Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

How the Super Bowl Will Reach US Submarines

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the davey-jones'-locker-room dept.

Communications 142

Velcroman1 writes "Ever wonder how troops serving abroad in remote locations and even underwater might get to watch the Super Bowl? The very same highly advanced technology used to pass classified drone video feeds will be deployed this Sunday to ensure U.S. troops can see the Super Bowl — - no matter how far away from home they are. The broadcast is the result of a unique media, government and technology partnership with the American Forces Radio and Television Service, Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force. The Global Broadcast Service (GBS) may be normally used to disseminate video, images and other data, but major sporting events have been broadcast over it as well. The system will be 'as small as a laptop, and [equipment] the size of a shoebox and umbrella' yet 'in other places will be projected onto large screens in hangers' like aircraft carriers out at sea, explained Raytheon Intelligence and Information Systems' chief innovation officer Mark Bigham."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Go Niners! (1, Insightful)

saphena (322272) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779437)

Go Niners!

Re:Go Niners! (3, Informative)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780333)

Fifty-minus-oners (see the Samsung Super B,, I mean Big Game commercial. )
Go Baltimore Black Birds!

FARTS (3, Funny)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779453)

Ought to rename it Forces of America Radio and Televsion Service.

Re:FARTS (4, Funny)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779699)

Or...in your honor, they should name it Superbowl Transmission For U-boats (STFU)

Sounds like a movie plot (3, Funny)

hey (83763) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779499)

All the military guys and resources are busy with the game. Time for the surprise attack.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779545)

Yeah, also how are they broadcasting through water, or are all the subs going to surface simultaneously? I mean I know the cold war is over but...

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779717)

Just need to get close enough to the surface to get an antenna into the clear.

ovo -hoot

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (4, Informative)

milkmage (795746) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779791)

periscope depth?

"The game will be received by a small antenna on masts, transferred to a receiver and then relayed to flat panel screens throughout the ship or submarine."

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779585)

Good point. McDonalds will have burger flippers on duty, but the Navy won't have anybody manning the sonar screens.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (2)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779609)

"Das Foot."

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779661)

All the military guys and resources are busy with the game. Time for the surprise attack.

From who? I mean, who is there that both wants to attack the US, and has the resources to win any kind of real fight, even if they have surprise?

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779683)

The Canadians. No I'm not joking. All they need to do is take the ICBM fields and they aren't a bad joke anymore.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780043)

They'll 'jam' them with maple syrup!

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780395)

No more Spaceballs for you!

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

Dins (2538550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780195)

The Canadians. No I'm not joking. All they need to do is take the ICBM fields and they aren't a bad joke anymore.

Bring it.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (3, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780377)

The Canadians. No I'm not joking. All they need to do is take the ICBM fields and they aren't a bad joke anymore.

They sent us Celine Dion and Justin Beiber. I think that counts as a declaration of war.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42781161)

The surprise really will be complete. Everybody treats this as a joke.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780309)

US military is pampered beyond belief.

Re:Sounds like a movie plot (1, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780345)

All the military guys and resources are busy with the game. Time for the surprise attack.

Does it involve a blimp?

Ever Wonder? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779513)

Ever wonder how troops serving abroad in remote locations and even underwater might get to watch the Super Bowl?

No, I'm more concerned at the already over-inflated military budget being spent on watching a fucking football game.

Re:Ever Wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779531)

Good try. Troll harder next time.

Re:Ever Wonder? (2)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779581)

Would you rather the sailors and soldiers be out plying their trade?

Re:Ever Wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780339)

Would you rather the sailors and soldiers be out plying their trade?

No, I'd rather they were out plying other, more constructive trades.

Re:Ever Wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780435)

Would you rather the sailors and soldiers be out plying their trade?

No, I'd rather they were out plying other, more constructive trades.

How about construction? There'll be a need for that when more buildings in New York are knocked down and also on the West Coast after North Korea starts lobbing love letters at us.

Re:Ever Wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42781217)

This is what's hilarious about you war lovers. You actually believe what you're writing when you say stuff like this. Lol.

Re:Ever Wonder? (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779627)

First, it's a sunk cost. The network was already needed for their mission. It would be wasteful not to put it's idle time to some good use.

Next, morale improvement is very much a legitimate contributor to military readiness.

Re:Ever Wonder? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780551)

I don't think the Navy likes sunk costs...

Yes, god forbid they should want any entertainment (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779729)

Soldiers should be perfect automata, wanting nothing but to serve their country, needing no entertainment, no respite, willing to work with complete focus as much as is required.

Oh please cut the fucking shit.

Soldiers are human, and they need recreation just like everyone else. Now maybe watching football isn't your choice for that, it's not mine either, but you are in no position to judge others for what they like.

What's more, it helps give them a sense of connection to their country. Serving on a ship, and a sub in particular, is lonely. You are gone for months at a time, in the case of a sub often totally cut off. This is a way to get a "taste of home" as it were, to get to participate in something that a large part of the nation is also doing.

Re:Yes, god forbid they should want any entertainm (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779991)

Soldiers are human, and they need recreation just like everyone else. Now maybe watching football isn't your choice for that, it's not mine either, but you are in no position to judge others for what they like.

Televised sport is useful for one purpose: keeping the populace inert, content and lazy. It is not something upon which should be encouraging our Forces to waste their time.

The old saying goes "the only good sport is the one you're playing"

Re:Yes, god forbid they should want any entertainm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780027)

Soldiers should be perfect automata, wanting nothing but to serve their country, needing no entertainment, no respite, willing to work with complete focus as much as is required.

Wow, just wow. I said nothing about cutting out any and all rest and recreating for the armed forces.

Oh please cut the fucking shit.

You first. You can start by not putting words in other people's mouths to make a point.

Re:Yes, god forbid they should want any entertainm (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780285)

"You say that....like soldiers and humanity are two different things. I mean soldiers aren't machines.....we're just people."

Re:Ever Wonder? (2)

fleebait (1432569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779899)

Ever wonder how troops serving abroad in remote locations and even underwater might get to watch the Super Bowl?

No, I'm more concerned at the already over-inflated military budget being spent on watching a fucking football game.

Ever wonder how much it costs to get a contractor to the services to do a network wide test of high data rate services?

Watch a ball game, and get a system wide test for free.

Re:Ever Wonder? (2)

craigminah (1885846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779999)

Do you expect the military to never have time off or to do anything to boost morale? Glad I don't work for you...

Re:Ever Wonder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780145)

Do you expect the military to never have time off or to do anything to boost morale?

No, which is why I didn't say that I did.

Glad I don't work for you...

If this is any indication of how well you read your orders, then that makes two of us.

Sounds like a fantastic idea (3, Interesting)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779517)

Let's just broadcast hundreds of gigs of known cleartext through our encryption stream - and announce in advance that we're going to do it.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779565)

Let's just broadcast hundreds of gigs of known cleartext through our encryption stream - and announce in advance that we're going to do it.

Huh?

I mean: Citation needed.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779567)

Let's just broadcast hundreds of gigs of known cleartext through our encryption stream

No problems, the drone video streams are unencrypted [slashdot.org] .

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779617)

Any encryption that would be used (say AES-CBC) would be IND-CPA, which is resistant to known plaintext attacks. That is one of the most basic forms of security for symmetric encryption. Without it you have essentially nothing.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779755)

I am sure MPAA would love to see the sat broadcasters get their hands on that.

ovo -hoot

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780223)

On top of that, it's unlikely that message length has any serious contribution to overall system integrity. The supersecret key is probably only used to exchange a randomly generated temporary key, meaning that even if you break that key, you have successfully discovered the key used solely to broadcast the Super Bowl. You now have a known-plaintext attack against the top-level key, but the value is again limited because your known plaintext is now limited to the length of the temporary key.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779637)

Given that it's explicitly stated that the system uses both military and commercial satellites to push both secure and unsecure data, the only conclusion I can come to is that you're an idiot who needs to get his ignorant opinion out there as soon as possible without being bothered by petty things like "facts" and "information:". Always nice to find another person I can filter out.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779689)

Let's just broadcast hundreds of gigs of known cleartext through our encryption stream - and announce in advance that we're going to do it.

Yes, because encryption really gives a shit about the underlying data stream, or somehow makes it less secure.

Might want to pick up a book or two next time before spouting off nonsense.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779835)

With older encryption that actually would make it less secure. This is a drastic oversimplification, but encryption was plain+key=cypertext so you could do cypertext-plaintext=key and then have access to all the messages because you now know the key. Of course, modern cryptographic systems are designed to stop a know plaintext attack and usually have forward key security anyway.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779865)

Interesting point. Without the daily weather reports, it would have been much harder to crack the enigma code because they could locate where in the cyphertext each message was, which then let them find the key [youtube.com] .

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (3, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780209)

Those were relatively short messages, less than a hundred characters, and they have a certain degree of error correction and redundancy if they contain actual language.

With a video stream there's going to be about a gigabyte per hour and you could mung it (say by adding a little noise or blur or shifting the tone) as you feed it into the encrypted pipe and it'd still be watchable, while having very little similarity byte-v-byte with the original. There'd be no publicly available plaintext to compare it against.

Re:Sounds like a fantastic idea (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780449)

That, and you could always generate a one-time key for the game, then transmit that (encrypted) and encrypt the system with a one-time pad, but without all the regular secure treatment of the OTP, since cracking it will let you see a game that'll be shown everywhere for free.

No, I never wondered... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779527)

Now, ask me if I care.

No problem paying for (0, Flamebait)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779555)

equipment, medical attention, and decent salaries. But television. Really, this is the military that can find 8% of wasteful spending to cut?

This reminds me of Ron Paul who does want to fund the defense of the US, but sponsored room so that soldiers who we pay to defend the country can play video games. I know that we have to pay for recreation for these people, but really. The NFL exists to sell beer and hookers I don't see why the taxpayer has to subsidize them beyond what we already do.

The bottom line is that soldiers have chosen to do a job. I can't tell you how many times my choices have prevented me from participating in a national event. But we are grownups and we deal.

Again, full funding for necessary equipment. But this is not a tea party.

Re:No problem paying for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779641)

Seems like a good stress test to me.

Re:No problem paying for (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779655)

The equipment was already necessary for legitimate military objectives. Why not put it's idle time to good use?

Meanwhile, I am guessing that you either don't understand the role of morale in military readiness or you want to pay for defense but not actually be defended.

Re:No problem paying for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779827)

I understand professionalism and the fact that anyone can be replaced. I also understand that I have a projector that could be used to watch porn when not used but it will still be using a resource.

Re:No problem paying for (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780257)

I sure as hell hope you aren't an employer or even a manager. If you are, I genuinely feel sorry for the people under you.

Re:No problem paying for (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780229)

The NFL exists to sell beer and hookers I don't see why the taxpayer has to subsidize them beyond what we already do.

The bottom line is that soldiers have chosen to do a job. I can't tell you how many times my choices have prevented me from participating in a national event. But we are grownups and we deal.

You don't seem to be dealing with it very well.

More like you are carrying a chip on your shoulder the size of a 2x4.

Within the Morale Service Division of the War Department, a ''radio section'' of the Bureau of Public Relations was formed in 1941 to make sports broadcasts available to personnel scattered in locations outside the United States.

The Armed Forces Radio Service [colorado.edu]

Re:No problem paying for (0)

shoes58 (1203522) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780413)

Wow. What a total dick you are, fermion. Wish I had mod points today, I'd use them all to mod you to the 7th circle of hell...

Off the self technologies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779571)

This is how said will be accomplished. DVB, H.264 encoded MPEG-2 transports streams (sans the drone KLV Local Data Set metadata). VBricks. Flat screen TVs. It is all off the shelf stuff, nothing special.

Same as the drone feeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779597)

Weren't at least some drone feeds notably in-the-clear and being eavesdropped on not that long ago? Does the NFL know that?

same highly advanced technology (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779611)

"The very same highly advanced technology used to pass classified drone video feeds"
Ah, those video feeds. Everyone in the world will be able to watch the Super Bowl then.

Re:same highly advanced technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779801)

Better even, without ads!

will they get the ad's or will they be simsubed? (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779693)

will they get the ad's or will they be simsubed?

"The Big Game"* (1)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779697)

FTFY. The combination of the words "The," "Super," and "Bowl" is copyrighted by the NFL: anyone not paying royalties is commiting copyright violation by using it (which is why everybody refers ambiguously to "the big game").

/OT-rant

Re:"The Big Game"* (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779883)

Copyright Infringement Time!

The Super Bowl
The Super Bowl
The Super Bowl
The Super Bowl
The Super Bowl
The Super Bowl

I have no problems with the military doing what they can to maintain or improve the morale of their troops. I know a handful of soldiers, and they're just trying to do their job and (as they see it) serve their country to the best of their ability. When I take issue with the policies of the military, I lay blame with the president and with congress.

I do, however, have issues with the fact that my Seahawks didn't make it to The Super Bowl.

Re:"The Big Game"* (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780301)

FTFY. The combination of the words "The," "Super," and "Bowl" is copyrighted by the NFL

Nonsense. It may be trademarked by the NFL, but it certainly is not copyrighted. If you want to complain about IP law, you might want to take a few minutes to learn the basics. Also, using a trademarked term to refer the the trademarked item is fine. It is only a violation to use it to refer to a confusingly similar item, or in a way that implies endorsement. So it is okay to use the term "The Super Bowl" to refer to ... The Super Bowl.

Re:"The Big Game"* (0)

ExecutorElassus (1202245) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780371)

Well, I'll concede confusing "trademark" and "copyright," but it's not as easy as you imply: businesses may not refer to the game unless they have rights to do so (so, for example, a bar cannot say "come watch the [big game] on our flatscreens!" even though doing so in no way implies endorsement. So, the US military saying "we're broadcasting the [big game] down to our submarines, so our submariners can watch it" might indeed cause problems.

I'll also concede: I mostly just want to see the NFL file a lawsuit against the US military for trademark infringement.

NFL-military relationship (-1, Flamebait)

seyyah (986027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779713)

I've often wondered how the symbiotic relationship between the NFL and the US military developed.

The military seems to be incorporated into the spectacle of every NFL game (playoffs only?), and broadcasts incorporate nationalist and militarist messages at several points throughout the games.

It's clear that the two feed off eachother now, and it is no surprise that the sport is being fed back into the armed forces to reinforce the message.

Bogus title (4, Informative)

DrJimbo (594231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779715)

How the Super Bowl Will Reach US Submarines

The actual answer is that the submarines have an antenna that reaches into the air. The title implies that the video signals are sent through sea water to submerged submarines. That is still impossible to do in real-time. The bandwidth (either acoustic or electro-magnetic) is just not available. The acoustic bandwidth is greater than the electro-magnetic but it is still many orders of magnitude lower than what is required for real-time video.

Re:Bogus title (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779897)

The title implies that the video signals are sent
through sea water to submerged submarines. That is still impossible
to do in real-time.

Well, technically it is possible - but you don't get much of a video stream with only a handful of bits per second.

Re:Bogus title (1)

DrJimbo (594231) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780227)

Well, technically it is possible - but you don't get much of a video stream with only a handful of bits per second.

We can do much better than a handful of bits per second with acoustics (yes, IAaUAE) but it is still not enough to watch the Superbowl in real-time.

Re:Bogus title (4, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780463)

Right. And on top of that, no submarine is going to hang about at periscope depth for the duration of the game. PD is a dangerous place as you have limited visibility and you're shallow enough for surface vessels to potentially get a piece of the 'scope or even the sail... Stealth also goes down when you have a 'scope and antennas making a wake on the surface. (On top of how exhausting it is for the control room party to maintain PD and a scope watch...)

Unless they're in port or on surface transit, boats will probably get the game and the score the same way they have for decades... fasties and non-alert boomers will pick it up when they next grab a sked or a satellite pass, alert boomers will pick up whatever gets sent across the wire (VLF).

Been there done that, got the t-shirt. Though back in the day it was something of a tradition to send the score of important games (especially the Army-Navy game) out as FLASH priority traffic. (I.E. went to the head of the queue and had transmission priority over pretty much everything but nuclear launch orders.)

Re:Bogus title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780799)

I was on a boomer for years and we listened to the superbowl over the radio. During POLO tests we would get HF voice for hours (the test would go on for a day or so). Since it was voice it was not VLF/ELF...

Re:Bogus title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780957)

That's how we did it circa 99-02. I don't remember being at PD, or being surfaced - definitely not on alert. I think we had to be close to shore. Bouy? I don't know how - I just pushed :)

Hint to $EVIL_POWER (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779725)

Attack while they are all watching a football match

OPSEC (1)

devnullkac (223246) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779737)

I sure hope they're doing something obvious like fuzzing the feed over those classified channels. I'd hate to see an opponent get an opportunity to attack the crypto when there's a 4 hour-long known plaintext transmission.

Re:OPSEC (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779813)

Wish I'd said that -- and been attacked for it.

Re:OPSEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779971)

The simple solution is to send this transmission unencrypted, no way for anyone to attack the crypto there.

Re:OPSEC (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779977)

Known plaintext is the weakest form of attack. Every cipher in modern cryptography is resistant to it. This would not be a big deal. Using AES in CBC mode is believed to be IND-CPA secure even, which means that it is secure against chosen plaintext attacks.

Re:OPSEC (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780217)

There should be no risk in sending something like this. First you don't have a known plain text because you don't know what the output of the video encoder for the stream is; though you might make some guess like; its probably mpegts and therefore there ought to be a certain magic number every 288 bytes etc. I am sure it helps the crypto analyst but probably not that much.

Next while I don't know anything about military communications in particular; I am pretty confident they are not using unchanging per-shared symmetric keys. They probably are doing something like every commercial encrypted streaming communications does:

First you use some asymmetric method PKI like method to identify, and facilitate some sort of additional challenge, and if successful exchange a value to be used for a symmetric key system that you will then use to send your stream efficiently. You might even do this twice if you need to mutually assure identity. This symmetric key value will be generated as randomly as possible, and probably either not stored or stored on some never use again list. The stream is then sent using a common algorithm like AES. Anyone working on a plan text attack of the stream already knows how to do AES (although it might take some effort for them to be sure it is AES as the data should look random); what they are after is symmetric key which would enable them to decode this particular message but no other messages.

Probably with enough resources they will be able to do this given time, because the more vulnerable stream cipher emulation mode OFB or CTR will be used; as with video you'd want to tolerate packet loss. OFB and CTR are weaker than CBC and similar modes in that you don't need to have correctly deciphered the previous block to decipher the next one, you only need to know the key, initialization vector and the position in the stream. I am sure other communications like orders would use the more secure modes.

So I don't think there is actually an potential to reveal valuable information about the cryptography in use. The initial exchange is probably the most interesting thing to any would be snoops but those probably happen thousands of times each day already.

Re:OPSEC (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780353)

OFB and CTR are weaker than CBC and similar modes in that you don't need to have correctly deciphered the previous block to decipher the next one, you only need to know the key, initialization vector and the position in the stream

If you have the key then you can decrypt the first block and all the other blocks in a CBC encrypted stream so it doesn't really matter. If you have the key you win no matter what. With CBC, losing a packet of ciphertext would mess up only adjacent blocks, errors do not propagate. Also, CBC decryption requires only the previous ciphertext, not the plaintext. OFB and CTR are both proven to be IND-CPA (assuming a secure block cipher and your counter is not reused), so they are no weaker than any other modes of operation.

News for nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779779)

So a bunch of trained monkeys with guns get to watch a pathetically boring game while they're supposed to be protecting america.

In what possible way do football or the morons of the american mlitary have any interest to anyone who reads slashdot.

Re:News for nerds? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779911)

Let me guess - some soldier stole your girlfriend.

How very dare you! (3, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780243)

That's a ridiculous assumption based on no evidence at all.

The soldier was his boyfriend until he ran off with a football player.

Re:News for nerds? (1)

Cat_Herder_GoatRoper (2491400) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779953)

You are right. Lets bring back the draft. Hope they call your number first!

Re:News for nerds? (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780459)

Might not be such a good idea. Whatever did the enlisted soldiers do to deserve having such an AC in their unit?

Re:News for nerds? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780475)

Thought experiment:

If we can turn off our military for 3 hours a a well known time, and nothing happens, why can't we turn them off for the other 8757 of the year and save ourselves lots of money?

Gee (1)

bythescruff (522831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779823)

Gee, media, government, and technology partnership acts to provide commercial sporting event to soldiers despite the remoteness of their locations. How about not putting soldiers in remote locations to start with?

Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Skiron (735617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42779877)

Why do submariners need to watch this? I thought they would all be having sex or something when it's quite.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779973)

They will check the manifest your mom is on it

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780249)

They do. But the lucky ones get to have sex without a partner.

Red October (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779937)

This just reminds me of Red October when the soldiers are signing and the other submarines picks it up haha.

Re:Red October (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780283)

Maybe that's why you normally crew them with sailors, moron.

Oh hang on, I misread your post. They were doing this? [youtube.com]

Fail for starters, fail for main course. Got room for dessert, you spacktard?

Re:Red October (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780687)

This just reminds me of Red October when the soldiers are signing and the other submarines picks it up haha.

That would have to be some sensitive equipment to pick up someone signing. Maybe a mime attack?

Hangers (3, Informative)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780095)

Do they dangle the aircraft from the roof? No. The word is "hangars".

Hangers are what you put shirts and coats on, you wrist-tapping gibbons.

Encryption risk? (0)

tgrigsby (164308) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780113)

Wouldn't it seem risky to broadcast a data stream where the original state is known and the encrypted state can be intercepted?

Re:Encryption risk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780165)

No because they can re-key the system. Plus we use algorithms that are not public.

giant football shaped satellites? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780233)

lol

There is no place to escape. (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780287)

Everywhere you go you must watch. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. We are the Borg.

maybe that explains hooliganism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780401)

News sites have mentioned rise in hooliganism (folks getting smashed, rowdy, and ejected) at phootball games. Perhaps they're just misunderstood vets suffering flashbacks and PTSD?

(Sorry, this was terribly inappropriate to say, PTSD is a serious problem that continues to plague our armed forces; I thank vets for their service and wish all suffering from the traumas of war the best of recoveries.)

Do a moon landing (0)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780409)

Couldn't they just pre-record the game on a Hollywood back-lot and send the tapes to the subs before they go on patrol? It's just sports so it isn't like the outcome actually matters.

Isn't this a risk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42780573)

Since the information can be predicted and known by any would be interceptor, isn't it a fairly considerable risk that it gives that interceptor a great chance to break parts of how that information is transmitted and encoded?

Laughably wrong (3, Interesting)

michael021689 (791941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42780753)

This is an impressively ill formed and ill researched article, even if you consider the reputation of the site that is distributing it.

The misinformation spread about the Navy, and submarines specifically, is awe inspiring. Whereas most of the government spends its efforts to protect secrecy fruitlessly, the Navy seems to have grasped the idea of quantity. If you spew enough bullshit out, it doesn't matter if someone says the truth because it will be lost in a wave misinformation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?