On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Mike Rosing wrote: > I think you're over reacting. RFID tags only have a range of centimeters. > You'd need a huge current to power them from more than 1 meter, and that's > just not going to be out on a beach in a hidden way.
I heard these ones have range up to 1.5 meters. And you need much less power if you use a directional antenna (which can be part of some fixed installation). > Since the coupling is magnetic a Faraday cage won't work. But a thin > piece of mu metal would work pretty well. Wasn't aware about RF tags being magnetically coupled. Anyone other to support/deny this? Hadn't knew about mu metal. Thanks. :) Could be a nice thing for EM shielding, especially of things like transformers. > It's just for inventory control! They probably mount it on a tag you can > rip off when you go to wear the clothing. If it will proliferate, alternate uses spring up as natural byproduct. Until then, the countermeasures are cool toys. Besides, EU plans to embed RF tags into paper money. > The stuff you need to worry about is already out there as radio > transmitters being planted by cops in your keyboard. The battle is > already engaged, how's our defense look against real threats? Standard area-denial measures, physical security systems, hardware/software audits, RF shielding? Regarding TEMPEST shielding - there is another, complementary approach for shielding: jamming. There are vendors selling devices that drown the RF emissions of computer equipment in noise, so TEMPEST receivers get nothing. Are there any publicly available specs of such generators, or even building plans?
