nuclear missile security codes
R.v.Kampen
Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
without russian launch codes.
I was wondering what these launch codes consist of,
In my (not very knowledgable of rocket engineering)
opinion, launching a rocket might
be as simple as lighting a fuse. well may be a bit more complicated
with large missiles, but I don't see why those ukrainians wouldn't be
able to just remove the russion software from those missiles and
replace it with their own control software without any security codes
in it.
I suppose the knowledge of how to guide a missile is available.
(Well just an idea that made me think,
the same goes ofcourse for the US, french, ... who ever else got
missiles)
willem
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rob van Kampen Email : win...@dutiws.tudelft.nl |
| Julianalaan 132 phone : +31-15-789999 |
The Wandering Ghost
RV> Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
RV> news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
RV> without russian launch codes.
Actually they don't seem to be able to ARM the nuclear warheads
without the codes. That's about the same problem encountered by the iranians
that bought missile warheads...with no keys.
RV> I suppose the knowledge of how to guide a missile is available.
Quite so. But even tough dumping some tons of metal from very high in
the sky is quite an idea, an unarmed nuclear missile would not cause much
damage...
--izar
--
iz...@cs.huji.ac.il +++ HUJI CS Dept. +++ Systems Group +++ Jerusalem, Israel +
+ "...Though I shall walk in the Valley of Death, I shall fear no evil, +
+ cause God is with me, and I am the meanest sunofabitch in the Valley." +
++++++++++++++++++++++++ I can't speak for HUJI, I don't even have the accent+
Johan Wevers
>Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
>news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
>without russian launch codes.
>I was wondering what these launch codes consist of,
>In my (not very knowledgable of rocket engineering)
>opinion, launching a rocket might be as simple as lighting a fuse.
Yes, but I thougt that the code was supposed to arm the nuclear warhead
of the missile. They can launch the missile, but the nuclear bomb won't
explode. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is wht I think).
>I suppose the knowledge of how to guide a missile is available.
When you have a complicated computer with only the binaries of the OS,
is it easy to rewrite it?
--
J.C.A. Wevers The only nature of reality is physics.
jo...@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl
System Janitor
scratch that only a few countries have done it. But I've always figured almost
any third rate whacko that got his hands on one somehow could arrange
to have it ``hot wired'' with enough money and effort.
-Mike
Mike Wilson
>When you have a complicated computer with only the binaries of the OS,
>is it easy to rewrite it?
Just replace it or remove it altogether.
Btw, in reference to the guy who said "An unarmed nuclear missle won't do much
dammage", uh, hope it lands in your back yard, not mine.
-mike
R.v.Kampen
>
>
>RV> Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
>RV> news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
>RV> without russian launch codes.
>
> Actually they don't seem to be able to ARM the nuclear warheads
>without the codes. That's about the same problem encountered by the iranians
>that bought missile warheads...with no keys.
need the right control signals for detonating.
The only place I can think of, for those codes to be used is in the
control software of a missile, but to me it sounds like they can just
hire some game-cracker, to hack their missile code.
Or maybe you can just bypass the computer using a simple relay or
whatever to detonate.
>
>RV> I suppose the knowledge of how to guide a missile is available.
>
btw I also think ukrainians might have participated in developing
bombs for the ussr in the past, so even top secret info is probably
there.
willem
Rene Boe Soerensen
>>>>> in article <1vsf00$7...@tuegate.tue.nl>
>>>>> "JW" == Johan Wevers (jo...@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl) said:
JW> win...@dutiws.twi.tudelft.nl (R.v.Kampen) writes:
>Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
>news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
>without russian launch codes.
>I was wondering what these launch codes consist of, In my (not very
>knowledgable of rocket engineering) opinion, launching a rocket might
>be as simple as lighting a fuse.
JW> Yes, but I thougt that the code was supposed to arm the nuclear
JW> warhead of the missile. They can launch the missile, but the
JW> nuclear bomb won't explode. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is
JW> wht I think).
It might not explode, but I would guess that you would still get the
nuclear contamination of the immediate vicinity, not as big an area as
if the bomb had exploded, but bad enough.
Rene Boe
--
| Rene Boe Sorensen, E1-202a | //// | E-mail : re...@iesd.auc.dk |
| Aalborg University (AUC) | c-OO | S-mail : Rene Boe Sorensen |
| Fr. Bajers vej 7, 9000 Aalborg | \ | Poul Buaas vej 19, 3.tv, v.72 |
| Denmark | - | 9000 Aalborg, Denmark |
+--------------=*> PGP v2.3 Public Key available by finger. <*=--------------+
| PGP KeyID: 512/135B89 || Fingerprint: C5E65467 795C594B 97282C4A 659B7CE6 |
Myself
I believe the principle is the same on most other systems.
There is an electronic interlock _inside_ the warhead detonation package
(read 'you can't get at it without making the warhead useless'), called a PAL
I don't remember what it stands for, but the point of it is that it entirely
prevents a detonation signal unless the proper code has been keyed in.
The code is hard-wired into it, not software - though I _think_ the code can
be entered by a software signal (can`t see why not). This means that you can't
just 'hack' the code, because the PAL will disable itself entirely after X (1?)
fudged tries at the code. And if you still think you could just replace this
without a problem.... Why do only the major world powers (read 'rich guys')
have these fun toys?
As stated above, this is from memory, of an old magazine article.
Suspect to error, but everything makes sense, so......
I speak for me, since no one else would be crazy enough to want my mind....
--
This was brought to you by Myself(l...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu) who is all things here.
Head of Synergy Systems, a non-official group of aspiring hackers creating and
distributing software for the common good. Head office:Terra, Sol system. We
Flames accepted-and returned with interest and intelligence compounded.
John Nagle
> This is from memory, so no guarantees.... it also applies to US missiles, but
>I believe the principle is the same on most other systems.
>There is an electronic interlock _inside_ the warhead detonation package
>(read 'you can't get at it without making the warhead useless'), called a PAL
It stands for Permissive Action Link, because it requires an external
code to permit the warhead to be used, but the code itself isn't enough
for a launch.
There's been a long-standing controversy over PALs within the
military. The worry is that if the few sites that hold the keys get
wiped out, the warheads are useless. There's been a political push since
Carter to get PALs on 100% of all atomic weapons, but the Navy dragged its
feet on this for years. Even today, I think, US missile submarines don't
have a hardware interlock that requires something from outside the sub
to launch. It takes many people on board the sub to do it, but unlike
the ground-based missiles, there isn't an absolute hardware interlock
against a local launch decision. However, nuclear weapons have been
withdrawn from US surface ships. Since there doesn't seem to be any threat
that requires dropping a tactical nuke on short notice in the offing,
nuclear-armed Tomahawk missiles launched from shipboard are no longer
deployed.
The USSR had a similar system, with even tighter control than the
US system. (Scientific American had a good article on this last year).
The PAL system is claimed to be really secure against tampering,
and there's a suspicion that this involves detonating charges which
will destroy the weapon if there's a serious tampering attempt.
This might result in a local radioactive mess, but not a nuclear
explosion. Heavy effort has been put into making the US system as
airtight as possible, even against people who understand the system
trying to break it.
Currently, the Ukranians are trying to break the USSR's system,
to acquire control of some of the warheads they ended up with.
No success reported to date. But it won't hold up forever, apparently.
Six months is the estimate I've seen in the press.
John Nagle
Owen Lewis
>
>Recently there was something about ukrainian nuclear missiles, in the
>news. the ukrainians don't seem to be able to launch their missiles
>without russian launch codes.
>
>I was wondering what these launch codes consist of,
>In my (not very knowledgable of rocket engineering)
>opinion, launching a rocket might
>be as simple as lighting a fuse. well may be a bit more complicated
>with large missiles, but I don't see why those ukrainians wouldn't be
>able to just remove the russion software from those missiles and
>replace it with their own control software without any security codes
>in it.
>
>I suppose the knowledge of how to guide a missile is available.
>
>
>(Well just an idea that made me think,
>the same goes ofcourse for the US, french, ... who ever else got
>missiles)
Yes but not, apparently, for the Dutch - or the Ukranians- who had better
understand the control systems before they play withthe toys :-)
>--
>
>+-------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------+
>| Rob van Kampen Email : win...@dutiws.tudelft.nl
> |
>| Julianalaan 132 phone : +31-15-789999
> |
>
--
-= Owen Lewis =-
@
Tele/fax +44-(0)794-301731 ELOKA Consultancy & Project Management
o...@eloka.demon.co.uk
pgp 2.x public key on request
Carl Brewer
I wouldn't mind if it landed in the park at the end of my street, if I
got there first, think of the black market value to some bunch of loony
terrorists who didn't understand nuclear physics .... ;-)
of course, a few trees might get knocked over ...
--
Carl Brewer Ph : 61-9-380-1893
Systems/Network Officer, Reid Library Fax : 61-9-380-1012
University of Western Australia ca...@oversteer.library.uwa.edu.au
Merlin, where are you? Call your Dragon, to weave a mist ....
Mark Dziecielewski
>>Btw, in reference to the guy who said "An unarmed nuclear missle won't do much
>>dammage", uh, hope it lands in your back yard, not mine.
>
>I wouldn't mind if it landed in the park at the end of my street, if I
>got there first, think of the black market value to some bunch of loony
>terrorists who didn't understand nuclear physics .... ;-)
>
>
>of course, a few trees might get knocked over ...
>
Anyone remember the frisson of panic and adrenaline provided by CNN during
the Gulf War when Israel and Saudia Arabia were under attack from Scud
missiles ? These are capabale of carrying nuclear warheads etc, and seemed
to cause enough damage/panic without them.
Unless things have changed recently, World War III is still all set to happen
not when US/UK/French/Russian/Chinese nuclear submarines recieve PAL type
authorisation codes, but after a period, when they have NOT picked up
reassuring messages which prove that the homeland has not been nuked whilst
they are out on patrol. i.e. the absence of coded messages can launch
nuclear weapons etc
I am not sure that the ex-Soviet systems have the same level of technology
as PAL, their nuclear reactor safety systems are certainly not up to Western
standards.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mark Dziecielewski near London, United Kingdom |
| Internet: ma...@otaku.demon.co.uk Compuserve 100014,3615 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Johan Wevers
>It might not explode, but I would guess that you would still get the
>nuclear contamination of the immediate vicinity, not as big an area as
>if the bomb had exploded, but bad enough.
That's not very efficient as a weapon. And remember, the nuclear material
has to bes stored well to avoid an too early explosion. (I mean this: if the
bomb detonates and the uranium or plutonium reaches it's criticall mass, there
has to be _some_ delay before the nuclear explosion "gets out". Otherwise,
only a small part of the nuclear material will actually undergo a fission.
There are estimates that in the Hiroshima bomb, only about 10-15% of the
uranium actually "did it's work".
Therefore, a nuclear bomb that doesn't go off won't be an extreme disaster.
Of course, it won't be nice either.
Tyler Yip - UnixWeenie(tm)
>That's not very efficient as a weapon. And remember, the nuclear material
>has to bes stored well to avoid an too early explosion. (I mean this: if the
>bomb detonates and the uranium or plutonium reaches it's criticall mass, there
>has to be _some_ delay before the nuclear explosion "gets out". Otherwise,
>only a small part of the nuclear material will actually undergo a fission.
According to a program "How Do They Do That?", the dangerous part of the
disassembling of a nuclear warhead is the removal of the detonating explosives.
These are usually spherical shells of conventional explosives that are used
to compact the lithium deuteride to critical mass. If these explosives go off,
at this stage, there isn't a danger of a nuclear explosion, but there is a
danger of the conventionals vaporizing the nuclear material and ejecting it
into the atmosphere.
Without detonating a nuke, there is still considerable nuclear danger from
nuclear material being scattered into the air, and from the rocket fuel
being detonated.
--
Tyler Yip, UnixWeenie(tm) \ God put me on Earth to accomplish a certain
email: dav...@ecst.csuchico.edu \ number of things. Right now I am so far
California State University, Chico \ behind I will never die. -Calvin & Hobbes
Robert Warren
(...)
> Btw, in reference to the guy who said "An unarmed nuclear missle won't do muc
> dammage", uh, hope it lands in your back yard, not mine.
>
> -mike
They use an accelerometer (sp?!) to arm the nuke... to prevent it from
detonating on the launch pad. So unless the codes are right and it's got
the right flight path, it won't blow up even if wired for it.
Robert Warren
war...@switchboard.uucp
Johan Wevers
>According to a program "How Do They Do That?", the dangerous part of the
>disassembling of a nuclear warhead is the removal of the detonating explosives.
>These are usually spherical shells of conventional explosives that are used
>to compact the lithium deuteride to critical mass.
You're talking about a bomb of the implosion type. This kinds of bombs usually
has plutonium af fission material. LiD is used in a booster type bomb: a
fission bomb with increased strength by fusion reactions. The LiD is harmless
without a nuclear explosion (well, don't eat too much Li - it's not _that_
harmless).
> If these explosives go off,
>at this stage, there isn't a danger of a nuclear explosion, but there is a
>danger of the conventionals vaporizing the nuclear material and ejecting it
>into the atmosphere.
This could be dangerous, yes. Especially with Pu, which is very poisenes.
>Without detonating a nuke, there is still considerable nuclear danger from
>nuclear material being scattered into the air, and from the rocket fuel
>being detonated.
The rochet fuel is no greater danger than a conventional bomb.
Domenico De Vitto {spider}
>
> The rochet fuel is no greater danger than a conventional bomb.
'cept of course conventional bombs fly half-way over the world
and then hit you from nowhere at MACH 10.... now *_THAT_* would hurt.
Very interesting all this, but alt.security ?
Dom
Ed Carp
: That's not very efficient as a weapon. And remember, the nuclear material
: has to bes stored well to avoid an too early explosion. (I mean this: if the
: bomb detonates and the uranium or plutonium reaches it's criticall mass, there
: has to be _some_ delay before the nuclear explosion "gets out". Otherwise,
: only a small part of the nuclear material will actually undergo a fission.
The bomb starts to fission, but the resulting reaction tends to blow the
core apart. That's why nuclear weapons use shaped high explosive to compress
the core - (1) to make it dense and thereby more reactions in a shorter
period of time, and (2) to hold the core together longer.
Of cours, injecting a litle tritium at the proper time helps, too... hehehe
--
Ed Carp e...@apple.com, e...@saturn.upl.com 510/659-9560
People ask me how I do it, and I say "There's nothing to it! You just stand
there looking cute ... and when something moves, YOU SHOOT!" -- Tom Lehrer
Bear Giles
The timing required to get a good explosion is so tight that a
'hot wired' controller almost certainly won't work.
The results would resemble a friend's efforts to reverse-engineer
the PC's keyboard driver a number a years ago... when he cleaned up
the code. The code was horrid, but it also kept the timing right.
In contrast, his code was clean but killed keyboards.
Same thing with the software to trigger the bomb. I've read that
U.S. warheads include software such that if you enter the wrong
arming codes too many times (3? 5?) it will blow the PALs (Permissive
Action Links, not Programmable Array Logic, btw) and the bomb has to
be remanufactured -- it simply can't be denonated.
I would imagine they have similar mechanisms where if you try
taking too close a look at the controller hardware the bomb could
be rendered unusable. Not difficult at all -- squirt a little
molasses into the core and that bomb is useless.
Regarding the question of other nation's protective hardware,
I would expect _every_ nation has numerous safeguards on its
nuclear weapons -- the risks if a bomb are stolen are just too
high.
In fact, I suspect even the most rabid commie-hater in the CIA
would cheerfully fly a secret mission to Moscow to hand-deliver
PALs if Moscow was running short. Having nukes is bad, but having
nukes without safeguards to make sure they aren't accidently used
is infinitely worse.
--
Bear Giles
be...@cs.colorado.edu/fsl.noaa.gov
Carl S. Leichter
gases when burnt. You should be at least 2000 feet upwind of solid rocket exhausts.
This cloud would most likely kill more people than the conventional explosives of
the detonation package.
Ed Carp
: Same thing with the software to trigger the bomb. I've read that
: U.S. warheads include software such that if you enter the wrong
: arming codes too many times (3? 5?) it will blow the PALs (Permissive
: Action Links, not Programmable Array Logic, btw) and the bomb has to
: be remanufactured -- it simply can't be denonated.
: I would imagine they have similar mechanisms where if you try
: taking too close a look at the controller hardware the bomb could
: be rendered unusable. Not difficult at all -- squirt a little
: molasses into the core and that bomb is useless.
Of course, that raises a couple of "denial of service" attacks against
nuclear weapons - assuming, of course, that one could get either
physical or electronic access to them. You wouldn't have to know
the codes - just keep guessing until you blow the PALs, rendering
the bomb useless, then go on to the next bomb.
Make a hell of a statement for the anti-nuclear groups ;)
--
Ed Carp e...@apple.com, e...@saturn.upl.com 510/659-9560
For anonymous mailers --> anonym...@charcoal.com
"I've met many thinkers and many cats, but the wisdom of cats is infinitely
superior." -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)
The Shmeckhouser
> Johan Wevers (jo...@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl) wrote:
>
> : That's not very efficient as a weapon. And remember, the nuclear material
> : has to bes stored well to avoid an too early explosion. (I mean this: if th
> : bomb detonates and the uranium or plutonium reaches it's criticall mass, th
> : has to be _some_ delay before the nuclear explosion "gets out". Otherwise,
> : only a small part of the nuclear material will actually undergo a fission.
>
> The bomb starts to fission, but the resulting reaction tends to blow the
> core apart. That's why nuclear weapons use shaped high explosive to compress
> the core - (1) to make it dense and thereby more reactions in a shorter
> period of time, and (2) to hold the core together longer.
>
> Of cours, injecting a litle tritium at the proper time helps, too... hehehe
> --
> Ed Carp e...@apple.com, e...@saturn.upl.com 510/659-9560
>
> People ask me how I do it, and I say "There's nothing to it! You just stand
> there looking cute ... and when something moves, YOU SHOOT!" -- Tom Lehrer
How little you know about nuclear physics. BTW, this is alt.security.
Goldman of Chaos
>
>Of course, that raises a couple of "denial of service" attacks against
>nuclear weapons - assuming, of course, that one could get either
>physical or electronic access to them. You wouldn't have to know
>the codes - just keep guessing until you blow the PALs, rendering
>the bomb useless, then go on to the next bomb.
>
>Make a hell of a statement for the anti-nuclear groups ;)
Unless they guess lucky...
Matt
--
Matthew Goldman E-mail: gol...@orac.cray.com Work: (612) 683-3061
Hark what cart through younder parking lot streaks?
Matthew T. Russotto
>Of course, that raises a couple of "denial of service" attacks against
>nuclear weapons - assuming, of course, that one could get either
>physical or electronic access to them. You wouldn't have to know
>the codes - just keep guessing until you blow the PALs, rendering
>the bomb useless, then go on to the next bomb.
>
>Make a hell of a statement for the anti-nuclear groups ;)
There's still the little matter of the armed guards and other such
physical barriers... I don't think you can just
% telnet nuke43.kansas.missle.mil 666
Enter Launch code:
:-)
Matthew T. Russotto
>How little you know about nuclear physics. BTW, this is alt.security.
But there isn't an alt.homebrew.nuclear-weapons.fission. Should someone
issue an RFD?
System Janitor
>How little you know about nuclear physics. BTW, this is alt.security.
Right. Everyone knows that the correct thing to post here is meaningless
flames.
-Mike
Ken Arromdee
>But there isn't an alt.homebrew.nuclear-weapons.fission. Should someone
>issue an RFD?
rec.pyrotechnics.nuclear was already tried and failed.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me... Turkey Casserole
that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ... Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
-- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Robert J. Granvin
You can't?
When the Internet Worm was making its way out of the network and into
the national news, it was stated by no less than CNN, NBC and ABC (and
many, many times, mind you) that "The nations nuclear facilities, including
the nuclear ballistic missiles, were never affected."
I mean, they're experts, right? :-)
--
\\ Robert J. Granvin User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota r...@stat.umn.edu
Goldman of Chaos
Perhaps we should just start with alt.homebrew.nuclear-weapons. If
there is enough interest we can break it up into a.h.n.fission,
a.h.n.fusion, a.h.n.wanted, a.h.n.forsale, a.h.n.flame, a.h.n.design,
and a.h.n.theory.
:-)/2
Brett Glaysher
|>
|> Of course, that raises a couple of "denial of service" attacks against
|> nuclear weapons - assuming, of course, that one could get either
|> physical or electronic access to them. You wouldn't have to know
|> the codes - just keep guessing until you blow the PALs, rendering
|> the bomb useless, then go on to the next bomb.
|>
|> Make a hell of a statement for the anti-nuclear groups ;)
|> --
|> Ed Carp e...@apple.com, e...@saturn.upl.com 510/659-9560
|> For anonymous mailers --> anonym...@charcoal.com
|> "I've met many thinkers and many cats, but the wisdom of cats is infinitely
|> superior." -- Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893)
Of course, imagine if they accidentally got the right code. Think about
it -- an anti-nuclear group with a live bomb! <shudder>
--
Cynic, n.
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of
plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.
...The Devil's Dictionary
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Brett Glaysher | Internet Style: bre...@zed.com |
| Programmer/Analyst Club Zed | UUCP : ...!uunet!aruba!brettg |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
The Shmeckhouser
Yes. I think so. In fact, I believe there are some wiz kids at MIT who
might be interested in moderating/manufacturing.
The Shmeckhouser
With all the complaining about network bandwidth, I try to keep my
messages short, and to the point. The fact that it sounds flamish, well,
that's life.
I feel that nuclear security is a moot point. Already, several people
have spoken about armed guards, extensive use of PALs, and the hig
improbability of launch-code compromise. Sure, it's interesting
conversation, but I think we can sleep safely tonight knowing that the
military will continue to protect the general population from accidental
nuclear detonation.
Pehaps further posts should continue on alt.conspiracy.