"Code Talking" for more secure coms.

[PORSCHE928S4]

Basically what it boiled down to is even on a unsecured radio you could talk and verify friendlies on the other end by using the book . There would be days on that day you would have a password and when you approached a secure area you could use that password in a sentence and well not be shot . If speaking on the radio you would be asked to authenticate and depending on the day you would give the response to let them know you are on the right side !

 

[po18guy]

Why not just use Jive?

In the month of Thanksgiving, it is quite appropriate to post a jive turkey.

 

[WWShooter]

Why not just use Jive?

I don't get the AOC head? What does she have to do with either code talkers or jive? Maybe I'm slow.

 

[Mike_M57]

I don't get the AOC head? What does she have to do with either code talkers or jive? Maybe I'm slow.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

When they get rich all the sudden they get a accent like Madonna lol

 

[elsie]

I am sure by now you can get a Army CEOI since they are all digital now the book has passwords and authentication codes unless you have another it is basically gibberish !

Just use ACP 131. It was confusing even when you knew it.

elsie

 

[WWShooter]

Phew, not slow, just unaware.

 

[Bushman]

As for comms, there are a number of ways to obfuscate comms - including digital encoding to start with, which requires that someone listening have the corresponding decoder. Not secure, but it does reduce the number of people listening who will understand down to the people who have a receiver with the correct decoder. Amateur radio has a number of digital encoding modes for voice, and some for data.

Then there is encryption - which is different from encoding, and not allowed on Amateur radio bands, but in a scenario where there is no rule of law, it would be usable for obfuscating comms so that most without the encryption keys would hear nothing but unintelligible noise. The government would probably be able to decrypt it though ,and it would call attention to you by the government/military.

Spread spectrum helps hide signals, but again, it would call attention to the transmitters by government, who has long since learned how to detect and listen to spread spectrum modes (it used to be, in the early days, they could not even detect it - DAMHIK).

But yes, using your own words for some things, works to a point. Not just Navajo code talkers; organized crime used to do this when they suspected that their phones were being tapped.

In today's world, "code talking" of the sort that was used in WWII, would be ineffective against the NSA - they would break it very quickly.

Any encryption can be broken, using statistical attacks. The only one that cannot be if used properly is the one time pad.

 

[helloyatches]

All the Jap's would have had to do is catch a Skimo on the Aleutian's since they both speak the same language.

 

[red442joe]

In my family, we routinely use metaphor. Unless you are us, you will not get it.

Joe

 

[Mikej]

Anyone ever learn "oppish"?

How to Speak Oppish: 10 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

Oppish is a great way to communicate with friends if you'd like a secret code that others can't understand. Oppish can seem complicated at first, but anyone can learn it. As with any language, you'll need to practice Oppish if you want to...

www.wikihow.com

 

[The Heretic]

Any encryption can be broken, using statistical attacks. The only one that cannot be if used properly is the one time pad.

Encryption for civilians in a SHTF scenario is not to prevent government from intercepting and understanding comms, it is to prevent other civilians from understanding the comms.

The NSA can break encryption, especially now that they have quantum computers, but in general, they won't be doing this in real time in the field such that gov forces deployed to the field will have usable SIGint in real time. The NSA may not even bother to put in the effort unless ordered to.

That said, if you are using encryption, you should assume that the government can decrypt it.

 

[Provincial]

I remember a Robert Heinlein story where American resistance fighters use teenage girls as code talkers. They just have the girls talk normally to each other.

Pretty sarcastic, but at a time of Valley Girls, not far from the truth!

 

[Tony617]

I remember a Robert Heinlein story where American resistance fighters use teenage girls as code talkers. They just have the girls talk normally to each other.

Pretty sarcastic, but at a time of Valley Girls, not far from the truth!

 

[The Heretic]

I dare say that AI could probably decode most "code talking" that isn't totally made up, assuming it was trained on enough data.

The Navajo code talkers used mostly made up words and language based on their native language - it is said even other Navajos could not make sense of it.

Eventually, with enough data, "code talkers" encoding will have repeat words and given some context, it can probably be learned by computers.

Using digitized text that is compressed, then encrypted, should be sufficient for most purposes except where the government is listening. Today you can speak and you phone will turn your speech into text with fair accuracy - in the near future the accuracy will improve. Then you could compress that text (removing redundancies, greatly reducing size), then encode the compressed text, then encrypt it for transmission Not only would that be more secure, it would reduce your signal footprint making it more difficult to detect much less find the source.

That said, todays text to speech (and auto-correction) on phones and computers is mostly using server farms in the cloud to get the high accuracy rates and speed we are seeing. In a SHTF scenario, it is quite possible that those servers will not be accessible, probably not online - so either an offline app (with reduced speed/accuracy) would need to be used or mostly typed text - which could be problematic if it came to tactical comms where real time speed it necessary.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Apparently that stuff is still classified geeze it is from the 80's and we were told to destroy it if overrun but maybe it is still in use .

The flapjack is on the plate.

 

[Mikej]

I dare say that AI could probably decode most "code talking" that isn't totally made up, assuming it was trained on enough data.

The Navajo code talkers used mostly made up words and language based on their native language - it is said even other Navajos could not make sense of it.

Eventually, with enough data, "code talkers" encoding will have repeat words and given some context, it can probably be learned by computers.

Using digitized text that is compressed, then encrypted, should be sufficient for most purposes except where the government is listening. Today you can speak and you phone will turn your speech into text with fair accuracy - in the near future the accuracy will improve. Then you could compress that text (removing redundancies, greatly reducing size), then encode the compressed text, then encrypt it for transmission Not only would that be more secure, it would reduce your signal footprint making it more difficult to detect much less find the source.

That said, todays text to speech (and auto-correction) on phones and computers is mostly using server farms in the cloud to get the high accuracy rates and speed we are seeing. In a SHTF scenario, it is quite possible that those servers will not be accessible, probably not online - so either an offline app (with reduced speed/accuracy) would need to be used or mostly typed text - which could be problematic if it came to tactical comms where real time speed it necessary.

Geek.

 

[The Heretic]

Geek.

Secure comms has always been an interest for me - both personally and professionally.

My first full time permanent job after I got my EE degree was at MCC testing performance of Meteor Burst WANs - bounce signals off meteors:



US DoD used to be very interested in it for various reasons, including secure comms. Satellites have all but replaced meteor burst.

One of the interesting aspects of compressed data is that it often also contains a checksum, which can be useful to check to see if the data is correct or corrupted. You can also send additional data that indicates the data was authentic and/or authoritative (two different but related aspects of data) - important for security.

 

[Mikej]

Secure comms has always been an interest for me - both personally and professionally.

My first full time permanent job after I got my EE degree was at MCC testing performance of Meteor Burst WANs - bounce signals off meteors:

View attachment 1444006

US DoD used to be very interested in it for various reasons, including secure comms. Satellites have all but replaced meteor burst.

One of the interesting aspects of compressed data is that it often also contains a checksum, which can be useful to check to see if the data is correct or corrupted. You can also send additional data that indicates the data was authentic and/or authoritative (two different but related aspects of data) - important for security.

You are from a different world man! But that's a good thing! My younger brother is a mega-geek, with a
Masters degree in electronic engineering. I don't understand when he talks about what he does either.

 

[The Heretic]

You are from a different world man! But that's a good thing! My younger brother is a mega-geek, with a
Masters degree in electronic engineering. I don't understand when he talks about what he does either.

What would be kewl would be if Starlink allowed peer to peer comms via satellite, instead of (or in addition to) connecting to the internet via base stations and the internet backbones. It is certainly possible - especially now that they have ISLs in their satellites (ISLs use lasers to connect to other satellites when there isn't a base station readily available - e.g., when they are over oceans or the polar regions) - but it would require adding more memory to the satellite to do a "store & forward" protocol. This would basically result in a mesh network that could be independent of the land based internet.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Starlink will ever do that.