 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Pretty sure a single Jammer would be easy to find The problem would be multiple jammers scattered throughout a city and being cycled on and off.
So what would really be the point of such an attack?
Make everyone experience AT&T's typical service? 
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | How is this different than regular cell phone jamming? I know that cell phone jammers are common in Europe, but this sounds like it is more a horrible flaw in LTE. Yet another reason to get the Nexus 4? |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | I'm not sure that it is any different, except that LTE has some weak links within the spec (the article mentions control instructions that are a crucial part of LTE transmissions). Because of LTE's weak points the article seems to infer that it wouldn't take as much power, or require a less sophisticated jammer, to disrupt a tower or towers running LTE compared to a 3G or 2G network. |
|
| reply to morbo
I doubt there is any effective way of guarding against such attacks.
LTE and newer wireless standards are focusing on speed per MHz of spectrum per watt since spectrum costs a fortune per MHz at government auctions. Optimizing in that direction cuts into SNR margins and noise tolerance. LTE can cope with normal noise spikes using forward error correction but deliberate jamming, either brute-force or interactive, can knock out almost any narrow-band network.
If you want a rugged wireless connection, you have to use wider channels, spread-spectrum modulation and lower symbol loading. Unfortunately, all of these significantly reduce efficiency and speed. |
|
| reply to kaila
Sounds like typical SCADA engineering practices. Just enough engineering to get it to do what they want under ideal circumstances... |
|
 jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·voip.ms
| reply to KrK
Re: Pretty sure a single Jammer would be easy to find said by KrK:So what would really be the point of such an attack?
Terrorists, for one, would love to be able to easily disrupt communications over a wide area. This is especially true if they can disrupt Government, public safety / first responders, etc.
Any wireless signal can be jammed, but in this case it appears to be easier and much more effective than with older technologies. Specifically, it takes less power to cover a larger area. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | I think Terrorists would rather make a big explosion then knock out everyone's internet on their phones temporarily.
If they could set up jammers to do this, they could also be planting bombs. I'd think they like the latter.
For example, which situation would appeal to a terrorist more: Knocking out LTE in an area, or: Bombing the power station and knocking out EVERYTHING in an area.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to InvalidError
Re: How is this different than regular cell phone jamming? It also suggests that moving infrastructure like traffic signaling or emergency responders onto LTE exclusively is a very bad idea.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| Manufacturing risk Was just thinking that someone would be more likely to put it in someone else's new TV or PC than they would their own briefcase. |
|
|
|
jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·voip.ms
| reply to KrK
Re: Pretty sure a single Jammer would be easy to find Jamming the communications networks would be secondary to a primary attack (the big explosion)... just a way to create more chaos and slow down the response. That's why there is concern over emergency communication networks moving to a technology that may be more vulnerable to attack. At this point, however, it is too soon to tell if this is a significant threat or not. |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to hoyleysox
Re: Manufacturing risk Imagine the scenario where a major electronics manufacturer, under orders from their Government, started installing a micro jammer in the circuit boards of consumer electronics they manufacture and get exported to countries worldwide under various brand names.
Then, when they receive a certain command signal they could all could begin operation simultaneously... or in certain areas only... or only at certain times, at will of said Government.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| reply to KrK
Re: How is this different than regular cell phone jamming? said by KrK:It also suggests that moving infrastructure like traffic signaling or emergency responders onto LTE exclusively is a very bad idea. The MIT guys just happened to find a particular jamming sequence that was unusually effective. Other researchers will probably revisit other networks and find similar kryptonite for them. |
|
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Undoubtedly I said this like a year ago:
»Re: Verizon will no longer expand FIOS.....
There is simply no way to ensure this won't happen. The carriers will probably lobby for some special felony anti-jammer and pretend everything is fine... anyone who actually believes it is extraordinarily naive. |
|
| Yes lets move everything to wireless Verizon, you hear me now? |
|
| reply to KrK
Re: Manufacturing risk that too. Thinking about tip-towing into this again: »www.arrl.org/ham-radio-licenses |
|
jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC | reply to CXM_Splicer
Re: Undoubtedly Already illegal
»www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming···inst-law |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to InvalidError
Re: How is this different than regular cell phone jamming? Certain Infrastructure should always be hardwired.
It only brings up the same point again that wireless from a security standpoint is a risk. It may be easier and cheaper to control your traffic networks (or other networks) wirelessly... but that sets you up for the system to be compromised or jammed.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
| Security-wise, wireless can be as secure as wired when properly encrypted. Critical wired infrastructure still needs to be adequately encrypted to prevent people from tapping into the wire and hijacking control.
For jamming, no miracle there... but unless you want to put a 1000km wire spool in every vehicle, hard-wiring them would not be practical  |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to jimk
Re: Undoubtedly I think they even catch a stationary jammer once and awhile.
Going to figure the FCC would never catch someone who stuffed a portable battery unit into their purse and flipped it on at the local Multiplex and flipped it off when the movie ended. (Does not change it from being criminal of course, Just that operation to response time would be greater than the length of a film.)
Sad thing is I bet the FCC that we know today would respond to someone seeing boobs on Network TV first and then look into their actual job of protecting the radio spectrum in the US.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·voip.ms
| said by Kearnstd:Sad thing is I bet the FCC that we know today would respond to someone seeing boobs on Network TV first and then look into their actual job of protecting the radio spectrum in the US.
Like most Government agencies, they have drifted far away from their original purpose. |
|
