I haven’t done adequate due diligence yet - could be inaccurate

I came across this article alleging that Germany is considering bailing on the F-35 aircraft because the US can remotely disable them.

If the US could do this to German F-35s, presumably they can do it to ours…

Additional reporting alleging concern in Canadian defence circles

  • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    262 months ago

    Nothing in the article backs up the headline claim. The closest it gets is their quoted expert saying that he worries about the US doing to the F-35 what they’re doing to Ukraine. He’s almost certainly referring to the fact that parts and software updates are produced by the US, who could choose to withhold them, just like they’re withholding aid from Ukraine.

    Every serious defence analyst has laughed at the idea that the F-35 has a secret killswitch. This would be the dumbest thing ever to include in an aircraft, because there is always the possibility that your enemies could find out about it.

    Consider; if an F-35 kill switch did exist, any buyer of the craft could invest the resources required to go over every inch of circuit and line of code and find it, and then deactivate every US F-35. It would be more of a liability for them than it is for us. And, equally, our experts could simply patch around the killswitch on our planes. Nations like Canada and Germany are not lacking in technical expertise.

    This bonkers notion seems mostly to be rooted in the broader fear that the F-35 is somehow “too advanced”, an idea that largely springs from the diseased brain of Pierre Sprey (seriously, if you chase down every bad thing said about the F-35, odds are ridiculously high that Sprey said it first). Sprey also believed that the ideal design for a modern attack fighter has a machine gun, no missiles, no computers, and no radar.

    I’m not joking, not even slightly. Pierre Sprey wanted the modern world to fight Russia with planes that had no radar.

    There are valid concerns to be raised about the idea of adopting a craft whose supply chain is centred on the US. That’s a discussion that NATO partners should be having. But this “killswitch” nonsense just derails that important discussion into paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense rooted in the deranged ramblings of a self-aggrandizing madman.

    • @uuldika@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      112 months ago

      Every serious defence analyst has laughed at the idea that the F-35 has a secret killswitch. This would be the dumbest thing ever to include in an aircraft, because there is always the possibility that your enemies could find out about it.

      just cryptographically sign the kill switch transmission. the fighter would contain the public key to verify, but enemies would need the private key to trigger it, which the NSA would keep buried in cold storage like the DUAL-EC-DRBG trapdoor key.

      you’d probably also want to include the fighter’s serial number or IFF transponder code, so the enemy couldn’t capture or replay.

      Consider; if an F-35 kill switch did exist, any buyer of the craft could invest the resources required to go over every inch of circuit and line of code and find it, and then deactivate every US F-35.

      there’s something like 100M LoC of C++ (not Ada 😥) in an F-35. and Canada doesn’t have the sources, so they’d have to decompile that. maybe they could focus on the radios, radar and other devices direct connection to receivers, but the implant might be downstream, and there’s a lot of ways to hide an antenna.

      even dumping the chips isn’t easy. many of them likely have security features, since they contain classified algorithms which the DoD would rather enemies not be able to extract from the downed wreckage of a fighter. certainly the JTAG pins are not going to be enabled. even die shots could be frustrated by metal meshes over the wafer or possibly even microscopic amounts of explosives triggered by de-lidding.

      But this “killswitch” nonsense just derails that important discussion into paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense rooted in the deranged ramblings of a self-aggrandizing madman.

      there’s secure ways to build a kill switch, there’s an abundance of places to hide it in a highly complex fighter, and this kind of spooky stuff is well within the NSA’s wheelhouse. it’s the kind of thing NSA is known for, even - the Crypto AG CIA front, the DUAL-EC-DRBG backdoor, TAO’s clandestine program to intercept and backdoor mailed routers and servers. they clearly can do this kind of thing, since they clearly have before.

      did they backdoor the F-35? I don’t know, but it’s plausible, and CSIS/CSE should investigate.

      • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        There has to be some kind of direct connection between the communications systems and the flight critical systems for any of that to even be remotely plausible. That kind of connection is basically impossible to hide, and simply would not exist in a well designed piece of military hardware. It’s existence would be immediately obvious to the people buying the plane, and the people tasked with maintaining it.

        Show me one single military analyst with worthwhile credentials who believes this is a serious concern. Not articles like this one where they take a quote wildly out of context and use it to backup an entirely fabricated claim. I mean an actual certifiable expert stating clearly and unambiguously that the possible existence of this killswitch is something we have to be worried about.

    • @humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      buyer of the craft could invest the resources required to go over every inch of circuit and line of code and find it

      Buyers do not get source code either. Israel gets a special version with no US software control.

    • @grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      12 months ago

      The whole rumor kinda smells like a disinformation campaign designed to drive even more wedges between the US and the rest of NATO, TBH.

      • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Honestly, it mostly just sounds like more fear mongering about the F-35, which has been going on for ages, and is mostly a Russian disinformation campaign. Pierre Sprey - the originator of all the F-35 criticisms that routinely get handed around - is very regularly a paid guest on RT and other Russian state controlled news outlets.

        Basically Russia is really scared of the F-35 program and would much rather their enemies keep flying upgraded fourth gen fighters. If the US was selling the F-22 to the rest of the world you’d be hearing all the same noise but about that plane instead.

    • @jimd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      02 months ago

      Are you telling me NSA is incapable of adding in a backdoor that would pass German/Canadian inspections? Zero day backdoors by definition are undiscovered

      • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        62 months ago

        There’s no such thing as a “zero day backdoor”. You’re conflating “backdoor” with “zero day exploit” which are entirely separate things.

        And its not a question of whether or not the NSA is capable of doing that. It’s whether they’re capable of doing it in a way that they would absolutely 100% certain could never be discovered.

        But more importantly, as I pointed out elsewhere, in order for it to even be possible for such a backdoor to exist, the entire aircraft would have to be designed in a way that was hilariously, outrageously and inconceivably unsafe to operate. You simply do not link mission critical system to external communications systems that are in operation while a vehicle is airborne. Such a design flaw would be immediately obvious to the people whose job it was to approve the purchase, because there’s no way you connect up systems like that in secret. While the US might supply the parts, it’s still our guys who maintain them and integrate them into the vehicle.

    • @Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      72 months ago

      Just because you put kill switches in the ones you sell, doesn’t mean you’ve got to put them in your own.

      But yeah, being able to remotely kill a fighter jet is incredibly stupid.

      • @skozzii@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        72 months ago

        Just because you put kill switches in the ones you sell

        That right there is what it is. I can almost guarantee this to be the case, as a Canadian I have always opposed the F-35’s. We need twin engine for our Arctic climates and who cares about stealth when you are defending your territory. We aren’t an aggressive country.

        • @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          62 months ago

          You care about stealth when defending your country because stealth is how you win air to air combat now.

          Dogfighting is as meaningful to modern air combat as the horse and lance are to modern ground combat. Fighter planes work like submarines now; the goal is to detect and kill the enemy before they can detect and kill you. Kills happen from outside of visual range.

          A defensive aircraft without advanced stealth can be shot and killed by an aggressor before they ever have the ability to target that aggressor.

          To put it another way, do you think that our soldiers only wear camouflage when they’re planning a sneak attack? Do our troops wear hazard vests and strap road flares to their helmets when they’re defending a location to make sure the enemy knows exactly where they are? Or is it, in fact, always beneficial to see your enemy before they see you?

    • @ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      32 months ago

      While speculation, I don’t doubt it one bit.

      It’s unlikely you’d be able to fly these without US maintenance and supplies in the first place, but even if you could, I’d trust them as much as pagers from Israel.

    • @jimd@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -22 months ago

      Are you telling me NSA is incapable of adding in a backdoor that would pass German/Canadian inspections? Zero day backdoors by definition are undiscovered

        • @uuldika@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          12 months ago

          for someone with two decades of infosec experience, it’s alarming you’d overlook asymmetric cryptography. it’s simple to build an unhackable kill switch using basic cryptographic primitives, unless you think the enemy has a quantum computer.

            • @uuldika@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              22 months ago

              right, you said it was stupid because:

              Just imagine that you’re in a conflict, then the enemy hacks your command and control systems and disables/hijacks all of your aircraft. Yeah, that’s pretty dumb.

              I’m saying that scenario wouldn’t be possible. for the enemy to exploit a backdoor like this, they’d have to either:

              1. break the encryption (quantum computer, classical sub-exponential discrete log or factoring algorithm.)
              2. break the protocol or encryption (unlikely, since it’d be simple, the NSA is full of competent cryptographers, and they’d probably formally verify it to EAL-5.)
              3. steal the private key (most likely imo, but the government also safeguards the nuclear codes, and it’s hard for me to imagine F-35 kill switch keys being more dangerous than those.)

              I don’t think any of the above are very likely, or at least not likely enough to outweigh the strategic benefit of being able to ground your enemy’s air force in the (hitherto unlikely) scenario one of the US’s customers became its enemy. so I don’t think it’s stupid, and I don’t think I straw-manned you.

    • @Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      10
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      As an average Windows user, I feel like that shouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t want your F-35s remotely disabled, just go into the system settings and disable the cockpit personalization, DoD telemetry, flight control suggestions, and especially uncheck the “Help make America safer by sending usage and crash statistics to the Pentagon” box.

      Of course you also need to double check after every system update to make sure that none of these settings ended up getting patched back on without notice, but for the average pilot, it couldn’t be more user friendly.

      • @Jimbabwe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        52 months ago

        And remember, please try to press the OK button to send Microsoft your anonymous crash analytics before your F-35 smashes into the ground.

    • Blaster M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      32 months ago

      Give it a week and Arch users will have it running on the F-35

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      142 months ago

      Switzerland will do anything and everything possible to protect it’s neutrality, always has. If you buy weapons and or ammo from there, you kinda get what you’re asking for. They are good to use in training and that’s it

  • @Hirom@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    42 months ago

    This report explains F-35 have no remote control nor kill switch, but depend on US companies for maintenance and parts.

    Source : https://interestingengineering.com/military/f35-kill-switch-reports-debunked

    Even if an F-35 operator disconnected from the larger Joint Strike Fighter program’s supply chains can keep some number of its jets flying for a period of time through spares on hand and cannibalization, those aircraft would have extremely degraded capabilities.

    Source : https://www.twz.com/air/you-dont-need-a-kill-switch-to-hobble-exported-f-35s

  • @humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    12 months ago

    Beyond any “off switch”, you need permission on every flight for the “on switch”. Lockheed doesn’t even give US military manuals, and so only Lockheed consultants can maintain/repair the planes.

    Beyond that, it is a horrible plane that is horribly expensive. Low flight time. Everyone in the world who approved buying any, is primafacie corrupt traitor, and straight to jail.

  • @Geobloke@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    12 months ago

    I feel like a jet and it’s systems would be relatively easy to hack. The weapons on the other hand, not so much. Just window those to a certain geographical system or refresh their systems when they connect to gps or something

  • @AcousticMoose@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    12 months ago

    I guess the flip side of this is that the Americans are (presumably) actively training our military on the detailed operation and capabilities of the F-35. Could come in useful if things get bad. It’s one of those things that is mind-bending about the situation we are in

  • @fieryhamster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    12 months ago

    And out of curiousity… what’s to keep these other countries from swapping out the software and/or hardware that causes this? They bought it and the US can go pound sand. Am I saying it’s easy to do? No. But it’s not impossible and a far sight cheaper than buying all new planes from someone else.