this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
669 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58303 readers
12 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 151 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 2 months ago (9 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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 ?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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 [email protected] probably meant) it means just Commissioned Officers. Other times, it's anyone in leadership, including NCOs.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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]

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 2 months ago (2 children)

How the fuck did she think this was anything close to a good idea?! This shows a profound lack of good judgement, and a huge failure of both respect for her job and for the safety of the crew.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 2 months ago

Yeah true, but tiktok

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Many people are bad at delayed gratification and long term thinking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (16 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

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).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I'd be curious to see the dish install. It's hard to imagine how someone would think it'd go unnoticed, on a warship, no less.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Ship officers heard the scuttlebutt about STINKY, of course, and they began asking questions and doing inspections, but they never found the concealed device. On August 18, though, a civilian worker from the Naval Information Warfare Center was installing an authorized SpaceX "Starshield" device and came across the unauthorized SpaceX device hidden on the weatherdeck.

Heh.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Why the F were they broadcasting the SSID on a "secret" wifi network? That's just asking to get caught. If they had hidden the SSID most people would never have known about it.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Extra fun is that the head chief never gave anyone else the password. She logged into each of the other chiefs devices.

She could have 100% also typed in the ssid at the time. It would have taken almost no extra effort.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (4 children)

You can view WiFi passwords for saved networks on pretty much every OS. There's no reason to be secretive about entering WiFi passwords, at least to the people whose devices you're entering the password on.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

Indeed, I can share it from my phone via QR or just see the password plain.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ugh, Elon continues to have the absolute most inane sense of humor on the planet. I'm not sure if it's him or Zuck who are more clearly aliens wearing human skin

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's Zuck. Elon is just a perpetual 13yo. TBH, he's not entirely unlike Peter Pan (from the book).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago

I tough they changed the name to stinky for the lulz but it was the default name imposed by the childbrain. Amazing opsec.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

Multiple people were involved, and it was probably mounted in a location where other people were unlikely to know that it was out of place.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah, same. It's not like there were windows they could point it out of, so it would have to be exposed and somehow disguised.

Lol, in college, some guy on my floor wasn't happy with the dorm's cable TV because it didn't have NFL Sunday Ticket and brought his DirecTV dish/receiver from home. His room was facing the right way, so he was able to set the dish up in the room next to the window. This sortof reminds me of that but without the national security implications.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Serious question: Was this actually a likely or possible security risk?

[–] [email protected] 44 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it is a likely risk. Having an unauthorized broadcast signal is a security risk because it can be used to locate and target the ship, allows for crew to communicate with the outside world without the oversight that they would normally have, and is outside the control of the ship's command.

There are many valid reasons for the military to be limited to authorized channels for communication.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

And we know that Elmo probably reports directly to Putin, insane that they got such a highly placed asset who's also the richest man in the world

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Very yes. They could reveal their location for starters, which could spoil a mission and put lives at risk, but if they use the same device on both this and the ships network, you risk compromising the ship's network or even the Navy itself, giving our enemies all kinds of sensitive info.

We are in the midst of a world war being waged in cyberspace and the US is losing. Incidents like this are a genuine threat.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Itself? Not really.

If a ship is close enough to pick up an SSID they are close enough for any number of other methods. And starlink is theoretically trusted by the us government.

But if they were actually locked down for a real mission (not the stuff you do to make people feel important) then we could have seen the same kinds of telegram leaks Russian has near constantly.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When they say "lost her job", does that mean a dishonorable discharge?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

That could come later.

For now it just means reassigned to a desk somewhere not too far from MPs.

load more comments
view more: next ›