https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/529055344191111169 Fired up a spectrum analyzer as POTUS motorcade went by. Definitely wideband jamming from lead WHCA vehicle. (& it unpaired my BT headset) I had been skeptical of reports that they routinely use jammers, but there was strong wideband noise from abt 700mhz to beyond 2.5 GHz. VHF was quite clean, which is where most sec svc traffic is. ... it seemed to be about half a block. --- ultra-wide-band SDR to the rescue? (60Ghz MIMO or bust!)
My back of the envelope energy calculation is that you don't want to be
Also: the motorcycle cop riding right in front of that jammer SUV
[in response to Q] Very brief exposure, probably not much, but definitely exceeds OSHA & FCC exposure limits.
https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/529070276412063745 On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 7:37 PM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/529055344191111169
Fired up a spectrum analyzer as POTUS motorcade went by. Definitely wideband jamming from lead WHCA vehicle. (& it unpaired my BT headset)
I had been skeptical of reports that they routinely use jammers, but there was strong wideband noise from abt 700mhz to beyond 2.5 GHz.
VHF was quite clean, which is where most sec svc traffic is.
... it seemed to be about half a block.
---
ultra-wide-band SDR to the rescue? (60Ghz MIMO or bust!)
-- konklone.com | @konklone <https://twitter.com/konklone>
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 16:37:19 -0800 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/529055344191111169
Fired up a spectrum analyzer as POTUS motorcade went by. Definitely wideband jamming from lead WHCA vehicle. (& it unpaired my BT headset)
So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the US miltary nazis use? It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' drones?
I had been skeptical of reports that they routinely use jammers, but there was strong wideband noise from abt 700mhz to beyond 2.5 GHz.
VHF was quite clean, which is where most sec svc traffic is.
... it seemed to be about half a block.
---
ultra-wide-band SDR to the rescue? (60Ghz MIMO or bust!)
| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the | US miltary nazis use? | | It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones? Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:11:27 -0500 dan@geer.org wrote:
| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the | US miltary nazis use? | | It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones?
Thank you, Mr. Godwin.
Dan, can't you answer the question? Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question and compromise the abilities of your nazi friends?
--dan
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:11:27 -0500 dan@geer.org wrote:
| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the | US miltary nazis use? | | It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones?
Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan
On 11/26/14, 6:13 PM, Juan wrote:
Dan, can't you answer the question?
Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question and compromise the abilities of your nazi friends?
Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays? gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster@entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Gregory Foster <gfoster@entersection.org> wrote:
Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?
Don't know, but this list is 'discussing cryptography and its effect on society' Jammin is crypto, on topic. Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic. Calling godwin is debate of individual socialites, off topic. So continuing on topic... I'd bet there are papers somewhere about the difficulty in jammin true spread spectrum crypto stuff. Perhaps HERFing the receiver junction is better option if in range.
Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 03:10:11 grarpamp pisze:
Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic.
I did nazi that coming. Honestly, the word "nazi" was absolutely unnecessary in the question about jamming US military, and served only the purpose of getting the heat of the discussion up. Which it failed, thanks to Mr Godwin and Mr Geer. :) -- Pozdr rysiek
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:49:24 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 03:10:11 grarpamp pisze:
Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic.
I did nazi that coming. Honestly, the word "nazi" was absolutely unnecessary
Your loyalty for the US nazi governemnt is touching rysiek.
in the question about jamming US military, and served only the purpose of getting the heat of the discussion up.
Which it failed, thanks to Mr Godwin and Mr Geer. :)
The word you're looking for is "fascist". The Nazis were one particular expression and culture of fascist, by no means the only one and certainly not the last. I happen to disagree with the supposed primacy of Godwin's Law because the Nazis are a cultural touchstone on the horrors of fascism in practice, a thing we should all remain vigilant upon. A friend pointed out to me that more people have died of fascism than gun crime, and that (until recently) civil gun ownership was a good preventative measure against fascism. I was never against small arms ownership per se, but it put the argument for civil ownership of rifles in perspective for me. With Drones everywhere these days, I don't think rifles matter anymore, though; so it's moot as far as I'm concerned. Not being a violent person by nature, I'd like to think that our future solutions against fascism are social and network-based, but there's room to discuss whether civil access to drones and other automated weapons will play a role against fascist uprisings; if the Rifle was the standard of anti-fascism in the past, is the drone the standard now? Or is it the ubiquitous camera? I'd rather think the latter, but cameras don't seem to stop militarised "police" from assaulting civilians, they just cover their badges and storm-trooper onwards*. In the ideal case, we find a way to undermine this violence. But, when the fascists come to round up their subject of persecution du jour, I do believe those people should be entitled to self defence. Just some evening thoughts, sorry. *It was only when observing the behaviour of US/UK police towards civilians, particularly the former, that I realised how lucky we are in Ireland to have an unarmed police force whose title "Garda Siochána" literally means "Guardians of the Peace". They're prone to ego trips, sure, but unarmed citizens don't get 10-round clips emptied into them, ever. On 27/11/14 21:01, Juan wrote:
On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:49:24 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 03:10:11 grarpamp pisze:
Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic.
I did nazi that coming. Honestly, the word "nazi" was absolutely unnecessary
Your loyalty for the US nazi governemnt is touching rysiek.
in the question about jamming US military, and served only the purpose of getting the heat of the discussion up.
Which it failed, thanks to Mr Godwin and Mr Geer. :)
Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 22:51:27 Cathal Garvey pisze:
The word you're looking for is "fascist". The Nazis were one particular expression and culture of fascist, by no means the only one and certainly not the last.
+1
I happen to disagree with the supposed primacy of Godwin's Law because the Nazis are a cultural touchstone on the horrors of fascism in practice, a thing we should all remain vigilant upon.
Absolutely. Problem is, *calling* something fascism/nazism does not make it so, and calling too many things this makes it "a boy that cried wolf" kind of story. There are legitimate grievances towards any government, and I happen to be particularly critical of the US government (yes, to a large extent I *would* call it fascist, due to <insert-a-branch>-industrial-complex), but I choose not to use that particular word and instead try to work on the merits of the situation. Using "nazi"/"fascism" card is easy, emotionally charged, usually unnecessary, and instead of moving the discussion forward -- breaks it into two entrenched camps. This is precisely why I find Godwin's Law so useful. It allows people to easily counter such a demagoguery and bring the discussion back to the merits -- as exemplified by this very thread (and, in particular, your e-mail), actually. :) -- Pozdr rysiek
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Gregory Foster <gfoster@entersection.org> wrote:
Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?
we all celebrate in preferred personal ways, :P On 11/27/14, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Jammin is crypto, on topic... So continuing on topic... I'd bet there are papers somewhere about the difficulty in jammin true spread spectrum crypto stuff. Perhaps HERFing the receiver junction is better option if in range.
here's the game: a. you control power b. you control range c. you control complexity so spreading spectrum farther, gets you lobes outside selective denial of service. but range can also extend to beam form in addition to beam width. power, of course, a similar game of effort - rise above the elevated noise floor for the win. a different type of attack and avoidance, in coding complexity, even up to logical protocol DoS. thus, to be the most difficult to deter, you would max all three: very high powered, very wide band,complex coded and efficient cognitive links over MIMO beam forming foundation. not long ago such requirements were comical. recently they became economically not completely infeasible. one day, eminently portable.. :) best regards and nazi holidays,
To clarify on your "complexity" argument, are you saying that the POTUS-parade may be employing technology that detects other devices by their output signatures, then fires a noise-beam specifically at them to maximise power delivery and minimise energy costs/unnecessary interference? If that were the case, then a shielded, passive receiver ought to be OK, would that not include a HAM radio in listen-only mode? (<- Knows little about HAM) ->So, did OP broadcast much prior to the interference, or was their rig poorly shielded? For my part, I just doubt they're using intelligent jamming because cost isn't really a factor in their requirements, is it? They can just blare out on all the frequencies they care about, and strong-arm providers at other spectra to blackzone the region. How much power is needed to jam at the frequency band you described? We're talking about a cavalcade that could, if they considered it necessary, employ a portable nuke! Power ain't a limiting factor! :) On 28/11/14 08:46, coderman wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Gregory Foster <gfoster@entersection.org> wrote:
Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?
we all celebrate in preferred personal ways, :P
On 11/27/14, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
Jammin is crypto, on topic... So continuing on topic... I'd bet there are papers somewhere about the difficulty in jammin true spread spectrum crypto stuff. Perhaps HERFing the receiver junction is better option if in range.
here's the game: a. you control power b. you control range c. you control complexity
so spreading spectrum farther, gets you lobes outside selective denial of service. but range can also extend to beam form in addition to beam width.
power, of course, a similar game of effort - rise above the elevated noise floor for the win.
a different type of attack and avoidance, in coding complexity, even up to logical protocol DoS.
thus, to be the most difficult to deter, you would max all three: very high powered, very wide band,complex coded and efficient cognitive links over MIMO beam forming foundation.
not long ago such requirements were comical. recently they became economically not completely infeasible.
one day, eminently portable.. :)
best regards and nazi holidays,
On 11/28/14, Cathal Garvey <cathalgarvey@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
To clarify on your "complexity" argument, are you saying that the POTUS-parade may be employing technology that detects other devices by their output signatures, then fires a noise-beam specifically at them to maximise power delivery and minimise energy costs/unnecessary interference?
to clarify, the POTUS jammin' described by OP is a simple, and brute case. however, there is precedent for "intelligent jamming", where attempts to avoid the specific DoS using wide band, complex encoding would be met with a specific wide-band, complex response telling you to get stuffed. these systems cooperate together, and surely countermeasures are in place if you evade the trivial measures. note that avoiding POTUS jammin' is a violation of FCC regs, #include <std_disclaimer> etc,...
If that were the case, then a shielded, passive receiver ought to be OK,
a shielded, passive receiver would be overwhelmed by the brute flood.
For my part, I just doubt they're using intelligent jamming because cost isn't really a factor in their requirements, is it? They can just blare out on all the frequencies they care about,
yup.
How much power is needed to jam at the frequency band you described? We're talking about a cavalcade that could, if they considered it necessary, employ a portable nuke! Power ain't a limiting factor! :)
they probably use a few tens of watts EIRP at most, unless they need to react to a perceived threat to penetrate that barrier. military systems go to many thousands of watts. best regards,
On Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:59:50 -0800 coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
If that were the case, then a shielded, passive receiver ought to be OK,
a shielded, passive receiver would be overwhelmed by the brute flood.
Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't a shielded receiver be a useless receiver? If you shield a receiver from a jamming signal, you are also shielding it from the signal you want to receive? What am I missing?
On 11/29/14, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't a shielded receiver be a useless receiver?
not a bad question; you don't appreciate variable attenuation until you've used it effectively to locate an emitter or test specific boundary conditions. also note that shielding may be partial to eliminate or deflect emissions from a given direction. best regards,
Yea, I was referring to emissions shielding, so that when in "receive" mode there is little or no signal output from the device that can indicate its presence to a targeted jammer. On 30 November 2014 07:30:49 GMT+00:00, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/29/14, Juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
... Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't a shielded receiver be a useless receiver?
not a bad question; you don't appreciate variable attenuation until you've used it effectively to locate an emitter or test specific boundary conditions.
also note that shielding may be partial to eliminate or deflect emissions from a given direction.
best regards,
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Dnia środa, 26 listopada 2014 18:48:24 Gregory Foster pisze:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:11:27 -0500 dan@geer.org wrote:
| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that
the | US miltary nazis use?
| It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones?
Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan
On 11/26/14, 6:13 PM, Juan wrote:
Dan, can't you answer the question?
Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question and compromise the abilities of your nazi friends?
Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?
God, Win! -- Pozdr rysiek
recall http://pastebin.com/Sf1Y2MLu the forward sar is designed for road intercept at speed, recall russian pm was knocked semi-conscious and chinese pm induced vomiting at apec honolulu, seated in limo directly in front of usa suv w/ aegis class weapon control, uwb diverse modes. On Sunday, November 2, 2014, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/529055344191111169
Fired up a spectrum analyzer as POTUS motorcade went by. Definitely wideband jamming from lead WHCA vehicle. (& it unpaired my BT headset)
I had been skeptical of reports that they routinely use jammers, but there was strong wideband noise from abt 700mhz to beyond 2.5 GHz.
VHF was quite clean, which is where most sec svc traffic is.
... it seemed to be about half a block.
---
ultra-wide-band SDR to the rescue? (60Ghz MIMO or bust!)
participants (10)
-
Cathal (Phone) -
Cathal Garvey
-
coderman -
dan＠geer.org -
Eric Mill -
grarpamp -
Gregory Foster -
Juan -
rysiek -
Wilfred Guerin