News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws. Parent comment

Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by flutas on Thursday February 13, 2025 @01:34PM (#43039463)
I have it on my Pixel 9 Pro XL right now and have had it since the end of January. Worked well so far for me in the country where Tmo typically has had dead spots, if not a little slow.

https://i.imgur.com/wrl5KLf.png

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by moolcool on Thursday February 13, 2025 @01:38PM (#43039515)
That is just texting though, not voice or data.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by schiffern on Thursday February 13, 2025 @02:08PM (#43039903)
Let's not move goalposts. It's still undeniably both "Starlink" and "Direct To Cell," so I would say that Starlink Direct To Cell is indeed available.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by moolcool on Thursday February 13, 2025 @02:56PM (#43040506)
Moving the goalposts? The point I was refuting was "Any benefits Iridium was supposed to provide are currently achieved by Starlink", but Iridium offers services today which StarLink does not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by keyme on Thursday February 13, 2025 @01:42PM (#43039570)
Is it 5G only or does LTE also work?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:White Hat Hackers Expose Iridium Satellite Security Flaws by jandrese on Thursday February 13, 2025 @03:08PM (#43040651)
It's only for texting so it doesn't really matter. That said Iridium is so slow it's mostly only useful for texting type situations as well. Even the voice is so heavily compressed and laggy as to be mildly unpleasant to use.
[ Parent | on HN ]