Also a simple solution: Frequency down converter from the Ham Radio area. Like: http://www.kuhne-electronic.de/en/shop/145_Down_Converters Kuhne is modifying the down converters on custom requests. As receiver can be used:
Perseus http://www.ssb.de/index.php/language/en/cat/c5_Receiver.html Lanreceiver http://www.medav.de/lan_receiver.html?&L=2 SDR-IP http://www.rfspace.com/RFSPACE/SDR-IP.html I guess a simple modified frequency down converter from Kuhne with a ADC board would be the best approach. Jama Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) schrieb: > So, to better understand current situation of what will be possible to > *practically do* with the existing set of technology (also to > understand what could be extended). > > Please confirm those current boundaries/limits (if i understood > correctly): > > - USRP1 cannot be used to do the interception work > - USRP2 can be used to do half-duplex of the interception (or RX or TX > channel) > - To do proper full-duplex interception two USRP2 would be required > - No software to synchronize the two streams for the two USRP2 has > been done (but it may be done?). > - Currently released software run on USRP1 or USRP2? > - Next to be released software run on USRP1 or USRP2? > > When i read that the project will reach it's goal by "building a non- > realtime single-channel decoding and decryption system" we are > referring to those kind of limitations (half-duplex offline decoding/ > decryption)? > > How the "demonstration" should had been worked? Is something like that? > a) establish a call with the phones > b) record or the RX or the TX of the conversation (half-duplex, not > both them) of 1 phone > c) offline run the cracking using generated tables to decode the > available stream > d) play the half-duplex recorded and decoded stream > > Regarding using 2 USRP2 (one for RX and one for TX) it should not be a > problem, the manufacturing costs of two of them (cloned) should be > very low. > With some thousands USD we could make a 1st hardware prototype of > USRP2 clone and then production costs should be less than some > hundreds USD. > > Fabio > > On 03/gen/10, at 12:14, Karsten Nohl wrote: > > >> In appears that the USRP-1 is limited in two dimensions, one of which >> would be required for a full sniffer: >> First, the USB link does not support for a whole band to be transfered >> to the PC in raw form. Second, the FPGA seems too small to support >> decoding of the channels before sending to the PC. I'd be happy to be >> proven wrong on the latter one by some ingenious FPGA programmer. >> >> The current tool of choice, USRP-2, has a faster link (GbE) and a >> larger FPGA. I second your call for cheaper hardware as two USRP-2s >> are too expensive for most researchers. I assume the right order of >> doing things is: 1. Implement a sniffer on the most available >> hardware to understand its requirements; then 2. construct a fit-for- >> purpose hardware with just enough resources. I'd be surprised if we >> found a scaled-down radio peripheral that already matches our needs. >> The SSRP for example seems to share the bottlenecks of the USRP-1. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Karsten >> >> On Jan 3, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Clemens Gruber wrote: >> >> >>> Yes for either .., or.. but if we want to capture both up- and >>> downlink >>> at the same time, there has to be a setup of 2 USRP2s, am I wrong? >>> With the USRP1 it should, due to the 2 RX slots, be possible to >>> capture >>> both directions.. >>> I would really appreciate a cheaper variant like the one called >>> SSRP.. >>> students as I am, do not have much money.. (and there are many of us >>> out >>> there who would like to join the active development but cannot afford >>> the hardware) >>> > > _______________________________________________ > A51 mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51 > > _______________________________________________ A51 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lists.reflextor.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a51
