At 9:52 AM -0400 2002/08/15, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Well, what's a "peering point"? Most traffic does not traverse public
> peering points, domestically. So, in order to look at enough traffic to make
> it worthwhile, the .gov would have to optically tap all the private peering
> x-connects
At 8:36 PM -0700 2002/08/14, Scott Granados wrote:
> Can the nsa for
> example listen in somehow to eering points or other such common areas
> and observe things that interest them?
Yup. Google for "ECHELON" and read the lengt
At 10:37 PM -0400 2002/08/14, David Lesher wrote:
> Not at all.
>
> The entry guard says "No Cell Phones".. and [s]he has the gun.
> You can whine and pout but [s]he still has the gun.
When I was there, they never searched anyone's purse, bag, or
briefcase. So, just leave it inside
At 7:10 PM -0700 2002/08/14, Scott Granados wrote:
> Actually, yes you do block all cell phones and transmissions in these
> facilities.
Are you talking about a SCIF -- Secure Compartmented Information
Facility? The sort of place where they basically Tempest-shield the
entire build
>I'm sure that they have all sorts of methods. On the other hand,
>cellphones make devilishly difficult "bugs" to eliminate, especially
>the ones that are capable of automatically answering the call and
>activating the microphone without any audible ring. You can't just
>block all cellphones,
> what's your own NOC's SOP for when the G-men knock on the door at
> midnight waving paper & steel?
Yes sir, the servers are over there and here's the root password.
Oh wait, unless somethings broke or I'm breaking it I'm not at work at
midnight.
At my last place of employment, we would grant
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Daniel Golding said:
>
> Well, what's a "peering point"? Most traffic does not traverse public
> peering points, domestically. So, in order to look at enough traffic to make
> it worthwhile, the .gov would have to optically tap all the private peering
es without any interuption of current or light level.
- Daniel Golding
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Scott Granados
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:36 PM
> To: David Lesher
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: $4
Ok, let's make this operation l for one second. This is something I've
always wondered and I have an idea but...
What is the real possibility that there is some sort of structured
monitoring system in place say on the backbone level. Bad fbi meat
eating programs asside I mean really somethi
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Brad Knowles said:
>
>
>
> I'm sure that they have all sorts of methods. On the other hand,
> cellphones make devilishly difficult "bugs" to eliminate,
Not at all.
The entry guard says "No Cell Phones".. and [s]he has the gun.
You can wh
Actually, yes you do block all cell phones and transmissions in these
facilities. I'm not sure if you have ever been in one but having cell
phone access is simply not a concern. Neither is much open
comunication. They are however smaller locked down rooms you would
never lock down the enti
At 1:09 PM -0700 2002/08/14, Scott Granados wrote:
> As I recall and definitely don't quote me on this:) but there are also
> grids of wires in the walls which release broadspectrum noise electronic
> noise for jamming small transmitters.
I'm sure that they have all sorts of methods.
At 6:02 PM -0700 2002/08/13, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Is this sensitive info?
>
> Given that I saw this on the history channel the other night, I'd
> say no. :)
One of the lessons we were taught in our security briefings was
that just because something was publicly discussed somewhere
nd
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: $400 million network upgrade for the Pentagon
>
>
>
> As I recall and definitely don't quote me on this:) but there are also
> grids of wires in the walls which release broadspectrum noise electronic
> noise for jamming small t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Blake Fithen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:13 PM
> To: 'Brad Knowles'; 'gg'; 'Sean Donelan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: $400 million network upgrade for the Pentagon
>
>
>
&
In general:
Things work far better on TV than in real life.
This includes James Bond toys.
Standoff distance is your friend; for both electromagnetic
radiation and 0.5mv^2 from fertilizer and fuel oil.
The second is so much the case that I knew of a major secur
_
Alan Rowland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Blake Fithen
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 3:13 PM
To: 'Brad Knowles'; 'gg'; 'Sean Donelan'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: $400 million net
Blake Fithen wrote:
>>Brad Knowles:
>> The Pentagon has windows. It also has an ancient system of air
>>pipes aimed at all of the windows...
>
>
>
>
> Is this sensitive info?
Given that I saw this on the history channel the other night, I'd say
no. :)
--
Doug Barton, Yahoo! D
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Brad Knowles wrote:
>
> At 5:13 PM -0500 2002/08/13, Blake Fithen wrote:
>
> > Is this sensitive info? Couldn't someone (theoretically) aim a
> > "beam" at an unoccupied office and another at their objective
> > office then filter out the 'noise'?
>
> Actually,
At 5:13 PM -0500 2002/08/13, Blake Fithen wrote:
> Is this sensitive info? Couldn't someone (theoretically) aim a
> "beam" at an unoccupied office and another at their objective
> office then filter out the 'noise'?
Actually, I don't know for sure how it's implemented. They may
h
> Brad Knowles:
> The Pentagon has windows. It also has an ancient system of air
> pipes aimed at all of the windows...
Is this sensitive info? Couldn't someone (theoretically) aim a
"beam" at an unoccupied office and another at their objective
office then filter out the 'noise'?
At 12:38 PM -0400 2002/08/13, Sean Donelan wrote:
> I have no idea how many or where the cable entrance facilities are
> located or how major cables are routed through the Pentagon.
True enough. Neither do I.
> It might even make sense to put an alternate
> bu
At 6:21 PM -0500 2002/08/12, gg wrote:
> The Department of Defense does posses allot of "network disorganization"
> mostly on the NIPERNET side.
You mean NIPRnet, right?
> Allot of the NIPERNET "unclassified" network is just plain unruly at
> it's best (I left the military in
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > Building a surviable network in such a small area, relatively speaking the
> > Pentagon is small, is a much harder problem than diversity on a regional
> > or even national network.
>
> Keep in mind that it was DARPA that funded the original r
is, if it wasnt
underground in the first place.
Gerardo
- Original Message -
From: "Brad Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: $400 million network u
At 12:44 PM -0400 2002/08/12, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Building a surviable network in such a small area, relatively speaking the
> Pentagon is small, is a much harder problem than diversity on a regional
> or even national network.
Keep in mind that it was DARPA that funded the origina
Before now, I haven't seen any verifiable statements about how the
networking infrastructure in the Pentagon was affected by the attacks
last year. Not to diminish the loss of life, which was tragic, but
networking people might be interested in this.
Building a surviable network in such a small
27 matches
Mail list logo
