![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 06:26:53 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article , ess (phil hunt) wrote: Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency hopping ones? You should remember that "spread spectrum" is not synonymous with "unjammable" or "undetectable." As far as that goes, some wideband jamming techniques can be very effective against normal spread spectrum communications. There are some major limitations that come with spread spectrum, mostly having to do with power versus range versus noise. Frequency hopping is pretty good for keeping people from hearing what you're saying, but once you know the general band they're working on, you can either jam them with suitable wideband frequencies, jump on their frequencies before the receiver can lock on ("fast" jamming) or a number of other moves. You can defeat these ECM moves, but the counter-countermeasures cost a *lot* more money than the countermeasures. And, once again, you're getting into a technical war with a country that spends a *lot* of money on that sort of thing. A quick perusal of some webpages on the 802.11 wireless spec suggest that the direct sequence spread spectrum is probably the more secure of the two possibilities (frequency hopping is the other possibility). However, the fairly modest processing gains - only about 10db or so according to: http://www.wireless-nets.com/article...per_spread.htm and the relatively modest and specific bandwidth allocations 902-928 MHz 2.4-2.4835 GHz 5.725-5.850 GHz suggest to me that digital internet systems based on the 802.11 spec will probably be relatively easy to jam or detect, especially if the receivers and transmitters are using low-gain antennas ("isotropic"). It also seems to me that the need for routing signals through multiple "hops" is going to 1) be vulnerable if any intermediate system is compromised 2) require routing information to be propagated through the internet which will identify active sites. There are some other interesting questions, like what the procedure for adding a node to this internet system is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |