[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>]

Oleg has replied with some caveats

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 9:01 AM Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Starlink Terminal GPS Spoofing/Jamming Detection in Iran:
>
>
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
>
>
> Shared on Twitter:
> https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513
> <
> https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513?s=46&t=cDwZQ2vjNXB5mf76dxo5Hw
> >
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
> In loving memory of Dave Täht: 1965-2025
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 5:18 AM, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> > I suspect (and may be wrong there) it's not that the uplink beam is
> > narrow: That would be hard to do with an antenna that's size limited by
> > the need to keep it a consumer device that the customer can be expected
> > to handle and install. Rather, I suspect that it's the compute overhead
> > involved at the ground end when it comes to recalculating the correct
> > phases for tracking the fast-moving satellite. Basically, if you had
> > unlimited compute power at the Dishy, you could recompute the beam
> > frequently enough to always keep the satellite at the centre of the
> > beam. Instead, if you position the beam such that the satellite moves
> > across it, you can wait with recomputation until the satellite is about
> > to leave the beam. This means less computation, cheaper chips, and less
> > power use.
> >
> > That all said, a 2 km deviation isn't what I had in mind with "precision
> > location" - I was thinking more of the type of deviation seen when the
> > US military still applied "selective availability" to the civilian
> > signal, and positions tended to be a few dozen to maybe a couple of
> > hundred metres out. The 2 km more than cover this - and your
> > observations actually confirm that position accuracy down to a couple of
> > metres isn't needed here.
> >
> > On 16/01/2026 10:47 am, Oleg Kutkov via Starlink wrote:
> > > Actually, a precise location is required to calculate the uplink beam.
> > > For the downlink, it's not so critical (at least for the initial
> > > sky_search procedure), since the satellite beam covers the whole cell.
> > > But the uplink beam is quite narrow, and the terminal needs to
> > > pinpoint the moving satellite.
> > > From my experiments, shifting the GPS data for more than 2km breaks
> > > the math and disrupts the connection. With an incorrect position,
> > > Starlink is stuck in NO_SCHEDULE mode.
> > >
> > > On 1/15/26 22:07, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> > >> Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when
> > >> people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference
> > >> station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS
> > >> signal received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS &
> > >> Co., so there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and
> > >> most modern receivers support all. That said - these signals can all
> > >> be interfered with and spoofed.
> > >>
> > >> For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough
> > >> for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the
> > >> beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy
> > >> doesn't do any harm.
> > >>
> > >> On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
> > >>> easier to attack gps?
> > >>>
> >
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
> > >>>
> > >>> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
> > >>> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
> > >>> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink
> could
> > >>> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
> > >>> --
> > >>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> > >>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> > >>>
> > --
> > ****************************************************************
> > Dr. Ulrich Speidel
> >
> > School of Computer Science
> >
> > Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
> >
> > The University of Auckland
> > u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
> > http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> > ****************************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>