We Have the Capability to Cut Off Starlink / White House Meeting on VPNs in Iran / Internet Was Cut for the Last 72 Hours of the 12-Day War
Head of the National Center for Cyberspace said several systems are at our disposal to cut off Starlink satellite terminals, and Starlink technology is manageable.
Mohammad Amin Aghamiri, head of the National Center for Cyberspace, said this morning at the press conference held on October 21st at the Cultural Complex of Baldiyeh, that Starlink is used in wars for command and control, spying and information transmission, in addition to communication. We have several systems available to disrupt Starlink satellite terminals, and Starlink technology is manageable.
Referring to cooperation with the government, he said: We are following up with the President's Office to hold a meeting of the Supreme Council of Cyberspace.
He also stressed that national security is not a joke and said that different institutions make decisions about the international internet.
In response to a question about the internal root of network disturbances, Seyyed Mohammad Amin Aghamiri, emphasizing the need for the accountability of the responsible institutions, stated: We evaluate the network outputs to see if what people see is of appropriate quality or not. Now we have to check where the root of this disorder is; The domestic network has different dimensions. We have the Internet, we have the Internet port and the IXP discussion, we have the transmission layer, the aggregation layer, the access layer and equipment like DNS and various things in the network. The network quality is in charge of the Ministry of Communications and Regulation, which publishes good reports every season, but we have to see where the network has problems.
He added: At one point, you said that the problem is in the access layer, which is related to mobile and fixed operators; In the consolidation layer, two of the five board members are appointed by the government. The rest of the layers, including the Internet, core and transmission, are all actually under the control of the infrastructure company. Therefore, I emphasize that if there is a disturbance anywhere in this chain, it must be fixed, and it is not at all acceptable that we provide people with inappropriate quality and do not do the work.
Why did past policies need to be revised?
In response to a question about the efficiency of the current filtering policies, the Secretary of the Supreme Council of Cyber Space said: There are many reports and there are disagreements about the percentage of filter breakers used. I request all journalists to help the officials and the media to announce the statistics in a document and no one announces the number out of thin air. But the important thing is that the existing policies had challenges and in this government, with the same concern as to whether this previous policy worked or not, it was discussed whether improvements and changes could be made. In fact, the approval of the 32-point document was the answer to the same question you asked.
Reaction to reading the fight with Starlink
Aghamiri, in response to the statements of some people in the cyberspace who called the fight with Starlink as "kashk", clarified: that someone said that the fight with Starlink is kashk, he is a political person and I don't think he has technical expertise; His opinion is respected for himself, but we do our own work. From a technical point of view, technical friends know that it is incorrect to say that there is a technology and nothing can be done; Any technology can be managed by technology.
Convening a meeting in the White House to strengthen the filter breakers in Iran
Explaining the economic dimensions of filter-breaking projects, he said: Filter-breaking costs money; It also has a heavy cost. Someone has to pay this cost. According to surveys conducted, the absolute majority of people use the free versions. The main question is who pays for the siphon? America gives The White House held a meeting in 1401 to strengthen these filter breakers. My question is, since when has the White House been worried about our people?
America does not sympathize with our people, its concern is to eliminate Iranian civilization
The head of the National Center for Cyberspace strongly criticized the positions of the western countries and said: "You martyred our child in Minab school and in other places, you martyred our leader, you killed our people; What are you worried about when you pay for VPN? The financial turnover in our country for this issue is insignificant compared to the financial turnover they invest in America for their domestic VPN; That number is different from our number by several zeroes.
Referring to the performance of Western leaders, Aghamiri added: "Their president knows what his history is." If they are looking for freedom and open access to information, I wish they would see freedom about the kids on Epstein Island. Their performance is killing our dear people, martyring people and bombing the school where the children are playing sports. Today, are they concerned about access to freedom and freedom of information? The one who says freedom has preliminaries; The one who reaches the stage of freedom must be a human being first. Someone who is not human, what is the logic of paying these costs to claim freedom? America does not spend this money for God's sake, its concern is not freedom and it is lying.
The Zionist regime pays billions of dollars to buy a VPN for Iranians to use
He emphasized: It is clear that this war is between Iranian civilization and a 300-400-year-old country.
The Zionist regime pays billions of dollars to buy a VPN for Iranians to use; This regime does not care about our people and our business. The same building we are in (municipality building) is more than the life of this regime. They want to destroy Iran's civilization, but at the same time they talk about freedom; This does not add up. If we make this clear, many issues will be solved.
In the continuation of this meeting, a reporter asked, referring to the June meeting of the government's cyber space special headquarters: It is said that in the June voting session, the opening of the international Internet had opponents and you were also against it; If we go back to June, do you still oppose the reopening of the Internet on that date? Also, according to your reference to the report of the Western media about Starlink regarding disruption through GPS, please tell me, has Iran achieved any other technology than jamming and disruption? At what level has this technology worked? Are the terminals out of order or have drone detection and dish tracking methods been used? What do you mean when you said we have more technologies?
Technical description of how to deal with Starlink; Beyond traditional jams
Seyyed Mohammad Amin Aghamiri, in response to the technical questions raised about the way of managing and dealing with Starlink, stated: To reveal the technology is another matter; But to explain the matter, I must say that the phased array antenna that is used does not radiate and catch waves in a peripheral manner, but rather sends a very narrow beam. For this reason, normal disruption systems do not work; Because the antenna sends exactly the same point and sees the same point. Therefore, if you assume that a system like the old systems used for television satellites wants to work, it will not work; Because experts know that immediately the channel is identified and filtered (Null) and the system goes up by changing the frequency. So those old systems definitely didn't work and the technology we use is definitely not that system.
He added about the Westerners' guess about GPS locator falsification: the system they guessed that we use GPS spoofing technology was actually their attempt to find out what we did, but they were unsuccessful. You know when these satellites want to communicate, they cell the earth and in each cell they start sending a frequency with a certain bandwidth and the data is distributed. Therefore, if it is done with GPS deception, it is enough to cross the sender and extract the location; Extracting the location in a system with multiple senders and receivers is not a difficult task. If Starlink was going to fail with just a GPS spoof, it would have to have very poor technology. Of course, this method has been tested and it works in some areas, but it is not very important.
Starlink vulnerabilities and new methods of tracking dishes
The head of the National Cyberspace Center explained the technical goals in dealing with satellite systems and stated: The main goal is to be able to do several things: first, that the communication of these systems is not effective or they cannot communicate; Second, if communication is established, the source and destination will have problems due to the satellite moving at a speed of 7 km per second. The satellites must be able to follow each other and until the signal is transferred to the next satellite, the dual path itself is one of the permanent weaknesses of these systems.
Aghamiri also explained about the identification of ground equipment: the more important point is the issue of identification. In the usual methods, there is a 3% error and it is very difficult to find the dishes; But there are other technologies that make these systems much easier to find. These methods have been tested and worked, and this issue is completely serious and operational.
Why does a so-called commercial company behave militarily?
The secretary of the Supreme Council of Cyber Space emphasized the need to investigate the non-technical aspects of the Starlink project and said: In addition to the discussion of decommissioning Starlink, the important thing is why we are witnessing such behavior from a seemingly commercial company? Is it a commercial enterprise or does it exhibit military behavior? If we come to the conclusion that this company is behaving militarily, then we have to answer the question why they insist so much on Iran?
He continued: "What are they looking for in Iran, that they put so much pressure, send numerous contraband shipments to the country and give them to different people?" Why have they launched heavy media and advertising methods to insinuate that no one can deal with Starlink and create despair in the society? Regardless of the technology, this is a serious issue that needs to be managed. The enemy's greed for this land and people continues, and we must manage the scene in such a way that the least harm is done to our beloved people.
Emphasis on "device synergy" instead of media controversies
In response to a question about the executive guarantee of the center's approvals and whether the National Cyber Space Center publishes a list of underperforming or violating devices, Aghamiri said: In our country, the hierarchy of approvals is clear; From the constitution and laws of the parliament to regulations and government approvals, the position of each has been defined. We have a compliance board in the parliament that reviews the government's approvals and the Guardian Council also checks compliance with the constitution. So when a device is given an option, it operates within this hierarchy. If there is a resolution against the constitution or the laws of the parliament, the trustee institutions or relevant officials can enter.
Stating that the important principle for the National Center of Cyberspace is "synergy and convergence", he added: The National Center of Cyberspace, as a governing body, has the duty to sit different institutions around the same table and resolve disputes. In these three years, I have been trying to collect all the devices by synergy and reach an operational output, because people don't want marginal fights and these tensions only cause headaches for them. We currently have challenges with traditional systems in the field of digital businesses, and we are trying to solve these problems by inviting ministers and officials of various institutions.
Playing politics does not take away from people's work
Rejecting the approach of publishing lists (good and bad devices), the head of the National Center for Cyberspace clarified: that we come to categorize devices and publish a "good and bad" list, not only does not solve the problem, but also hurts the process of cooperation. Organizational headquarters and other topics are also of the same kind. The duty of the governing body is to advance the work; If he wants to show political behavior or seek media controversies, he is neither liked nor does he open a knot in people's work. We try to solve problems within the framework of legal principles and structures.
the main war; From the United Nations to Iran's civilization
Referring to the countermeasures of the enemy, Aghamiri said: Today the issue has become more serious; When Netanyahu picks up the Starlink dish in his most important UN speech of the year, it's clear whose side we're on. This person is an executioner and a war criminal; Unfortunately, the courts are also lenient in many places. We are facing an important war in this area and the main issue is to be able to manage this space properly with the cooperation of the people and the cooperation of the institutions. The enemy's greed for this civilization and land continues, and our duty is to prevent further damage to our dear people.
In response to a journalist's question about whether sovereignty over cyberspace is possible only by cutting off the internet and what is his position and opinion about voting to cut off the internet, he clarified: Sovereignty over cyberspace does not mean cutting off the internet. In the past years, the country's policy has always been to provide high-quality services to the people. But when the enemy is in operation (whether cognitive or military) and uses this platform to harm our people, the situation becomes different. During these years and in critical moments (such as the 12-day war or other security measures), we have experienced various managements, including smart restrictions.
Cutting the Internet completely is "the most unpleasant decision possible."
The head of the National Cyber Space Center stated that the complete shutdown of the Internet is "the most unpleasant possible decision", and added: "It was only once in December that we completely shut down the Internet for a few hours so that security friends could manage the scene." The rest were just limitations. No one likes internet interruption; Just as no one likes to have flights canceled during wartime. It is a war and there is economic, military and cyber pressure; We have to manage all mechanisms in critical situations in order to maintain independence and protect people's lives, mind and peace.
Network management in times of crisis is very stressful and annoying
At the end, Aghamiri emphasized the technical and executive difficulties of these decisions and added: Network management in times of crisis is very stressful and annoying. You don't know how many technical problems arise when we want to manage routes; API crashes, DNS update disruptions, and tons of other big and small issues that every time these decisions are made, network professionals and administrators really agonize over how to handle this situation. But despite all these pressures, the peace that is maintained for the people, the damage that is prevented, the missile that does not hit the target and the scientist that is not assassinated, it is valuable for all of us to endure this hardship to preserve the country's integrity.
In response to the question about his vote for Internet management in crisis conditions, he said: Decision-making in crisis conditions is the responsibility of the group, which are mainly the security institutions and the National Security Council, and finally decisions are made in those conditions.