[iwar] Historical posting
From: Fred Cohen
From: fc@all.net
To: iwar@onelist.com
Mon, Jan 1, 1999
fc Mon Jan 1, 1999
Received: (from fc@localhost) by all.net (8.9.3/8.7.3) id FAA15269 for iwar@onelist.com; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:21:43 -0700
To: iwar@onelist.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe:
Date: Mon, Jan 1, 1999
From: Fred Cohen
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: [iwar] Historical posting
I will say up front that I am not a TEMPEST expert, but...I find such a
claim difficult to swallow.
I cannot imagine software modulating the display frequencies in such a way
as to defeat a counterpart detection program (one must have an adequately
sensitive detector merely to measure if the proposed modulation amount is
sufficient, thereby already having the prototype for the device that will
defeat the software one is inventing). Nor do I perceive the value in such
a thing, given the potential for
- incompatibilities with programs that would process through such a driver;
- human factors problems related to eye strain and other things (shoulder
pain from hunching over to
read a too dark or low contrast display)
I'm afraid I would have to see a full blown test before I would believe such
a claim as this.
Ross A. Leo, CISSP, CBCP
CSOC/Omitron
From: Tony Bartoletti azb@l...
I recall reading a year ago, that some of the strongest TEMPEST
emanations come from the video display, and that an interceptor
would typically capture the "raster scan" to see the screen.
Additionally, that the easiest portion of display to read was
the "black text on white background" (or vice versa) since the
contrast between them is so strong.
That article mentioned a product that purports to significantly
reduce TEMPEST emanations "through software alone", by replacing
the video driver with a version that (for text alone?) would
substitute "off white" for white background, and "dark text" for
truely black text. It claimed this small change was significant.
Anyone else hear of it? Or believe it? Sounds plausible, yet
still a bit fishy...
___tony___
At 05:52 AM 11/24/1999 -0800, Fred Cohen wrote:
>From: Fred Cohen fc@a...
>
>FROM ZDNET: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/42/ns-10976.html
>
>News Burst: Cypherpunks publish proof of TEMPEST
>Tue, 26 Oct 1999 12:04:06 GMT
>Will Knight
>ZDNN UK TECH NEWS
>
>Information concerning a semi-mythical electromagnetic computer
>monitoring technology developed by the US government has been
>uncovered by Cypherpunks, an American technology activism
>group.
>
>The technology, TEMPEST, supposedly allows computer activity
>to be monitored remotely according to electromagnetic radiation
>emanations. TEMPEST has long been rumoured although no
>concrete proof of it has ever been discovered.
>
>Cypherpunks claims to have obtained information about
>TEMPEST from the US National Security Agency (NSA) through
>the freedom of information act and have published the information:
>
>http://cryptome.org/nt1-92-1-5.htm
>
>FC
------------------
http://all.net/