On 6/5/07, Michal Zalewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Brian Loe wrote: > I think I get your point on false positives for chemicals - but > radiation? Smoke sensors, antistatic brushes, certain watches, radiotherapy patients on the street (they already set off airport alarms). And it's not exactly illegal for unlicensed civilians to buy and posses small quantities of radioactive material, you know. Speaking of which, I'm wondering how much fun it must be to be an amateur or professional chemist who for any reason handles nitrides... just how much fun it must be at the airport.
Think he meant nitrates... On the radiation side, I guess it depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a nuclear device that has not gone off, yes the sensitivity required to detect it would be high. If you're looking for hotspots where a dirty bomb might be hidden, then the sensitivity doesnt have to be that high. Same for chemical devices.. Detecting a weapon prior to activation requires higher sensitivity. Detecting already deployed chemical or nuclear material doesnt.
_______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
