I was rather puzzled by your statement that you think the PRC is more into hacking than most people expect. I thought that expectations regarding China, as well as Russia, are already pretty high. So do you think those already high expectations are low balling it or do you think the conventional wisdom doesn't think China invests a lot in cyber asymmetric warfare capability?

I don't think the conventional wisdom even particularly breaks down based on support of engagement with China. Although there is some disagreement about the extent to which nationalistic hacker attacks are independent of the state.

Right aviation blog, wrong tag ;)

On the one hand, says the CBS report,

senior commanders largely dismissed the concerns as they were too preoccupied with the more material threats of the day; IEDs and insurgent attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemies in those countries were not considered technically advanced enough to downlink the unencrypted video themselves

On the other,

In 2002, a British engineer who scans satellite signals for recreation at his home stumbled across a NATO video feed from the Kosovo war.

Anyone pirating satellite channels in Iraq—no doubt a popular way to watch tv—could have discovered a very interesting extra "channel", or the insurgents or their allies could have just watched media reports documenting this weakness.

Tom, you must have watched widely available Iraqi insurgent propaganda. This Predator episode brings to mind Jaish al-Rashideen's video "Code of Silence". Start watching this clip at 0:32 and listen to the boastful insurgent, narrating a purported precision missile attack,

According to the Lie Department, we are just a bunch of primitive barbarians with absolutely no brain in our heads. [Camera pans over masked insurgents in boardroom planning attack while typing on laptops.]

So your original take about underestimating the enemy—even to the point of doubting their ability to watch free tv!—is unfortunately correct.

One of the dilemmas of how to organize research and development projects is that although small teams can develop products more rapidly than large bureaucracies, the small agile team is also more likely to overlook something important, such as the vulnerability of transmissions to interception. Unfortunately the DoD R&D life cycle model often drags things out for as long as 12 years before a product is in the hands of troops.

"Always underestimate the enemy!"

Am starting to think that tech-savvy should be a prerequisite to flag rank. Today's WSJ piece on the drone flap strongly suggests that the senior military officials who were so cavalier in dismissing the need for down-pipe encryption just didn't understand 'the internets' and all that stuff.

it is the follow-on gap - that place between the nimble who are needed and the phalanx program of record REMF.

How does the adjustment occur or middle ground transition....commercial product managers are good at this.

DoD is more in-transit military and non accountable SES and civil service. They are like product line managers in the order of Chrysler or the old GM before 1980. Good medical and retirement programs, private country clubs, trade schools and suppliers that are eager to hire family members, sponsor sporting events and meet what is desired. Cost no object or higher the cost the higher the rank.

What I wonder is if the enemy is able to access stored video and not simply a live feed -- if so, I would hope that a single UAV is not used for surveillance of both Enemy and Friendlies. If a unit captures video of US troop movement and that video is carried with it to a place where the feed can be intercepted there is the danger of giving away serious intel.

it was news that the troops patrolling from platinum- wired armored vehicles could finally view the sky-eye video feed on their problem, instead of talking about what it showed, maybe over a sat-delayed link.

It's worth considering that our technical security (in many cases) may cost us more in delays and confusion, inability to access our own stuff, than it protects us from the enemy.

Consider the USS Liberty, pleading for fighter cover, while the 6th Fleet puzzled over the lack of com protocol, let alone passwords, and waited for guidance from 5 time zones away. Two years later it was sister ship Pueblo's turn. And those were premiere USN communications platforms, tasked to operate on the edge of a conflict zone.

To err is human. Bleeding too. But not necessarily by the same folks.

BEADWINDOW!

Dear Tom;

Like the new format. Your site architects have done you well here.

Aside, with healthcare, high plains surge, planet above water, this President understands fundamentals and audacity is most fundamental when it survives against darker forces and its very good to get off the beach as soon as possible.

Now back to the drones either in the air or elsewhere.

This doesn’t seem to be much of an issue.
What does it matter if the goat knows the tiger is watching from the nearby tree? Unless the goat can outrun or outfight the tiger, the result will still be the same.
When fighters or drones can launch bombs and missiles from miles away, hacked visual feeds become next to useless for intelligence purposes.
And when drones become fully automated, there will be no visual feeds for the enemy to hack at all.
Oh. And the idea of ‘innocent goatherds’ being the ones hacking into military drone aircraft? That made me laugh. Thanks HBC.
Regards - Car Leasing

Hacking the data to keep update about the Security Systems developments of other countries or might be we can say about the enemy countries is a common strategy of every country. So according to me its wrong to take any
particular name as every one is doing the same. Its very important to
know how they used the hacked data for their further preparations for
any war or attack. Even after having latest technology ie. telephone
tapping etc. at the time of attack or say war its really necessary to
see how much and in what way it can be utilized to stop it early. Which
I think is very rarely happening.