this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
151 points (97.5% liked)
Canada
8766 readers
2299 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
π Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
π΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
π Social / Culture
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nothing in the article backs up the headline claim. The closest it gets is their quoted expert saying that he worries about the US doing to the F-35 what they're doing to Ukraine. He's almost certainly referring to the fact that parts and software updates are produced by the US, who could choose to withhold them, just like they're withholding aid from Ukraine.
Every serious defence analyst has laughed at the idea that the F-35 has a secret killswitch. This would be the dumbest thing ever to include in an aircraft, because there is always the possibility that your enemies could find out about it.
Consider; if an F-35 kill switch did exist, any buyer of the craft could invest the resources required to go over every inch of circuit and line of code and find it, and then deactivate every US F-35. It would be more of a liability for them than it is for us. And, equally, our experts could simply patch around the killswitch on our planes. Nations like Canada and Germany are not lacking in technical expertise.
This bonkers notion seems mostly to be rooted in the broader fear that the F-35 is somehow "too advanced", an idea that largely springs from the diseased brain of Pierre Sprey (seriously, if you chase down every bad thing said about the F-35, odds are ridiculously high that Sprey said it first). Sprey also believed that the ideal design for a modern attack fighter has a machine gun, no missiles, no computers, and no radar.
I'm not joking, not even slightly. Pierre Sprey wanted the modern world to fight Russia with planes that had no radar.
There are valid concerns to be raised about the idea of adopting a craft whose supply chain is centred on the US. That's a discussion that NATO partners should be having. But this "killswitch" nonsense just derails that important discussion into paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense rooted in the deranged ramblings of a self-aggrandizing madman.
just cryptographically sign the kill switch transmission. the fighter would contain the public key to verify, but enemies would need the private key to trigger it, which the NSA would keep buried in cold storage like the DUAL-EC-DRBG trapdoor key.
you'd probably also want to include the fighter's serial number or IFF transponder code, so the enemy couldn't capture or replay.
there's something like 100M LoC of C++ (not Ada π₯) in an F-35. and Canada doesn't have the sources, so they'd have to decompile that. maybe they could focus on the radios, radar and other devices direct connection to receivers, but the implant might be downstream, and there's a lot of ways to hide an antenna.
even dumping the chips isn't easy. many of them likely have security features, since they contain classified algorithms which the DoD would rather enemies not be able to extract from the downed wreckage of a fighter. certainly the JTAG pins are not going to be enabled. even die shots could be frustrated by metal meshes over the wafer or possibly even microscopic amounts of explosives triggered by de-lidding.
there's secure ways to build a kill switch, there's an abundance of places to hide it in a highly complex fighter, and this kind of spooky stuff is well within the NSA's wheelhouse. it's the kind of thing NSA is known for, even - the Crypto AG CIA front, the DUAL-EC-DRBG backdoor, TAO's clandestine program to intercept and backdoor mailed routers and servers. they clearly can do this kind of thing, since they clearly have before.
did they backdoor the F-35? I don't know, but it's plausible, and CSIS/CSE should investigate.
There has to be some kind of direct connection between the communications systems and the flight critical systems for any of that to even be remotely plausible. That kind of connection is basically impossible to hide, and simply would not exist in a well designed piece of military hardware. It's existence would be immediately obvious to the people buying the plane, and the people tasked with maintaining it.
Show me one single military analyst with worthwhile credentials who believes this is a serious concern. Not articles like this one where they take a quote wildly out of context and use it to backup an entirely fabricated claim. I mean an actual certifiable expert stating clearly and unambiguously that the possible existence of this killswitch is something we have to be worried about.