Satellite Takeover

>>61329262
Define connected to? At lot of satellites send their telemetry unencrypted. Not hard to receive with a decent yagi and SDR. Hardest part is figuring out the modulation and encoding but there are some scattered web pages out there that can help.

>>61329294
Root control or ability to monitor systems.

>>61330493
Not happening. They have failsafes that decay their orbit after too many failed login attempts. Evil maid vector is the only way to scrape the keys.

File: Galactic-Ascension.jpg (108KB, 727x718px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 727x718px

>>61330565
>Launch dexterous counter-sat to poison target's bootloader and force odd behavior to prompt a clean reboot from target's end.
Tis some cyberpunk shit.

File: merlin wizard.png (244KB, 1256x766px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1256x766px

I think you could, but it is highly situational. If you want to do this you (at the very least) need to have a radio license and the ability to build a radio from the ground up. From there, you're going to have to research exactly what type of satellite you're interested in hacking (perhaps the ones which fly over your house..), and then figure out a way to get as much technical information on them as possible (eg contacting the manufacturer as a potential customer or curious student).

Consider that to do this, you effective have to build a device capable of transmitting and receiving the right kind of messages from satellites. This isn't a cheap or easy proposition in the first place. Then you actually have to figure out what the vehicle's (remember that a satellite is a moving object) actual thrustsers are, and the phrases/commands used to interact with it.

At some point, you're effectively doing hardcore CS/EE wizardry. Like many radio operators do in their free time.

>>61329262
Yes. I've connected to one, or maybe two. Do you also use DirecTV? :^)

>>61329262
>How to get vanned for sure, the thread.
If you did this and the corporation or government you jus hacked found you, dear sweet God, they'd probably kill you so the exploit doesn't spread.

>>61331247

No, the FCC would fine them for making an illegal transmission (fines start at $25,000) while the company in particular would sue for any damages (eg throwing a satellite into the ocean). But the accused would be smart to plead out and probably would get a light sentence, considering the value of such a stunt to people like satellite manufacturers (who of course want to sell "hacker safe" next gen satelittes to all their existing customers) and the military. And there'd be a sweet book deal.

>>61329294
u w0t m8 ? i work in the commsat industry and i've never heard of unencrypted telemetry or telecommand
>wouldn't expect many sats to have high security
you mean you wouldnt expect something that costs hundreds of millions that you can kill in a single command and makes its owner lots of money to be secure ?

>>61329294
Perhaps archaic satellites but in the US ITAR requires all telemtric data to be encrypted.

>>61330565
so what you're saying is I can send hunter2 a few times to deorbit a satellite

seems legit

File: Interesting.gif (992KB, 500x420px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 500x420px

>>61329262
>I wouldn't expect many sats to have high security
>Satellites are somewhat limited in the communications department.

File: Cover-image-large.jpg (2MB, 2500x1667px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2500x1667px

>>61331897
A computer that passes over enemy territory out of sight many times a day is likely to have next level encryption. OR really weak encryption because it wasn't requested in the purchase order.