News Chinese spy balloons ‘used a U.S. internet provider’ – as well as American hardware

[Admin]

Chinese spy balloons made use of connectivity supplied by an American internet service provider, according to a new report shared by NBC News citing insider sources.

Chinese spy balloons ‘used a U.S. internet provider’ – as well as American hardware : Read more

 

[COLGeek]

Assuming this it true, makes perfect sense. Nothing shocking if this is indeed what happened and how.

Blend in, just become part of the flow of the 'net. Smart move.

 

[usertests]

I can now exclusively confirm that it was Comcast's Xfinity Wi-Fi public hotspots. Also known as everyone's *****.

https://nosuchstudio.medium.com/how...ving-you-unlimited-free-internet-151154b46c76

Millions of Xfinity customers' hashed passwords, info stolen

35M-plus Comcast user IDs accessed by intruder via Citrix Bleed

www.theregister.com

 

[USAFRet]

I can now exclusively confirm that it was Comcast's Xfinity Wi-Fi public hotspots. Also known as everyone's *****.

https://nosuchstudio.medium.com/how...ving-you-unlimited-free-internet-151154b46c76

Millions of Xfinity customers' hashed passwords, info stolen

35M-plus Comcast user IDs accessed by intruder via Citrix Bleed

www.theregister.com

That has exactly zero to do with what may or may not have happened.

 

[bit_user]

has claimed that the balloon(s) “unintentionally drifted into the U.S. because of the westerlies and its limited self-steering capability.” Thus, it would be telling if it could be confirmed that Chinese engineers had organized U.S. internet service.

Not if it was Starlink, right? That's US-based, but has global reach. That's exactly the sort of ISP you'd want, for balloons designed to circumnavigate the globe, too.

but investigations revealed that they had been floating above the states for months previously without precipitating any headlines.

Not transcontinental flights, right? The only news I've heard of prior overflights were just crossing corners of our airspace for not much more than a day. Have additional overflights been discovered?

 

[bit_user]

Comcast's Xfinity Wi-Fi public hotspots

This is exactly why I'd never use their wi fi routers. I don't want any randos on my home network, using a chunk of my modem's raw bandwidth, even if the router tries to segregate them and the bandwidth isn't attributed to me, personally.

 

[Notton]

Okay, this is simple to debunk.
Weather balloons typically float at what altitude?
and how much range do you think your wi-fi router has? Vertically and through your roof.

The answers are:
60,000~80,000ft altitude
300ft horizontal range with no obstacles, and even worse vertically.

Not even a 4G tower can reach 60,000ft, as they max out at 10miles=52,800ft

 

[atomicWAR]

This is exactly why I'd never use their wi fi routers. I don't want any randos on my home network, using a chunk of my modem's raw bandwidth, even if the router tries to segregate them and the bandwidth isn't attributed to me, personally.

Same....I have my 'modem w/ router' in bridge mode. I remember ATT/Xfinity getting their undies in a bunch over me converting it to such...threatening that I'd never be able to use their wifi at home after 15 days (apparently it has a timed lock) nor could it function as a hot-spot for others.

They were so upset about it they called to tell me this after I converted it. First I responded with that was the point and I run my own mesh network so I didn't need their over priced 'bits' they wanted to charge me to use theirs. And I don't touch hot-spots, unless I created it with my phone as I don't trust them. Plus like you I didn't want them to use me as a hot-spot; I live in the country so if someone needs wifi they can knock on my door, ask for access and I'll set up my guest login (disabled by default by me) which has actually happened. Usually by people I have hired for various odd jobs so they can access their square/CC charging or the web while on lunch break. Regardless I do not trust my ISP...did I mention I run a VPN too most times?

 

[bit_user]

Same....I have my 'modem w/ router' in bridge mode. I remember Comcast getting their undies in a bunch over me converting it to such...

Wait, so did you rent theirs or buy your own?

I have used my own cable modem since the mid 2000's. I also don't like "combo" modems with built-in wifi - I prefer to keep them separate, as that enables a clean break between me and the cable company and lets me buy each one on their individual merits.

I actually have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem that I bought when I thought my existing modem (now 10 years old) was getting flaky. I have yet to set it up, because the issue turned out to be with my router (which I don't want to replace, just yet).

One thing I always try to check, in the reviews, is that a cable modem or wifi router doesn't get too hot. That means it's burning lots of power (aside from the heat issue itself, which is a problem since they're both in an upstairs room that gets hot in the summer). It's the stuff you leave on 24/7 where you really want to mind the energy efficiency. My electricity is relatively expensive.

 

[atomicWAR]

Wait, so did you rent theirs or buy your own?

Sadly renting with intent to buy my own soon. Bought a house, moving costs, budget...life lol.

 

[Tanakoi]

Okay, this is simple to debunk.
Not even a 4G tower can reach 60,000ft, as they max out at 10miles=52,800ft

Oops! With a directional antenna you can expand that range astronomically. I know someone who, using nothing but off-the-shelf Wi-Fi routers -- limited supposedly to about 100 meters -- expands the range to over 4 kilometers, simply by replacing omni antenna with ultradirectional ones. I think he even hit 10km once, though he did say that was spotty and subject to bad weather.

China obviously could use a directional only on the balloon's end ... but they can also transmit at much higher power than a normal router or cell phone.

 

[bit_user]

Oops! With a directional antenna you can expand that range astronomically. I know someone who, using nothing but off-the-shelf Wi-Fi routers -- limited supposedly to about 100 meters -- expands the range to over 4 kilometers, simply by replacing omni antenna with ultradirectional ones. I think he even hit 10km once, though he did say that was spotty and subject to bad weather.

10 km wouldn't even be enough, as I think it was flying at more like 15 km. Worse, it's a moving target and the jet stream can push at up to 250 mph. Plus, wind is probably buffeting the craft, limiting its ability to aim precisely. Trying to keep a directional lock on a ground target long enough to sync up, get an IP, and transmit a meaningful amount of data would be quite the technical challenge.

China obviously could use a directional only on the balloon's end ... but they can also transmit at much higher power than a normal router or cell phone.

What does that help? You need 2-way communication for wifi to work. You can't transmit anything on it without handshaking. Then, even if you just want to send a unidirectional datastream, you'll probably have to handle ACKs. Also, consider that multiple wifi routers will be using the same frequency, within a small geographical area, resulting in a lot of crosstalk between them, if you're trying to receive transmissions at a distance.

Now, if you were an engineer on that project, would you try to surmount all of those formidable technical hurdles, just so that you could hopefully connect to open wifi hotspots, in the few places you find them? Or would you just put a satellite communications system on it? Satellite communication systems have already solved these problem for communicating with ships and planes, so adapting it to a high-altitude balloon shouldn't be too hard.

Keep in mind that these balloons of China's have been spotted all over the world, including over countries and regions without much civilian footprint. The answer seems pretty obvious to me. I think the only practical US-based communications provider for them would be to use Starlink or similar.

 

[bit_user]

Sadly renting with intent to buy my own soon. Bought a house, moving costs, budget...life lol.

Yeah, nice cable modems have gotten somewhat pricey. My DOCSIS 3.0 modem cost like $250, whereas the modem I got 10 years ago was more like $100.

A good wifi router can also be a nontrivial line item. That's why I'm holding out for a model with a 2.5 Gbps LAN port, since my cable modem can do > 1 Gbps (I think the actual cable speed is theoretically limited to 1.2 Gbps) and I hope to keep both for a good while. TBH, I don't even need the best wifi. Once I got a router with MU-MIMO, I no longer had dropouts. Never had an issue with wifi speed, in part because my main computing is on desktops with hard links.

 

[Tanakoi]

10 km wouldn't even be enough, as I think it was flying at more like 15 km.

That's 10km with a $100 router and a $1K antenna. I'm sure a nation-state can do much better.

EDIT: I researched this a bit further, and found reports of other individuals achieving 15km+ ranges with off-the-shelf wi-fi components.

Worse, it's a moving target and the jet stream can push at up to 250 mph. Plus, wind is probably buffeting the craft, limiting its ability to aim precisely.

Phased array. The Chinese are using PA comms on hypersonic missiles; I think they can manage a drifting balloon.

What does that help? You need 2-way communication for wifi to work. You can't transmit anything on it without handshaking.

A directional antenna helps with both receiving and transmitting. It also drastically helps the crosstalk issue, as it's narrowly focused onto a much smaller area. And -- transmitting vertically -- you essentially eliminate multipath error. Finally, while boosting transmit power doesn't aid reception. the equipment in this scenario can have far more signal processing power, which certainly does. And given that the only "reception" required in this case is a small amount of handshaking, the receive channel can tolerate a high-bit error rate that would be otherwise practical.

Now, if you were an engineer on that project, would you try to surmount all of those formidable technical hurdles, just so that you could hopefully connect to open wifi hotspots

I believe you've misunderstood the thrust of my post. I was merely debunking the "debunking" of this as technically impossible. It's certainly possible. Is it likely? None of us know. While you raise some good points, you've also forgotten that satellite communications are, for both technical and legal reasons, much more easily monitored by US intelligence than the scenario we outline above.

 

[bit_user]

That's 10km with a $100 router and a $1K antenna. I'm sure a nation-state can do much better.

EDIT: I researched this a bit further, and found reports of other individuals achieving 15km+ ranges with off-the-shelf wi-fi components.

That's with directional antennas at both ends.

Phased array. The Chinese are using PA comms on hypersonic missiles; I think they can manage a drifting balloon.

A phased array wouldn't have the requisite spatial granularity to distinguish individual routers at that distance, and failure to do so would mean too much crosstalk.

When you're communicating with a missile, it's not near other bodies transmitting or receiving on the exact same frequencies. That's why the two problems are meaningfully different.

A directional antenna helps with both receiving and transmitting. It also drastically helps the crosstalk issue,

Yes, it helps, but does it help enough? No, generally not. Anywhere wifi is used, you'll tend to have a cluster of homes or businesses all using it.

the equipment in this scenario can have far more signal processing power, which certainly does.

It's not a magic bullet. When you have crosstalk on the exact same frequencies, at similar amplitudes, that's not going to save you.

And given that the only "reception" required in this case is a small amount of handshaking,

Even then, your error rate has to be reasonably low. You still need a solution that fundamentally works, even if it's not terribly robust. That's still a high threshold to meet.

I believe you've misunderstood the thrust of my post. I was merely debunking the "debunking" of this as technically impossible.

I'm not saying it's completely impossible, but I think it'd be such a challenge to make it work well enough that I regard it as being too unlikely to take seriously.

you've also forgotten that satellite communications are, for both technical and legal reasons, much more easily monitored by US intelligence than the scenario we outline above.

I'm not sure they're that much more easily monitored than terrestrial ISPs, like cable companies and telcos.

 

[Tanakoi]

A phased array wouldn't have the requisite spatial granularity to distinguish individual routers at that distance,

Military grade phased-array / phased-MIMO can do better than 0.25 degrees of angular resolution, far tighter than can a 7-degree directional antenna, which is about the best you can get off the shelf.

I'm not sure [satellite comms] are that much more easily monitored than terrestrial ISPs, like cable companies and telcos.

I won't delve into the technical issues, but legally satellite communications are considered nondomestic transit communication, and can be routinely monitored without a warrant.

That's with directional antennas at both ends.

Yes, and a budget less than one-one millionth of what a nation-state can use for a spy airship.

When you're communicating with a missile, it's not near other bodies transmitting or receiving on the exact same frequencies.

Neither is a balloon. As for communication in the reverse direction, 0.25 degree resolution gives you a 10-meter 'spot' at 15km range. How many other routers are likely to be within 10 meters?

 

[USAFRet]

This has gone far afield of what the original article is talking about.

 

[Tanakoi]

This has gone far afield of what the original article is talking about.

How so? The original article is on a Chinese spy balloon using a US ISP to communicate. That's exactly what we're discussing: how they might have accomplished that, and the technical and legal ramifications of same. What could possibly be more on-topic than that?

 

[USAFRet]

How so? The original article discussed a Chinese spy balloon using a US ISP to communicate. That's exactly what we're discussing.

Contracting with an ISP for bandwidth to a (supposed weather) balloon has little to do with communicating with a missile.

 

[bit_user]

Military grade phased-array / phased-MIMO can do better than 0.25 degrees of angular resolution,

First off, at what frequency band?

Second, even if that's true, the balloon is getting buffeted by fast wind currents. Keeping such a narrow beam locked on target, especially when you don't know precisely where it is, would seem to be a challenge with such a tight focus.

The accuracy of beam steering will also vary across theta and phi. So, presumably that's a best-case number.

legally satellite communications are considered nondomestic transit communication, and can be routinely monitored without a warrant.

So is overseas internet communication. So, whatever the balloon would be using terrestrial ISPs to reach could be monitored at the point of the overseas links.

Yes, and a budget less than one-one millionth of what a nation-state can use for a spy airship.

You missed the point. The point was there wouldn't be a directional antenna at the ground.

Neither is a balloon.

But the ground endpoint is typically near other bodies transmitting at similar frequencies.

As for communication in the reverse direction, 0.25 degree resolution gives you a 10-meter 'spot' at 15km range.

Wikipedia says the balloon was at about 60,000 feet, which is over 18.3 km. My math says it'd be a spot of 79.8 meters, best case (i.e. if directly beneath).

2 * 18300 * sin 0.125
(calculator set to "degrees")
​

 

[Tanakoi]

My math says it'd be a spot of 79.8 meters,

That's a router on the ground, surrounded by a 40-meter radius. And I said better than 0.25 degrees. X-band PA radar has been reported to be able to distinguish individual birds at a range of several dozen miles.
At 8ghz rather than Wifi's 2.4/5, but even UHF 300mhz radar can better a quarter-degree.

Furthermore, you miss the point. This spycraft doesn't need to transmit to every router it crosses over; just the occasional one: connect, download its stored data, and move on. Most of its time was spent over military bases in remote areas of Alaska and Montana; are you honestly suggesting it can't find a reasonably isolated router now and then in those areas?

Overseas internet communication [can be monitored sans warrant]. So, whatever the balloon would be using terrestrial ISPs to reach could be monitored at the point of the overseas links.

Again you miss the point. What China is trying to hide isn't the information itself (US intel already knows what our bases look like), but the simple fact that there's an object in the sky above them transmitting. If they encrypt, transmit to any domestic source, then access that source internationally, monitoring at that point tells you nothing. Using steganography, US Intel may not even realize encrypted data is being transmitted at all. Some account in China accesses a bunch of innocuous photos on a US Facebook page, with data buried in each. What does that tell you?

The point was there wouldn't be a directional antenna at the ground.

But it's the balloon side where the directional antenna is most important: there, it not only increases signal strength, but it also reduces crosstalk. On the ground, a directional antenna merely increases signal strength, which can be compensated on the other end by a larger antenna and more sensitive receiver.

This will be my last post, as the point is made. If Joe Plumber can with a day's wages setup a 15km WiFi connection, the Chinese military can certainly span 18km. In fact, I'd give odds they can reach 10 or 20 times that.

 

[USAFRet]

Most of its time was spent over military bases in remote areas of Alaska and Montana;

No it wasn't.

 

[bit_user]

That's a router on the ground, surrounded by a 40-meter radius.

In the best case, where your theory of 0.25 degrees holds and it's directly over top of one.

X-band PA radar has been reported to be able to distinguish individual birds at a range of several dozen miles.
At 8ghz rather than Wifi's 2.4/5, but even UHF 300mhz radar can better a quarter-degree.

There's a big difference between seeing a ping on a radar and actually performing a successful radio transmission.

Furthermore, you miss the point. This spycraft doesn't need to transmit to every router it crosses over; just the occasional one: connect, download its stored data, and move on.

No, I didn't miss that at all. I said that while it doesn't need to work perfectly, you still need a system that kinda works. That doesn't lower the bar very much.

But it's the balloon side where the directional antenna is most important: there, it not only increases signal strength, but it also reduces crosstalk. On the ground, a directional antenna merely increases signal strength, which can be compensated on the other end by a larger antenna and more sensitive receiver.

Actually, having the directional antenna only on the ground would be much better than having it only in the balloon.

As for the balloon, you're way far out on a speculative limb, with all the assumptions you're making.

If Joe Plumber can with a day's wages setup a 15km WiFi connection, the Chinese military can certainly span 18km.

Nah, it's apples & oranges. Again, you're comparing someone with a pair of directional antennas and fixed endpoints to a hypothetical antenna array that's moving quite a lot and doesn't know exactly where the other endpoint is - which also doesn't have any aids of its own.

One doesn't logically follow from the other, no matter who is doing it or how many resources they have at their disposal.

In fact, I'd give odds they can reach 10 or 20 times that.

How can you be so sure? You didn't even compute the correct radius for your hypothetical 0.25 degree vertical cone's intersection with the ground plane. I don't see how you can possibly ascribe odds for some endeavor, without a detailed understanding of all the specifics.

I'm not saying this task is definitely impossible, but it might be extremely impractical. Perhaps it's effectively impossible, for all I know. Neither of us is a RF engineer, quite obviously.

 

[DalaiLamar]

Show us the proof so we can be free of any doubt. Bloomberg's report of the spy chip was refuted, yet it refused to retract.

 

[USAFRet]

Show us the proof so we can be free of any doubt. Bloomberg's report of the spy chip was refuted, yet it refused to retract.

Proof of what?