There's a good possibility that Saddam was traced by Tempest
sensing, airborne or mundane. The technology is far more sensitive
than a decade ago. And with a lot of snooping technology kept obscure
by tales of HUMINT, finks, lost laptops and black bag jobs.
For less sensitive compromising
While I agree with much of what you say I don't think it's likely that any
kind of advanced SIGINT operation was what brought him down. The most important thing
to have is intelligence from humans. From insiders. This is partly the problem with
the intelligence agencies today. They
On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists)
field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem.
If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a
cryptographic processor), we may put
TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists)
field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem.
If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a
cryptographic processor), we may put the device into a solid metal case
without holes,
There's a good possibility that Saddam was traced by Tempest
sensing, airborne or mundane. The technology is far more sensitive
than a decade ago. And with a lot of snooping technology kept obscure
by tales of HUMINT, finks, lost laptops and black bag jobs.
For less sensitive compromising
While I agree with much of what you say I don't think it's likely that any
kind of advanced SIGINT operation was what brought him down. The most important thing
to have is intelligence from humans. From insiders. This is partly the problem with
the intelligence agencies today. They
TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists)
field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem.
If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a
cryptographic processor), we may put the device into a solid metal case
without holes,
On Dec 14, 2003, at 8:33 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
TEMPEST shielding is fairly esoteric (at least for non-EM-specialists)
field. But potentially could be made easier by simplifying the problem.
If we won't want to shield the user interface (eg. we want just a
cryptographic processor), we may put
