On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:01:57 -0500, Dave Emery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> In fact the greater hazard may sometimes be from red, yellow or
> green LEDs on the front of equipment that are directly driven with
> real data in order to allow troubleshooting - recovering data from one
> of
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 12:32:09PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
> However, his discussion would indicate that the various practical concerns
> and limitations probably limit this to very niche-type applications...I'd
> bet that it's very rare when such a trechnique is both needed as well as
> usef
TECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Optical Tempest FAQ
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 23:39:33 -0700
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 01:01:57 -0500, Dave Emery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ...
> In fact the g
--- Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, if you light up two or more other identical CRT's and have them
> display random junk it should throw enough noise to make it worthless -
> (and would put out enough similar RF to mess with RF tempest) there
> might
> be ways to filter the photons
IMHO, if you light up two or more other identical CRT's and have them
display random junk it should throw enough noise to make it worthless -
(and would put out enough similar RF to mess with RF tempest) there might
be ways to filter the photons from the other monitors out, but, it would
be dif
Interesting.
Contrary to what I thought (or what has been discussed here), only a
'scalar' of detected light is needed, not a vector. In other words, merely
measuring overall radiated intensity over time seems to be sufficient to
recover the message. This means that certain types of diffusive ma
