In the article they mention that the AntiSky decoder is included in the reference documents describing the decryption procedures.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;2699846-Anarchist-Training-mod5-Redacted-Compat.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.documentcloud.org&#x2F;documents&#x2F;2699846-Anarchist-Tr...</a><p>Basically they grab a frame from the video, then run it through AntiSky, no intermediate steps.  AntiSky works against the VideoCrypt scheme, ergo that must be what they&#x27;re using (or something so similar as to make no difference).<p>The other post discusses why they would use such a dated analogue system.  I also think that off-the-shelf systems would have been pretty attractive as an interim fix.  Most stronger encryption is going to need to go over a digital link with error correction, which is not something that&#x27;s trivial to retrofit.<p>As for the &quot;most sophisticated arms company&quot; thing - do bear in mind that about half of the US&#x27;s predator drones were still broadcasting unencrypted video feeds in 2012, despite the fact that we knew insurgents had been tapping into them for years.  Israel is more responsive than most militaries, but it still does take time for equipment to go from lab to mass field utilization.  Those timeframes are typically measured on the order of decade(s) especially if you&#x27;re talking about deploying additional satcom capability or something like that.  And during that timeframe they were actively switching to something else.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;hack-proof-drone&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;10&#x2F;hack-proof-drone&#x2F;</a>