December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Log File a security hole?
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a way to disable the \WINDOWS\PGPW_32.LOG? In subtle ways it's a security hole if left to accumulate over time, since it keeps records of which keys you encrypted messages to. (Imagine somebody using an anonymous remailer but g-d forbid is unaware of this log file, and somebody discovers that messages were encrypted to such a beast...) I understand in certain group/corporate environs one would want logging; in others, one doesn't need it or should have the option (in an easily found place) to wipe it every once in a while. ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

RE: Machine readable form (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Phil Karn You have to admit that it is far more consistent to treat both the book and the floppy as a munition than to take the position DoS eventually took. Even if the more consistent position is a far more restrictive one that has even less chance of surviving a court challenge. ........................................................... In terms of consistency, if the government reserved the right to control printed source code (in the future), and books and floppys containing it are considered munitions, then cryptographers, who have it in their heads, would also be considered munitions. They would have to be prohibited from leaving the country and constrained not only from using the internet, but from any kind of communications medium. Ian Goldberg would not be allowed to visit Anguilla or participate in any more contests. :>) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: DES challenge status?
by Ben Byer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Ben Byer wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > What exactly is the status of RSA's DES contest? I understand that at > > least two of the smaller contests have already been cracked, but I > > haven't seen much beyond theoretical discussion on the list on the > > topic of the DES contest. > > > > Two? The only publicized solution so far is the > RC5/32/12/5 solution from Ian Goldberg at Berkeley > (and independently from Germano Caronni at ETH Z|rich). > > Are you saying that you know that the 48 bit RC5 > contest is solved already, or are you just counting Ian's > and Germano's solutions separately? Ooops! Mea culpa. That's what I meant. - -- Ben Byer root(a)bushing.plastic.crosslink.net I am not a bushing -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMvFohbD5/Q37XXHFAQFBIQL+IiN8gFqyjvxhvJ6C0hN4KecTbD82Vwmp nD0w79LxR0fX+E4unJf/QvEdVh8FkrMqwO39MtYB3dIXqepljOlKDjs7DveRv+Fp eGtCSl7OayCdgtKUe32ELr+px0Y8Rsqj =UZps -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Cats Out of Bags
by Jamie Lawrence 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:39 PM -0800 on 1/30/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt > can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such > constraint. No such constraint in the _making_ of laws, of course. We have laws on the books forbidding the utterance of "Oh boy", the carrying of an ice cream cone in one's pocket, and the act of driving without insurance, all functioning to varying degrees of effectiveness, 'on the books' in various states. The question Sandy seems to me to be raising is not whether a group of people can issue a decree, but rather whether the interaction of the law books, the interested parties on either side of the debate, and the mostly disinterested real world will intersect such that the laws passed can be used to effectively hamper the activities of the parties who wish to go about the business proscribed. This is not an either/or question, as you so aptly note (I hope Kirkegaard doesn't mind). Of course, methods of this nature specifically regarding the uses of privacy is what this list is all about. Not an argument; just a clarification. -j -- "This analogy is like lifting yourself by your own bootstraps." -Douglas R. Hofstadter _______________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence foodie(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: Workaround for filtering/cybersitter
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:28 PM 1/30/97 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote: ... >I would also want to make the ISP's liable for their users accessing this info. That way I >can intimidate them into doing all the work for me. (You can see >this approach in several areas of US law enforcemant. Arrest bartenders for >serving minors, arrest store clerks for selling cigaretts to minors, shut down of BBS for >users posting "dirty pictures", going after ISP's for pirated >software and other copyright infringments by their users.) ... I live in Oklahoma. Here at least, bartenders don't sell beer to minors, they sell it to persons who are clearly older. Older friends of the minors, and minors who finished puberty early. The bartenders only protection is to close up shop, depriving everyone of a drink. The same is true of tobacco products. About 8 months ago I had a girl who I barely knew, except that she was obviously in Junior High, recognize me, ask me if I was 18, to which I replied yes, and ask me to buy her a carton of cigerettes, to which I declined. Not for any law imeding me, but I consider suicide a right, but I will not help someone kill themselves. This girl, more than likely already hooked on the drug, had probably used this technique numerous times before without a glitch. The same would be true of blockingon-line content. If it were done right.

1 0

job opportunities
by Lee Tien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have no idea whether members of this list are interested in these kinds of jobs, but hey, can't hurt to ask. For the next 3 months (until April 30), Farallon Communications is trying to focus on filling several key engineering positions in the Netopia and LAN groups. (Netopia is a product line of ISDN devices) My wife works at Farallon in product marketing for Netopia stuff. They started out as a Macintosh networking company and have gone "Internet." Firmware Engineers: 3 for Netopia and 1 for LAN Hardware Engineers: 1 for Netopia and 1 for LAN There is some flexibility for the firmware positions to work either in Alameda or San Jose. I'm not sure about the job descriptions; I just looked at http://www.farallon.com/corp/jobs/index.html and this might accurately describe some of the positions mentioned above: Sr. Staff Engineer (WAN) -- San Jose and Alameda 4 Openings Senior member of the software development team responsible for architecture, design and implementation of embedded systems firmware on new and existing WAN products. Hands-on design position requiring a BSCS or a BSEE with advanced degree preferred. The ideal candidate will have 10+ years networking or telecommunications development experience and expert knowledge of multi-protocol routing and bridging. Expertise in networking layer technologies/protocols and data compression required. Lee Tien

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:46:57 -0500 (EST) > > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > > > > * The 1st Amendment does protect some lies. > > No, it protects speech. The Constitution is meant to protect citizens from a > priori constraints on their speech, not the results of the content ex post > facto. > > It is clearly not in the best interest of society to limit opinions or > fiction. > > > If I say "Jim Choate is a > > Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie, > > No, for it to be a lie there must be a potentiality of its truth. A nonsense > statement which happens to fit the syntactical rules of a language wouldn't > qualify. I can give you an example. ``Jim Choate invented an improved bubble sort method, called BSAM.'' This is undoubtedly false since you likely did not invent any sorting method. But you would not be able to get any damages (is that correct?) > The legal standard should be that if you make statements purported to be > true about a third party without their prior consent you should be held to > a minimum standard of evidence demonstrating the actuality of your statement. When you say "should", what do you mean? That the current law will hold you to a minimum standard of evidence? Or you mean that it would be nice if it were so? > A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other > forms of lies. Why? And who decides what is a lie? > > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > > It is, they say, a rich man's game > > Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. ... and then 20 lines later: > In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of > the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at > least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases. > You can either oppose "specieocracy" and inequality of rich and poor in libel litigation, or ask to place bonds that will make even harder for the poor to sue, BUT NOT BOTH, if you want to remain logical. - Igor.

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:15 AM 1/30/97 -0800, jim bell wrote: >What you're presented (included in its entirety below) is what I've come to >call an "AP story problem." I've worked through many of those myself; >their main problem is that they don't carefully describe why _each_ person >in the "play" you've described would be motivated to do what it's claim he >does, and why he DOES NOT do other things to fix the situation he's in. >Remember, I'm not merely talking about the main character, but also the ones >who are (apparently?) incidental. > >For just one example, you said: "conventional bodyguards could be >included, ones with no real pay but with the fore knowledgethat they will be >buried with the tyrant." > >What motivates these people? Are they hostages? If they're hostages, then >presumably that means they're motivated to seek the death of anyone who is >holding them. What about their relatives; don't they have any sympathy for >those who are taken? Why don't they donate to AP to see the lead guy dead? As I stated in the bottom, the children would be privaledged. They would merely be told that it is a great honor. It could very well be. Assuming that the tyrant did not die, these children would live in comparable luxery. They would be at risk only if the tyrant was. By keeping the children at hand, the parents would balk at taking action against the tyrant, not only their own action, but also that of others. The children would merely be there to thwart the attempts of others. The "Tiger Teams" would have to get through security on their own, takers on this offer would be very few unless the bounty were great, the defenses were weak, or the thrill level were high. An encounter with a bloodless thrill seaker might go like this "I hacked your system, here's proof, now pay up", remember, for some, it is the proof that a thing can be done that is the greatest thrill. Also, the tyrant would feel bound to keep h[is/er] word to avoid others deciding to take the challenge for the smaller sum. Remember also that 10% controls 90%, this means that each potential tyrant has on average 9% of the wealth, while the remaining 90% has about 1/90th of the remaining 10%. To match the wealth of the tyrant, these people would have to get together 90% of their numbers and commit everything. If 100 people were in the total population, and 1000 dollars in circulation, 10 people would be tyrants with about 90 dollars apiece, the remaining 90 people would each have 100/90 dollars, or 1.11 dollars each. It would take 81 of them together to match the wealth of one. With that many, they might as well attack outright because they would now include practically all of the population. If the tyrant had more than 9 of the peasants close to him, he would be at risk by conventional means. The real threat would not be the people, of limited means, using the system. But rather other tyrants using the system.

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:46:57 -0500 (EST) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)pathfinder.com> > > * The 1st Amendment does protect some lies. No, it protects speech. The Constitution is meant to protect citizens from a priori constraints on their speech, not the results of the content ex post facto. It is clearly not in the best interest of society to limit opinions or fiction. > If I say "Jim Choate is a > Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie, No, for it to be a lie there must be a potentiality of its truth. A nonsense statement which happens to fit the syntactical rules of a language wouldn't qualify. A more apt situation would be, "Hey, <some person>, I saw <your name> in a public restroom blowing the President's pink torpedoe and <your name> was begging for more!". The statement should have to be transmitted to <some person> without the permission of <your name>. The legal standard should be that if you make statements purported to be true about a third party without their prior consent you should be held to a minimum standard of evidence demonstrating the actuality of your statement. A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other forms of lies. > but I doubt > you'll prevail in a libel suit. What damages do you have? That's the key, > I believe -- the statement has to lower you in the opinion of others. Which is exactly one aspect of the problem. Wrongs should not be based on quantity or opinion. By focusing on what others think trivializes the issue at hand, a untruth about a person has been passed off as a truth. > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. > It is, they say, a rich man's game Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy. > -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm > probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover, > if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it > creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is > certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) Another good example of why our system is broke. > * The concept you may be searching for is consensual speech, which I > believe a society should tolerate. Libelous speech isn't consensual, > though obscenity is. There is no such thing as 'obscenity' just as there is no such thing as 'community standard'. These are the results of mental masturbation to justify some power freaks alterior motives. No, what I should be permitted to say should not rest on what others may permit. If so then I should have a say in what they can say, which means I have a say in what they can say about what I can say, ... (got it yet?) What we need is a fundamental change in the legal system which focuses on first principles and results, not social status or wealth or the potential for gain. Perhaps what we need is a legal system where both the defence and prosecuting attornies are selected by lot. We already have such a system applied to the defence. If it is considered sufficient for a defence it should qualify as sufficient for prosecution. Each practicing attorney would receive a stipend allocated by the appropriate legislative body. The court and police (who should represent the people in general) would provide both parties the results of any tests and equal and simultaneous access to all evidence. If a person wants additional legal council they can buy it from their own pocket but the attorney is limited to act only as a adjunct to the appointed attorney (ie they would not be allowed to speak in court). In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

3 2

Intelligence Update (fwd)
by Steve Schear 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Update on Bugging Devices >================================================= > >0.902 - 0.928 ghz - Popular Commercial FH/DS Devices >1.710 - 1.755 ghz - DEA Audio/Video Bugs (over 1400 bugs purchased in 1995) >1.710 - 1.755 ghz - DOJ Audio/Video Bugs (.25 to .50 watts) >1.710 - 1.850 ghz - Treasury Video Surveillance Systems >2.400 - 2.484 ghz - Popular Commercial FH/DS Devices >4.635 - 4.660 ghz - Treasury Video Surveillance Systems > >Most recently purchased gvt microwave surveillance gear seems to be running >between 900mhz to 5ghz, with a few systems operating on the 7/8 ghz bands. > >Also, keep in mind that the pros love to use ultra low power devices which >use the power lines as the transmission medium/antenna (9khz to 300 mhz). >Devices typically operate below 10mw, often below 1mw. The devices >typically use Wide FM and use voice inversion encryption... VERY easy to >demodulate. > >Note: According to a recently obtained DOJ surveillance training manual: > >"The typical range for the 28 ghz devices is six miles, the typical range >of the 2.4 ghz is thirty miles, and the typical range for the 1.7ghz is 44 >miles." > >"... frequency modulated applications should operate below 3 ghz to take >advantage of the favorable frequency propagation characteristics of that >part of the spectrum." > >"...Frequency Hopping and Direct Sequence Devices spead spectrum devices >should operate above 1.5 ghz, this will prevent the emissions from being >detected by electronic countermeasures." > >The most popular surveillance reciever used covers 9khz (for CC/VLF) up to >9ghz, so be sure to cover AT LEAST those bands. > >================================================= > >All TSCM people have heard about AID devices, but few know the actual freq >they use, or what they look like. > >The devices are VERY popular with the law enforcement crowd, private >investigators and corporate security types. The equipment is VERY overpriced, >and the fairly easy to detect. > >AID bills itself as "The World's Largest Manufacturer of Electronic >Intelligence Equipment and Specialized Protective Systems" > >AID was founded in 1970, and was sold in 92/93 to Westinghouse (Westinghouse is >currently selling TONS of equipment to the DEA and State dept) > >AID - Westinghouse/Audio Intelligence Devices, Inc. Bug Freqs > >135 MHz - 150 MHz Special Order/Secondary Band >150 MHz - 174 MHz Standard/Primary Band (Most Popular) >216 MHz - 220 MHz Special Order >400 MHz - 470 MHz UHF Repeaters > > 21 MHz - 80 MHz Very Low Power WFM (.5mw - 10mw) Special Order Only > 36 MHz - 39 MHz Very Low Power WFM (.5mw - 50mw) ***Very Dangerous*** > 80 kHz - 200 kHz "Line Carrier" Microphone Systems ***Very Dangerous*** > 30 kHz - 700 kHz Spread Spectrum Current Carrier Devices > >1700MHz - 1900MHz 25-250mw Video and audio bugs (Mostly DEA/DOJ stuff) >2400MHz - 2484MHz 25-250mw Video and audio bugs > >If the signal is "scrambled" it is nothing more than simple voice inversion, >a circuit to "de-scramble" costs around $20. > >Note: AID devices are often re-tuned for outband channels... so be careful. > >The area of spectrum from 15MHz to 500MHz is the primary threat, 500MHz to 3GHz >is the secondary threat, a "line carrier" threat is from 30kHz to 750kHz. > >If the person planting the bug suspects that a TSCM inspection may be >conducted then AID suggests a frequency between 30MHz to 50MHz, >sensitivity of rcvr should be better than .18uv/-122dbm. The mode is >usually wideband FM. > >Also, keep in mind that AID devices are frequently used for illegal buggings, >so be familiar with their realistic specs, expect power outputs well under >50mw, and expect to see the AC power circuits being used as the antenna. > >Note: Mike Langley at NIA advises that AID/NIA/Westinghouse is totally >shutting down all TSCM training, at that they have cancelled the production >of all TSCM products effective 1 Jan 97. > >================================================= > >Several devices were recently found at a DOE facility on Long Island, >details are a bit sketchy, but initial information indicates that a >defecting middle-eastern FIS agent provided a list of locations within >several DOE facilties that were being targeted.TSCM inspection (not >performed by DOE) located several devices. Facility/lab working on designs >for triggering mechanisms... very interesting incident. > >================================================= > >HDS - Household Data Services > 50.000 - 750.000 kHz Carrier Current Audio System >120.000 - 400.000 kHz Carrier Current Audio System >138.000 - 174.000 MHz Wireless microphone/Body Wires (8KR Series .1 to 30 mw) >150.000 - 174.000 MHz Wireless microphone/Body Wires (ATX Series .1 to 30 mw) >174.000 - 230.000 MHz Wireless microphone/Body Wires >350.000 - 440.000 MHz Audio/Video Transmitters (360-440 popular) >470.000 - 608.000 MHz Audio/Video Transmitters >570.000 - 928.000 MHz Audio/Video Transmitters (Spread Spectrum Popular) > 1,000 - 1,500 MHz Low Power Audio/Video Transmitter (10-100mw max) > 1,425 - 1,450 MHz Low Power Audio/Video Transmitter (10-100mw max) > 1,700 - 2,700 MHz Audio/Video Transmitters 2.4-2.5 hot (10-100mw max) > 1,710 - 1,900 MHz Audio/Video Transmitters (10-100mw max) ** HOT ** > 6,425 - 7,125 MHz Low Power Audio/Video Transmitter (10-100mw max) > 8,100 - 8,700 MHz Audio/Video Transmitter, 8.2/8.5 popular (10-100mw max) >10,200 - 10,700 MHz Audio/Video Transmitter, 10.5 popular (10-100mw max) >17,700 - 19,700 MHz Low Power Audio/Video Transmitter (10-100mw max) >20,000 - 24,600 MHz Low Power Audio/Video Transmitter (10-100mw max) > >================================================= > >Sony - Wireless Microphones and Body Wires >470.000 - 489.000 MHz 2.5mw - 20mw, WFM (110kHz), Ultra low power >770.000 - 782.000 MHz 2.5mw - 10mw, Ultra low power - Chnl 64 >782.000 - 794.000 MHz 2.5mw - 10mw, Ultra low power - Chnl 66 >794.000 - 806.000 MHz 2.5mw - 10mw, Ultra low power - Chnl 68 >770.000 - 810.000 MHz 2.5mw - 20mw, WFM (110kHz), Ultra low power >902.000 - 928.000 MHz 2.5mw - 20mw, WFM (110kHz), Ultra low power >947.000 - 954.000 MHz 2.5mw - 20mw, WFM (110kHz), Ultra low power > 60.000 - 970.000 MHz 2.5mw - 10mw, WFM (300kHz) Audio Transmitter > >Note: These little low power devices have an adjustable freq deviation >which can be adjusted to as high as +/- 225khz... System also uses a >matched receiver. Entire system xmitter and cvr sell for under $2500. > >Imagine a 3mw transmitter operating at 782mhz (snuggled up to the audio of >the local TV xmitter) using a 100khz cue channel subcarrier. Life >expectancy at least 350 hours (using lithium cells). Reasonable range at >least 1500 feet indoors. > >================================================= > >Finished putting the final touches on a new page >concerning Mace and Personal Protection Sprays. > >Drop by and let me know what you think. > > http://www.tscm.com/mace > > >The ASP - Armament Systems and Procedures Web page is >now also online, the address follows: > > http://www.tscm.com/asp/ > >================================================= > >BMS manufactures a line of pro-grade products used primarly for the >Broadcast and Television markets, but their prices are cheap, very small, >low power, and a serious threat to our clients. > >Most of their voice/video/telem products (ie:BMT25-S) operates from >900mhz-4ghz, and are easily detectable at 10mw and 100mw. > >The major threat is from the X-Band, and Ku-Band devices which they sell >that operate up to 13.5ghz. > >Keep in mind the devices are as small as 1.0in x 1.0in x 3.3in, and can be >run from a 12vdc battery for days, if not weeks. > >Most of the devices utilize a variable frequency audio dual sub-carrier >between 4 to 9 mhz. > >They sell small omni directional, and highly directional antenna as well. > >================================================= > >Intel on Microwave surveillance system (made by AST in MD ??) > >Stock Devices >1.2 to 2.2 ghz >3.7 to 4.2 ghz >5.9 to 6.45 ghz > >Special Order Devices (1.4 ghz bands) >1.2 to 2.8 ghz - Justice just bought a bunch of these >2.2 to 3.8 ghz >3.2 to 4.8 ghz - State Department item >4.2 to 5.8 ghz >5.2 to 6.8 ghz > >Tech material mentions product available to 8.5/8.8 ghz > >All funtions (including freq) are software controlled, > >Direct Sequence output, 60 mhz window for spread spectrum > >Device designed to transmit FDM baseband signals from a PBX backplane using >QAM 64 or 256 modulation. > >The box I examined measured 1 * 3.5 * 3 and took power from 8 to 16 vdc (12 >pref). > >Output power fixed at 100mw > >================================================= > >Recently I did some work designing an experimental spread sprectrum >wireless microphone. > >The goal of the project was to see just how small, and how cheaply a >realistic device could be built. > >Initial goal was a device that would use the 47 CFR 15.247 for the ISM band >from 902 to 928 mhz and an enhancement (jumper change) mode to extend the >upper frequency range to 954 mhz. > >The device would have to have a range of at least 150 feet in a hotel >building and/or office building (parking lot monitoring). > >The device must be small enough to be "dropped in a pocket," concealed in >the seam of a drape, and placed into furniture. > >Device must use consumer (radio shack) batteries. > >Device must cost less $100 in materials to build > >I felt the above specs would reflect a realistic device. > >--------------- > >1) Battery used was 2ea EPX-76 cells which gave 2.5 to 3 hours of usable >audio, sub-ed a DL123A lithium which upped the time to over 4 days (and >still counting) > >2) Microphone was two surface mount Seimens hearing aid elements. > >3) Spread Spectrum controller was a surface mount WL-9010 from Wireless >Logic, the chip is a compact stand alone transmitter. > >4) Used a Mitsubishi codec chip commonly used in cellular telephone with a >noise cancelling circuit (this is why two microphones were used). > >5) Small pot was used to adjust the output power between .15mw to 65mw > >6) All components used where SMT versions, hot flow was used for assembly > >7) Entire circuit was assembled on a .30 by .25 inches square double sided >printed circuit board. > >8) PCB soldered directly to battery cap > >9) .5 inch long paper clip used as antenna > >10) Currently working on a telephone line version. > >11) Range at 50mw (legal power limit) tested usable and clear at 260 feet >(device placed in hotel room, and monitored in the parking lot) > >12) Device WAS NOT detectable with an AVCOM 65 until the antenna was within >8 inches of the device (until a hump started to slightly appear). > > >What doe this tell us? > >Spread spectrum devices can be real small, cheaply made, and low power >using off the shelf products. > >Watch that area between 800 mhz and 1 gig > >================================================= > >We are interested in purchasing old catalogs, training materials, and technical >documentation used by Audio Intelligence Devices, HDS, and other >surveillance companies. > >Specifically we are looking for: > > Old product catalogs > Sales materials picked up at trade shows (IE: NATIA) > Training Manuals from National Intelligence Academy > Textbooks from National Intelligence Academy > Product Owners Manuals > Product Service Manuals > >We are also interested in purchasing "generations" of materials, so if you >have ten years worth of old catalogs from the '70s were interested. > >Let us know what you've got, and we'll work out cash payment arrangements. > >The materials will be used for project that starts in January and will run >for at least six months. > >If you have materials from other technical intelligence schools or >surveillance we could also be interested. > >================================================= > >I recently had a chance to examine a new device made by Delft >Industries. > >It is very similar to the X-Band units I've examined, >except that the frequencies were higher and mods were much >more subtle. > >Small PCB was cemented into the rear of the unit, underneath the regular >PCB (black rubber covered 1.5 cm * 4cm * .8cm). > >Unit consited of a two microphones, compander circuits, >power supply/regulator, and modulator circuit. > >Compander circuit operated dual circuits around 120hz to 15khz. > >No external mods to case, only very small variation in power drain, >no internal battery, several large surface mount caps... > >Entire unit double sided surface mount PCB, looks like 4 layers, >2/3 digital circuitry, 1/3 analog and RF circuitry. > >The only mods to the alarm PCB was the cutting of several traces >on the back of the PCB (near the emitter circuit). > >The doppler alarm operated between 24 ghz and 24.25 ghz, intelligence >seems to be a 480k bit digital data stream using the alarm >signal as the carrier (QAM mod). > >Looks like one version of the product will also allow someone >to deactivate a specific sensor remotely upon on command. > >According to the factory, the units are being shipped into >Canada and Mexico in quanity, then transported into the >US in small quantities. > >Heavy usage in Texas, New Orleans, Florida, California, >and Pennsylvania. > >Device have already been offered for sale in several >"spy shops" in New York, and Miami. > >- Be Careful Out There > >======================================================== > >You may find it interesting to revist our web site in >the near future, during the last few months the site has > undergone incredible growth, copius additions, and changes.. > > http://www.tscm.com/ > >On January 2, 1997 we rolled out several new >product lines which increased the number of TSCM products >on our web page to over 1,000 TSCM and technical security >products. > >At the present time we have over 12,500 pages of >printed documents available for download. > >If you haven't reviewed it yet, be advised that we now >have a TDR tutorial page available online. > > http://www.tscm.com/riserbond.html > > >We've also updated the materials we have online >regarding the REI OSC-5000 > > http://www.tscm.com/reioscor.html > > > =============================================================== > >DOJ just took delivery of a large number of video transmitter modules > >Operating freqs between 8ghz and 11 ghz (PLL field programmable) > >10mw rf output (max), nominal 8.5mw > >power draw below 35ma > >baseband video trans, not SS > >all modules have audio inputs (solder tab), standard audio subcarrier, >audio section may be disabled to conserve power. > >Min. effective (flat array ant) range indicated as 2700 feet line of sight, >and 1500 rural. > >I would estimate the range to be below 500 ft with a unity gain antenna. > >A number of the units came preinstalled in fake squirel and >birds nests with a low light auto iris CCD camera (unk manuf, suspect >Kodak). I've seen similar units used by the DEA (installed under tree >bark). > >Both unity gain ant config (stub), and biconical flat pack. > >Power requirements seem to correlate to 9vdc lithium batteries. > >>From what I can see on the physical specs, looks like the transmitter, and >camera combined are 2/3 the size of a standard 9vdc battery. > >The document indicates gvt paid $874 per module (Xmit module only), >document also mentions req code for the "domestic counterterrorism" >program. > >I wonder if these are the "tree frogs" that the boys at Quantico were >trying to get bids on, back in September? > >It's only a matter of a few months before these devices start getting >"lost in the field " and start re-appearing in the private sector. > > =============================================================== > >I've heard from several engineers at TI that an unidentified gvt law >enforcement agency has them working on a super compact thermal imaging >system and video transmitter for covert surveillance. System utilizes an >electronic LCD chopper instead of the regular mechanical chopper. Device >contains integral microwave tranmitter (unk freq). From what I can gather, >these are going to be used for conducting long term thermal surveillance of >areas... I will advise as I obtain further intel. > > =============================================================== > >Just finished reading the 1997 Hewlett Packards optoelectronics designers >guide, and found several items of interest. > >Most of us are familiar with the low power 900nm I/R devices. > >But did you know that they also make CHEAP LED's for communications >that operate from 700nm to 1510nm?? > >700, 710, 875, 905, 940, 1100, and 1510nm are the most common products in >the HEMT line. > >Can be modulated (open air) from 0 to 750khz with no problem, and higher speeds >with some minor distortion. > >just a heads up > > =============================================================== > >We are taking delivery of the first 95S radio's and third generation MSS >units from Boeing... We are expecting initial shipments to customers mid to >end of Feb. > >The 95S is a stand alone wideband receiver designed for SIGINT and TSCM, >weighs in at just under 8 lbs (complete). Radio will retail for around >6,000 and 7,500 dollars (US) depending on config. > >While the unit is fully self contained, we will have a VME version avail >(we have them now). Coverage is a clean from 5khz to 8ghz (yes 8ghz), and >sensitivity is superior to anything Watkins Johnson makes. > >Reciever is being built into the new MSS-3500 briefcase system, which will >allow automated spectrum monitoring of 40ghz of spectrum in 8/9ghz >segments. > > =============================================================== > >Just finished playing with a nasty little Radio Shack (CM-421) >single channel VHF microphone. > >While the product is designed for use in the 160-220 range, it's designed >so that to be recrystalized and usable anywhere in the world. > >The product can be easily retuned from 90-300Mhz (by the book), power >output is variable via a pot from 5mw to 50mw. > >Current drain is around 40ma at 50mw, and much lower for 5mw output. > >Product is extremely stable, with adjustable deviations (to +/1 100khz) > >Integral tietack microphone > >Radio Shack will sell the xmitter only for around >50 bucks (I bought several to eval) > > =============================================================== > >Recently had access to some of the new fiber optic devices out there and >wanted to post some of the techniques by which they can be detected. > > >Subject device optics are made by Corning Glass, and consists of three >components. The "electronics" are manufactured by E-systems in Dallas, TX. > > >The entire installation kit fits into two 18 * 22 * 7 briefcases made by >SKB, the first case contains a battery powered automatic fusion >splicer/LID, equipment to test the installation, and a tool kit. The second >case contains the microphones, spools of "cable", optical modules, >controllers, and battery packs > > >1. "Front-End Microphone" is a small glass cylinder roughly 2.5mm wide x >5mm long with a small 1.5mm long pinhole tube on one end, and a 3 to 12 ft >50/125 fiber tail on the other. This part of the system is designed to be >installed "pinhole" style. Pigtail cable is routed to and fusion spliced >into a "Runner Cable". The microphone contains small barbs to keep it in >position with out the use of adhesives. A small 2.5mm needle drill bit is >used to drill the hole. > >2. The "Runner Cable" is a 50um/125um fiber optic bundle, typically 3 to 8 >fibers are combined to allow a single runner to support 6-8 devices. This >cable is flat and measures roughly 125um high, and .75 to 1mm wide. Cable >has a min. bend radius of 4cm, and is field terminated with a small >automated fusion splicer to the "Front-End Microphone". This cable can be >left loose or secured with an adhesive. Installation kit contains a small >flexible installation tube to assist in installing below carpet or behind >wood panelling. > >3. The "Repeater" consists of a disguised box roughly 15cm x 5cm x 5cm, >with an optional battery pack/power supply/trickle charger (15cm x 10cm x >5cm) or the device can be powered directly off of AC Mains. The repeater >can be easily installed and hidden in a cinder block or concrete on an >outside wall. It looks like the device is for long term installations, it >is totally sealed and the electronics have conformal coatings/potting. > >Device appears to emit a RF digital signal using 64/128/256 QAM Spread >Spectrum modulation on programmable frequencies between 1.5ghz and 8.5 ghz. >Modulator is contained into a "flat-pack" style antenna module. A 512kbps >baseband signal is supplied to the antenna (bit stream can go as high as >2mbps, the one I examined was set for 512). > >Note: The "repeater" supplies the antenna with a baseband signal, control >codes, and power. The modulator/transmitter is contained in the antenna. > >The device uses an RF guard channel that is used to deactivate all >emissions (Go Mute) upon remote command. > >The "repeater" utilizes 8 fiber outputs (it has 8 field replacable optical >modules), and one min. SMA connector for the baseband output. Suspect the >device can also be be uploaded with transmision times. It also contains >sufficent memory (32mb) to hold a good 4 hours or more of compressed audio. > >Repeater can also transmit (Spread Spectrum) over telco or power lines with >a small adapter (I was not able to secure the frequencies, but I suspect >somewhere between 200khz and 3 mhz). > > >Device Operation: > >System uses a 50/125 Raw fiber optic distribution system, the fiber is >coated, but not jacketed or buffered in any way. The fiber has a frequency >response between 1230 to 1550/1710? single mode. I suspect it is standard >single mode (1500nm) fiber strand. > >The "Repeater" contains a low power single mode solid state light source, a >duplexer/splitter (prism), and a light reciever. The light beam is >transmitted into the fiber, travels to the "Front-End" where it is is >reflected against an angled vibrating membrane. The membrane causes a >slight frequency shift in the light beam, which is reflected back to the >"Repeater" where it is "picked" off with a prism and solid state detector. >(typical fiber optic microphone). > > >Counter-Measures: > >There is NO METAL in the microphone or fiber distribution system, and they >CANNOT be detected by a Non-Lin (no non-linear junctions). Nor can they be >detected with metal detectors, and no electro-magnetic field is present on >the "Front End". > >The "Repeater" section is fairly to detect with a non lin, but since it is >supposed installed into the outside wall it tends not to be practical. The >ideal way to detect is to sweep the exterior of the building for RF >emissions. Also, the unit tends to run VERY hot (110-135 degrees), and >should be visible as a thermal anomally. > >Also, the system can be detected by looking for minute amounts of light >"leaking" from both the microphone, fusion couplings, and fiber >distribution system. > >The pinhole for the microphone can be detected with a IR visual search >around 440 to 450nm (you'll need a light source with at least 500,00 candle >power, the Blue Light Ultra works well, or an Omnichrome). > >Once a suspect pinhole is found it can be tested for IR with a conventional >Spectrum Analyser with a IR front end (the Tektronix SA-42 or SA-46 works >well). There is always a small amount or IR leakage with this system. > >Once the microphone is detected it is a fairly simple matter to trace the >line back to the controller module or "Repeater" > >Keep in mind that the system is designed to use 3 to 8 microphones. > > >I am going to get a look at an OC-12 clamp-on fiber optic tapping system in >a few weeks and will advise. > > =============================================================== > > >As always, >Please treat this information as highly confidential and >please do not redistribute, Thank You > > >Regards, > >-jma > > =============================================================== > Train, Observe, Detect, Protect, Defend, Repel > =============================================================== > James M. Atkinson > Granite Island Group - TSCM.COM > 127 Eastern Avenue #291 http://www.tscm.com/ > Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 jmatk(a)tscm.com > =============================================================== > The First, The Largest, The Most Popular, and the Most > Complete TSCM Counterintelligence Site on the Internet > =============================================================== >

2 1