The military needed a universal messenger, by Alena Zadorozhnaya for VZGLYAD. 08.29.2024.
There was a request for an alternative to Telegram to solve combat tasks.
The Telegram messenger has proven itself to be an assistant to the military in the SVO zone. However, the detention of Pavel Durov in France raises questions about the trust in the application and the creation of an alternative version of the program in the interests of the Russian Armed Forces. What should a military messenger for a 21st century soldier be like?
After Pavel Durov was detained in France, Russia began to think about creating alternatives to the Telegram messenger. Observers believe that Durov is being pressured to obtain encryption keys, which would call into question the trust and security of the application, since the messenger is also used by the Russian military.
The messenger is often used as an addition to existing military communication systems. The experience of the SVO has shown that with the help of smartphones and messengers, the military exchanges information, ensures the delivery of strikes and even evacuates wounded soldiers.
Programmes on mobile devices with an intuitive interface fit into the concept of a modern multi-domain war, which is accompanied by the steady digitalization of the theater of military operations. At the same time, Russia does not have a special military messenger based on the Android and iOS operating systems. But there are a number of alternatives. These are the Strelets-M intelligence, control and communication complex (KRUS), the Operator geoinformation system, the Sozvezdie-M2 unified tactical control system, and the Andromeda automated troop control system.
"They have different functionality, the most advanced is considered to be the messenger KRUS "Strelets-M". However, for their operation, hardware with a secure environment based on the Linux OS (Astra Linux and similar) is required," noted the editor-in-chief of the magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Viktor Murakhovsky.
At the same time, the CEO of the ANO "NPC "Ushkuynik" Alexey Chadayev believes that from a military-technical point of view, the messenger today is the main means of combat management at the tactical level. And the problem, according to him, is "not in the messenger itself, but in the communication transport." "Telegram has become the main means de facto because as a communication transport it only needs access to the Internet. In this sense, the issue is not in the messenger, but in the way to send digital data between terminals in frontline conditions with fierce EW (Electronic Warfare Systems). And what kind of messenger specifically is the fifth question," Chadayev writes.
Experts interviewed by Vzglyad newspaper agree that the military needs an alternative to Telegram.
The new messenger must have an accessible interface, a distributed network of data centers throughout the country, and the ability to transmit messages and other information in encrypted form.
"There are several approaches to solving the problem. The first approach : we take a simple phone, write an application for it, install it and give it for use. In this case, the project has some servers and some application store from which it can be downloaded. And then everything essentially works like in Telegram," says Oleg Makarov, co-founder of the Vatfor project.
"And in this direction, no one has succeeded so far. Firstly, because the military will have to be forced to install a new application. In addition, it will take some time for people to get used to the application and learn how to use it. And there are no guarantees that it will work on any device. There are no such problems with Telegram," the speaker points out.
" The second approach is to give the military some specialized device. In other words, a device that functions as a messenger. Most often, they are made from the same phones or tablets, but equipped with the ability to access closed means of communication, for example, with the transmission of information over radio stations and protocols that are usually used for control by radio, and not via the Internet," the analyst explains.
"There is a third approach . Creating a device with data transmission via the Network, which is also called IP networks. But this is even more complicated. Although we have cases when something similar is being developed at the brigade level with smart brigade commanders. One way or another, any of the methods requires serious efforts from the Ministry of Defense," the expert believes.
As for the programmes listed by Murakhovsky, they are more related to "decision support systems, not messengers," the source said. "They contain geographic maps and the ability to set points. But here we will have to either choose one system or teach them to work together and deploy them everywhere on the front, equipping all the military," Makarov reasons.
According to him, the talk about these systems appearing en masse in the troops has been going on for a long time. "For example, there is the ESU TZ system, which includes cartography, the ability to transmit coordinates and text messages, but it has also been in development for more than ten years," the speaker continues.
Speaking about a potential military messenger, Makarov points out that “it should transmit not only and not so much text messages, but various coordinates: points, marks and directions.” “It should also have a more or less open protocol so that any manufacturer of a combat system could connect to it,” the specialist believes.
According to Makarov, the systems listed by Murakhovsky have one big problem – a closed protocol.
"And the military always advocates for the protocol to be closed. But, in my opinion, this is not the best practice,
because not everyone who is currently doing something useful for the front has access to this level of secrecy,” the expert explains.
Makarov cited a group of software developers as an example. "They came up with software that is installed on the drone's control panel and helps the artillery work. The idea is simple: the drone records the target, transmits the coordinates to the battery, a salvo is fired, and then, again via the copter, an adjustment is made and a second strike is carried out," the source described.
But since the system must be closed, connecting to it is “difficult, but necessary.” “Automatic transmission of data to the artillery calculation will significantly improve the quality and efficiency of its work. But for now we are running into the need for “secret”,” Makarov believes.
At the same time, the analyst doubts the advisability of building a centralized system for messengers. “The whole system should work like email – you just need the ability to send data between different servers,” he says. This will prevent overloading of data centers, which is also important in combat situations.
“In my opinion, the scheme looks like this: we take the software, transfer it to the front, conditionally deploy a server in each battalion, and it begins to “communicate” with other servers of adjacent battalions to adjust general actions on the front line,”
describes the speaker. - "We will also need to create "joints" between them. And this is the only issue that should be centralized, since the "joints" coordinate the distribution of encryption keys. If we are talking about the type of encryption, then, as practice shows, all the most stable types are open. Only the key should be closed... Due to the specifics of encryption, all external influence on the code is visible to the owners of the code. This process highlights the weak points of development well and allows them to be quickly eliminated, thus creating a truly well-protected algorithm."
"When it comes to a closed protocol, there is a high risk that the enemy will steal it sooner or later. And he will have the opportunity to calmly and without haste "pick apart" it. The hacking process itself may not even be noticed. In addition, due to the lack of external influence, you may not even know about some vulnerabilities and "teething problems," Makarov emphasized.
In turn, Boris Rozhin, an expert at the Center for Military and Political Journalism, believes that finding a replacement for Telegram will not be difficult. He agrees that the existing versions of the military messenger in Russia are tailored to specific tasks and, in comparison with Telegram, do not meet the requirement for universality. Moreover, the messenger should be intuitive.
The expert believes that the main thing in creating a messenger will be the presence of encryption and the ability to delete sent messages, as well as a network of data centers distributed across the country. It will ensure the smooth operation of the messenger, taking into account millions of connections. At the same time, it is preferable that the messenger be implemented as a mobile application that can be installed on a regular smartphone, because the release of specialized devices will become a "serious burden on the domestic industry."
According to him, many combat tasks (from transmitting data on targets to searching for the wounded) can be solved via a regular chat. The only question is the security of the communication channel. "Such correspondence can now be conducted via WhatsApp* or Facebook Messenger*, but all the information there is sifted and is guaranteed to be transmitted to the enemy," the source explained.
"Various developments are currently underway. Among them is the "Complex for Improving Awareness" (KPO-A) application for smartphones and tablets. It provides for encrypted military chats. All of this will begin to be implemented next year. The situation with Telegram once again demonstrates the need for the army to have specialized messengers developed by order of the Ministry of Defense," Rozhin believes.
* Belongs to the Meta* company, which is recognized as extremist and banned in the Russian Federation
* The organization (organizations) have been liquidated or their activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation.
https://vz.ru/society/2024/8/28/1284164.html