No Rodney, we are talking RADIO not INTERNET.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Rodney Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Ah, I see what you guys are getting at: IRLP
First, that's INTERNET, NOT Amateur Radio! Radio's should be linked via the
AIR WAYS, NOT over phone lines. But that's MY opinion!
You're just trying to safe guard your personal information, which really
shouldn't be going over the Air Ways anyway!
Rod
John Champa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris,
The International Regs changed last January (2006) to allow
Amateurs to use encryption. However, not for international
traffic. It's only permitted for internal domestic traffic;
It is not permitted between Amateurs of different countries
without specific authorization (ITU?)...according to the League's
attorney.
John - K8OCL
----Original Message Follows----
From: Chris Jewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Hams should have encryption
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 00:17:20 -0700
expeditionradio writes:
> > Bill N9DSJ wrote:
> > Can see no valid reason for encryption on our frequencies. If one
> > could provide an single example I would be interested......
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Hams should certainly have the capability to pass over-the-air
> encrypted traffic or scrambled speech for emergencies and disaster
> relief. There are other situations where it would be useful, too. In
> order to have seamless capability in an emergency, hams should be
> familiar and proficient with the use of it on a regular basis.
>
> Encryption should not be with the sole intent to obscure the content
> from other hams, but it should be availble to hams when there is a
> need to shield sensitive data and information from evil-doers.
>
> Here are a few reasons for hams to use limited encryption in the
> over-the-air communication:
>
> 1. To shield private data
> 2. To shield private telephone numbers
> 3. To shield sensitive email addresses
The many administrations which don't permit amateurs to carry third
party traffic at all (in many cases to protect their national
government's monopoly position as a provider of secure
radiocommunication within their borders) seem unlikely to agree to
revise the International Radio Regulations in a way which would make
it easier for their hams to conceal that they might be carrying
third-party traffic.
> 4. To shield system passwords
Logins over potentially-compromised media (including ham radio) should
use technical means to cryptographically authenticate transmissions,
but that does not require cryptographic concealment of the content.
If I chose, I could use private-key encryption to ssh into my shell
account at my ISP, while passing the text of my session in the clear.
Someone who sniffed my packets would be able to see what I was doing
during my session at my ISP, but would not be able to masquerade as me
using the information gleaned from tapping my lines or sniffing my
packets.
Something similar involving, e.g., exponential key exchange, could be
used over ham radio. Multiple-use passwords sent in the clear became
obsolete for network use more than a decade ago: there is no reason
why ham radio should adopt content encryption to make up for the
weaknesses of such obsolete methods of authentication.
> 5. To shield station remote control
Concatenate the command and a timestamp, and use a crytographically
strong a hash of the combination to prove that the command comes from
someone authorized to remotely control the station, and to prevent
replay attacks. There is no need to cryptographically conceal the
command itself, only to cryptographically sign it.
Challenge-response single-use passwords are another possible solution,
still not requiring cryptographic concealment.
> 6. To secure access to stations
Same answer as number 4 or 5, depending on what exactly is meant by that.
> 7. To control satellites
The same as number 5. (ISTR that crypto concealment for control of
ham satellites is already authorized, but I assert that there is no
technical need for it: crypto authentication would be sufficient.)
> 8. To shield messages sent by a 3rd party to ham
Same answer as numbers 1-3.
> 9. To protect medical information
Now we *may* be getting somewhere, but I'm still not sure.
It seems to me that, e.g., a hospital could call via ham radio for
helicopter evacuation of a patient to a regional trauma center,
providing sufficient information about the case to justify dispatching
the helicopter, but provide the actual name of the patient to the EMTs
along with the patient's file and the patient himself when the
helicopter arrives, rather than by radio.
Is it really necessary to transmit personally-identifiable medical
information over ham radio in emergencies?
> 10. To protect 3rd party traffic requiring confidentiality
See reply to items 1-3.
> 11. To control repeaters
See reply to item 5.
> 12. To shield identities of children
It's not clear to me exactly what that means.
> I'm sure there are more reasons... but that's some of the things I
> thought of in the few minutes it took to write this.
>
> Bonnie KQ6XA
It may be that I am wrong, that Bonnie is right, and that the world at
large (not just the FCC) is willing to permit hams to conceal the
content of our traffic by cryptographir means, but I don't see a lot
of evidence of that yet.
It also may be that, say, on 2M and above, where F-layer propagation
is unknown, hams could be permitted the use of crypto without
disturbing international agreements too much.
--
73 DE KW6H (ex AE6VW), Chris Jewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
