On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:36:46PM -0500, Adam Fields wrote: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:24:14PM -0500, Tim Dierks wrote: > > There may be more valid reasons for treating the device as secret; some > > categories that come to mind include protecting non-cryptographic > > information, such as the capabilities of the communication channel. Also, > > many systems on the shuttle are obsolete by modern standards, and it's > > possible that the communications security is similarly aged. > > Isn't it also possible that the device contains a physical key of some > kind?
Right, which should be different for each vehicle/flight and if it is used for control of that particular vehicle/flight, is pretty moot now... Having said that, if there was sensitive content in those transmissions that was in addition to real-time control of the vehicle, there would be a significant interest in preventing others from acquiring it. This seems like a weakness of the system. > - Adam slainte mhath, RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs -- ~\ Auto-Free Ottawa! Canada <www.TriColour.net> -- \@ @ <www.flora.org/afo/> No Internet Wiretapping! -- _\\/\%___\\/\% Vote! -- <Green.ca> <www.FreeSWAN.org>_______GTVS6#790__(*)_______(*)(*)_______<www.Marillion.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]