Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> What happens if you can't, because "authentication"?

Aren't your radios already using cryptographic fills? What do you think the difference is?



I carried around the device that filled crypto for radios.

Most people don't know how to use them and don't understand how to do a basic function check with them. It takes someone who has taken a class in receiving data with them and probably a patient Gunny who has been doing this stuff way too long.


It totally depends on how authentication would be handled for the headset device. If it's handled like it is for radios, where fills are added on a regular cycle and anyone can pick up and use the device, it's probably fine. If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.


> If it's made unique-soldier-dependent, I don't think it's a good idea.

Lol well why would we do that? Just inventing random problems at this point.


It isn't a "random problem".

It's a legitimate question about the design principles that are being used here. Is the headset "dumb" and just shows the same HUD view for everyone, or is it custom to the soldier's position in the formation? We don't know, but it's a question to think about that has actual implications for how something like this could be used or even implemented.


God forbid anyone would imagine how this would this work. I wonder which scenario is more plausible, the one you responded to, or the one linked below?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26652386


Well let's get it into troops' hands and give it a go and find out!


I take your point, but I think you're unreasonably optimistic. It's worth a try, but $22 billion?

On the other hand, maybe you're right. We're both British. What do we care if the US government spunks all this money up the wall? The only downside is if they sell it to the MOD before it's working.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: