In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kurt
Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
(Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask)
Plenty of NANOs will have bits of network in the EU (or indeed within
the remit of the Cybercrime Convention which the USA has signed but not
ratified).
So the EU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask)
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to
provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-01-20, at 22.19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson
writes:
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number
(100's) of
potential tapping points,
On 21.01 09:24, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is
pretty much the same all over
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This is a feature, not a bug. Law enforcement is required to pay --
up front -- all costs of tapping. No pay, no play.
Oh, I wish, I wish
In NL, law dictates any telecommunicatins device (as defined amongst things
as anything with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kurt
Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is
pretty much
Sean Donelan wrote:
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable to the surveillance subject, not missing any
relevant data, and not exposing the installer to undue risk?
'Best' rarely has a straight-forward answer. ;-)
Lawful access is subject to many of the
Scott C. McGrath
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Eriks Rugelis wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable to the surveillance subject, not missing any
relevant data, and not exposing the installer to undue
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number (100's) of
potential tapping points, then you will quickly determine that in-line taps
have very poor scaling properties.
a) They are not rack-dense
b) They require external power warts
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson writes:
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number (100's) of
potential tapping points, then you will quickly determine that in-line taps
have very poor scaling properties.
a) They are
On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 21:08, Sean Donelan wrote:
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable
The best way to go undetectable is easy, run the sniffer without an IP
address. The best way to tap a network varies with your setup. If your
repeated, just plug in
Assuming lawful purposes, what is the best way to tap a network
undetectable
...
The best solution I've found is to use an Ethernet tap. It allows you to
piggy back off of an existing connection and monitor all the traffic
going to and from that system. Its pretty undetectable, does not
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Vixie writes:
i'm fairly sure that this is what law enforcement uses for wiretap warrants.
I believe you're correct. In fact, I first learned of these devices
from government documents during the Carnivore discussions a few years
ago.
You can plug a mini-hub in line and use that as a tap point to monitor
the stream. Up side is its cheap and easy. Down side is you have to
drop to half duplex. Not a problem in most situations but in some the
drop in performance can be an issue.
Don't throw out your old hubs. It's hard to find
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Vixie writes:
i'm fairly sure that this is what law enforcement uses for wiretap warrants.
I believe you're correct. In fact, I first learned of these devices
from government documents during the Carnivore
I'd have to say this depends on the media involved.
ethernet switches allow the monitoring of specific ports (or entire
vlans) in most cases. This can be done without impact (assuming nobody
goofs on the ethernet switch config) to other people and limit the scope
of packets
We've been using Shomiti taps for several years with good effect. All
they do is copy all the data going through a segment (100bT in our case)
to two ports, one for inbound, another for outbound. Now Finisar, they
sell both copper and fiber taps for a variety of media, including Ethernet
from
17 matches
Mail list logo
