is that it is not, in fact, well written by any reasonable definition. It's trash.

I concur.