July 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cheap TDR for fibers?
by Thomas Shaddack 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

The laser diodes used in eg. CD players have a feedback photodiode, sensing the laser's optical output. If the lasers used for optical fibers have similar mechanism too, and if the diode is sensitive to the light coming to it not only from the chip but also from the fiber itself, and can react quickly enough with high enough sensitivity, maybe it could be exploited. In chosen moments, we could then send a short pulse of laser light into the fiber, then watch the signal from the feedback diode, what gets reflected back from nonhomogenities on the fiber. This would give us the distances of all the splices and connectors, and let us know immediately (if the test is performed eg. once per 5 seconds or with similar short period) that there is an attempt to compromise the line underway. Comparison of snapshots from longer periods apart could also serve to find deterioration of the signal path before it results in failure. The advantage of this approach, if possible, is the ability to add the functionality without having to modify the optical transceivers themselves. It sounds too good to be true, so it probably won't work, but I may be wrong...

1 0

Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
by Tyler Durden 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

JA, ya' gotta good point here. Or at least, this sheds a lot of doubt on things. But then again, the purpose of GIG-BE may be precisely to move an optical copy (use a $100 splitter) back to processing centers where the traffic is stored. In this case, they won't even be trying to break it down to circuits prior to storage...they may instead dump the raw OC-Ns directly onto some kind of fast storage medium and then sift through it later. The idea of duplicating all optical traffic seems a little farfetched, though, but I bet everything from the cable landings may soon get swallowed whole, if it isn't already. I'm still thinking they must do some kind of "grooming" prior to mass backhauls of traffic. There are just too many fibers and too many transmission systems out there for them to duplicate all of it. Perhaps at the routers they sniff, and then CALEA whatever circuit that conversation came out of. -TD >From: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org> >To: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> >CC: eugen(a)leitl.org, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:07:10 -0500 (CDT) > > >On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: > > > "I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit >Ethernet." > > > > WAN won't be 1GbE, but it will probably be 10GbE with SONET framing, or >else > > OC-192c POS (ie, PPP-encapsulated HDLC-framed MPLS). In either case, I > > suspect it will be far cheaper in the long run to monitor a big fat pipe > > than to try to break out a zillion lil' tiny DS1s. > > > > -TD > >OK, so Tyler [apparently] works in the business :-) > >Let me fill in what he left out. Yes, the industry is moving towards >MPLS over POS. That's not where it is now though. At least not for most >interfaces. Right now the industry is chock full of lagacy gear, mostly >old fashioned ATM. You think you can just casually reassemble this crap >in transit? Let's see it! > >Besides that old fashioned transport diversity, we have the original >problem: even if you could do it (maybe in three to five years), what are >you going to do with the data you've snarfed? Backhaul it? Shove it into >TB cassettes? Better keep a guy on staff to change the tray!! > >None of the many obstacles curretly in the way will allow this to be done >on the QT. Semi-openly would be another story, as would the scenario of a >smaller, say regional, ISP. > >-- >Yours, > >J.A. Terranson >sysadmin(a)mfn.org >0xBD4A95BF > > "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do > not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out > about them." Osama Bin Laden > - - - > > "There aught to be limits to freedom!" George Bush > - - - > >Which one scares you more? _________________________________________________________________ Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/

2 1

Re:
by Die 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

Lovely animals [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of Dog.scr]

1 0

Re:
by Die 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

The snake [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of Doll.cpl]

1 0

Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
by Tyler Durden 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

"I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit Ethernet." WAN won't be 1GbE, but it will probably be 10GbE with SONET framing, or else OC-192c POS (ie, PPP-encapsulated HDLC-framed MPLS). In either case, I suspect it will be far cheaper in the long run to monitor a big fat pipe than to try to break out a zillion lil' tiny DS1s. -TD >From: Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> >To: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org>, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:34:18 +0200 > >On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:50:16AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > I have seen a passive tap on a gig line used for IDS, true, but that's > > pretty close to the state of the art right now. There's an issue with > >There are dedicated network processors, though, and one can outsorce the >filter bottlenecks into an FPGA board. This is still reasonably small and >cheap. > > > getting the interfaces for the 1U Dell, and then you have the secondary > > issues of just how much encapsulated crap do you need to strip off, and > > how fast. Remeber, you only get 1 shot, and you *can't* ask for more >time > > - if your buffer runneth over, you be screwed. > > > > It's not as easy as it feels. > >I think it would be far easier if WAN protocols were plain GBit Ethernet. > >-- >Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ><< attach3 >> _________________________________________________________________ Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/

2 1

Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
by Tyler Durden 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

"At times of 10 GBit Ethernet, OC192 data rate doesn't seem all that intimidating." Well, as it turns out the 10GbE standard has a few flavors, and one of them uses a 'lite' version of OC-192 framing. So for all intents and purposes, consider them the same data rate. -TD >From: Eugen Leitl <eugen(a)leitl.org> >To: "J.A. Terranson" <measl(a)mfn.org>, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:46:10 +0200 > >On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 06:13:49AM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > A NIC? You gotta realize that we're talking about mesh circuits here: > > OC3-OC48 trunks, OC192 backbones... This is no small job. A mom/pop or > >At times of 10 GBit Ethernet, OC192 data rate doesn't seem all that >intimidating. > >A standard 1U Dell should have enough crunch to just filter out the >plain text packets of a 1 GBps Ethernet line. > > > midsized regional maybe you could do this - you know, the guy with a >half > > a dozen DS3s. > >-- >Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> >______________________________________________________________ >ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org >8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE >http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net ><< attach3 >> _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

1 0

Magic Smoke?
by Tyler Durden 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

Ah yes. Are you referring to the smoke that powers telecom gear? (ie, the gear works until you see smoke pouring out of the top.) I had imagined this to be distributed throughout the NE... As for trolling, well, ahem. I've NEVER done that before... -TD >From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> >To: Tyler Durden <camera_lumina(a)hotmail.com> >CC: mv(a)cdc.gov, cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: vacuum-safe laptops ? >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:13:13 +0200 (CEST) > > >On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: > > > Sorry to need educating once again, but I had assumed can-shaped >capacitors > > were gone from laptops in lieu of surface mount. Anyone know? (I don't >own a > > laptop.) > >The can caps can be surface-mounted as well. The leads then look >different, but the inside is still the same: a metal can with etched >aluminum strips and an insulator soaked with electrolyte. The magic smoke >they are filled with also has the same color and smell as their non-SMD >predecessors. > >See also http://www.elna.co.jp/en/ct/c_al01.htm for brief description of >liquid-electrolyte aluminum capacitors. > >There are also some more modern constructions, where the electrolyte is >solid-state. (The tantalum capacitors, which are more common in SMD form >than the aluminum ones, use MnO2 as electrolyte and Ta2O5 as insulator. >The added advantage here is that during a breakdown, the MnO2 layer >locally overheats and is converted to less conductive Mn2O3, which causes >the breakdown to "heal". Similar mechanism is used in capacitors with >solid-state plastic electrolyte.) > >I suppose the solid-state caps could be much more reliable in the >conditions of rapid pressure changes, if they won't have moisture or air >trapped inside their construction. _________________________________________________________________ Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/

1 0

Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
by Tyler Durden 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

"If you think the cable landings in Va/Md are coincidental, you are smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the archiving and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your "the right to" idioms." Well, I don't actually believe it's all recorded. As I've attempted to explain previously, "they" almost certainly have risk models in place. When several variables twinkle enough (eg, origination area, IP address, presence of crypto...) some rule fires and then diverts a copy into the WASP'S Nest. There's probably some kind of key word search that either diverts the copy into storage or into the short list for an analyst to peek it. -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto >proxies >Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:40:29 -0700 > >At 02:47 PM 7/6/04 -0700, Hal Finney wrote: > >> Messages in storage have much lower judicial protection than messages >in > >> transit. (This does not have much technical merit, in the current > >> atmosphere of "damn the laws - there are terrorists around the >corner", > >> but can be seen as a nice little potential benefit.) > >Ie zero. > > >One thing I haven't understood in all the commentary is whether law > >enforcment still needs a warrant to access emails stored in this way. > >Apparently the ISP can read them without any notice or liability, but > >what about the police? > >You are state meat, whether 5150'd or not. > > >Also, what if you run your own mail spool, so the email is never stored > > >at the ISP, it just passes through the routers controlled by the ISP > >(just like it passed through a dozen other routers on the internet). > >Does this give the ISP (and all the other router owners) the right to > >read your email? I don't think so, it seems like that would definitely > > >cross over the line from "mail in storage" to "mail in transit". > >If you think the cable landings in Va/Md are coincidental, you are >smoking something I've run out of. Its all recorded. I'm sure the >archiving >and database groups in Ft. Meade will get a chuckle out of your >"the right to" idioms. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ MSN 9 Dial-up Internet Access helps fight spam and pop-ups now 2 months FREE! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/

6 12

RE: FIPS chassis/linux security engineer?
by Lucky Green 18 Jul '04

18 Jul '04

Hmm. Looking at the amazing number of unread messages in this folder, the list sure has picked up again. Eric wrote: > Does anyone know of a manufacturer of FIPS 140 certified or > certifiable 1u/2u rack mount chassis? Eric, There is a lot more to FIPS 140-2 than the case. It's what's inside the aluminum case that matters. In principle, any solid case with 6 sides could be the basis for a FIPS certified device. --Lucky Green ________________________________________________________________ This message could have been secured by PGP Universal. To secure future messages from this sender, please click this link: https://keys.cypherpunks.to/b/b.e?r=cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net

1 0

Re: vacuum-safe laptops ?
by Major Variola (ret) 17 Jul '04

17 Jul '04

At 05:15 PM 7/17/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: >Sorry to need educating once again, but I had assumed can-shaped capacitors >were gone from laptops in lieu of surface mount. Anyone know? (I don't own a >laptop.) >-TD With apologies, you really seem a troll at times. The *power supply* may use can-caps, obviously the bottom of the CPU is littered with solid-state ceramic babies.

1 0