A U.S. Navy chief who wanted the internet so she and other enlisted officers could scroll social media, check sports scores and watch movies while deployed had an unauthorized Starlink satellite dish installed on a warship and lied to her commanding officer to keep it secret, according to investigators.

Internet access is restricted while a ship is underway to maintain bandwidth for military operations and to protect against cybersecurity threats.

The Navy quietly relieved Grisel Marrero, a command senior chief of the littoral combat ship USS Manchester, in August or September 2023, and released information on parts of the investigation this week.

33 points

There’s a much bigger story here.
Think about how hard it was to discover this access point. Even after it was reported and there was a known wi-fi network and the access point was known to be on a single ship, it took the Navy months to find it.

Starlink devices are cheap and it will be nearly impossible to detect them at scale. That means that anyone can get around censors. If the user turns off wi-fi, they’ll be nearly impossible to detect. If they leave wi-fi on in an area with a lot of wi-fi networks it will also be nearly impossible to detect. A random farmer could have Starlink in their hut. A dissident (of any nation) could hide the dish behind their toilet.

As competing networks are launched, users will be able to choose from the least restricted network for any given topic.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

But why was it hard? Surely they’re accessing it w/ wifi, and scanning for wi-fi networks really isn’t that hard. A military ship should have a good handle on what networks they expect, and they should be able to easily triangulate where the signal is coming from.

Also, military ships should have really strict accounting for what is brought on board. A Starlink receiver isn’t particularly small, and it should be plainly obvious to security when that comes on-board.

I think it’s awesome that Starlink is so accessible for the average joe, but that’s a completely different topic than what’s allowed on military property. This sounds like a pretty big, embarassing security fail for the US military, and more people than this individual should be reprimanded, if not fired.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It was the Chief of the ship who installed it. She was the highest ranked enlisted person on the ship. She would have the access and ability to get just about anything on board that she wanted. The fact she was able to is easy to see. The fact the she was willing to and has obtained such a high rank is pretty impressive (and stupid).

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The original article goes into more detail https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/03/how-navy-chiefs-conspired-to-get-themselves-illegal-warship-wi-fi/

It sounds like there were over 15 people in on the scheme. At some point people noticed that there was some wi-fi network called “STINKY” and rumors started circulating about it. It took a while for those rumors to reach senior command. Then they changed the name to make it look like a printer, which further delayed the investigation.

It doesn’t look like they actually scanned for the access point. I suspect that’s because it would be hard on a ship. All the metal would reflect signals and give you a ton of false readings.

They only eventually found it when a technician was installing an authorized system (Starshield seems to be the version of Starlink approved for military use) and they discovered the unauthorized Starlink equipment.

The Starlink receivers have gotten fairly small. It seems like that was pretty easy to hide among all the other electronics on the ship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So it’s collusion by the people who should be monitoring for such things? Or just collusion by people in some position of power, but who aren’t in charge of network security? I don’t know much about the positions these people held.

Anyone directly involved should certainly be considered for disciplinary action, but there should be more safeguards here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The degree of incompetence needed for SIGINT/ELINT operations to fail to discover such a transceiver for 6+ months strains credibility.

I’m guessing this is a ruse to convince adversaries that the Navy can’t detect Starlink transceivers even when they are aboard their own ships. This is much more likely to be disinformation intended to drive adversaries to use Starlink than it is to be a legitimate failure of intelligence gathering.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

strains credibility

Not sure why.
Security professionals are constantly complaining about insiders violating security policies for stupid reasons.
Security publications and declassified documents are full of breaches that took way too long to discover.

The Navy may have great security protocols but it’s full of humans that make mistakes. As they say, if you invent a foolproof plan, the universe will invent a better fool.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Ok, so this is a bit different from taping your password to your monitor. Security has a problem with you doing that, but unless they come to your workstation, they have no way of knowing that you do this.

ELINT is kinda like a security camera, but instead of seeing lights, it sees transmitters. You know the frequencies of the communications transmitters on Navy ships, let’s say they are analogous to blue lights. You know the frequencies of their radars, let’s say they are green. During normal operation, you’re expecting to see blue and green “lights” from your ship, and the other ships in your task force.

Starlink does not operate on the same frequencies as comms and radar. The “light” it emits is bright red, kinda like the blinking lights you see on cell towers at night.

So, you’re sitting at the security desk, monitoring your camera feeds… And you just don’t notice a giant red blinky light, strong enough to be seen from space, on the ship next to you in formation?

You’re telling me that this warship never ran any EMCON drills, shutting off all of the “lights” it knows about, and looking to see if any shipboard transmitters remain unsecured?

You’re right, I would expect users to bend and break unmonitored security protocols from time to time. I expect them to write down their password. I expect them to share their password, communicating it over insecure networks that aren’t monitored by the security department. But operating a Starlink transmitter is basically equivalent to having the Goodyear blimp orbit your office building, projecting your password on its side for everyone to see.

The idea that ELINT operators missed seeing it for this long doesn’t seem likely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

it took the Navy months to find it.

I’m surprised they didn’t hide the SSID… It’s likely nobody would have even found the network then.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You could easily scan for hidden SSIDs. It might not show up in your phone’s wifi list, but that’s by design. The traffic is still there and discoverable. Even with an app like WiFiman (made by Ubiquiti).

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Disabling the wifi SSID broadcast might even increase the number of communication attempts between devices. Because all devices then must actively search for the network.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

How many regular people would know that, though?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The original article says there were over 15 people involved https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/09/03/how-navy-chiefs-conspired-to-get-themselves-illegal-warship-wi-fi/

With that many people, it’s only a matter of time before someone spills the beans.

There are several steps they could have taken to make it much harder to discover. I expect more and more people will take those steps and we’ll never hear about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Effectively they did through obfuscation. The Command Chief renamed it to look like their wireless printers. She did that because so many more junior people (relative to the Chief’s Mess) complained that the officers tried to check (with their phones) for some wifi Internet. They couldn’t find it because they thought it was a printer. The Command Chief is obviously trusted since she’s the most senior enlisted but she’s also the one that lead the entire scheme. When asked directly by the Commander, she denied it existed, so after not finding it, they just assumed it was a rumor. So, they had a ship-wide call and told everyone that there was no rogue Internet access point on the ship.

It took months because when a tech from a port they were at was installing a Starshield transceiver they physically saw the Starlink transceiver.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Unless they just turn the satellites off over the country’s that don’t want them to avoid conflict or jam all signals because they do be that way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

We’re likely to see a variant of Moore’s law when it comes to satellites. Launch costs will keep going down. Right now we have Starlink with a working satellite internet system and China with a nascent one. As the costs come down we’ll likely see more and more countries, companies, organizations and individuals will be able to deploy their own systems.

A government would need to negotiate with every provider to get them to block signals over their country. Jamming is always hard. You could theoretically jam all communications or communications on certain frequency bands but it’s not clear how you would selectively jam satellite internet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Kessler Syndrome trumps this application of Moore’s Law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Oh, but there’s more. Starlink will be offering 5G via satellite soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I had (naively) hoped that starlink wouldn’t even need a license to operate in a specific country. When their satellites eventually fully communicate between them without ground station it becomes incredibly powerful. Sort of like one of those ancient world wonders. Technology now allows to live and work everywhere in the world or on the ocean in seasteads.

Unfortunately it’s owned by greedy oligarchs and the planned multiple constellations make a kessler syndrome more and more likely.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’m wondering how wifi worked at all. Aren’t navy ships like pure steel? How did the wifi signal get through all that?

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*

No.

These are aluminum.

Similarly the antenna was mounted on the tower above decks like the rest of the communication equipment.

There will be more than a firing, chiefs arent often walking the ropes near the antennas so there has to be accomplices and they’re almost certainly going to be charged with a national security violation since starlink has two way com and thusly Elon likely knew it’s location at all times.

The trimaran aluminum hull will allow flight operations up to sea state 5.[11]

Ed: to be clear they ended up being some of the worst ships America had ever produced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

In the navytimes article, they said some of the Cheif’s Mess installed a bunch of wired ‘repeaters’ all over the ship (probably wireless access points and not repeaters though).

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

“…the littoral combat ship…”

I don’t know what this is. But it sounds like the ship should be “manned” by women.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Definition of littoral:

of, relating to, or situated or growing on or near a shore especially of the sea

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Cool thanks. Does everyone already know this and I’m the only one who has never heard of this before?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

No, but it’s pretty easy to look up unfamiliar words.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Pretty obscure term. Don’t beat yourself up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
148 points
*

Good that’s a severe risk she* put everyone and the ship in. It was 17 officers in total and they attempted cover up

permalink
report
reply
45 points

She

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

She

permalink
report
parent
reply
112 points

First off, not an officer, a high ranking enlisted(E-8) personal was the culprit.

Second, she was a Information systems technician. She literally dealt with making sure communication was safe and secure.

I know congress has to be involved to knock her down below E-7 but they need to get on that.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

A CMDCM, so an E9. No Congressional approval is needed to bust down an E8 though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

Guess what the letter O in NCO is, dummy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

The term officer, alone, as it stands in the headline, is reserved for commissioned officers. No one in the military would assume that headline was referring to an NCO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

No one in the military

Okay, but is the person still an officer? I mean, it is in the name. The way I see it, as a layman, it is kind of hard to ding the author for getting this wrong when they are technically correct and a laymen would consider them an officer, and the only real complaint is that colloquially military members don’t refer to them as officers.

What am I missing or wrong about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The N also stands for Non

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

So she was an NCO and the writter was clueless. Ok.

And for that kind of opsec fuckup there really shouldn’t there be discharge/prison time ?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

If the military imprisoned soldiers for being dumb, there would be no military.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Exactly. You only imprison people for malicious actions. If they’re just dumb, demote and reassign elsewhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

What this NCO did was not dumb; it was calculated and intentional violations of multiple rules and regulations they (and the others involved) knew very well. Then they tried to cover it up when people started asking questions.

Absolutely no sympathy for them in my book. These are supposed to be the leaders other enlisted look to emulate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points
*

First off, not an officer, a high ranking enlisted(E-8) personal was the culprit.

Typically, anything E-4 or higher is considered a Non-Commisioned Officer.

EDIT further clarification: from my experience in the Canadian Army, what “Officers” means depends on context. Most often (and what !Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de probably meant) it means just Commissioned Officers. Other times, it’s anyone in leadership, including NCOs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I totally understand where you’re coming from. It’s absolutely not uncommon to casually refer to high-rank NCOs as Officers (in Canada at least)

[Source: Family in CAF and RCMP]

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Very uncommon to refer to NCOs or SNCOs as officers in branches of the US military that I have experience with. Interesting about Canada though, I wonder what other countries do

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 504K

    Comments