What's new

Does US install secret sensors in military equipment given to Pakistan?

Hi,

Americans just playing games to keep the chinese on their toes. Same thing with the chinese---knowing what the americans would do, why a boeing then---why not an air bus---.

If the americans did it, it was silly---the chinese will make them pay in due time.

Sir I think its because Boeing offer some security measures in the aircraft considering it is used by the head of a country..Currently India also bought three of it ..I think Airbus dont offer such things ..I may be wrong ..
 
Sir I think its because Boeing offer some security measures in the aircraft considering it is used by the head of a country..Currently India also bought three of it ..I think Airbus dont offer such things ..I may be wrong ..

The US BBJ's that India has recently purchased for VVIP transport will be riddled with listening bugs and homing beacons. But the Indian's like most of the third world lack the technology to de-bug such a large aircraft unless they strip it down to screw and bolt and then re-assemble it!
 
The US BBJ's that India has recently purchased for VVIP transport will be riddled with listening bugs and homing beacons. But the Indian's like most of the third world lack the technology to de-bug such a large aircraft unless they strip it down to screw and bolt and then re-assemble it!

I hope you are aware of the term SoC ( System on chip) and what if the spying device is inbuilt into any other chip? I am sure they must be using a lot of silicon whose datasheet is not available to anyone but them, so what if we disassemble it completely and screw it back? I am sure you know one can not disassemble a sillicon chip.
 
I hope you are aware of the term SoC ( System on chip) and what if the spying device is inbuilt into any other chip? I am sure they must be using a lot of silicon whose datasheet is not available to anyone but them, so what if we disassemble it completely and screw it back? I am sure you know one can not disassemble a sillicon chip.

Yes I am familiar with the new chip systems tech. I also agree that a lot of chips can be designed to do multi-tasking some functions of which is documented in tech manuals while other are not. Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:
 
Yes I am familiar with the new chip systems tech. I also agree that a lot of chips can be designed to do multi-tasking some functions of which is documented in tech manuals while other are not. Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:

lol, point is complete and thread final.

We can now go to sleep knowing the US has our backs covered.:rofl:
 
I think that will be,someone had said that the Microsoft left backdoor in Windows,no one know the truth
 
Yes I am familiar with the new chip systems tech. I also agree that a lot of chips can be designed to do multi-tasking some functions of which is documented in tech manuals while other are not. Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:

agreed now we are screwed we can go to sleep aware of the fact that our military equipment has been bugged.
 
Yes I am familiar with the new chip systems tech. I also agree that a lot of chips can be designed to do multi-tasking some functions of which is documented in tech manuals while other are not. Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:


Yes we are!

but take U.S. as a country!

They play psychological warfare even better than their big toys..


:pakistan:
 
Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:

Yes, well in that case it is best to lay back, enjoy and don't become upset. After all America is your good friend and would never use any advantage it may have for your harm. :agree: :usflag:
 
An interesting article:

Old Trick Threatens the Newest Weapons

By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: October 26, 2009

Despite a six-year effort to build trusted computer chips for military systems, the Pentagon now manufactures in secure facilities run by American companies only about 2 percent of the more than $3.5 billion of integrated circuits bought annually for use in military gear.

That shortfall is viewed with concern by current and former United States military and intelligence agency executives who argue that the menace of so-called Trojan horses hidden in equipment circuitry is among the most severe threats the nation faces in the event of a war in which communications and weaponry rely on computer technology.

As advanced systems like aircraft, missiles and radars have become dependent on their computing capabilities, the specter of subversion causing weapons to fail in times of crisis, or secretly corrupting crucial data, has come to haunt military planners. The problem has grown more severe as most American semiconductor manufacturing plants have moved offshore.

Only one-fifth of all computer chips are now made in the United States, and just one-quarter of the chips based on the most advanced technologies are built here, I.B.M. executives say. That has led the Pentagon and the National Security Agency to expand significantly the number of American plants authorized to manufacture chips for the Pentagon’s Trusted Foundry program.

Despite the increases, semiconductor industry executives and Pentagon officials say, the United States lacks the ability to fulfill the capacity requirements needed to manufacture computer chips for classified systems.

“The department is aware that there are risks to using commercial technology in general and that there are greater risks to using globally sourced technology,” said Robert Lentz, who before his retirement last month was in charge of the Trusted Foundry program as the deputy assistant defense secretary for cyber, identity and information assurance.

Counterfeit computer hardware, largely manufactured in Asian factories, is viewed as a significant problem by private corporations and military planners. A recent White House review noted that there had been several “unambiguous, deliberate subversions” of computer hardware.

“These are not hypothetical threats,” the report’s author, Melissa Hathaway, said in an e-mail message. “We have witnessed countless intrusions that have allowed criminals to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and allowed nation-states and others to steal intellectual property and sensitive military information.”

Ms. Hathaway declined to offer specifics.

Cyberwarfare analysts argue that while most computer security efforts have until now been focused on software, tampering with hardware circuitry may ultimately be an equally dangerous threat. That is because modern computer chips routinely comprise hundreds of millions, or even billions, of transistors. The increasing complexity means that subtle modifications in manufacturing or in the design of chips will be virtually impossible to detect.

“Compromised hardware is, almost literally, a time bomb, because the corruption occurs well before the attack,” Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general, wrote in an article in Foreign Affairs magazine that warns of the risks the nation faces from insecure computer hardware.

“Maliciously tampered integrated circuits cannot be patched,” General Clark wrote. “They are the ultimate sleeper cell.”

Indeed, in cyberwarfare, the most ancient strategy is also the most modern.

Internet software programs known as Trojan horses have become a tool of choice for computer criminals who sneak malicious software into computers by putting it in seemingly innocuous programs. They then pilfer information and transform Internet-connected PCs into slave machines. With hardware, the strategy is an even more subtle form of sabotage, building a chip with a hidden flaw or a means for adversaries to make it crash when wanted.

Pentagon executives defend the manufacturing strategy, which is largely based on a 10-year contract with a secure I.B.M. chipmaking plant in Burlington, Vt., reported to be valued as high as $600 million, and a certification process that has been extended to 28 American chipmakers and related technology firms.

“The department has a comprehensive risk-management strategy that addresses a variety of risks in different ways,” said Mitchell Komaroff, the director of a Pentagon program intended to develop a strategy to minimize national security risks in the face of the computer industry’s globalization.

Mr. Komaroff pointed to advanced chip technologies that made it possible to buy standard hardware components that could be securely programmed after they were acquired.

But as military planners have come to view cyberspace as an impending battlefield, American intelligence agency experts said, all sides are arming themselves with the ability to create hardware Trojan horses and to hide them deep inside the circuitry of computer hardware and electronic devices to facilitate military attacks.

In the future, and possibly already hidden in existing weapons, clandestine additions to electronic circuitry could open secret back doors that would let the makers in when the users were depending on the technology to function. Hidden kill switches could be included to make it possible to disable computer-controlled military equipment from a distance. Such switches could be used by an adversary or as a safeguard if the technology fell into enemy hands.

A Trojan horse kill switch may already have been used. A 2007 Israeli Air Force attack on a suspected partly constructed Syrian nuclear reactor led to speculation about why the Syrian air defense system did not respond to the Israeli aircraft. Accounts of the event initially indicated that sophisticated jamming technology was used to blind the radars. Last December, however, a report in an American technical publication, IEEE Spectrum, cited a European industry source in raising the possibility that the Israelis might have used a built-in kill switch to shut down the radars.

Separately, an American semiconductor industry executive said in an interview that he had direct knowledge of the operation and that the technology for disabling the radars was supplied by Americans to the Israeli electronic intelligence agency, Unit 8200.

The disabling technology was given informally but with the knowledge of the American government, said the executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. His claim could not be independently verified, and American military, intelligence and contractors with classified clearance declined to discuss the attack.

The United States has used a variety of Trojan horses, according to various sources.

In 2004, Thomas C. Reed, an Air Force secretary in the Reagan administration, wrote that the United States had successfully inserted a software Trojan horse into computing equipment that the Soviet Union had bought from Canadian suppliers. Used to control a Trans-Siberian gas pipeline, the doctored software failed, leading to a spectacular explosion in 1982.


Crypto AG, a Swiss maker of cryptographic equipment, was the subject of intense international speculation during the 1980s when, after the Reagan administration took diplomatic actions in Iran and Libya, it was widely reported in the European press that the National Security Agency had access to a hardware back door in the company’s encryption machines that made it possible to read electronic messages transmitted by many governments.

According to a former federal prosecutor, who declined to be identified because of his involvement in the operation, during the early ’80s the Justice Department, with the assistance of an American intelligence agency, also modified the hardware of a Digital Equipment Corporation computer to ensure that the machine — being shipped through Canada to Russia — would work erratically and could be disabled remotely.

The American government began making a concerted effort to protect against hardware tampering in 2003, when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz circulated a memorandum calling on the military to ensure the economic viability of domestic chipmakers.

In 2005, the Defense Science Advisory Board issued a report warning of the risks of foreign-made computer chips and calling on the Defense Department to create a policy intended to stem the erosion of American semiconductor manufacturing capacity.

Former Pentagon officials said the United States had not yet adequately addressed the problem.

“The more we looked at this problem the more concerned we were,” said Linton Wells II, formerly the principal deputy assistant defense secretary for networks and information integration. “Frankly, we have no systematic process for addressing these problems.”
 
I hope you are aware of the term SoC ( System on chip) and what if the spying device is inbuilt into any other chip? I am sure they must be using a lot of silicon whose datasheet is not available to anyone but them, so what if we disassemble it completely and screw it back? I am sure you know one can not disassemble a sillicon chip.
Yes I am familiar with the new chip systems tech. I also agree that a lot of chips can be designed to do multi-tasking some functions of which is documented in tech manuals while other are not. Hence the point that the level of tech that US has at its disposal is well beyond the capability of countries such as India or Pakistan or even the Europeans to counter.

In short, we all are screwed either ways!! :cheers:
Gents...

The SOCs should be in an 'associative' system, meaning that if one component of the avionics system is not installed, hence the aircraft does not fly, then the entire embedded surveillance system does not work. Why should it? In fact, the entire avionics system works exactly that -- associative. Take probe heat, for example. On the ground, there is 'weight-on-wheels' (WoW), so even though the probe heat CB is engaged, the WoW switches in the landing gear system disconnect power to probe heat so no one could burn themselves or burn up the probe heat covers, permanently damaging the pitot and AoA probes. Once the aircraft is off the ground, the WoW switches are disengaged, allowing probe heat to prevent icing at high altitude.

An embedded surveillance system should work exactly in the same line. If the radar computer is not installed, even if the aircraft is powered up and even if in flight, no radar computer, no shooting. So why bother to record anything? Only the most pertinent status of the aircraft -- fully combat capable -- would trigger this embedded surveillance system.

Hope I added another level of paranoia...:azn:
 
Gents...

Hope I added another level of paranoia...:azn:

Thanks for your detail explanation :)

Well I am not paranoid, infact I for one love such challenges, you keep putting bugs and i will keep squatting them :police:v:sniper:

:cheers:
 
Well as far as I know there is no such thing as a 'bug-free' system. And the worst part would be to fix a bug that you don't know affects what.
:blink::blink:
 
Well as far as I know there is no such thing as a 'bug-free' system. And the worst part would be to fix a bug that you don't know affects what.
:blink::blink:

The US BBJ's that India has recently purchased for VVIP transport will be riddled with listening bugs and homing beacons. But the Indian's like most of the third world lack the technology to de-bug such a large aircraft unless they strip it down to screw and bolt and then re-assemble it!
guys think of the mysterious heli crash of pres Zia-ul haqq,
 
guys think of the mysterious heli crash of pres Zia-ul haqq,

Good point rasied that requires a few corrections.

1. President Zia ul Haq died in a PAF C-130 crash and not a heli crash. This event was meticulously planned by the CIA around the demonstration of the M1A1 Abrams tank in Bahawalpur at the time (Pakistan eventually purchased the T-80UD).

2. The US had used an altitude explosive device that had released an extremely poisonous gas in the cockpit as soon as the aircraft had taken off from Bahawalpur. This gas knocked off the crew unconscious in the C-130 cockpit and blew off the windows of the cockpit too!

3. Some believe that the device was placed in a crate of mangoes placed last minute into the cockpit. We also have a recently written entire book about it called 'Exploding Mangoes' (the author's name skips my mind)

4. In order to keep the tabs off them the US had even sacrificed its own Ambassador to Pakistan at the time (Arnold Raphael) and one of its military attaches Brigadier Wassum. Until to-date no investigation has been carried out by the US FBI into the matter. This is the same FBI which comes running into a country even when an American 'Charsee' gets killed anywhere! In order to keep this operation under wraps the US has also continues to engage the then wife of Ambassador Raphael (Robin Raphael) in the Department of State as a Pakistan expert. This is to perhaps keep an 'eye' on madam Raphael. It is also rumored that both Brig Wassum and Arnold Raphael got an anonymous star on the infamous wall at CIA HQ in Langley, Virginia remembering the faceless fallen in the line of US duty.

Zia died because of a 'deal' of the US and USSR after the end of Afghan war. The details of this alleged 'deal' remains a mystery until todate.

This is also the prime reason that from that day onwards no top leader of Pakistan is allowed to take a 'special' VVIP flight. They all use civilian airlines or private jets for their mostly international trips.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom