Encryption in the Amateur Radio Service

Hey guys, although I would like to think Winlink 2000 has some corner on the market for efficient transmissions using a compressed binary format which we call "B2F,"  it is certainly not "encryption."  Last week, I challenged N2QZ to decode this format without using end-to-end error correction. He simply looked on the Winlink WEB site, found the B2F format listed, wrote a small Pearl script, and decoded the Winlink 2000 B2F format on both 9600 baud VHF Packet, and the next night, when challenged to do it with Pactor 3, on HF, placing his results on a large Yahoo reflector.

I don't know who he is, but he claims to be an Amateur just interested in casual programming, and not a professional at all. What he did was no big deal. He simply looked at the B2F format, and decoded it over the air.  ONLY those who have no clue about  "encryption" would make a statement that Pactor 3, which is protected in §97.309 for data emission codes, or the B2F format are "Encryption" or they are knowingly  "blowing smoke" up the Naive. that happens a lot on these forums.




Steve,, k4cjx

 

The law is that you may not export the DEVICE or SYSTEM without a license . (The rules for exporting items by a U.S. company for use by that company are slightly different, but that is the general rule.) Everyone is still prevented from exporting to certain countries, regardless of user or use.

Nothing in ANY law prevents the transmission of an encrypted MESSAGE that may be received anywhere in the world. Only the export of encryption devices and systems are controlled.

The absolute requirements for a high-level (Strategic / Diplomatic) encryption device:

1. Your worst enemy must be able to have your exact device, but without your key(s), it must be useless to decode your traffic.

2. If one is able to decode one message, it may not assist in decoding others.

3. The output of the key generator (KG) may not repeat in any reasonable period (at least tens of millions of years for high-level devices). This requires a long KG cycle of around 10^69 bits or more.

4. No portion of the keying material may appear in the output key stream.

5. A single bit change in the key must produce TOTALLY unreadable output on a device using the previous key.

6. The output of the KG using any keying material must not be a "shift" of the output using another keying material.

The common misconception is that great numbers of key combinations (keying material) means a device is better than another. That actually is often an indication of a very dangerous device.

The "consumer junk" fails some or all of these tests.

 

I have wasted enough time rationally explaining rather basic facts and concepts. Either you lack the technical prowness to understand simple concepts, or you are deliberately distorting and simply pretending that you don't understand.

From the absolutely baseless and laughable content of your posts, I strongly suspect that it is the latter tinged by the former. Whatever the cause of your inability or refusal to understand, your nonsense is not worthy of my time.

 

Steve,

I appreciate your efforts to provide a system that has already saved my life as well as my sons. Every time I've mentioned the fact on a forum targeting Winlink, I'm told there are other commercial services available for emergency communications.

The title of the current forum suggests Winlink is being accused of encryption. Interesting because anyone sending an email via Winlink has a 100% error free message sent onto a world wide network of land lines called internet email. Any government monitoring service or internet service provider can see any Winlink email with 100% error free accuracy! This fact should scare the pants off anyone using Winlink for business as suggested by these continued forums.

In contrast, some other modes on HF radio are not easily monitored. I recently used a pactor-pactor KB link to obtain some propagation research data. After 5 minutes of data acquisition someone began transmitting a strong PSK-31 signal directly on top of my mobile 50W signal timing out my research data link. Unlike my HF data QSO's that transmit both FSK and CW ID's, this station did not transmit a CW ID.

If possible, I would have opened a PSK-31 soundcard program to copy the ID of the person sitting on my link but my mobile computer only has a 166MHz processor and no soundcard. It's the only computer I feel comfortable leaving in a mobile with all the theives in the US trying to break into vehicles. To run a sound card off a mobile laptop, I would be forced to purchase a new lap top that would cost over 1000 USD. It's amazing but because I'm not willing to purchase one for such applications, should I label PSK-31 as "encrypted?"

The answer is NO. This same answer applies to Pactor, Winlink, CW, etc. If one wants to monitor then they must either purchase the readily available hardware or learn CW to monitor the communications. Unlike most HF modes, Winlink has added security because it can be intercepted on BOTH HF radio AND internet security agencies!

Ed AE4TM

 

The folks we support have the same problem telling if we're authorized to take traffic -- or even be in the area. That's why there are ID requirements.

One needn't worry about export restrictions sending traffic someone authorized to do so has encrypted. It's the hardware and software they do it with that's restricted from export, not the transmissions themselves. WA5BEN explains this more clearly.

The longer this discussion goes on, the more I'm convinced it's a tempest in a teapot. Boiled too long!

Cortland
KA5S

 

Communication Monitoring is a Comunist dogma.
It remains to pronounce ilegal the ownership of typewriters
N2NNU

 

the answer to the "problem" presented here regarding official government agency traffic is simple:

RACES

Oh yeah, I know, it isn't an ARRL scantioned program or a registered trademark of some other non-profit. It is a program designed by governments for governments.

those who actually have read the rules pertaining to RACES and know what RACES is know this is the answer to all the quandry about the need for "encryption" when passing official traffic for governments.

As far as private interests like the Red Cross, or your local other non-government agency, if they desire secure comms, Motorola, M/A-Com, Icom and Kenwood all offer secure capable radios that support P25 AES encryption and both Motorola and M/A Com offer secure IP-based network solutions to linking radio systems (ala Motobridge). Maybe instead of trying to schmooze the ARRL and FCC into a rule change they should spend some bucks on some of those fancy P25 radios and IP infrastructure. Not like they can't afford it. If their need is that great let them invest the money.

As far as serving your local government encourage them to start a RACES program. It is ideal for local governments who desire to have a program they control and administer, unlike other programs which belong to outside private orgranizations.

 

ae4tm:"The title of the current forum suggests Winlink is being accused of encryption."

Really? Do you see the word Winlink in the title somewhere? I don't.

If you actually read the thread instead of jumping to conclusions, you would find that the thread had nothing to do with Winlink or Pactor individually. HIPAA requirements have been a major point of issue.

The primary vein of discussion has been whether or not emergency traffic needs to be encrypted.

In fact, you are actually confusing the issue even more by equating Winlink and Pactor. They are two different things totally.

Pactor doesn't figure into encryption because of intent if nothing else. I think a number of people have pointed this out.

Winlink *does* figure into the encryption discussion if the system wants to start carrying encrypted messages.

No one on here has yet to point out any good reason why encryption of messages is a good thing or even a necessary thing on amateur frequencies by amateur operators.

The few times it might come up can be handled on a case-by-case basis without making encryption allowable under the rules and regulations.

If the ARRL in their Priest-King role decides that encryption in the amateur bands would be a good thing, I think they are going to run into an even bigger battle than they are going to have with their bandwidth regulation proposal.

The use of encryption to insure access security is a separate issue and *is* something that should be addressed. The ARRL language did not separate the two and when taken in context appears to be speaking of encryption of messages.

tim ab0wr

 

Even the Vatican monitors communications -- and they have since at least 600 A.D. (At one time, the Vatican employed the largest group of code breakers in the world.)

Every nation monitors communications - by necessity. Any national government that does not monitor communications is putting its citizens at unnecessary risk.

Monitoring is not censorship. It is a realistic and necessary response to real threats. Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Those who DO have something to hide will attempt to avoid being monitored. That restricts the channels through which they may communicate, as well as the manner of communication.

BTW: Communications monitoring (a.k.a. SIGINT) is only ONE of the necessary tools of intelligence. Assets "on the ground" in areas and populations of interest are also critical intelligence tools. Electronic equipment -- no matter how sophisticated -- cannot take seemingly disparate bits of intelligence and "add two and two" like a trained agent. The sudden absence of of one individual plus a change in behaviour pattern of another can have great meaning.

Point to ponder: The attack on 9/11 might have been avoided if the U.S. human intelligence assets had not been decimated by the previous administration. They put all of their "intelligence eggs" into the "electronic surveillance" basket, and broke ties with some "HUMINT" sources that could have tipped us to the coming attack.

 

If amateur radio can't meet the changing needs of the agencies that we support during disasters, then there will no longer be a need for amateur radio.

You want to see our frequencies disappear, just stay with this I don't want to change attitude and you will be sending emails and not talking on the air.

 

wa5ben:"The sudden absence of of one individual plus a change in behaviour pattern of another can have great meaning."

Isn't that something they teach foot patrolment also?

tim ab0wr

 

This is just emotional claptrap masquerading as an argument.

*Exactly* what changing needs are there that agencies need to meet? For exactly which agencies?

What is any different today than back in 1964 with the Alaskan earthquake as far as moving messages for emergency response agencies?

tim ab0wr

 

You are exactly on point, amateurs need to progress towards doing more real community service than merely standing around with HT's. We could use our vast infrastructure to support our volunteer efforts serving such agencies as the Red Cross and others, doing more *real actual work* like handing out meals, damage assessment, man shelters and assist victims, you know, the stuff real volunteers do.

It's time we think more outside the box, we have alot of tools and talents in the service and lots of talented people. We don't need to change the rules because some private groups want a free ride for what they should pay M/A Com or Motorola to provide. Likewise the ham community needs to do more to serve these agencies than "just talk" if we expect those agencies to desire our help.

 

Another technique used by people who do not want or can't defend a position is to cast aspersions on their oponent or call them names. This is a very sad comment on you!

 

I just choose not to waste my time attempting a discussion with someone who simply wants an argument. Your theories / arguments are not new -- and some are not originally yours. They have been put forth several times by you and others, and have been proven totally and completely invalid each and every time. You simply choose to ignore facts.

BTW: To set the record straight, I am NOT a programmer -- but I did teach myself to create and read "C" code. (It is really pretty simple.) The person who "decoded" the P-III data was likewise not a programmer.

It has been my observation that those who wish to learn new things find a way to learn them learn. Those who do not wish to expand their knowledge simply criticize. I have taught myself: 1) to program in BASIC and in "C", 2) photography, 3) studio lighting, 4) repair and calibration of professional video recorders, 4) repair and calibration of professional TV cameras, 5) use of infrared to separate inks, and several other things that don't merit mention. All it takes is desire and effort.

My desire and effort in the photography / video field led to establishing a professional video service, operating a production studio, putting the first minicam on the air in a TV station in the Southwest (and the first or second in the nation), placing minicams/editors/time base correctors in 35 TV stations, and supervising several "shoots" for 20th Century Fox. Because of these accomplishments, I was elected to Active Grade (one level below Fellow) in the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers.

Self-taught has value far beyond the cost, because it speaks of true interest in the subject and self-motivation. College is almost a necessity in today's world, but we should not lose sight of the truth that education is what happens AFTER the person leaves school.

Frankly, when offering contrasting opinion, it is necessary to do enough research to have "standing". That has the benefit of letting you know which questions NOT to ask -- as those will peg you as unknowledgeable in the subject.

Recognizing when one is attempting a rational conversation with someone who has a closed mind helps to eliminate stress. Each time your false statements have been put forth, some of us have answered them. That was not for your benefit. Rather, it was for the benefit of those who may not have seen these distortions previously, and who might be swayed by the false arguments.