>>Not to belittle the naivete about security in the company's claims, they're using microwave transmissions. I don't think your Pringles can will do much.
Following up on my own point, Wikipedia says (and we all know everything in Wikipedia has been vetted by the best experts and has to be true) that microwave transmission is point-to-point, so you'd need to stick your tower - I mean Pringles can - in the way. I'm not saying that nosing in on this communication is impossible, but it looks hard to me, and probably expensive. The points they make about being impervious to hurricanes, etc., are iffy in some senses, but not others. The transmitters are built on police towers which I'm sure are hardened against natural disaster; even in New Jersey, for instance, I know that police stations have to be reinforced against earthquakes. (I was on a committee that sited one in my town.) So it's fair to say that they don't have as much worry about telephone poles being knocked down. But how does the data get from the police tower to the bank? They probably run dedicated lines, and have to be concerned with the integrity of them. Here's another unclear point: The article says "[t]he main benefit for state police is the reliability of wireless communications during hurricane conditions..." (note the plan calls for giving a few MB of bandwidth to the police). But Wikipedia says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_transmission) "...microwaves are highly susceptible to attenuation by the atmosphere (especially during wet weather)..." and "Affected by rain, vapour, dust, snow, cloud, mist and fog, heavy moisture" Larry Seltzer eWEEK.com Security Center Editor http://security.eweek.com/ http://blogs.eweek.com/cheap_hack/ Contributing Editor, PC Magazine [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ 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.
