Iraiq millitary taps into drone video feed.

**DonVitoJr** · 12-17-09, 09:42 PM

http://m.yahoo.com/w/ynews/article/t...tl=US&.lang=en

Discuss.

**jason_jinx** · 12-17-09, 09:51 PM

ban them through their ip

**SmokenScion** · 12-17-09, 10:36 PM

Duh>?

**SmokenScion** · 12-17-09, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by smokenspectre

Duh>?

jesus, what a nimrod. mmj?

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 12-18-09, 07:23 AM

Encryption is good.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 12-18-09, 07:26 AM

I can only hope that at least once someone has watched the hellfire that killed them come in.

That would make this easier to stomach.

**SapiensErus** · 12-19-09, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

I can only hope that at least once someone has watched the hellfire that killed them come in.

That would make this easier to stomach.

That is a very funny mental image... "Hey wait! that's my ... "

**JimboIncinerator** · 12-19-09, 10:47 AM

I'm actually quite shocked the video feed was never encrypted to begin with. THe control side of the aircraft is encrypted which is obviously a good thing but I'm am seriously puzzled why this wasn't done on the video side.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 12-19-09, 11:08 AM

Couldn't they use a freq-hop encryption, just like they do/did for the sincgars?

**Menoske** · 12-19-09, 12:09 PM

Welcome to products produced by government contracting.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret. Many projects and technologies, including the UAV programs use legacy systems that already have a security accredidation as a baseline for their system. Unfortunately, most legacy systems still use unsecure protocols to transfer data and yet the systems still get fielded and get their ATO (Authority To Operate).

Now that being said, something on the front lines usually has to meet a much stricter set of security guidelines buuuut who knows.

The lack of security in government projects does not suprise me in the least.