Green light for Eurofighter from Germany for the Turkish Air Force

[SteppeWolff]

You can't hide "routine" source code because each section has their functions (ie, control something) and since you are talking about something that control the direct function of a platform (Engine, Radar and etc) it WILL shorten the shortlist of where you need to look at if you know it exist and try to find it. You don't need to look at the entire platform to get it done.

The assumption that "routine" source code within a platform's critical system (engine, radar, etc.) can easily be isolated and reverse-engineered undermines the complexity of modern, modular, and highly-integrated defense systems. Modern platforms use advanced compartmentalization, encryption, and obfuscation techniques, making it difficult to trace critical components without a deep understanding of the entire architecture. Even with high-level access, understanding how different modules interact to control a system isn’t as straightforward as you imply.

China, that's how they copy Su-27 to begin with. So for the US/NATO to develop such a thing, you are going to have to look beyond the capability of Turkey, again, which make it a lot cheaper simply not to sell stuff to Turkey......

Systems like the Su-27 were based on decades-old designs, and reverse engineering them isn't representative of the complexity in modern platforms with cybersecurity measures, AI-based defenses, and cryptographic protocols. Simply acquiring source code does not grant full control, as proprietary firmware, secure boot processes, and hardware-specific checks prevent unauthorized modifications.

 

[xbat]

Now that Turks tried to get subsystems from European companies, they preferred to sell the complete platform instead of selling subsystems only. More profit for EU companies and Turks can have what they wanted.

Consider KAAN dead for a while.

please more elaborate it, what subsystems were imported from europen countries? because we only know engine(us) , seat(uk) and hotas(spain, for first prototype)

and how do you have more info about KAAN than us? who are daily checks news.

your persian prejudices make you guys laughfable.
We heard from you guys Turks cant make a car engine
Turkish Milgem a failure , Turkish UAVs actually foreign tech, Turkish planes are full of US made, KAAN design were handover from US . bla bla bla. now tell us which subsytem is european?

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

If comes true it'll be another blessing for the PAF. It can ho.ne up its tactics even better by doing exercises against Typhoons....

 

[j_hungary]

>> No - what is stored in a DLL is "compiled" code in the native cpu instruction set, not source code ... just saying.

Object code is what stored in DLL Library, it's the complied source code, again, you can technically get the functionality version of the complied source code from DLL, this is the basis of all the datamining......But that's another story, unless you want to talk about how to hack games.....

And we are talking about locating the kill switch.

 

[j_hungary]

The assumption that "routine" source code within a platform's critical system (engine, radar, etc.) can easily be isolated and reverse-engineered undermines the complexity of modern, modular, and highly-integrated defense systems. Modern platforms use advanced compartmentalization, encryption, and obfuscation techniques, making it difficult to trace critical components without a deep understanding of the entire architecture. Even with high-level access, understanding how different modules interact to control a system isn’t as straightforward as you imply.

Systems like the Su-27 were based on decades-old designs, and reverse engineering them isn't representative of the complexity in modern platforms with cybersecurity measures, AI-based defenses, and cryptographic protocols. Simply acquiring source code does not grant full control, as proprietary firmware, secure boot processes, and hardware-specific checks prevent unauthorized modifications.

This I agree, but was this completely not doable? Even to technological powerhouse like China, as I said, if NATO is planning on Turkey are going to go against NATO, then you don't expect they are going to do it alone.

I am not saying this is going to be easy, I am simply saying this is not impossible to locate.

Another point with the Su-27 reverse engineering, you need to bear in mind while those tech were ancient in today's standard, China didn't crack it using today's tech, they crack it back in the 90s.

 

[SteppeWolff]

Object code is what stored in DLL Library, it's the complied source code, again, you can technically get the functionality version of the complied source code from DLL, this is the basis of all the datamining......

And we are talking about locating the kill switch.

You have a misconception.

While it’s true that a DLL (Dynamic Link Library) contains compiled object code, the idea that you can “get the functionality version of the compiled source code” from it is flawed. DLLs store machine-level instructions that are tailored to the system’s processor and platform architecture. While reverse engineering tools (such as decompilers or disassemblers) can help provide a rough idea of the code’s functionality, they do not recreate the original source code. This process results in hard to read assembly language, which lacks any meaningful variable names, comments, and higherlevel structure. So, you cannot directly “recover” source code in any functional sense, and important logic or cryptographic details may still remain hidden or obfuscated

 

[SteppeWolff]

This I agree, but was this completely not doable? Even to technological powerhouse like China, as I said, if NATO is planning on Turkey are going to go against NATO, then you don't expect they are going to do it alone.

I am not saying this is going to be easy, I am simply saying this is not impossible to locate.

Another point with the Su-27 reverse engineering, you need to bear in mind while those tech were ancient in today's standard, China didn't crack it using today's tech, they crack it back in the 90s.

The Su-27 was based on Cold War-era technology, lacking the advanced cybersecurity and anti-tampering measures that are now standard in modern defense platforms. The complexity, encryption, and tamper-resistant features in today’s systems are exponentially more advanced than anything China had to deal with back then. Comparing the reverse engineering of a 1990s aircraft to cracking today’s highly encrypted systems is like comparing the difficulty of picking a basic lock to hacking a modern, multi-layered cybersecurity system.

 

[j_hungary]

You have a misconception.

While it’s true that a DLL (Dynamic Link Library) contains compiled object code, the idea that you can “get the functionality version of the compiled source code” from it is flawed. DLLs store machine-level instructions that are tailored to the system’s processor and platform architecture. While reverse engineering tools (such as decompilers or disassemblers) can help provide a rough idea of the code’s functionality, they do not recreate the original source code. This process results in hard to read assembly language, which lacks any meaningful variable names, comments, and higher-level structure. So, you cannot directly “recover” source code in any functional sense, and important logic or cryptographic details may still remain hidden or obfuscated

I didn't......You need to read the whole thing again.

I said "Encryped" source code, that's post compilation (unless you encrypt raw code, which you probably can). granted, I forgot about the term object code, and it didn't come up onmy mind when I wrote this and I never said you can recover source code with it, I said you can recover functionality of the source code, which is what we were talking about, trying to locate the kill switch

 

[Ali_Baba]

You have a misconception.

While it’s true that a DLL (Dynamic Link Library) contains compiled object code, the idea that you can “get the functionality version of the compiled source code” from it is flawed. DLLs store machine-level instructions that are tailored to the system’s processor and platform architecture. While reverse engineering tools (such as decompilers or disassemblers) can help provide a rough idea of the code’s functionality, they do not recreate the original source code. This process results in hard to read assembly language, which lacks any meaningful variable names, comments, and higherlevel structure. So, you cannot directly “recover” source code in any functional sense, and important logic or cryptographic details may still remain hidden or obfuscated

Thanks - i was typing up the same explanation in reply - but you beat me to it.

It is suprising how few people understand what is source code, and therefore state that this will come with source code transfer, or that and we all know that it does not need to if you understand what source code is, what complied object code is, what library headers and API's are !!!!

The modern era of hypervisors and virtual machines, and modern security models, api security protocls, and encryption mean that the old days of "tinkering" around to find out how things work on modern systems are pretty much over. Even for fighter jets. In the old days, with slow processors, most systems were built very close to the "metal" so that they can run with the required level of performance. Now, with modern CPUs, that does not need to be the case as there is enough grunt to run things. We all have seen how modern IPADs are being used to operate western systems in the Ukranian war.

 

[j_hungary]

The Su-27 was based on Cold War-era technology, lacking the advanced cybersecurity and anti-tampering measures that are now standard in modern defense platforms. The complexity, encryption, and tamper-resistant features in today’s systems are exponentially more advanced than anything China had to deal with back then. Comparing the reverse engineering of a 1990s aircraft to cracking today’s highly encrypted systems is like comparing the difficulty of picking a basic lock to hacking a modern, multi-layered cybersecurity system.

Dude, again, China did not break the Su-27 today, they hack it back in the 90s. And you are talking about 30 years of development of both code security versus their ability to crack it. Just because it was made during code war does not make it easier to crack it BACK THEN. Of course it would have been easy now,.

Just answer me this question, do you think it's undoable even to China?

 

[MMM-E]

It would seem the Eurofighters T3 are coming second hand likely via Qatar. This should be a very quick delivery if they are coming from Qatar second hand.

The first Eurofighter was delivered to Qatar in 2022
and since 2023 total of 12 Eurofighter in service with the Qatar Air Force

Qatari Eurofighters have CAPTOR-E AESA Radar to fire METEOR air to air Missile

 

[SteppeWolff]

I didn't......You need to read the whole thing again.

I said "Encryped" source code, that's post compilation (unless you encrypt raw code, which you probably can). granted, I forgot that was called object code and I never said you can recover source code with it, I said you can recover functionality of the source code, which is what we were talking about, trying to locate the kill switch

Okay. Let me break it you now, since you supposedly have a CS background.

You have a misunderstanding of "Encrypted" Object Code. Once source code is compiled, it becomes machine code or object code. This is not the same as encrypted data. Encryption means a specific process of encoding information. some military grade software may use encrypted object code or use obfuscation techniques, this does not mean the object code itself is “encrypted” in a general sense. The difference is important because reverse engineering object code, even without encryption, does not lead to an easy identification of functionality, especially when additional layers like encryption or obfuscation are involved..

And you claim that you can recover functionality from compiled object code, you underestimate the complexity involved in modern, highly secure systems. Even with access to object code, the process of reverse engineering is far from straightforward. Critical components of modern military systems, especially kill switches, are likely obfuscated or hidden deep within layers of code, possibly fragmented across different modules and protected by cryptographic mechanisms.
Recovering the actual functionality of such systems requires understanding how all the pieces work together, which is far more than simply looking at a few lines of disassembled code.

And you admit it wouldn’t be easy, amd saying it’s "not impossible" is a weak stance. Many things in theory are not impossible, but the real question is whether it’s practically achievable? In this case, recovering functionality from encrypted or obfuscated object code in a highly secure military system, especially to the level of locating a kill switch is, for all practical purposes, prohibitively difficult. The sheer level of resources, expertise, and time required make this an exceedingly unlikely outcome, even for a state with significant technological capabilities.

 

[j_hungary]

Thanks - i was typing up the same explanation in reply - but you beat me to it.

It is suprising how few people understand what is source code, and therefore state that this will come with source code transfer, or that and we all know that it does not need to if you understand what source code is, what complied object code is, what library headers and API's are !!!!

the modern era of hypervisors and virtual machines, and security models, api security protocls, and encryption mean that the old days of "tinkering" around to find out how things work on modern systems are pretty much over.

I am just going to post this once, again, we aren't talking about how to datamine games like Grand Theft Auto

Source code is the raw code programmer put into a program, which then translate (or however you said) via computer instruction into Machine Language pointing into the machine to work, because source code is "high level" code that we make as we put in the program and machine understand shit about high level code, it only understands 0/1 instruction or machine language.

The data security aspect is that you insulate all the data side versus user side code, because you can't basically understand machine language (You can but with significant handicap) but for machine to process instruction, for example, "Hello World" it could be 00110001 00101101 (just arbitary), if you were to hack a game. It's pointless for you to retrieve 00110001 00101101 because that would have been the result of what the machine put out, the goal for you is to hack the original high level language instructions of "Hello World" I put in as a programer. That's what hacker/dataminer want to know.

So how you can get the "Hello World" from DLL library? You can compare previous release version and match out what is different and what is the same, the issue here is, I can encrypt high level language at my end when I was writing it in java or whatever, bit you can't really encrypt machine language because of its quite basic form.

The point I was trying to made earlier is that you can go thru a DLL to see what changes and then located an "Abnormality" that way, not that it can reveal your source code or alter it, otherwise I would not say datamining.......But then this has NOTHING to do with kill switch, the principal is the same, but it's on a different set of system and different set of security

 

[muhammed45]

please more elaborate it, what subsystems were imported from europen countries? because we only know engine(us) , seat(uk) and hotas(spain, for first prototype)

and how do you have more info about KAAN than us? who are daily checks news.

your persian prejudices make you guys laughfable.
We heard from you guys Turks cant make a car engine
Turkish Milgem a failure , Turkish UAVs actually foreign tech, Turkish planes are full of US made, KAAN design were handover from US . bla bla bla. now tell us which subsytem is european?

Thanks for making my job easy.

Btw, i am not Persian Fyi

 

[j_hungary]

Okay. Let me break it you now, since you supposedly have a CS background.

You have a misunderstanding of "Encrypted" Object Code. Once source code is compiled, it becomes machine code or object code. This is not the same as encrypted data. Encryption means a specific process of encoding information. some military grade software may use encrypted object code or use obfuscation techniques, this does not mean the object code itself is “encrypted” in a general sense. The difference is important because reverse engineering object code, even without encryption, does not lead to an easy identification of functionality, especially when additional layers like encryption or obfuscation are involved..

And you claim that you can recover functionality from compiled object code, you underestimate the complexity involved in modern, highly secure systems. Even with access to object code, the process of reverse engineering is far from straightforward. Critical components of modern military systems, especially kill switches, are likely obfuscated or hidden deep within layers of code, possibly fragmented across different modules and protected by cryptographic mechanisms.
Recovering the actual functionality of such systems requires understanding how all the pieces work together, which is far more than simply looking at a few lines of disassembled code.

And you admit it wouldn’t be easy, amd saying it’s "not impossible" is a weak stance. Many things in theory are not impossible, but the real question is whether it’s practically achievable? In this case, recovering functionality from encrypted or obfuscated object code in a highly secure military system, especially to the level of locating a kill switch is, for all practical purposes, prohibitively difficult. The sheer level of resources, expertise, and time required make this an exceedingly unlikely outcome, even for a state with significant technological capabilities.

First of all, as I said, I used the word encrypt because it's 1 am here and I don't remember the term "Object code" and I simply use the word Encrypt, that's implies it was complied, you can think all you want, I don't mind. I didn't touch any Computer Science base things since 2010 after I graduated.

Second of all you CAN recover the functionality of a source code from DLL, again, this is how datamining works. I never said I know how to do it (I can try, no guarantee), nor it is easy to do, I am not a good programmer that's why I abandoned the field and go into Economy, I am saying people better hacker than me could possibly do it, that's why I asked you twice now, do you really think it's not doable even for Chinese with their advance computer programming tech.