Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
COMSEC Letter 1985
ComSec Letter
Editor: James A. Ross
YOGO 1
1985
COMSEC LETTER
The ComSec Letter was started in 1984, The Year Of George
Orwell, by Jim Ross. Initially it was mailed at no charge to
everyone on his mailing list, and it was later offered by
subscription. After the founding of the Communication Security
Association, the letter became its official organ. In 1989 the
association decided to create a new organ, Comsec Journal; and,
in order to minimize confusion, the name of this letter was
changed to Surveillance.
What follows is an edited version of the contents of one
year of the letter. (The letter has been edited to remove
topical, superfluous, and outdated items.)
Ross Engineering, Inc.
7906 Hope Valley Court
Adamstown, MD 21710
Tel: 301-831-8400; Fax: 301-874-5100
January, 1985
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
In a recent issue of Security Management there was a report of a
judicial decision which gives rise to some most serious
questions. From the magazine's Legal Reporter section:
"Inciarrano v. Florida (35 Cr.L. 3273). The question in this
Florida case was whether a tape recording made by the victim of
his own murder at the hands of the defendant was admissible as
evidence. The victim, unbeknownst to the defendant, had taped
their last conversation, including the five gunshots [sic] that
killed him. The defendant's attorney objected on the grounds his
client had never consented to the recording -- consent is
required under Florida law. The Florida Fourth District Court of
Appeals agreed and suppressed the evidence."
Alice stepped through the looking glass, and what she
experienced was sane and orderly compared to this, in our
opinion.
A man commits murder, and evidence against him cannot be used
because his right to privacy was abridged!
Doesn't it seem reasonable that a person loses some of his
protections under the law while he is violating the law?
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. MORE ON CN/A
News of a phone company which is doing something which is
eminently sensible, logical, reasonable, and also makes them some
money for a resource which they own and have never exploited.
According to Telephony South Central Bell is now selling CN/A
information. If you want to learn the name and address for the
subscriber, you provide the operator with the number, and for the
fee of 40 cents, SCB will relate the customers name and address
(CN/A) including zip code. Although the service was first offered
last August, it is not yet available throughout the SCB
territory. They expect to have it available throughout their
territory early in 1985, with 7.5 million CN/A listings updated
continuously.
Our congratulations to SCB. Let's hope the other telcos get the
idea, and begin to offer this service.
(This development makes us feel good because we have never liked
the idea of advising people on how to use subterfuge to access
phone companies' data bases.)
STRESS DETECTION
At least one person misunderstood one of our points in our
earlier segment on lie detection, so we'll try again. We've been
told, and we believe, that the language used by the examiner must
be appropriate to the examinee. In our earlier article, we said
thet there is a whole class of people who do not understand the
concept of steal. We did not say that these people do not know
what the word "steal" means; they just do not
understand the concept of steal. If they take something from a
store without paying, they do not think of that as stealing.
YOGO
During 1984 your editor started numbering these letters with
this strange combination of letters in front of some numbers.
This unexplained element in our masthead created absolutely zero
response -- contrary to what we expected. The lack of response
inspired us to announce a contest to guess what the letters
meant.
Thus was born the YOGO contest -- a somewhat whimsical test of
your imagination. Responses were really interesting. Ed Leary got
the first two words, but he missed the last two words with: "Year
of Growing Opportunities", and "Year of Gratuitous Operation".
(He also submitted "You're Only Growing Older"!) Dennis
Steinauer of the National Bureau of Standards said, "Considering
the content and flavor of your letter, the answer is obviously
Year of George Orwell, and he won a one year extension to his
subscription to COMSEC LETTER for that correct solution.
Now let's be more serious. We're still numbering this letter
based on 1984 being the zero year of George Orwell, and we intend
to continue to point out examples of modern phenomena which were
forecast in Orwell's fantasies. Some of these things that we see
are merely humerous; others are frightening.
For a "today" look at BIG BROTHER:
The Private Sector by George O'Toole. W.W. Norton & Co. 1978.
Reveals the existence of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit
(LEIU), a "non-government" organization which compiles dossiers
on private citizens, and seems to be immune to penetration under
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
If any aspect of the fantasies in Animal Farm seem too far out,
you should look into:
Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan. Random House. 1984. The author
maintains that the true story of the Watergate affair is a far
cry from what we got from the news media. For example, he states
that the telephone calls monitored in Howard Johnsons Hotel were
not Democrat National Committee business; they were negotiations
with rostitutes! However titillating that information may be, the
book contains some chilling obsevations, e.g.,
1. page 90. CIA agents putting their director under
surveillance with written orders stating "At no time should the
Director be made aware of SUGAR coverage......"
2. page 274. Secretary of Defense Schlesinger
".......countermanding in advance any 'unwarranted military
directives' that President Nixon might issue."
3. page 312. "...Alexander Haig had ordered the
Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CIC) [sic] to make a study
of the President's alleged ties to organized crime ....."
Here's some Newspeak from the Washington Post:
In reporting that the government is allowing the phone companies
to add two dollars per month to all our phone bills so that we
can have access to what we already have acces to, the Post
reports, with no editorial comment, "The FCC made the decision
while releasing two reports justifying the charges as a way to
hold down local phone costs ......."
I guess everyone who sells to the FCC should start charging them
more for things in order to help keep their expenditures down.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
The following questions are from George Austin of Camelback
Investigations, Phoenix, AZ.
Q. What are the legal ramifications of accessing proprietary
Bell or AT&T information (i.e. CNA)?
A. ANI and CNA are two telco sources of information which can be
of help to the investigator. In accessing ANI, you are using an
infinitessimal amount of their computer time and probably not
interfering with their operation in any way -- but you are still
using something of theirs which is not intended for your use; in
other words you are stealing. Do they care? I doubt it.
CNA is a different story. To use this data base, you must
pretend to be a telco employee, and you do use a real employee's
time. So here you are involved in fraud and theft. Do they care?
I'm sure they do. They're not dumb, and they know that
investigators have been using this service; and in many places
they will now only provide the customer's name -- we think partly
to thwart outside use of their facilities.
Is either of these things a big deal? In our opinion, no. We
think that in taking protective steps, the telcos may be
overreacting. On the other hand, we heartily endorse the move by
South Central Bell to sell this information. It's valuable. It's
not protected by any privacy act provisions because the records
are available to many people in the ordinary course of doing
business and therefore public. All telcos, in our opinion, should
follow SCB's lead.
Q. What is the current status regarding limited access to
government and quasi-government data banks (i.e. NCIC) per recent
legislation to locate missing juveniles and Interpol?
A. Hoo Boy! You have asked a question for which we don't even
have a hint of an answer -- but we'd sure like to! Can anyone
help? Call or write if you have any information.
Q. Under what area in federal and state purview do number
recorders (surreptitiously planted to record outgoing calls)
fall?
A. First, the number recorders do not record calls; they record
only the activity on the line -- time off hook, time on hook,
dialed number on outgoing calls, number of rings on incoming
calls.
Second, they are not always surreptitiously planted. Sometimes
they are used for business purposes such as checking up on which
employee is in the habit of making personal long distance calls
on the business phone.
Now, finally, we'll get around to answering your question -- at
least in general. There are many court precedents which hold that
the information which these devices collect is public information
and not protected by privacy statutes. (If you want specifics, we
know a very sharp lawyer to whom we can refer you.)
Another consideration, though, is how you connect the device to
someone else's line if that person has not consented. In that
case, there is no doubt that some trespass is involved. You are
trespassing against either the telco or its subscriber; but,
again, it's no big deal in most cases. (Of course, if breaking
and entering is involved, then it becomes a big deal.)
OPPORTUNISM, WORLD CLASS
In a recent issue PC World details the saga of Southwestern Bell
and its effort to garner even more revenue by declaring that
those who send only two pure tones (via data modems) over their
lines must pay more to use those lines than those who send the
very complex waveform of human speech over them. In 1983 SWB
started charging modem users (the article said modem owners, but
that is too 1984ish for even us to believe) an additional $44.90
per month for phone service. Organized protests have resulted in
a recission of the rate addition, but we'll bet that this phone
company, and others, will all eventually figure out ways to
convince the public utilities commissions that they deserve
higher rates from modem users.
In other words, we think that the victory by the little guys is
a tactical setback for the big guys, but that the big guys will
win big sooner or later.
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ASSOCIATION
If you have already subscribed to the COMSEC LETTER and now wish
to join the Communications Security Association, everything that
you paid for your COMSEC LETTER subscription can be credited to
your first year's CSAdues. Just note on the CSA membership
application that you want to do this.
This offer is valid only through March, 1985, and your CSA
membership will end at the same time that the original
subscription would have ended.
THAT INTERESTING AD IN SECURITY WORLD
Bonnie Van Gilder ran an ad in the January issue of Security
World which raised a lot of eyebrows. "Researcher looking for
information on bugs in marital situations, ..." Several of our
subscribers have called to bring it to our attention or to
inquire as to its authenticity.
Some time ago Bonnie contacted us and requested details
regarding real bugging situations, but we never reveal
information about our clients so all she got were some background
facts regarding the laws, availability of equipment, etc.
Considering the popularity of sting operations, and the famous
(infamous?) one that the FBI has reportedly been engaged in
recently with some sellers of countersurveillance equipment, we
wonder if Bonnie will be able to collect any useable facts.
SECURITY LETTER SOURCE BOOK
Our hat is off to Bob McCrie and his staff for the breakdown of
categories of security related equipment and services. In this
field it is the best taxonomy we have ever seen -- in fact, we
recommended it to the government office which is working on
revamping SIC codes.
We recommend this source book. Contact Bob McCrie, Security
Letter, 166 E 96th St, New York, NY 10028.
INTERESTING PUBLICATIONS FOR THE INVESTIGATOR
Telephone Records and other titles are available from Thomas
Publications, 937 Reinli, #1, Austin, TX 78751.
February, 1985
EDITORIAL
In rereading the YOGO 1.01 issue, I wondered if I had made
myself clear, especially in the comments that I made about the
laws. Just in case I had not, I'm adding these editorial remarks
to be sure that I am not misunderstood.
When I offer an opinion, it is just that -- an opinion. It might
be more valid than someone else's; it might not. Yes, I have
thought about the ideas that I express; and yes, I hope that I'm
right and that you'll be better informed after reading my letter
-- but I know that I'm not always right.
If you disagree with any point, I'd be delighted to get a letter
from you expressing your views (and I'd probably run it in this
newsletter).
In writing about the laws I'm not trying to provide legal
advice. I'm not qualified to do that. All I'm trying to do is air
some ideas which may be helpful. If thoughtful contrary opinions
are sent in, I'll pass them along.
MORE ON THE LAWS
No matter what your politics or profession, one thing that you
should be certain of is that there are no absolutes in questions
of interpretation of the law. From time to time we see positive
pronouncements as to what Title III (or some other law) means,
and we wonder at the marvelous ego of the person who thinks he
can predict with certainty how a law will ultimately be
interpreted. Keep in mind that there are many stages in testing a
law (trials, appeals, etc.); and that, even before any law is
tested, it must be interpreted by many people with many differing
points of view.
We see many overlaps, gaps and ambiguities in the laws relating
to communications. Further, as electronics engineers in the field
of communications, we see a laxity in the use of our language
which is downright frightening.
Some examples of the lack of precision in language:
"Oral", "verbal", and "aural" have all been used when the word
"voice" (used as an adjective) would have conveyed the precise
meaning intended. One Department of Justice instruction assumes
(contrary to logic and many court decisions) that dialing
instructions (call routing) are a part of the communication
between the parties, and are therefore protected. In the same
document, however, the DOJ takes the position that computerized
data carried by wire are not protected because "aural
acquisition" is not possible. (They apparently think that a
person can hear only voice, not tones!)
(The DOJ document which we refer to is dated 12-31-84, and it
purports to "explain" the technical provisions of 50 USC 1801 and
18 USC 2510.)
COMMUNICATION SECURITY ASSOCIATION
Some correspondence that came in recently indicates that some
folks just do not understand what becoming a charter member
means.
Let's back up and consider just what this new association is,
and what it is not.
It is not an AFCEA, or an IEEE, or an ASIS, or an IACP. It is
not an established organization with a headquarters, and a staff,
and history, and traditions, a million dollars in the bank, etc.
It has no elected officers. In fact, its directors are only
temporary directors until the membership can elect the first
slate.
All it is is an idea of a few people, and the only real benefit
of membership is a subscription to this letter. So far the CSA
staff cosists of one volunteer, Jim Ross. Its membership packet
is the two sheets of paper composed by him on his computer,
printed by his printer, and copied on his paper, using his Xerox,
and mailed to everyone on his mailing list using his bulk rate
mail permit.
Two sheets of paper were mailed. Everyone got a double sided
sheet describing what Jim Ross thinks CSA is. Everyone who had
sent in $50 got a sheet entitled "MEMBERSHIP CONFIRMATION".
Everyone else got a sheet entitled "MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION".
To all who received that mailing, and asked when they would
receive a membership packet: "That's it. You got all there is."
Of course, there will be improvements. (We have nowhere to go
but up!) Recently we arranged for some computer program
enhancements, and we were able to hire some help to do a part of
a mailing. Dave Olsen in Westchester volunteered to work with
Arnold Blumenthal (PTN Publishing, Woodbury, NY) to put together
a membership packet. (We have mailed him material from other
associations to provide some ideas in his creative effort.) When
finished it will be more detailed and will certainly look better
than the Xerox material which was mailed last month. Soon we'll
put out a list of members, and what they have offered to do, but
it all takes time.
There is a membership card and certificate coming along.
However, all work on these things is being done by unpaid
volunteers, and it will be finished when it is finished.
Back to what it means to be a charter member. It means you are
taking a chance. It means you wonder if the organization will
survive. On the one hand, you may have your name listed in the
organization's records as one of the pioneers who helped to get
it started. On the other hand, the organization may not survive,
and all you'll have to show for your $50 will be 12 issues of
this letter -- which you could have purchased for $25.
As these word are written, 89 brave souls have send in
membership dues -- before any sort of membership packet (even two
printed sheets!) was available. To your editor, that is very
encouraging. Many who have joined have said that it is an
organization which has been needed for some time. We think so,
and we feel that the organization will succeed. Time alone will
tell.
Meantime, if you can help, you are certainly welcome.
BOOK REVIEWS
Read any good (or bad) books lately?
Want to see your review in print?
Contact the editor, or just send along your book review.
ANI
The name "Automatic Number Identification (ANI)" may be used to
identify two entirely different telco functions. We have it on
very good authority (Dolly Garrison of AT&T Communications) that
it is digital information which is used by the BOCs in their
billing process. This same name, however, is also used to
identify a Bell function which is used by installers. They also,
I think, call it ANI; but when they use those initials, they are
referring to a service which allows them to quickly identify the
number assigned to the pair that they are connected to.
In operation it works like this: the installer hooks up his butt
set to an unknown pair, switches to dial mode, and dials a code
number. Telco equipment answers his call, and a voice (analog,
not digital!) tells him the number assigned to the pair he is on.
Anyone working on telephone installations would find this to be
an extremely useful aid.
So far we have only three numbers: Rochester: 511; Jacksonville:
311; NYC, Staten Island, and Long Island: 958.
REPORTS FROM THE REAL WORLD
Report #1
Recently one of our readers passed along an interesting story --
and we'll try to accurately pass it along to you. It seems that
Party A called Party B and got his answering machine. Party A
left a message on the machine, and then stayed on the line. He
heard what he assumed to be Party B's machine disconnecting, and
then he heard a synthesized voice state the date and time, and a
second disconnect. Checking with Party B later he learned that
Party B's answering machine does not have the capability to add
the date and time after each call.
Our analysis: some "super-smart" snoop with more money than
brains, has connected a fancy recorder to the line, and doesn't
know that it does not disconnect from the line before it adds the
date and time to each recording. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
For reasons that we think are valid, we're not identifying the
source, or even the locale of the source.
Report #2
A reader in NYC called to ask how it could be worked that Party
C's phone rings, and Party D's phone rings at the same time --
but neither had called the other. As luck would have it, we had
just installed a two-line phone from Teleconcepts which has hold
and conferencing capability, so we tried an experiment to see if
our analysis of the method was correct. It worked first try.
It seems to us that the clients had been tapped by an ingenious
new method. Here's how it goes.
First, the two target people must know each other and be in the
habit of calling each other frequently.
Second, the targets must be the types who answer on the first or
second ring.
(In this case, there was an attorney-client relationship, and
the two men met these criteria.)
Then all that is necessary is for the bugger to dial one,
quickly put that call on hold, dial the other on another line,
hit the conference button, and wait for the two to start talking
to each other. Voila! The bugger can listen.
This strategem might work for a few times, but at some time,
either Party C or Party D is going to say, "Why did you call me?"
and after that the game is shortly over.
(By the way, a modern telephone is not an absolute requirement;
old-fashioned 6-button phones can be easily modified so that
calls can be conferenced. Also, some specialty houses sell
conferencing adapters for anyone who doesn't want to modify a
Bell phone.)
Report #3
We were recently consulted in connection with one of the wildest
cases of telephone chicanery that we have ever heard of. We
cannot provide details at this time, but we are in the process of
trying to write it up with enough detail to make it worthwhile
but without revealing anything that would allow anyone to guess
the identity of our client. Stay tuned; you'll get all of the
details.
Report #4
Your editor, partly for business and partly on principle, has
been making an effort to drag himself forward from the vacuum
tube, analog world that existed when he went to school, into the
solid-state, binary digital world of today. In the process, he
has been trying to learn something of the hackers' world. So far,
he's had only a small glimpse -- but it's awesome. Those in the
establishment who think it can't happen are in for a big
surprise. More detail in this letter as our education progresses.
CN/A
Recently the following CN/A numbers were reported to us, and we
pass them along to you.
For area codes 713 & 409 the new number is: 861-7194
SPEAKING OF CN/A, HERE'S A GOOD ONE ON THE PHONE COMPANY
A caller asks us for the CN/A number for his area.
We give him the latest in our file.
He calls back laughing. The phone company had changed the
number, but they were dumb enough (or greedy enough) to reuse the
old number, assigning it to an unsuspecting subscriber. This
subscriber got so fed up with being disturbed by CN/A calls, that
he determined the new number, and gives it to everyone who calls.
March, 1985
TPA, TELEPHONE PIONEERS OF AMERICA
At the outset I must admit that my jaw has been hanging open
since I was first informed of the membership restriction, source
of revenue, and activities of this social/fraternal, do-good
membership organization. I'm incredulous. First, that its name is
so deceptive, in no way describing its makeup or function. Also,
that I've been supporting it for years without being aware of it.
Enough preamble. Time to relate what I experienced.
Your editor discovered this story in his quest for information
for this letter. I had seen something somewhere which mentioned a
national organization called "Telephone Pioneers of America".
Sounded interesting. (I'm a member of an organization called
Missile, Space and Range Pioneers which is a group of people who
worked in said areas in the early days -- pioneers of the space
age.) Anyway, the Telephone Pioneers of America seemed to be
something that an editor of a telecommunications related
newsletter should know about. Who knows, having worked in the
field for over thirty years, I might even want to join.
So I looked in the DC yellow pages, called national
headquarters, and asked for a membership packet. The young lady
who answered didn't understand what I was talking about, but
promised that her supervisor, Dao, would call me. Dao called, but
she did not understand either, so she told me her supervisor
would call me when she came back to work next week.
On Monday, Barbara Kapen called. ......What a revelation!
"Telephone Pioneers" are not telephone pioneers. Membership is
not open to people who work in telecommunications, and there is
no "pioneering" experience required.
Membership is restricted to folks who work for (or worked for
and retired from) Bell companies! Only Bell companies. Not
Continental. Not General. No others need apply; only Bell.
What does the organization do? Well, I was told that they do all
kinds of nice things -- many charitable and do-good activities.
And I think it's nice that a lot of people voluntarily spend
their time helping others who are less fortunate. However, I
object vehemently to the use of public utilities revenues and
employees on these projects. When I choose to contribute to
charity, I want to be the one who decides where my money goes.
As it stands, money that I thought paid for telephone service is
used on charitable projects chosen by others. It also pays the
salaries of the people who handle administration for TPA because
those people are current Bell Telephone Company employees! That's
right. Part of what I pay for telephone service goes to pay the
salaries of people who are in no way involved in telco
activities. In other words, they decide what good works to do
with the money that we all pay in. They decide how many Bell
employees devote full time to charity while on the telephone
company's payroll.
C&P Telephone (The Bell company that I buy service from) is
apparently quite defensive about its involvement with TPA. I make
that statement because within an hour or two of my conversation
with Barbara Kapen, I was called by Mary Jane Willier who
identified herself as a C&P employee. She told me that TPA does
all kinds of good works for the community, and when she found
that I didn't work for a telephone company, accused me of
misleading her into thinking that telecommunications was my field
when it really wasn't. She admonished me to write the facts when
I prepared this segment, but refused my offer of a free copy.
So there it is. The Maryland Public Service Commission allows
C&P to charge us extra so that C&P can support a social/fraternal
do-good effort which masquerades under a YOGO name which in no
way describes its function or membership.
If you want to confirm for yourself that I was not having a pipe
dream while I was talking to these people, the number for TPA in
Washington, DC is 202-392-2461.
Personally, I think it's time to suggest to the PSC members that
they should look at what they authorize those companies to do
with the money we pay them. (Part of what I was told is that not
all PSCs allow TPA costs to be charged.) If you live in Maryland
and wish to contact them, the address for the Maryland PSC is:
American Bldg, 231 East Baltimore St, Baltimore, MD 21202. (P.S.
One reason that this organization interested me is the intitials,
TPA, and how much they resemble the initials, TAP!)
COMSEC '85
Some time before the end of 1985 there will be a meeting in the
Washington, DC area. This will be the first of the Communications
Security Association's annual meetings. For all members
interested in participating there will be a membership business
meeting to elect directors and committee chairmen.
Of more general interest will be exhibits, panel discussions,
and featured speakers.
Potential exhibitors: keep it in mind. You will be exposed to a
very select audience. Some companies have already committed.
NEW BULLETIN BOARD
The National Bureau of Standards Institute for Computer Sciences
and Technology has established a computer security bulletin
board. 300 or 1200 baud, 8 data bits with no parity or 7 with
even parity, 1 stop bit. Dial 301-948-5718. After connect message
is displayed, 2 carriage returns puts you into the system -- 30
minute time limit. Voice line: 301-921-3485.
TAPS FOR TAP?
One year ago the new editor of TAP told me that he had the
Jan/Feb issue ready for printing, but we haven't seen it yet.
Is TAP really dead? Speak to us Ozzie. Any way to fan life into
it? Can I help you find some volunteers?
OOPS! (AGAIN)
We've told some folks that if you tune to a cellular frequency,
you'll hear only one side of a conversation. We were wrong. If
you tune to the cell transmitting frequency, you'll hear both
sides.
2600
We mentioned this one before, but it's worth mentioning again.
This is a newsletter for folks interested in telecommunications.
It might be characterized as an anti-telephone company letter,
but it is worthy of your consideration if you are interested in
modern telecommunications. It is well laid out, typesetting is
great, has good information content, and is delivered on time. In
fact, I have only two problems with it. First, with my
astigmatism, I find it hard to read a telephone number which is
printed as a string of ten tiny digits without even a dash
anywhere. Second, I sometimes get the feeling that their authors
assume that every person who works for any phone company has all
of the awful characteristics of the phone companies. This, I
believe, is the product of some shallow thinking -- but then a
lot of the material I read in the Washington Post every day is
the result of some generations of very shallow thinking.
Try it. You'll like it! It's worth many times the $10 that it
costs. Order from 2600, POB 752, Middle Island, NY 11953-0752.
By the way, if you haven't figured it out, the title comes from
the Blue Box frequency, 2600 Hz.
FREQUENCY HOPPING
Among the many spread spectrum modulation schemes, probably the
easiest one for the layman to understand is frequency hopping
because no math is needed to explain it. Frequency hopping refers
to the carrier frequency, and means exactly what it says. The
carrier hops from one frequency to another while transmitting.
(The method used to modulate the carrier is immaterial.)
Why move the carrier around? Simple. To make it difficult or
impossible for anyone to listen to your communication.
The way it works is that you need two tranceivers with the same
set of frequencies and the same codes. When the first party
transmits, a synchronizing signal is sent to the second party. If
both tranceivers are set up on the same code, the synchronizing
signal tells the second party's receiver when to start hopping.
That receiver hops from one frequency to the next as specified by
the chosen code. (In simple systems the code is only a list of
the frequencies used, set in a specific sequence. For instance,
code 1 might start with the "home" frequency, hop to frequency #
31, then to # 12, then to #4, etc.; and code 2 might move from
the home frequency to # 17, to # 22, to # 9, etc.)
More sophisticated systems can contain dynamic codes which
change continuously, and can vary dwell time on each frequency as
well as varying the sequence of frequencies used.
(By the way, when we sell hopping equipment, we do so for export
only. Our bill of sale says that the equipment is not approved
for use in the United States, and the buyer is responsible for
obtaining required export licenses, etc.)
HOPPER EXPERIMENT
While we were visiting in California recently, we tried an
experiment involving a frequency hopping transmitter and a Fargo
scanlock. The objective of the test was to determine whether the
scanlock would "follow" the hopper's moves through the spectrum
and provide understandable audio output. The answer is that that
scanlock can follow ten hops per second and provide good audio
output.
Don't jump to conclusions. The fact that we got good audio out
does not mean that the hopper is not a secure means of radio
communication. Keep in mind that the scanlock demodulates the
strongest signal at its antenna, and that during this experiment,
the receiver was in the near field of the transmitter. If it had
sufficiently removed from the transmitting antenna, it would have
demodulated something else.
TAINTED MONEY
Recently we heard that a New York judge had told some lawyers
that they could not accept cash payments from their clients
because the clients were suspected drug dealers, and, therefore,
their money was tainted.
No kidding.
Well, gosh. Yesterday's paper said that General Electric had
been indicted on criminal charges for overcharging Uncle Sam.
Guess we can't take GE money any more. It's tainted.
American Express, Xerox, Gulf Oil, and many other well-respected
names have been offering to sell a telephone tap detection device
which can't detect even the simplest tap. Looks like some of
their income is obtained through fraudulent advertising claims.
Better not do any business with them. Their money is tainted.
Hertz advertised no mileage charges from "here to eternity", but
I had to pay mileage charges to Hertz. Tainted again.
Really!
ON WORDS -- AGAIN
Last month we lambasted legislators for sloppy use of words, and
this month we have to say "Oops!". Yup. We are guilty of gross
misuse of a word relating to privacy of communications.
First, let us give credit to the person who brought this
flagrant abuse of the language to our attention. His name is Luis
Suarez. He lives in Venezuela, and he wrote a letter to the
editor of Monitoring Times. In his letter he pointed out that,
since English is not his first language, he is especially careful
to understand the words he reads in our language. (Bob Grove. If
you send me his address, I'll send him a copy of this letter.)
Luis pointed out that the word "intercept" means just what it
means in football. (Those are not his words, but that's the
meaning of what he wrote.) Sure 'nuff. Checking with several
dictionaries convinces us that the word means to capture
something, preventing it from arriving at its intended
destination.
So wiretapping does not result in interception of
communications!
Therefore, if we're serious about this technology, we should
look again at 18 USC 2510, 2511, 2512, and every other place in
the laws where the words "interception of wire or oral
communication" are used. It looks like an accurate reading
renders these laws essentially meaningless, because wiretapping
does not prevent the message from arriving at its intended
destination.
Wow!
Interlocution is a good word. It might have been used; or the
legislators could have said something simple but accurate such
as, "eavesdropping on voice communications without consent."
What are your thoughts?
April, 1985
FIRST THINGS FIRST
Your editor apologizes for the tardiness of this letter. No
excuses. Just too many things happening. (When I worked at Cape
Canaveral, I invented the term "HPI" for High Priority Intrusion,
and my life of late has been full of HPIs.)
No gripes, though. Most of these intrusions have been good news,
but being behind in my duties really is uncharacteristic and
uncomfortable. Some of the information in the following segments
may give you an idea of the activities I've been involved in, and
may even give you some faith in my promise that things will get
better as far as the schedule for this letter goes.
NEW FORMAT
Next month should be the last for the format that this letter
has had since its birth. If all goes well, starting in June the
letter will be typeset in a three column format. With that layout
we'll be able to pump out fifty to one hundred percent more
information each month. (Maybe we'll start to catch up on our
backlog.)
EEs FOR TSCM
It seems that there are people out there who say that Jim Ross
says that only electrical engineers should do countermeasures
work. Yup. That's what people have told me that I believe.
Well, gee, thanks a lot to those who have decided to be my
spokesmen, but no thanks. Those who know me know that I'm capable
of speaking for myself.
Frankly, the idea that only an EE is qualified is silly and I
resent the fact that some have attributed this idea to me.
So let's air the subject out. Just who is qualified to do TSCM
work? Can we determine if Jim Ross is qualified?
Let's see now. I've taken IQ tests. Do they measure my
qualifications? No?
Well then, how about the Graduate Record Exam by Educational
Testing Service in Princeton? I did real well on parts of that
and not so hot on some others. Doesn't apply, you say.
OK. Would you think that passing the FCC test for an advanced
class ham ticket or first class commercial operator's license
means I'm qualified? No again, huh.
Gosh, I have two degrees in engineering and I have worked in the
field designing and putting in various radio, wire, carrier,
telephone and teletype systems -- does that mean I'm qualified,
in your view? Still no, eh?
I worked in R&D in missile and space systems, and in tracking
systems and I have field experience in such operations. Doesn't
relate, you say.
Well, what does relate? One retired government technician told
me that only a man who has installed bugs is qualified to look
for them. That's certainly an interesting concept: if you haven't
planted a bug, you're not qualified to find one.
Let's explore that idea.
Hey there, Mr. District Attorney. You can't prosecute that case
for labor racketeering because you've never been a labor
racketeer. You there, homicide detective. You can't investigate
that murder until you've murdered a few people, or that rape
until you've raped a few people. And you there, emergency room
doctor. You can't treat those bullet wounds until after you have
shot a few people. And, of course, only mass murderers will be
allowed to work on mass murder cases.
Silly, you say. Of course it's silly.
Equally as silly, in my opinion, is the idea (espoused in a
recent Security Management article) that the only people
qualified are those former government technicians who have had
"two months of formal classroom work performing simulated surveys
.... followed by a minimum of six months on-the-job training."
The plain and simple fact is that there are no criteria, no
standards, no tests, and, therefore, no way to determine if a
person is qualified to do this kind of work. In fact, even if we
could somehow measure a candidate's technical knowledge, how can
we prejudge how he will perform under field conditions -- will
the pressure get to him? Or will he take every shortcut in order
to do as little work as possible?
Does Jim Ross think that only EEs are qualified to do TSCM work?
No, he does not. For many reasons.
For instance, as with any class, there are good performers and
poor performers. Let's consider only the very best performing
EEs.
Are they qualified in my opinion? -- No, and here's why:
Many EEs are not involved with communications in any way. Some,
for instance, know network analysis inside out, but never stopped
to consider how a telephone works. Some don't know the difference
between Nyquist and Nyquil. Some deal only with power. Some deal
only with digital theory, and don't know anything about analog
theory or circuits. Even those who have studied electronic
communications may have insufficient capabilities to do
countermeasures work for one reason or another.
No, I don't think an EE degree is required. In my opinion, the
most important consideration should be character and not training
or education. There are many people who don't think, and that's
no good. There are "know nots" who think they know (usually
recognizable because they have absolute answers to every
question); beware of them -- they are dangerous! There are people
who will not dig into something that is questionable because they
are lazy or because they are afraid that if they don't come up
with a positive answer, they'll end up looking stupid. Look out
for them -- whatever their training and experience.
On the other hand, there are some extremely conscientious people
-- the kind who question every little thing that appears to be
out of line. I like to work with them.
Engineer vs. technician. Education vs. training. Let's sort it
out. Training teaches one what to do in a given set of
circumstances, but only education provides the basis for
evaluating new situations. If you want to evaluate something new,
knowledge of theory becomes invaluable. (By the way, the
classroom is not the only place to get an education -- experience
is a great teacher -- if you're awake.)
Does a field technician need to be able to draw the Thevenin
equivalent circuit of a lead network or lag network and compute
the critical frequencies? No, never. Does he need to be able to
write the equations, and evaluate the definite integrals in order
to be able to calculate the coeficients of a Fourier series? No,
never. Does he need to know Bessel functions? Again, no.
What the field technician needs is the ability to perform the
necessary tests, and to recognize when something is out of line.
He needs a back up with theoretical understanding of electronic
communications theory. He needs the maturity and strenghth of
character to admit it when he's stuck, and he needs to know how
to get help when he needs it.
TAP
The printer had just started his run on last month's issue of
this letter (which contained a segment entitled "Taps for TAP?")
when we saw the latest issue of TAP, Spring '84. We'll keep you
advised.
INITIALS
Had a call from a new subscriber who asked me to explain the
initials that I use in this letter. Looks like we'll have to put
together a short glossary, but for now:
YOGO Year Of George Orwell
ANI Automatic Number Identification
CNA Customer Name and Address
ANI and CNA are telco services, intended for use by telco people
only, but lots of people know about them and use them. More
later.
Q & A
Roger Tolces sent us an undated note (written in the margin of
the YOGO 1.02 issue yet!) in which he refers to our comment that
89 people had joined CSA.
Q. If you have 89 paid subscribers at $50 = $4,450. Why don't
you put some money out for a call for papers and articles so this
newsletter would have some content. How about a bugs found report
column? I have at least 3 good stories.
A. Well, Roger, you sure gave us a lot to chew on, and for that
we thank you.
First, we have to say that we're sorry that you think that this
letter has no content. (It's a good thing that everyone doesn't
think like Roger, or our confidence would be shattered!)
Second, if you know how to maintain a business address, phone,
etc. without spending any of your income, we really need to hear
from you. Yes, CSA has taken in several thousand dollars in dues
in the past year, but that doesn't mean that several thousand are
available to pay for articles.
Next, what the letter said was that 89 folks had already joined
the Communications Security Association even though there had
been almost no promotion or publicity, and that's a fact that
we're very proud of. (In addition to the members of CSA who get
this letter as a benefit of membership, a few other people have
sent us subscription orders for the letter only.)
You seem to imply that if money is paid for an article, it will
be superior to a contributed article, and, we see evidence all
the time of people who think like that -- namely that the value
or worth of something is enhanced if more is paid for it. That
concept, however, does not relate to our experience in this
world. For instance, we have seen studies of average faculty
salaries for colleges in the DC area, and in our opinion, the
quality of the faculty (or the product) is not proportional to
the salary paid. (In fact, it may be inversely proportional!)
Another example: the Post Office in Frederick, Maryland (where
you can park at a meter in the center of town for a nickle) just
advertised for a janitor -- "must be able to read simple
directions" -- for a starting salary of $19,991 per year.
Meantime, the teachers in the county, who have four-year degrees
and teaching certificates, start in the $16,000 range.
In other words, we don't think that paying for an article will
ensure that it will be of more value than one which is
contributed.
As for contributions, we're always glad to see them. In fact,
the very issue that you mailed back to us contained two reports
from the field, and it also solicited book revues from readers.
Further to the point, if you look back through our history,
you'll see that many times when we voice an opinion, we ask for
reader comment. We're always glad to get feedback. At the moment
we have many letters and press clippings in our source file which
have been sent in by readers.
Roger, if you wish to contribute information in any form, we'd
be pleased to see it. If you don't want to go to the trouble of
writing it out, just call.
ANI
For the Los Angeles area the number is 1223. For Puerto Rico, we
think it's 158.
May, 1985
CSA
The Communications Security Association is moving, finally. We
have a professional designing a membership certificate and card,
and amembership solicitation kit. The COMSEC EXPO '85 meeting is
rapidly taking shape. All members who did not specifically
request that they not be included will be listed in our first
membership roster. It will be mailed to all members in June.
Things are happening. Feels good.
Watch your mailbox if you are a member. If you're not, give us a
call and we'll see that you get an invitation to join.
ARE THE ZULUS SMARTER THAN OUR COLLEGE STUDENTS AND LEGISLATORS?
Nothing against the Zulus. They've been around a long time, but
they have not had the advantage (?) of being brought up watching
television and having their idea of what's happening shaped by
the distortions and shallow thinking of our "educated"
journalists.
Back to the heading. College kids in the US are spouting off and
demanding sanctions against South Africa because they want to
help the blacks there. Also, our legislators are currently
considering sanctions for the same reason. Meantime, in South
Africa it seems the Zulus think a little more clearly. They just
asked these people to back off because, if sanctions are imposed,
it will be the blacks who lose their jobs, not the whites.
(Have you ever noticed how often the well-meaning liberal
thinkers hurt the very people they say they're trying to help?)
TALK ABOUT FEEDBACK!
The story about TPA generated more feedback than any other piece
that ever appeared in this newsletter. The feedback will provide
the grist for a future feature in this letter, but for now, let's
just say that a lot of folks don't appreciate being ripped off;
and, on the positive side, there is at least one similar
organization which is not customer supported.
(Telephone Pioneers of America, TPA, is a fraternal, social,
charitable, do-good organization with membership restricted to
Bell Telephone people; and, in many places, paid for by Bell
customers as a part of their regular telephone bill.)
EDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITY, WHAT IS IT?
When this letter first saw the light of day, Tom Serb sent us
some neat notes each time we took a stand critical of journalists
-- something like, "but now you are one!" Well, we're still not
convinced that creating and editing this letter means that we are
in the same profession as, say, the editor of the Washington
Post. But the point here is not how Jim Ross is labeled. The
point is in the heading -- just what is an editor's
responsibility??
In your editor's case, he's writing about a field with a degree
of technology involved, and he feels a great need to be sure that
all technical material presented is accurate and complete. Also,
he has a personal bent to try to be fair -- always.
In a general sense, honesty and fairness seem to be good traits
for an editor. If the editors of the newspapers that I read had
those traits, I'm sure I could work up a slight degree of trust
in what I read. However, when they seem to be going out of their
way to influence, rather than to report, I wonder just how many
people are taken in by their slanted offerings.
The prime example from the recent past in the Washington Post is
the furor over our president's visit to a German military
cemetery. The first sentence of one of the stories in the Post
used the words "Nazi SS Cemetery". Now, certainly, somebody on
the editorial staff should know the difference between the Nazi
party, a political party with very limited membership, and the
special military organization, SS. Were they deliberately using
emotion-generating words in an attempt to create a specific
impression among their readers? I think so. They are not dumb.
Was there a great national objection to the visit, or was the
press trying to create public opinion? Personally, I think that
the press people were trying to create national opinion. I have
discussed it with many people, and found nothing like the
response 'reported' in the press.
To understand my own thoughts on the matter, it might help to
relate some background. I enlisted in the Infantry during WW-II
because my country was threatened. No, I never saw combat, but I
was prepared to; and I take the position that I will salute the
fallen soldiers of our former enemy. They gave their lives for
their country -- and that is something which should be respected.
The fact that there may be some bad people buried in a cemetery
should have no bearing on whether it is appropriate to visit said
cemetery. I'm sure that there are some bad people whose remains
were interred in Arlington National Cemetary, but that doesn't
stop thousands of people from visiting, nor our federal
government from conducting ceremonies there - nor should it.
What is an editor's responsibility? Should he assume that his
readers are incapable of reaching reasonable conclusions from
facts? Should he help his readers by drawing conlusions for them?
Should he save their tiny brains the strain of accepting his
conclusions by trying to make his conclusions look like facts?
What do you think?
NEWSPEAK (OR IS IT THE MAD HATTER?)
Heard a Congressman being interviewed on the radio the other
day. When asked why we meddle in the affairs in Nicaragua, he
said: "We can't allow them to become dominant in the area because
that would allow them to meddle in the affairs of their
neighbors." Honest. That's what he said.
2600
The current issue of 2600 contains an editorial regarding the
new interactive phone reservation system just introduced by
People's Express Airline. The editor, Paul Estev, predicts that
the new system will be self-defeating because it was not tested
by the real users. In other words, it was designed without
benefit of any input or testing by the ultimate users of the
system.
THE REAL MESSAGE
The real message that we see in the 2600 editorial is a much
larger one than the prediction of the failure of this expensive
business communications system. The message that we see is one
that all of us, especially our elected representatives now
working on a budget for our country, should think of every time
we must make a decision about how to use the resources available
to us. That message is: Before we set out to do a job, let us
first clearly define what it is that we intend to accomplish and
what it is that we have to work with. Then, let us evaluate how
each of the proposed activities will help us to reach our goals.
Sounds simple and reasonable, doesn't it. Yet, our Congressmen
are today trying to determine the size of the military budget
based on last year's expenditures, or the size of the total
budget, or the amount spent on social programs or or the rate of
inflation; but nothing related to the mission of the military.
(We have an essay in the works on this subject. Coming soon.)
BACK TO 2600
2600 has its faults, but it is sure worth $12 per year if you
work in this field. 2600, POB 752, Middle Island, NY 11953-0752
NEWSPEAK (AGAIN)
Whoever it was that invented the term "telemarketing". Give
him/her/them credit for a brilliant piece of Newspeak.
It does not have a precise meaning that we've been able to
determine. (We looked in a current Random House dictionary, the
Telephony Dictionary of Telecommunications, Communications
Standard Dictionary by Weik, and Roget's Thesaurus. No listing in
any of them.) It seems to be one of those words that means what
the hearer or sayer wants it to mean. What do you think of when
you hear the word "telemarketing"?
Do you see a telephone boiler room filled with commission
sellers dialing number after number, and being regularly
rejected? Do you see large print and TV media ads with "800"
numbers to call to order the products. (Bloom County, anyone?)
Are those order takers really engaged in marketing? In our
opinion, they are not. As we understand the marketing process,
they are a very small part of the overall function. They are
attempting to sell, but, for the most part, they are taking
orders. Telemarketing, indeed!
Whoever invented the term should be given credit -- and then
consigned to the same hell as the persons who invented the terms
"point-to-point radio", "pin-point bombing", etc. Here is one
wee small voice crying out that such misuse of the language is
bringing us closer to the day when the language has deteriorated
so much that humans will be back to communicating with grunts.
Newspeak may be the precursor of "Nospeak".
REMOBS
Recently in 2600 there was a question in a letter to the editor
inquiring about remote observation, REMOBS. This is a subject
that should be of intense interest to the readers of this letter,
so let's review what we have learned about remote observation.
First, your editor must point out that he thinks that what he
has been told is accurate, but he is always ready to be
corrected.
Remote observation is one capability of some modern systems
whereby telephone company employees can check out individual
lines in appropriately equipped exchanges from a remote location.
In other words, it's not necessary to dispatch a crew to check
out a problem. Using this technology, they can check various
things such as loop resistance, capacitance, etc. Of prime
interest to us, though, is REMOBS, the ability to monitor service
-- that's what they call it when they listen to your telephone
conversations.
Now, as designed, the equipment will allow the observer to dial
in to the REMOBS equipment from a remote location and specify
(using standard DTMF [touchtone] signalling) the line that he
wants to start with. In normal operation the equipment will
"bridge" the specified line for a short period -- on the order of
thirty seconds. Then it moves to the next pair in numerical
sequence, and then the next, and so on. The telco person listens
to each coversation to determine quality of transmission.
If, then, it is truly a service observation capability, why are
we writing about it?
We're writing about it because it can be abused, and used by
anyone at any time for remote listening to any line in any
exchange which is properly equipped. In our files we have a
letter from a young lady who discovered a number that she could
dial so that after entering the last four digits of the target
telephone, she could listen to conversations taking place on the
target telephone line. We have also had a call from a man who
makes his living at countermeasures who told us that he had been
approached by a telco person who offered, for $1,500, to fix it
so our correspondent could have the ability to listen to any
number he wanted at any time he wanted by simply dialing a
telephone number, then a code, then the target number.
Yes, we're convinced that the capability exists. It would be a
simple job to modify the REMOBS equipment so that it does not
switch off of the number selected. The modification could be done
in seconds with almost no chance that anyone would become aware
of what was going on.
TELCO THREE-WAY CALLING FOR SPECIAL TAP
In our YOGO 1.02 issue we provided information on how a two-line
telephone with the right features could be used to make a special
type of remote tap. Now we wonder if a single line phone with
three-way calling could not be used the same way.
FUNNY NUMBER. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
If you dial 202-352-9911, you get a strange message. For a while
that message included 516-751-2600 which is the phone number for
the publication 2600, and that really did get their attention.
Was it some kind of an establishment hit list, or what? Now
however, the first number refers to another number which is
answered, "Hello". Strange. If you can shed any light on it,
please call.
June, 1985
EDITORIAL
This editorial is in response to a comment that the last issue
was about politics and not about communications security.
To those who think that YOGO 1.05 was about politics: I urge you
to look a little deeper.
That issue was about how generals and admirals miscommunicate
with congressmen, and, of course, how the congressmen let them
get away with it (military budget comments). It was about how
people who call themselves journalists try to influence opinion
by reporting their opinions as facts (Bitburg story). It was
about the failure of those journalists to think about what they
report (Zulus story).
Let's back up for a bit and re-examine what it is we're trying
to do with this letter. This letter is about communications
security. Your editor, however, thinks it's a silly waste of time
to try to secure communications if the communications are not
sensible to start with. In an effort to try to bring this to the
attention of people interested in secure communications we will
from time to time present some examples of really bad
communications. In the YOGO 1.05 issue we presented several
examples of bad communications -- from generals and admirals
playing games with congressmen, to newsmen trying to create news,
to words that don't mean anything, to a congressman engaging in
"Newspeak".
Further, your editor thinks that people who make a living with
words have an especial duty to use words properly so as to set an
example for others. We think it is a gross sin for a professional
user of words to use words incorrectly. We think this way because
we know that some folks don't learn how to use our language in
school; there are many people who are self-taught, and they tend
to belive that what they see and hear is correct.
Recently on a NYC talk show we heard an example of a
professional who did not do his duty, in our opinion. The
announcer introduced a guest in glowing terms -- foremost
polygraph expert in New York City, etc., etc., and asked the
guest to explain the operation of the polygraph. In his
explanation, the guest said that the pneumatic cuff was used to
measure the "inspiration-expiration ratio". No comment from the
announcer. Now I know that those two words are sometimes used
instead of "inhalation" and "exhalation", but the first
impression of most thinking people, I think, would be that the
expert was referring to some things other than breathing; and
that, if his subject had expired, there would not be much chance
of getting any response that the machine could measure. However,
let's just suppose that everyone understood that the expert was
referring to breathing -- it's our opinion that the interviewer
sure dropped the ball 'cuz no equipment is necessary to measure
that ratio. In every living person that ratio is precisely 1. The
whole point is that the expert was not trying to communicate; he
was trying to impress by using the fanciest sounding words he
could muster (ratio instead of rate, etc.) even if the statements
made no sense.
A classic example of bad communication was the wire, sent from
England to Hollywood by a writer doing a story on Cary Grant. He
wanted to know Grant's age, so he sent a wire that said "How old
Cary Grant?" The response was, "Old Cary Grant fine. How you?"
Circumlocutions and euphemisms may yet kill our language. If you
were a visitor from another country with scant knowledge of the
English language (American version), what do you suppose your
abbreviated dictionary would tell you about the meaning of a sign
along an interstate highway that advises that the rest stop ahead
has "no comfort facilities". Do you think you would be able to
figure out that there are no toilets at that stop?
DOING BUSINESS WITH BIG BUREAUCRACIES
Some fun. They (big bureaucracies) have developed so many layers
of systems to keep employees from making errors (or stealing)
that it's a miracle that they (the people who work for BBs) can
ever get anything done.
Case in point. We just processed three subscription orders for
three different US government organizations: one consisted of 4
pages, one of seven pages, and one of nine pages -- to order a
twenty-five dollar subscription!
The State of New Jersey, though, wins the prize. They didn't
send a bunch of papers. They sent a check. (And for that, by the
way, we are very grateful!) We just wish they had sent along a
name and an address for the recipient of the subscription. Right
now our subscriber list contains "Invoice #" for the first name
entry, and "272022" for the last name entry. We hope that by
identifying their invoice number we'll help the mail room people
to find the person who is supposed to get the COMSEC LETTER.
TELCO COURTESY (OR THE LACK THEREOF)
Recently Teleconnect (our favorite telecommunications magazine,
by the way) ran a story about a lady who had had her credit card
(ab)used for $109,504.86 worth of unauthorized calls. Her
comment, after it was all stra
ightened out: "No one at the phone
company has ever said: 'Hey, we're sorry for the inconvenience.'
Not even a form letter."
Our experience during the time when we had a number similar to a
C&P (our local phone company) number left us in awe of telco
employees' lack of courtesy when using the telephone. Our number
was 468-2268, and the C&P Marketing Locator's number was
468-2688. Frequently telco people dialed wrong. We answered call
after call, "Ross Engineering"; and were asked, "Marketing
Locator?" With one exception in several years, the response to
our negative reply was to be hung up on without a word.
Even with all of the "green-eyeshade" pressure on them, it seems
that some of those people should have had parents who taught them
a little courtesy before kicking them out of the nest. -- Or does
C&P retrain its people to teach them to be discourteous? Oh well.
PHONE COMPANY, AGAIN
It's to their advantage to get everyone onto DTMF (touchtone)
dialing as soon as possible. So how do they encourage us to use
touchtone? Why, of course, with perfect logic they charge a fee
for conversion, and charge customers who use the new system more
than customers who use the old system. First they try to
discourage you from changing over, and then they charge you more
for using the system which is a much more efficient user of their
plant. Isn't this something that the public utilities commissions
should control?
Personal note. Our home phone already had the capability before
we told them we wanted it, but they charged us for the
"conversion" anyway. Oh well.
REDEFINITION
In a recent letter we said that telephone tapping does not
result in interception of communication because "interception"
means to capture something, preventing it from arriving at the
intended destination.
All that is true. But as one person wrote: "I'm not going to
rely on that as my defense at my trial." And, of course he's
right. The laws relating to eavesdropping define inteception as
"aural acquisition" of the contents of an oral or wire
communication. Our correspondent is wiseto know that what is
written in the laws requires very careful interpretation.
We think that it is interesting to note that, in writing the
laws hich attempt to control eavesdropping on voice conversations
between humans, the legislators did not use any of those words
(eavesdropping, voice, conversations, humans). We wonder why. Do
you suppose they were trying to impress rather than to
communicate?
In any event, we're going to try to be even more careful in the
future in how we use words.
TSCM, AND THEN WHAT?
A former associate bugged (bad choice of word?) us for years to
join him in developing and teaching capture techniques. His idea
was simple: after TSCM has demonstrated that there is a bug or
tap in place, let's not remove it; let's leave it in place and
proceed to catch the bugger.
This certainly would provide a new dimension in this profession,
but we are not convinced that it is going to become standard
practice.
Our experience with our clientele (mostly commercial accounts)
leads us to believe that this idea is not going to catch on. Time
and again we have been amazed that no action was taken to
identify and do something to the bugger. Perhaps the executive
who had been spied on thought that the bugger had incriminating
information on him personally. Or it might just be that
bureaucrats in big companies will do anything to keep from
rocking the boat -- and keep from affecting the price of the
stock. Do you think that such techniques would be used if they
were developed? What has your experience been?
ANI
This subject continues to come up during the seminar, and we get
calls asking about it all the time.
So let's update everybody on Automatic Number Identification,
ANI.
Yes, these initials are used within AT&T as the name of the
system which keeps track of billing information, and transfers
information back and forth digitally. That's not the ANI that
we're referring to here. We are interested in the ANI (isn't it
confusing to have two different things in the same company called
by the same name!) which provides number identification with an
analog voice announcement.
This is the way it works. In an exchange which offers the
service all you have to do is dial a three or four digit code,
and a voice will tell you the number of the telephone line that
you are on -- not pair assignments or any other internal record,
the actual telephone number as listed in the phone book.
What good is it? Well, if you dial the code from your home
number, it's not going to tell you anything that you don't
already know. But suppose you were in a telephone closet, and
want to know if the pair you're on is the correct pair.
Beautiful. Just dial the code, and you'll hear a voice speaking
the number assigned to that pair.
We don't have codes for every place in the country by a long
shot, but we have a few.
ANI CODES
New York & Long Island: 958 Jacksonville: 311
Rochester: 511 Los Angeles: 1223
Other upstate NY: 960 Puerto Rico: 158
FUNNY NUMBER
In our YOGO 1.05 issue we published a phone number in DC and
asked if anyone could identify it. 'Sho nuff.' We got an answer.
The number is that of a telephone company (C&P, we think)
facility which goes by the name of "Switching Center Control
Unit". That's why the disembodied voice says "SCCU" after the
music from the other side fades. Wild. It is a computer facility
which controls hunks of the telco operating capability, and it is
accessible by phone and apparently commandable via touch tone
pad. Entry is said to be by a sequence of only two of the
standard DTMF tone combinations. How vulnerable can the phone
company get?
ANOTHER COURT DECISION
A county court in Georgia approved a series of wiretaps in a
criminal investigation. Some of the telephones which were tapped
were out of the court's jurisdiction, but the court said it had
the authority to issue the orders because the "devices" used
(tape recorders) were located within the court's jurisdiction.
Carried to the ultimate it looks like this would mean that a
local court could authorize taps anywhere, regardless of the
location of the phone being listened to, if the law enforcement
investigators accessed the telephone company system for remote
observation (REMOBS) from a location somewhere within the bounds
of the local court's jurisdiction, and located their recorders in
the same place.
This modern service observation system allows telephone company
employees to "monitor service" remotely by dialing in to the
REMOBS equipment and instructing it which line(s) to monitor. The
persons talking on those lines cannot tell that their words are
being monitored, and REMOBS can be dialed up from anywhere. (See
our segment on REMOBS in the YOGO 1.05 issue.)
If we follow the Georgia judge's reasoning, the "device" (tape
recorder) is located in his jurisdiction, so he can authorize
taps anywhere that REMOBS capability exists. Hmmm.
TRAINING
Hands-on training on TSCM equipment is available in one of our
facilities or in yours. Our equipment or yours. Call for further
information.
COMSEC EXPO '85
This two-day meeting is really shaping up. Scheduled for
December 17 & 18, 1985 in the Washington Sheraton, it will
feature exhibits and eighteen panel discussions on subjects of
interest to professionals in the fields of communications and
information security.
At this time, early in the registration process, over three
hundred people have registered to visit the exhibits. We plan to
run some national ads, and to expand our mailing effort, and
we're confident that we'll have a big turnout. (For an
application which will allow you to pre-register for free entry
to the exhibits, write to COMSEC EXPO '85, Post Office Box 868,
Frederick, MD 21701.)
Although the exhibits will be open to the public, the conference
itself is an official meeting of the Communications Security
Association, open only to members of the association, and your
full CSA dues will be deducted from the entry fee to the
conference.
If you wish to attend the conference, there will be three
educational tracks for you to choose from:
I. Industrial Espionage/Countermeasures
II. COMSEC/Encryption
III. Investigations Technology, Private & Law
Enforcement
Each day there will be three meetings of one and one-half hours
each, one in the morning and two in the afternoon, for each of
the three tracks. That means a total of eighteen meetings, of
which one person could attend a total of six. (Some subjects are
included in more than one track because they would be of interest
to people in different tracks.)
Panel members are now being selected from the many who have
expressed an interest, so if you want to be heard on your
specialty, drop a line to COMSEC EXPO '85 at the address above,
and you will be contacted.
In addition to the exhibits and the conference, there will be a
business meeting of the association, and several committee
meetings. Let the organizers know what you would like to be
involved in.
If your company would benefit by exposure to thousands of
exhibit attendees, contact COMSEC EXPO '85 at the address above.
July, 1985
EDITORIAL
Sometimes a catchy turn of phrase will be echoed by many
persons, and be accepted by all who hear it. That's OK if the
statement is true, but it's bad news if the statement is
incorrect. It's amazing how fast misinformation spreads and
becomes a "known". Erroneous conventional wisdom tends to spread
like wildfire, infecting all who hear but don't think.
An example of a catchy turn of phrase which caught on and caused
great confusion occurred at Cape Canaveral in the early days when
your editor was the first project officer on the Mercury program
-- the first man-in-space program. Someone was quoted as saying
that the impact area for the Redstone (sub-orbital) manned
flights would be in the shallow water area off Grand Bahama
Island "in order to facilitate recovery". Members of the press
liked these words, and echoed them religiously. And the public
believed them. As the man responsible for planning the recovery,
your editor did not like the idea because it made no sense.
Shallow water may be fun to wade in, but our recovery ships would
not find any fun in trying to recover an astronaut from a capsule
in three or four feet of water. Grand confusion, and many
arguments, were caused by the slavish repetition of this catchy
phrase.
That is an example of how a false idea became a part of
conventional wisdom.
Today we have another example of incorrect information being
repeated by many people, to the point that the idea is becoming
accepted as truth. That idea is that data being transmitted by
wire is not protected by the federal privacy laws. Now, your
editor is ready to stand up and be counted when the critics of
the privacy laws convene, but he has to point out that data, and
anything else being transmitted by wire, clearly is covered by
Title III, PL 90-351. (Lawyers refer to the particular paragraph
as 18 USC 2511.)
Having read and studied the legislative history and the laws,
your editor is certain that the legislators really intended to
provide laws to try to control eavesdropping on voice
conversations between humans, and there is no doubt that they
were thinking about voice communications being transmitted over
telephone wires when they wrote the laws.
However, they did not use any of the key words -- eavesdropping,
voice conversations, humans -- in the law. Instead they
prohibited interception of "wire or oral" communications, and
defined interception as "aural acquisition". Clearly then,
anything being transmitted over wires is covered if aural
acquisition is possible.
So let's see. What does "aural acquisition" mean?
Nothing fancy. It means "hear". (And at least one judge has
ruled that it means heard by a human.)
OK. So data is being transmitted. Or facsimile. Or teletype. The
question is, "Is aural acquisition possible?" Well, all of these
information transmission systems transmit their information in
the form of tones that are in the range of frequencies which can
be heard by humans, so "aural acquisition" is indeed possible.
Some folks will say that the human hearing the tones used to
transmit data will not be able to understand the message, and
that certainly is true. But, so what? The law does not refer to
"understanding"; it refers to aural acquisition. The analagous
situation would be a tap on a telephone line being used by
persons speaking a language which is not known to the tapper --
aural acquisition has taken place but comprehension has not. And
aural acquisition is what the law says -- not understanding or
comprehension.
So those who are repeating the incorrect idea that federal laws
do not protect data being transmitted over wires are not doing
anyone any favors. They are slavishly repeating a bit of
misinformation, and doing it so frequently that a lot of folks
who should know better are repeating it and lending it credence.
CNA
One new CNA number to report: 617-787-2750. (As with all of the
others, we have not tested and do not guarantee that it is
accurate.)
PLEASE HANG IN
Yes, the COMSEC LETTER has been arriving late. No, it's not the
fault of the Postal Service. It's pure and simple. The fault lies
with your editor. He did not realize how much additional handling
is involved in having it typeset and formatted outside. It's not
the fault of the people doing the typesetting and printing; it's
just a lot of extra handling, proofing, etc. Better days are
coming, we're sure. After we've turned out two or three in the
new format, we'll have worked out the bugs, and will be back on
schedule. Please bear with us. Thanks.
FEEDBACK
The interests of the readers of this letter are certainly
varied. One letter said, "I don't have that much interest in the
subject matter, but I like to read your letter because it is
written in something which closely resembles English." Then there
are some folks who like the technical comments -- like the
explanation, using Maxwell's equations, to rebut a published
"expert" comment that a spectrum analyzer is not sensitive enough
to use in TSCM. And then there are those who like the comments on
the laws. Also, we've heard that we should stick to
communications security and not concern ourselves with whether
the communications are worth securing.
So, to all who have provided feedback we say, "Thanks". The
COMSEC LETTER will continue to try to provide something for all
of these varied interests. We'll continue to lament the lack of
objectivity of journalists, and we'll continue to point out
examples of outstandingly poor communication. And, yup, we'll try
to provide good technical information on COMSEC, TSCM, and
something that the government has started to call COMPUSEC,
computer security. Naturally, the phone company will get special
attention.
COMSEC EXPO '85 PLANNING COMMITTEE
The time is running short, but several people have volunteered
to help with planning for COMSEC EXPO '85, the first annual
meeting of the Communications Security Association.
At the time of this writing the committee's primary efforts are
aimed at defining the best topics for the 6 different panels in
each of the three technical tracks. We want to be sure to cover
all of the important issues relating to communications and
information security and investigations technology. Some
subjects appear to be of interest to all three technical tracks,
and will, therefore, be offered on all three tracks. In every
case, we're trying to see that all points of view are represented
by knowledgeable and articulate panelists.
At this time the committee members are;
Face-to-face group (DC area):
Ric Blackmon, PTAH Technical Services
Major Raymond L. Gaudreau, USAF OSI
Bill Norman, Security Advisor to the New Zealand Embassy
Jim Ross, Ross Engineering
Russ Weller, Computer Sciences Corporation
Commenting by mail and phone:
Arnold Blumenthal, PTN Publishing, Woodbury, NY
Salvatore Gallo, Martin-Marietta, Orlando
Ben Jacobson, Phillip Morris, New York City
David C. McFadden, Phillips Petroleum Co.
Ken Taylor, CBC, Miami
Representing Galaxy Conferences:
Tammy Brock
John Laughlin
In addition to upgrading the outline of the program, the
committee will be developing guidelines for panelists and
moderators. (How much time to each panelist. Encourage panelists
to bring slides or other visual aids and handouts. Etc.) Also,
the committee will be looking at some other aspects of this first
annual meeting, such as scheduling and arranging for:
General Membership meeting to elect a board of
directors, etc.
Board of Directors meeting to elect officers.
Establishment of standing committees and electing
their chairmen
A meeting of members interested in forming local
chapters to share ideas, etc.
Door prizes?
Cocktail party/reception sponsored by the
exhibitors?
Two luncheons?
One dinner?
Speakers for luncheons/dinner
Head table guests for luncheons/dinner
Anyone who is interested in participating in any phase of
getting COMSEC EXPO '85 off the ground is invited to join in.
Many of the people who are working on this committee are located
in the Washington, DC area because that facilitates getting
together in person, but anyone anywhere is welcome to participate
-- call, write, wire, or communicate your ideas in any fashion.
DPMA SURVEY
The Data Processing Management Association (505 Busse Highway,
Park Ridge, IL 60068) recently reported the results of a survey
of data processing managers.
Just over twenty percent of the responses indicated at least one
case of computer "abuse" during the previous three years. About
half of the companies responding have no full-time or part-time
staff assigned to data security, and offenses by outsiders are
thought to be only about two percent of the total.
Our question is: if no one is watching the store, how do you
know that a lot of hackers have not been tromping around in your
data?
Captain Zap (Ian Murphy) points out that hacking and cracking
targets are becoming easier to find because of the ever
increasing number of firms going to distributed data bases.
THE GREAT NEW JERSEY BULLETIN BOARD BUST
July 15, 1985. We had had some calls relating to the raids on
computer bulletin boards in New Jersey. The details related were
fascinating. The raiders, we were told, included Plainfield
police, Middlesex County police, representatives from the Secret
Service, Postal Service, FBI, and, of all things, AT&T! All this
to be sure that a teenager does not get away with anything. The
raiders had a warrant which authorized them to seize all records,
equipment, etc. And they did. They even took the telephone!
Tried to take a desk calculator, but relented on that item.
That evening on TV network news we watched as a grim faced
investigator (or prosecuter, we forget which) says, "We have the
names of 630 people who logged onto these boards." Gosh. Sure
sounds serious. Looks like your editor is about to become famous.
Look for his picture on the post office wall, because he logged
onto one of those boards three days before the raid and the
seizure of all of the equipment and records.
Please do not misunderstand our position. We do not intend to
make light of any criminal activity. We do not condone theft of
any kind, in any amount, from any entity. Some people think that
stealing from the phone company is not stealing, but they don't
realize that they are stealing from everybody who uses a
telephone. Phone companies never lose money; we all end up paying
for whatever is stolen from them. We do not condone any theft.
We do not say, or even imply, that there are not some bulletin
boards which condone or promote illegal activity. They do exist,
and we have seen a lot of material from some of these boards.
However, just because some boards foster crime does not mean that
all board activity is criminal. In fact, the board that we logged
onto greeted us with a message containing specific instructions
as to what message content was acceptable. In our opinion, that
board was squeaky clean.
In any event, we have the spectacle of the establishment, and
the media, trying to make things sound as sinister as possible.
For instance, one of the comments heard was to the effect that
some of the boards even listed some phone numbers of people in
the pentagon. Aren't they aware of the fact that the government
printing office sells the pentagon phone book? How do they
suppose anyone ever comunicates in the pentagon if the very phone
numbers are some deep dark government secret?
DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT
Not really. More like two years late and $25 short! We're
referring to the recent issue of the Journal of Security
Administration which states that subscriptions to the COMSEC
LETTER are free. To all who read that and wonder what is going
on, here's the real story.
In 1983, when we announced the beginning of the COMSEC letter,
we offered a free subscription to anyone who requested it on
company letterhead. During 1984, no one paid for the letter. Late
in 1984 we announced that, effective in January 1985, the letter
would be available for $25 for a one-year subscription. Since
that time, subscriptions have been offered for a fee, but not for
free.
We have arrangements with some other newsletters to trade
subscriptions and we offer samples, but the letter is no longer
offered free. Our apologies to anyone who was mislead.
Rates for a one year subscription are: USA: $25; Canada and
Mexico: $35; Other international addresses: $45.
NEW PRODUCT
Ross Engineering Associates, Inc. recently announced the
availability of a bug locator called Superhound. It is a small,
battery powered broadband detector with light and sound output to
indicate proximity to a transmitter. Contrary to prevailing
industry standards, the product was built, field tested, and put
into production before the product data sheets were prepared. We
wanted to be sure that the product would perform as advertised,
so we built it first. Therefore, if you have requested
information on this product, and don't have it yet, please stand
by. The product data sheets are being prepared and will be
available soon.
TAP DETECTION
One of the points made during our seminar on communications and
information security is that there is no electronic instrument
that will detect even a simple tap.
Yes, we know that American Express, XEROX, Golf Oil, and a few
other companies sell an item for tap detection for $49.95. We
also know that there are tap detectors being sold for one
thousand times that price.
And still we state: "There is no electronic instrument that will
detect even a simple tap."
Sure, we detect taps. We do it through a combination of
techniques which take advantage of some instuments, some tools,
some characteristics of some taps, a lot of hard work and
physical inspection.
Some taps are easy to detect. We go over this in detail during
the seminar.
But there is no electronic instrument which can detect even a
simple tap.
There are some procedures for detecting specific types of taps.
For instance, if a commonly available tape recorder starter is
used, it is only necessary to isolate the segment of telephone
line (that is, disconnect all instruments and the telco feed),
and use an instrument capable of measuring very high resistances
to measure the resistance between the two conductors. An FCC
approved tape recorder starter will indicate something over 10
megohms. Without this device across the line, the reading will be
overload or infinity.
But there is no electronic instrument which can detect even a
simple tap.
We have tested many devices and instruments, and none of them
has been able to detect even a simple tap -- a very simple tap.
However, some things can be done, and a properly equipped and
trained countermeasures team can usually provide good assurance
that no tap is connected on premises.
Off premises is another story. We are not privvy to all of the
techniques used by all of the people who tap telephones, but we
are well aquainted with the various devices and techniques used
for tap detection, and we'll put our position this way: We can
tap a telephone and record every conversation, and our tap will
be detectable only by physical inspection. We'll beat electronic
tap detection one thousand times out of one thousand attempts.
By the way, no one has taken us up on our challenge to write a
definition of a telephone tap. As a matter of fact, no one has
even asked us to publish our definition. Anybody interested?
MORE REPORTS FROM THE REAL WORLD
George Austin of Phoenix sent us a page out of The Arizona
Republic of March 28, 1985. Fascinating story. A scanner
enthusiast in Phoenix occasionally heard a neighbor lady putting
her baby to bed, singing lullabies, etc. (Scanners are modern
radios which can be set to scan through a set of frequencies and
stop when they hear something. A lot of people use them to listen
to fire, police, hams, airplanes, etc.) Late one night, however,
when baby was sleeping, he plainly heard the lady and her husband
and their activities in the master bedroom which apparently was
next to the baby's room. He did not specify what he heard, but he
said he heard things "that should not be broadcast all over north
Phoenix". Embarassed, he enlisted a third party to advise the
lady that she was broadcasting, and what she was broadcasting.
It seems that she had purchased a Fisher-Price Nursery Monitor.
This monitor is not a carrier current device like some of the
one-way intercoms on the market. This one, instead of
transmitting over the power lines, transmits through the air on
cordless telephone frequencies. The monitor in question
transmitted on 49.890 MHz.
The lady, althogh embarassed, was certainly thankful to be told,
and the manufacturer said that a warning would be printed in the
instructions in the future.
If you have a cordless telephone, or a cellular telephone, or a
wireless intercom of any type, be advised: YOU CAN BE OVERHEARD.
NETWORK SECURITY CONFERENCE
RCA Network Services has announced a conference on network
security to be held at the Sands Hotel in Atlantic City, NJ on
October 2 & 3, 1985. Fee: $695.
For information contact:
RCA Network Services, Inc.
Network Security Conference (Mail Stop 1-13)
4 Research Way
Princeton, NJ 08540-6684
609-987-7555
This conference, unfortunately, conflicts with the ASIS annual
meeting and exhibits being held in Dallas at the same time.
Otherwise, we would definitely be participating. Many of the
topics being covered are similar to parts of the COMSEC EXPO '85
program which the Communications Security Association is offering
at the Sheraton Washington December 17 & 18, 1985. Specifically,
they are addressing vulnerability of systems to outside hackers
and inside abusers, National Security Directive #145, and the
Commercial COMSEC Endorsement Program (CCEP). RCA has arranged
for some very qualified people to discuss these issues, among
others, and it should be a very worthwhile conference.
We'd be pleased if you would mention the fact that Jim Ross sent
you when you contact them for details. Thanks.
August, 1985
NEWS(?)PAPERS
In Intelligence Report in a recent PARADE magazine, LLoyd
Shearer lauds Jimmy Carter for his wonderful achievement in
getting our hostages released after 444 days in captivity in
Iran.
Is it any wonder that thinking people believe little of what
they read in the press?
FEDERAL LAWS RE EAVESDROPPING
Yes, everything being transmitted by wire is protected by
federal law, in our opinion. However, at least one judge has
ruled that, if "aural acquisition" by a human has not taken
place, no "interception" has taken place.
So, if you're tapping a phone line, or recording from a phone
line, don't listen. --- Then, of course, be sure to get that
same judge to sit at your trial!
FRAUD & THEFT NEWSLETTER
This newsletter is a publication which would be of interest to
any business which bills credit card companies for goods and
services sold to customers. Its purpose is to help merchants by
educating them with regard to fraudulent practices and credit
card scams. (F&T Information Bureau, POB 400, Boynton Beach, FL
33425. 305-737-7500.)
Recently this publisher announced the availability of a book
listing all of the banks which issue Master Card and Visa credit
cards. The book is an aid to businessmen because they can use it
to look up the telephone number of the issuing bank so they can
call the bank to verify the cardholders name and address. (No,
the "approval" or "authorization" number given to the merchant by
phone does not mean that the transaction is approved and will be
paid: all it means is that there is a card by that number in
existence.) This technique, by the way, is the one step that a
banker suggested to a recent seminar group as a method of
protecting against losses due to fraudulent credit card use.
So what happens? Why, of course, Visa and Master Card sue the
publisher claiming that it has "blatently disclosed" trade
secrets. Now, we haven't seen the book nor the charges, but it is
hard to imagine how a list of banks with their phone numbers can
be a trade secret -- certainly such lists must be maintained by
the banks themselves with access possible for almost anyone.
This is of intense interest to us because we do provide goods
and services based on credit cards, and more importantly, because
we are involved in publishing and the suit smacks of an attempt
to limit the freedom of the press.
Anyone with good information on this (or a different point of
view) is invited to call or write.
THERE IT GOES AGAIN!
The current issue of Computer Security Digest asserts that only
conversations are protected by federal wiretap laws. As we
pointed out recently, in our opinion, this is not true. We
believe that a strict interpretation of the law indicates that
the law protects all wire communications (with some strange
limitations). See our July issue.
LAWS. CANADA AND USA
It seems that these two great friends and neighbors have wildly
different laws relating to public records and to evidence. At
the recent annual meeting of the Council of International
Investigators a Canadian member related some details of a case in
Canada in which a private investigator was tried and convicted
for possession of criminal records. (There is probably a lot more
to the story which would be of interest, and we'll publish more
information as we get it.) This surprised us because we think
that court records are public records and, therefore, should be
available to all.
The rules relating to the admissability of evidence also seem to
be different. It is our impression that all evidence which can be
tracked back to illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in the
US. In other words, if an illegal wiretap led to other evidence,
which by itself would be admissable, that new information would
be considered tainted and inadmissable.
According to an article in a recent Security News Bulletin, in
Canada only the authenticity of a tape recording is considered.
If the court is satisfied that a tape has not been altered, and
contains information which could help a jury reach a decision,
the tape recording may be introduced into evidence.
Any reader who wishes to add anything or correct any wrong
impressions is invited to call or write.
WAR STORIES
At the seminar we get mixed reaction to the use of war stories.
Some people think they are a waste of time; others think that
they add practical value.
We intend to continue as in the past, discussing real events
without revealing the identity of the players, because we want to
make the seminar as valuable as possible and we believe that
actual details of actual experiences in the field are important
to a good understanding of the subject matter.
Also, sometimes the stories can convey a message while providing
some humor.
Such as:
Two investigators have had a suspected drug dealer under
surveillance, but haven't really gotten anywhere. One of them
buys a cordless telephone, calls the suspect pretending to be a
disk jockey and tells him that he has won a prize. They deliver
the cordless telephone, and begin a radio surveillance using a
scanner in their vehicle. The suspect uses the phone to make some
deals, the investigators listen, get what they need, and make the
arrest.
That's what you call initiative and enterprise.
ANOTHER ANI NUMBER
For the San Francisco area we're told the ANI number is 760.
Also, Roger Tolces advises that the number we published for Los
Angeles, 1223, is good only for GTE. He says the Pacific Bell
number is different, but he doesn't know what it is.
CNA
During the recent annual meeting of the Council of International
Investigators, members offered comments on the spreading access
to CNA without subterfuge.
In case you are not familiar with it, CNA is a telephone company
service which used to be intended for use by telephone company
employees in the business office. When a customer complained that
he found a long distance call on his bill that was not his, the
telco business office person would check the name and address of
the called party as the first step in proving the customer wrong
and collecting the bill. CNA stands for customer name and
address, and there are CNA numbers for each area code. To learn
the name and address of a customer at a specific number the
proceedure is to call the appropriate CNA number and ask for the
name and address associated with the number in question. It used
to be that a certain amount of acting was required; that is, the
caller had to pretend to be a telco employee at another location.
However, we have been told by hackers that we trust that many CNA
offices no longer care who they are talking to. On the other
hand, some telcos have responded to the heavy non-telco use by
trying to make it more difficult for non-telco people. For
instance, in New York, the CNA office will only give out the name
and city of the customer; and in some places, the CNA office asks
for a call back number.
However, there are some places, even in phone companies, where
reason prevails. Months ago in this letter we advised that South
Central Bell had initiated a program to sell CNA information at
forty cents per inquiry. To our minds, that makes eminent good
sense. The telcos have an extensive data base of public
information which they update on a continuous basis. We think
that they should all sell this information -- it's almost found
money, and maybe will delay that next rate increase.
Anyway, back to the CII members' comments. A man from the
northwest said that CNA information is available in Oregon and
Washington at 75 cents per call. Another member said that he had
heard that several southwest companies had agreed to form a
consortium and to offer the service soon. (He may have been
referring to ScanTel. See our report on that in this issue.)
Any reader who has direct information on any activity relating
to CNA is invited to call, and we'll pass along the latest.
"HACKERS ARE MORONS"
We put this heading in quotes because we are directly quoting
Byron G. Wels, editor of Computer Digest. After Mr. Wels made
this statement in an editorial, he received a so much comment
that he decided to run another editorial to expand on the theme.
In the later editorial, inaddition to calling hackers morons, he
goes on to call hackers thieves and criminals.
"I have no gripe with the guy who experiments with computers
within the confines of his own realm. That's our reader!"
That is certainly an interesting concept. Readers of Computer
Digest are all simon pure, and hackers are all morons, thieves,
and criminals. Talk about generalizing from a specific!
Of course there are hackers who are thieves and criminals. We
have no doubt that many hackers are ripping off many unsuspecting
entities regularly. On the other hand, tacking the label "moron"
onto all hackers sounds kind of dumb to us. We doubt that many
morons have the ability to perform as hackers -- seems to be a
contradiction in terms. (Maybe Mr. Wels was not trying to be
accurate, he was just trying to insult those who hack.) But back
to the basic idea: Mr. Wels states that hackers are thieves and
criminals because some of them have committed crimes and stolen
things.
Let's carry that kind of thinking over to another group, say
editors. Recently, we read two perfectly stupid editorials. Using
Mr. Wels' thinking, we should now condemn all editors as being
stupid.
However the editors that we know personally are anything but
stupid, just as the hackers we know personally are anything but
morons, thieves and criminals.
So much for generalizing from a specific.
(Radio-Electronics, which contains Computer Digest is one of the
publications that we read regularly in our effort to stay abreast
of developments in communications and electronics so we really
can't cancel our subscription in protest.)
(Gosh. Everybody who reads COMSEC LETTER better appreciate what
we go through to try to bring you the best and latest
information!)
SPEAKING OF STUPID
We have to give this month's award to the National Bank of
Detroit. They just returned a letter to us because the employee
addressed is no longer employed there. We appreciate it when we
get information to correct our mailing list, but in this case,
they did not help us much. The instruction to remove the name
from the mailing list was printed on an opaque label which was
glued to our envelope completely covering the label containing
the addressee's name and address!
LETTER BOMB DETECTOR
Recently we were asked to recommend a letter bomb detector by
two of our clients. After checking the operation of the least
expensive one on the market, we advised against its use. The one
we tested was sensing the presence of metal in the package which
means that a paper clip could cause an alarm, but a bomb without
metal would be passed. We could not in good conscience sell this
item, and the next step up in price was a giant step to an X-ray
machine.
However, there may be a low cost alternative to buying a large
and expensive X-ray machine. We have been told that if you spray
suspect parcels with freon, the freon wets the wrapping and makes
it transparent. On the plus side, we are told that the freon
dries and leaves the parcel unmarked. On the negative side, we
don't know the effect of breathing even small amounts of freon,
so please be careful if you try this.
We'd appreciate hearing from anyone with experience -- either
with freon or with any accurate letter bomb detector.
NEWSLETTERS
Business Computer Digest by BC Newsletter Associates, POB 3007,
Boca Raton, FL 33431-0907 is an interesting monthly publication
that you'll find of value if your company uses minis or micos or
lap computers. Much detail on trends, software, product reports,
etc. $88 per year.
Private Intelligence Exchange also publishes a newsletter.
Contact them at POB 1931, Whittier, CA 90609.
If you are interested in either of these, tell them that you
heard about them in COMSEC LETTER and we're sure that they'll
send you a sample copy.
SCANTEL
Mountain Bell (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
Utah, and Wyoming) has made available, but not yet publicized, a
service called ScanTel. This service allows searches of their
customer listings by computer for a fee. At present the system
will search for a name or an address, but will sometime allow
searches by phone number. The pricing for the service is 50 cents
per minute of connect time, plus 25 cents for each request plus 5
cents for each response.
Looks like CNA may be on the way out -- except for unlisted
numbers.
BOOK REVIEW
Spy Tech by Graham Yost. 1985. Published by Facts on File
Publications, New York City and Oxford, England. Hard Cover.
List price: $17.95.
This book tries to cover two distinctly different kinds of
spying. In Part I the author describes spying from planes and
satellites, and in Part II he presents some information relating
to earthly spying.
Part I
To evaluate Part I we referred to his recounting of our early
days in space because we have firsthand knowledge of that period.
We found that he grossly insulted a dedicated US team of space
pioneers, and we wonder about the accuracy of all of the material
presented by the author in this book because his account of
events that we participated in differs from our own knowledge of
those events. It seems that he may have been influenced more by
press releases and press accounts than by facts.
History according to Graham Yost: "With the embarrassing first
launch failure, the United States government returned quickly to
Von Braun's Orbiter plan and, somewhat miraculously, managed to
send up a satellite, Explorer I."
History as it actually occurred: The US Army team that launched
that satellite did not depend upon miracles. It was the same team
that fired the first ballistic missile from Cape Canaveral, the
same team that fired the first long range ballistic missile (3300
miles), the same team that [with the navy's help] recovered the
first nose cone, and, truth be known, it was prepared to orbit
the first satellite over one year before it was given the
go-ahead. (Your editor admits to a bit of predjudice; he was, for
a time, a member of that team which accomplished so much in those
early days.)
So Part I of the book presents at least one distorted view of
history. Let's look at earthly spying.
Part II
To evaluate Part II we started at the beginning, but we never
made it out of the first chapter of Part II because the author
convinced us very quickly that there was no reason to go on.
He starts off by asserting that the telephone system in the
United States was entirely owned by AT&T until the breakup of
AT&T in January 1984. Then he sagely advises that telephone off
hook current is 48 volts. Something he calls "48 line volts" is
used to ring a telephone, and he says the phone company can
easily detect a series tap because it causes a drop in line
voltage of over 20 milliamperes, and when that happens the phone
company sends out a repairman to investigate!
(In case you have not taken the first course in electronics, let
us explain: All of the statements above are pure hogwash. Voltage
is measured in volts; current in amperes. Ringing voltage in the
US is 90 volts, 20 Hertz. No comment on his series tap
information because it makes no sense whatsoever. -- And we all
know how often the phone company sends out repairmen before we
call to report trouble.)
After demonstrating that he knows nothing about basic
electronics and does not have even a proofreader to help him out,
he advises that the little tap detector (with the tiny red light)
that you screw onto your telephone handset in place of the carbon
microphone will detect most taps. The device that he refers to is
the very same one that we demonstrate during the seminar (when
there is a phone available to tap). First we connect it to the
telephone and adjust it according to directions. Then we make a
call. Then we tap the phone line with an $11.95 amplifier so that
everyone in the room can hear the call, and see that the little
red light does not come on. -- It does not detect even a simple
tap; and yet, this author who holds himself forth as an expert,
advises the world that it will detect most taps.
So what can we say good about this book? It has a nice dust
jacket and it is nicely bound. Some of the illustrations are
good. (We have to say that because we use some of the same ones
in our seminar notebook -- copied from government reports.) Some
of the pictures are excellent.
Do not depend upon the contents of this book.
We've often said that the level of expertise necessary to tap a
phone or bug a room is 9th grade hobbiest, and this author should
have looked one up to be his technical advisor. It could only
have improved the content. September, 1985
DEFINITION OF A TAP
In one of the early COMSEC LETTERS we asked all of our readers
to submit proposed definitions of the word "tap" as in telephone
tap. The response was truly underwhelming -- not one entry.
Your editor knows how to go with the flow, so he tried again two
months ago. Still no response.
So we'll stick our necks out and offer our definition of tap,
and we hope that there are some folks in our readership who will
criticize our effort so that the second generation definition is
better than this one.
Tap, n., v., ---n. The act or process or equipment used to
monitor and/or record the content of messages being transmitted
over wireswithout degrading the quality of transmission or
interfering with transmission in any way, and especially without
being detected. The product of a tap is the content of messages
being transmitted over wires. ---v.t. To perform the necessary
steps to accomplish a tap.
N.B. Because most taps seem to have conversations between humans
as their objective, it has become common to think of taps as
having a product which is human voice conversations. (In fact, to
simplify terminology during the seminar we refer to listening to
microwave or satellite-borne telephone conversations as taps.)
Note that the definition above does not refer to voice
conversations between humans. Anything being transmitted over
wires can be tapped. That means that data, teletype, facsimile,
etc. can be the product of a tap.
Also, keep in mind that the definition refers to anything being
transmitted over wires, and is not limited to baseband
transmissions. That means that modulated RF, CW, ICW, or any
transmission at any carrier frequency, unmodulated or modulated
using any type of modulation, is included in the definition.
So let's go critics. Have a shot at the first definition of
"tap".
LETTERS
From Charles J. Augustine, Security Services Center, Cleveland,
Ohio.
How do you obtain schematics and circuit diagrams for ITT and GTE
equipment as well as AT&T and Western Electric products? I have
tried their customer information offices and been met with
replies such as: "It's confidentila proprietary information" and
"Why do you need to know how to install and service it?". Calls
to suppliers have met with even less response.
Hope you can be of assistance. By the way, what happened to my
June and July issues?
Our Response.
Dear Charles,
Thanks for your interest and your contributions.
Your letter raises some interesting questions. At first, we were
certain that the answers would be simple to find in our
well-organized (What a Lie!) library, but we find that we do not
have a definite answer to your questions.
So this is a plea to our readers -- if you know the answers or
can provide the references needed, please send them to us, and
we'll pass them along.
Further, we're listing some names and addresses of possible
sources of the information that you need:
AT&T Commercial Sales
POB 19901
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Bell System Catalog of Publications
Publishers Data Center
Bell Communications Research
Box CF38, Pratt Street Station
Brooklyn, NY 11025
GTE Automatic Electric Inc.
400 North Wolf Rd.
Northlake, IL 60164
ITT Telecommunications Corp.
Box 831
Corinth, MS 38834
National Technical Information Services
5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield, VA 22161
National Telecommunications & Information Administration
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
Rural Electrification Administration
4051 South Bldg, USDA/REA
14th & Independence
Washington, DC 20250
Western Electric Commercial Sales
Box 20046 Greensboro, NC 27420
Western Electric Company
IDC Commerial Sales
Box 26205
Indianapolis, IN 46226
Stangely enough, the Rural Electrification Administration has
many publications on telephone communications, but their catalog
is out of print, and they don't know when they'll have the new
one out. (We've been waiting for about three months.)
With regard to your question about the missing issues of COMSEC
LETTER, all we can say is that we got behind, but we're catching
up. This is the September letter, and is being mailed in October.
We hope to get the October letter out before the end of the
month, and to be back on schedule in November. Please hang in.
Ed.
SEMINARS
The National Crime Prevention Institute of the University of
Louisville has an extensive seminar program. They are heavily
oriented toward law enforcement and crime prevention, but they
occasionally offer something in our field. (In fact, the report
"Security Applications of a Spectrum Analyzer" is one of the best
sources of information on TSCM that we have ever seen; and it was
presented at one of their conferences.) NCPI, UOL, Louisville, KY
40292.
CORDLESS TELEPHONES, ANOTHER PROBLEM
Several new products have appeared on the market under "Part 15"
FCC specifications. They are small, low-powered tranceivers and
they use the cordless frequencies 49.830, 49.845, 49.860, 49.875,
and 49.890 MHz. The potential problem to cordless phone users is
that they may interfere with phone calls. So, if you use a
cordless phone, don't be surprised to hear more than the other
party to your call.
We are reminded by a clipping provided by Roger Breslow that
cordless phones have a much more serious problem than
interference, and that is that some of them can cause permanent
hearing loss if held to your ear while a ring signal is being
received.
So the tally on cordless phones is:
1. Eavesdropping on your conversations is easily
accomplished,
2. You may be interfered with by a $9.95 tranceiver, and
3. You may be permanently deafened.
We wonder why anyone uses 'em.
HERE IT IS AGAIN
In PC Magazine Steve Metalitz, staff director of the US Senate
Judiciary Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks
(which has jurisdiction over privacy legislation) is quoted as
expressing his concern about the privacy of data transmissions,
saying, "If they've never been in voice form, they're not
protected by the wiretap law."
We have commented on this misconception before, but this person
certainly should be an authoritative source. So we went back and
read the law again, and still cannot find the word "voice"
anywhere in the law.
So again we say: EVERYTHING transmitted over wires is protected.
The law defines interception as "aural acquisition" and aural
acquisition of the tones used to transmit data is possible.
No, the person hearing those tones will not understand the
message -- but the law says "aural acquisition"; it does not say
anything about comprehension. The analagous situation would be
the tapper hears a voice conversation in a language that he does
not understand. Aural acquisition has taken place; comprehension
has not. A wire communication has been intercepted according to
the law, and wire communications are covered by the law.
Yes, the law could be improved. Yes, it should be improved.
What is your opinion?
SPREAD SPECTRUM
The FCC recently authorized various uses of spread spectrum
modulation techniques. In one action they authorized hams to use
spread spectrum; and in another, they authorized spread spectrum
modulation in the Public Safety, and Industrial, Scientific and
Medical Services bands.
If the equipment becomes popular, the buggers are going to learn
how to use it, and the debuggers are going to have to develop new
equipment and techniques.
C'MON, LET'S COMMUNICATE!
We don't know about the rest of the country, but in DC there
have developed some vexing, and sometimes potentially dangerous,
lapses in communications due to uneducated uses of our language
to convey numbers during voice communications.
The vexing bad habit is to state a zip code by saying, for
example, "two thousand nine". What the sayer means is "20009",
but what he actually says is "2009", and that is really not
important -- just confusing.
However, on our scanner we heard a very serious communications
failure when a DC ambulance went to "115" because the dispatcher
had said "one hundred fifteen" for the street address, "10015".
Now that is a serious breach of communications, in our opinion.
COMSEC EXPO '85
Y'all come! Comsec Expo '85 is shaping up. TSCM, voice
scrambling, message enciphering, big brother, hackers, and many
other subjects will be covered during the eighteen panel
discussions.
Every panel will have knowledgeable panelists representing
differing points of view, so you'll have an opportunity to hear
the different sides to the issues that you are interested in.
Some real TSCM (Technical Surveillance Countermeasures --
debugging) professionals will display and demonstrate real
equipment, and you'll hear horror stories about the unqualified
charlatans -- the "magic wand" operators. Simple and complex,
analog and digital scramblers will be covered -- technical
explanations as well as considerations relating to tradeoffs in
hardware selection. You'll also be made aware of why so much
excellent scrambler equipment is not used by the executives for
whom it was procured. Details of the first ever "Secrecy Order"
from NSA and the aftermath of this government suppression of a
privately-developed scrambler will be covered. You'll be able to
hear discussions of encryption methods from the Caesar Cipher to
the RSA algorithm. We expect a lively discussion on why the
government approved DES uses a key which is 56 bits in length
while hackers (private individuals) use 800 bit keys. The impact
of various new government directives will be discussed in detail
by affected industry representatives and sponsors in government.
Exhibitors have begun to find out about the Expo despite our late
start, and you'll find many products and services of interest.
For information write to: COMSEC EXPO '85, POB 868, Frederick,
MD 21701, or call Tammy Brock at 301-662-9400.
COMPUTER SECURITY PUBLICATIONS
Available from NBS: Publication List 91, Computer Security
Publications. Contact: Institute for Computer Sciences and
Technology, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
GOOD BOOKS ON COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Texas Instruments has published a series of books called the
"Understanding Series". We haven't seen them all, but, based on
the excellence of the first one we bought, we'll recommend them
all. TI, POB 225474, MS 8218, Dallas, TX 75265.
20-20
In our YOGO 1.01 issue, we mentioned an interesting ad in
Security World which asked for details of actual illegal
surveillance cases. If you watched the segment on eavesdropping
on the 20-20 television show, you saw a part of the product of
the young lady who ran the ad.
HARRASSING PHONE CALLS
One of our readers called to ask if we could design a device
which could be used to blast the eardrums of a harrassing caller.
We haven't begun that design because we think that the phone
system would limit the sound level at the receive end, but we
haven't done any tests to see if that is true. Because of our
overload, it didn't look like we'd get to that project for some
time, so we told him what we do when a caller doesn't identify
himself, or talk, or get off the line -- we hit the redial button
on the phone which caused a fast, evenly-spaced series of tone to
go out over the line. Seems to work. Our theory is that it's a
kid on the other end, and hearing tones like that, he thinks it's
some special system for tracing the call.
Menwhile, we think we have a good approach to a piece of
hardware which could help. We'll work on it, and keep you
advised.
INTERESTING NAMES ON OUR MAILING LIST
All American Associates is, of course, headed by Jack Armstrong.
(Young folks are excused if they don't understand.)
How 'bout a company name, "Windforce"? The man who used that
name in correspondence with us, does not have a telephone
business listing under that name, nor does he have a personal
listing under the name that he signed. Oh Well. It takes all
kinds.
HACKERS AND CRACKERS
Cap'n ZAP (Ian Murphy) defines these terms this way: A Hacker is
a person who hacks away at a program, removing errors and bugs,
until he finally either gives up or makes the program work.
A Cracker is a person who cracks into a computer (gains access to
its stored information) without benefit of any prior information
as to the computer type, operating system, privacy protection
measures, etc.
MORE ON ELECTRONIC TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION
In addition to the certification programs mentioned in earlier
letters, there is an association, International Society of
Certified Electronics Technicians, which awards certification in
various specialties. ISCET, 2708 W. Berry St. #3, Ft. Worth, TX
76109.
JUST WHAT IS A FRAUD?
Last year an ad offered gold coins for sale, and the telephone
number to call to place an order was 1-800-USA-MINT. The person
who answered the phone did not want to give us a direct answer,
but, after prolonged weaseling, admitted that it was a private
company not associated with the US Mint or any other part of the
government.
At the same time Seequa Computer Corporation was running an ad
with a headline which said "Seequa shows you how to get an IBM PC
for just $1595".
We do not see any attempt to defraud in the second ad because it
was run in a magazine read by a computer-using audience, it
showed a picture of a Seequa computer, and the text plainly said
that they were offering the Seequa computer for sale and that it
does everything that an IBM does.
That first ad, though, makes us wonder. Was there a deliberate
attempt to make the reader think that he was dealing with the US
government? Did people place orders thinking they were buying
coin of the realm?
MORE ON THE LAWS
If you are engaged in what you think is a private conversation
on a public street, you have no Fourth Amendment right to
privacy. That was the ruling in United States vs. Lopez, US
District Court for Connecticut, H-84-31, 6-7-84.
So we're back to the question of whether an individual has an
expectation of privacy, and this court thinks that you have no
expectation of privacy on a public street. Seems reasonable.
PUBLICATIONS
The publications which are offered by this firm are copies of
articles in the public domain, contributed articles, and some
original work by your editor. The objective in offering these
publications is to be a source of good information on this
technology. We are not trying to get rich by offering these
items, in fact, handling them takes a lot of time. So please
don't be offended when we ask for payment in advance. Our
experiences a few years ago led us to the conclusion that that is
the only way to go. Billing a company or government agenciy for a
few dollars was simply not worth the time. Also, we accepted
occasional COD orders and handled them for a while. However, that
went sour because orders were refused, meaning that we had wasted
our time and money to package and ship.
NEWSPEAK
Sign above the door of an office on the first floor of the
Philadelphia city hall:
"Room 143
Mayor's Office for Sexual Minorities"
Anyone who can define "sexual minority" is invited to mail it
in, and if it's printable, we'll print it.
CNA
Don Peterson of Minneapolis mailed us a copy of a flier which
describes the CNA service now available in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and South Dakota. To access the service call
402-580-2255. the charge is 50 cents and you can get two listings
per call. No non-published number information will be available.
Don's information also says the booklet, "The Changing World of
Telecommunications", can be obtained free by calling
800-342-4242.
MODERN INTERPRETATION NEEDED?
We think that our legislators (and jurists) should be
considering the First Ammendment implications with regard to
material on computer bulletin boards. The writers of that
ammendment intended to ensure freedom of the press, and they did
a good job. At the time that they wrote it, they were thinking of
the press as only Newspapers, but interpretations have also
extended protection to radio and television. Should not
electronic bulletin boards also be covered?
What do you think?
TOUCHSTAR
Southern Bell in Orlando and Bell Atlantic in Harrisburg are
offering a new package of services under the name Touchstar. If
you subscribe, you can select numbers from which you will not
accept calls, give selected callers a distinctive ring, call back
the last person who dialed your number, or determine the calling
number of an incoming call. Sounds great!
October, 1985
CCS
Well, CCS, Ben Jamil, and Carl Lande made the Washington Post
recently. Big article in the business section. (Send SASE if you
want a copy.)
For those in our readership who are not familiar with this
company, let us list some of the claims made by them over the
years:
"....eliminates illegal bugs and taps permanently." "Through an
electronic breakthrough, this advanced miniature device enables
you to detect hidden "BUGS" wherever you go." "Automatically
screens out illegal wiretaps now on your phone or lines...or
which may be added later." "New, automatic telephone bug detector
quickly and thoroughly detects wiretaps on your telephone line or
in the instrument itself." "This compact, ultra sensitive
instrument gives you an immediate warning when someone wearing a
bugging device enters the room." "It checks both telephone sets
and lines for irregularities up to 10 miles and then not only
reveals an eavesdropping device but helps pinpoint its location."
"Crammed with electronic circuitry, this compact,
battery-operated unit sweeps a room and warns you by a visual or
audio signal of the presence of a hidden microphone or other
recording device." "....remarkable miniaturized device...that,
with a mere turn of a knob, automatically renders any illegal
wiretap, present or future, totally inoperable."
TAP DE
TECTION
In the YOGO 1.07 issue (July, 1985) of this letter we used a
significant amount of space to expound on the theme that there is
no electronic device that can detect even a simple tap on a
telephone line. Reflecting on some of the claims made by CCS
(elsewhere in this issue), we feel obliged to make it clear that
all of the electronic instrumentation that we are aware of is
incapable of differentiating between a court-approved tap and an
illegal tap. In its claims, CCS seems to be trying to emphasize
that their equipment can tell the difference between a legal tap
(or a law enforcement tap) and an illegal tap. Maybe they're
trying to keep law enforcement people from getting upset with
them -- by assuring law enforcement that their equipment will not
detect their taps. Interesting.
ASIS SEMINAR AND EXHIBITS
We think it is ironic that, at the ASIS Annual Seminar and
Exhibits in Dallas, we were passing out complimentary copies of
our July COMSEC LETTER which contains a feature explaining that
there is no electronic device that will detect even a simple tap
on the phone line; and, a few booths away, Winklemann
International was handing out literature claiming "Complete
protection against wiretaps". No, they were not touting
scrambling equipment or other methods of securing communications;
they were talking about an analyzer which, in their words,
"...performs scientific tests which enable it to factor out
innocent variations of electrical characteristics, so you can
determine with confidence whether your telecommunications lines
are clean."
Obviously, either our article is wrong, or their claims are
wrong.
What do you think?
Q & A
In addition to questions which have come to us by mail, some of
the questions related here were asked during our briefing of the
Tidewater Chapter of ASIS. [The first one was asked anonymously
(passed on by the meeting organizer), and it gave us the
opportunity to start that meeting with an answer to a question.]
Q. Why did you prostitute yourself to develop the Superhound and
offer it for sale?
A. Good question. First let's explain the reason that the
Superhound was developed, and then let's talk about prostitution.
A couple of years ago we were hired by a Fortune 100 company to
brief some of their engineers and technicians on our specialty.
As we usually do, we pointed out several times on the first day
that broadband detectors (field strength meters, etc.) are not
sensitive enough to detect a very low power transmitter like the
Radio Shack Wireless Microphone. During the demonstration of the
spectrum analyzer on the second day, we could see room audio on
one of the signals on the spectrum analyzer, so we checked very
carefully to be sure that all of our test transmitters were
turned off. Room audio was still obvious on the signal on the SA.
Finally, one of the technicians said, "I guess you know what
you're talking about", and he reached under the table and pulled
out a Radio Shack Wireless Microphone.
After checking to be sure that his transmitter was turned off,
we could still see room audio on the signal on the SA. More
discussion ensued, followed by the same technician reaching under
the table to pull out a second transmitter, tuned to the same
frequency as the first.
So the technicians had put the engineer to the test. He passed,
so he became OK in their eyes.
Last year, the same company again contracted for a briefing of
some other engineers and technicians. This time they were more
direct. They had heard that the first group had hidden two
transmitters, so they hid four and challenged their instructor to
find all four. One of them 'volunteered' to carry the 30 pound
analyzer, and aided by the signals on the screen and the snickers
from the group, we eventually found all four transmitters.
The upshot of that experience was a realization that the
analyzer is an extremely valuable tool to determine that an
illegitimate transmitter is on the air, but is not a good tool to
locate the transmitter.
Therefore, we set out to develop a broadband transmitter
locator, and the Superhound is the result.
Have we prostituted ourselves? Not really. Not any more than the
person who goes to work each day even though he can't stand his
job, or his boss, or whatever. He's engaged in something that he
does not like in order to earn money, and that could be called
prostitution. On the other hand, we thoroughly enjoy our work and
had a good time with the design and development of the
Superhound.
We designed and built a needed product. We advertise it as a bug
locator, not as a primary tool for bug detection. In this role
the Superhound is the best of the broadband units on the market
-- by actual test it has outperformed units selling for many
times its price.
As a matter of fact, its operating instructions say that we
recommend that it be used with an instrument with adequate
sensitivity and tuning range such as a spectrum analyzer.
Why does it have a bunch of lights instead of a meter? It has
lights because that's what people want. The winkin' and the
blinkin' is what sells; and, after all, our objective is to make
money.
We plead not guilty to the charge of prostitution.
Q. Will you refund the fee you charged for countermeasures if
someone else finds a bug after you leave?
A. No.
First, we're very confident of our ability to find whatever is
in place while we are working. That's not just idle braggadocio;
we have a track record. We're very confident.
Second, how do we know what has transpired since we left? How do
we know that the "finding" team was not the "placing" team?
Q. What do you charge for expert testimony? Not just testimony.
You have evidence of a breach of communications, you preserve the
evidence, bring it to court, etc. How much do you charge?
A. Our fee for a TSCM manager or senior engineer is $200 per
hour. That applies to all preparation time, travel time, waiting
time, etc. (The only exception is when extended travel is
involved; then we charge only four hours during each day of
extended travel.)
Q. That's not enough. You should charge much more.
A. That's all we charge.
Maybe, if we were involved in a criminal case that involved
keeping detailed written and photographic records, a chain of
custody records, etc, we'd have to charge much more.
Our experience, though, is that our commercial clients are not
interested in pursuing civil remedies after they discover that
their privacy has been breached. Among the reasons that they are
reluctant to sue their enemy are: the immense difficulty in
proving who did it, the adverse effect that public dislosure
would have on public confidence in the company and on the value
of its stock, and the perfectly human reaction of wanting to keep
such embarassing information quiet. Further, some of our clients
are very prominent, and they are wary of that kind of publicity.
The major "finds" that we've been involved with all resulted in
no publicity whatsoever, and we're not going to "leak" anything
because we intend to preserve our reputation.
Q. What are the cordless telephone frequencies, and what type of
monitoring device would be adequate to scan those frequencies?
A. The new cordless frequencies are:
Channel # Base Frequency Handset Frequency
1 46.61 49.67
2 46.63 49.845
3 46.67 49.86
4 46.71 49.77
5 46.73 49.875
6 46.77 49.83
7 46.83 49.89
8 46.87 49.93
9 46.93 49.99
10 46.97 49.97
As to the type of device you would want to use to listen in on
these frequencies, you used the right word in your question; you
would probably choose a modern scanner. There are many good ones
on the market, and they are much lower in price and easier to use
than a surveillance receiver. Be sure to get a modern scanner
with a synthesizer, and not one which requires crystals. Also,
check the frequency coverage; some of the manufacturers leave out
coverage of some of the interesting bands.
If you don't know where to turn to find this equipment, drop a
note to Monitoring Times, 140 Dog Branch Rd, Brasstown, NC 28902;
and we're sure that editor Bob Grove will send you a sample copy.
PRIVACY GUARANTEED!
Remember when Cose Technology first ran the ad with that
headline? Sure got a lot of people's attention. Now we have
companies like American Express, XEROX, and Gulf Oil all selling
the Phone Guard from Cose Technology and saying that it will
protect you from telephone taps.
Interesting legal question. If you buy it and rely on the
seller's claims, and somebody taps your phone, steals your
secrets and puts you out of business; can you sue the seller for
damages? Simple fact. Phone Guard will not detect even a simple
tap.
'Nother question. Why do companies with international
reputations to protect make claims without making even a small
effort to find out if those claims are valid?
OUR INTERESTING LANGUAGE
When someone engages our professional services, we call him a
client. He pays us. We perform some service for him.
Social workers call welfare recipients "clients". In that case
the client doesn't pay; he gets paid. And nobody performs any
service for anybody. Oh well.
YOGO
During the first year of publishing this newsletter, we began
numbering its issues with a coined word (actually an acronym),
YOGO. When no one inquired as to the meaning of that strange word
we challenged readers to guess its meaning, and Dennis Steiauer
of NBS was the winner, saying, "Considering the content and
flavor of your letter it has to be Year Of George Orwell".
YOGO continues in the masthead as your editor's way of trying to
remind you of the messages in George Orwell's books. If you have
not read them, we urge you to drop in to your public library, and
get started. As you read, think about the events that you see
happening in this world and this country today.
George Orwell saw the future, and wrote about it with amazing
clarity. He saw Newspeak and Big Brother coming, and all of us
should take heed and be watchful. (See our segment on Big Brother
elsewhere in this issue.)
BIG BROTHER
A seer, commenting on hackers and crackers in a recent
publication, said:
"What I can forsee is a Government examination on the use of
computers before you're allowed to use one. An examination that
goes into the do's and don'ts so that if you elect to violate the
law and get caught, you won't be able to say "Hey! I didn't
know." And I can see much tighter controls on modems too, with
Government agencies freely tapping in to monitor and dropping in
on violators to confiscate their equipment."
The seer is Byron G. Wels, editor of Computer Digest. Yes, the
very same one who called hackers morons, thieves and criminals in
earlier editorials (COMSEC LETTER, YOGO 1.08).
This man certainly has some interesting ideas. We're especially
impressed by the fact that, every time he used the common noun
"government", he capitalized it -- not all nouns, just that one.
We think someone who thinks like this deserves a forum, and he's
been invited to participate in a panel on hackers during COMSEC
EXPO '85, December 17 & 18 in Washington, DC.
Considering the fact that representatives of government and
industry will be participating, along with some hackers, Mr. Wels
will have an excellent chance to expand on his ideas. He could,
for instance, outline what kind of training each of us will need
before we take that examination before we qualify for a
government permit to use a computer. He could be more specific as
to who must pass the exam. Will it be all operators including the
kindergartners who play games on their families' Commodores? Will
all operators of all main frame terminals be required to pass his
exam in order to retain their jobs?
Of course, the one thing we're most anxious to learn about is
"Government agencies freely tapping in to monitor". Mr. Wels can
explain to us what he intends to do about our Constitution so
that his Thought Control agents will not be hampered in their
activities. And, last but not least, Mr. Wels can explain the
definition of "violator" so that we'll all be able to understand
what it is that is being transmitted over telephone lines that
characterizes the sender as a violator.
P.S. He has received an invitation, and has agreed to appear on
the Hackers and Phone Phreaks panel. We're looking forward to it!
ANI
Stewart Glickstein has passed along some more ANI information
which we pass along to you. First, he calls the service
"Annabelle", or maybe it's spelled "ANIBELL'. Anyway, he says to
use the service in most parts of Florida you dial "200" or "300"
(sometimes a "1" is needed first) and seven digits.
Thanks Stewart.
Anybody else have anything to pass along?
CONVENTIONAL WISDOM
Recently we looked through some of the literature which is sold
to provide information on this technology, and, as usual, we were
appalled. One Rube Goldberg circuit had twelve or fifteen
components in it and performed the function of a single-pole,
single-throw switch (which, of course, was included in the bunch
of components anyway).
This particular book made a great thing about emphasizing the
need for "impedance matching" when connecting to the telephone
lines. Hoo Boy! It even showed a "matching transformer" matching
900 ohms to 900 ohms!
For any reader who is not versed in electronic theory, let us
just say that the idea that it is necessary to match impedance
when tapping a telephone is a lot of hokum. Yes, we're aware that
comment flies in the face of a lot of what has been taught to
government technicians; but it is, nevertheless, true.
Someday we'll prepare an essay on impedance, and impedance
matching; but, for now, let's just say that when you tap a
telephone line you want an impedance mismatch of the highest
order.
LETTERS
W. Bonham of Central Wisconsin Detective Agency in Wausau
responded to our comments on the use of freon as a letter bomb
detector in our YOGO 1.08 issue.
"I would like to offer, from my experience, the benefits and
caveats of utilizing freon. On the positive side, the process of
using freon in a spray method on letters is beneficial, but the
saturation is extremely difficult and is somewhat hazardous as
exposing your skin to a 'freeze burn'. The amount of saturation
is also important, as not enough freon in an area over a letter
will not allow a very good view, and it evaporates so quickly
that it diminishes the exposure of the contents of the letter.
"Some of the negative aspects of using freon on letters are that
some envelopes contain a double inside which, even with the use
of freon, will not allow the person to see what is inside the
letter.
"Concerning the use of freon on a package, I doubt whether this
is feasible at all, unless the package was submerged totally in
freon, and I don't know how an individual would do that.
"Again, speaking from my experience, in case of a suspected
package, probably the safest avenue to pursue would be to have it
X-rayed.
"Again, even handling the suspect letter or package could prove
to be hazardous in itself."
COMSEC EXPO '85
Mark your calendar. Sheraton Washington Hotel, December 17 & 18,
1985. Two days of panels, demonstrations, and exhibits relating
to Industrial Espionage Countermeasures, COMSEC/encryption, and
Investigations Technology. All aspects will be covered including
physical and electronic access control and security, tradeoffs in
equipment capabilities, government-industry interface, sources of
information and equipment, and many others. Demonstrations will
include hackers, computer bulletin boards, and data base
utilization.
Panelists are qualified, and each panel has been balanced so
that you'll hear differing points of view.
This is the first annual meeting of the Communications Security
Association, and it looks like it will be a dandy!
TO PONDER
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, moves on; nor all
your piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor
all your tears wash out a word of it."
TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED
In IEEE SPECTRUM, under the heading "No more fish stories" is a
report of a computerized fishing pole. Microprocessor controlled,
the system measures things like the pull on the line and the
bending of the pole. Properly calibrated, it will report the
weight of the fish caught and the length of the fight to bring
him in.
Some fish story.
MORE WORDS
IEEE SPECTRUM offers some new words to add to our vocabularies.
With reference to telecommunications they tell us that if POTS
stands for Plain Old Telephone Service, PANS should stand for
Pretty Amazing New Services.
They also enhance our knowledge of language used in banking
circles by explaining that POYs are Parents of YUPPIES, GUMs are
the Great Unwashed Masses, and HICKs are Hobbyists and Inner City
Kids who make up about one third of the active modem users.
(Banks are concerned about what the HICKs might do to them -- and
they should be concerned.)
LET'S VOTE
In a recent letter in IEEE SPECTRUM the writer points out some
of his pet peaves in spoken technical language. One of those is
his assertion that giga (as in gigaHertz) should be pronounced
with a soft "g", as in gigantic. He may be precisely right, but
we'll stick with the hard "g". We just can't imagine someone
saying, "That signal is on 2.2 jigs."
We also like the way our techs refer to picofarads as "puffs",
and we intend to continue to use "gigs" and "puffs" because their
use, in our opinion aids communication.
What do you think?
November, 1985
EDITORIAL: SHOULD WE CHANGE THE NAME OF THIS LETTER?
This is the next to last issue of the second year of COMSEC LET
TER. During these two years, we have tried to present balanced
material on good communication and on the protection of communica
tions. However, one thing has become apparent during these two
years: we cannot separate communication from information from com
puters from communication. They are wound in a tight bundle, and
we believe that we must address all of these areas if we are to
properly provide privacy protection guidance/advice/leadership.
In this regard, the first annual meeting of the Communications
Security Association, dubbed COMSEC EXPO '85, generated
additional comments relating to the name of the association and
to the name of the show. These comments were triggered primarily
by the fact that "COMSEC" is a word that has been used by the
military for a long time, and it has come to mean a very specific
segment of the whole area of protection of privacy. This letter
and this associa tion, on the other hand, address the overall
field of protection of privacy. That is, in addition to
communications, we're also interested in protecting data in
storage and data in transit.
Accordingly, we're thinking of a name change.
CIC SECURITY comes to mind. CIC, of course, to many of us means
Counter Intelligence Corps and that would lend a certain air of
mystique to the publication. Seriously though, the letters stand
for Communications, Information, and Computer. Maybe C.I.C. or
C2I could be used. Maybe some other combinations are better.
How about "Privacy Protection Letter? Protection of Privacy Let
ter (POPL)?
We're reasonably sure that we don't want to call it the Computer
and Communications Security letter (CCS LETTER, for short).
Maybe we should just stay the way we are.
Maybe we'll announce another contest.
Please call or write with your ideas.
WELCOME
Welcome to all who joined the Communications Security
Association at the COMSEC EXPO '85 conference. (A part of your
attendance fee paid your first year's dues in CSA, and a
subscription to this newsletter is one of the benefits of
membership.) We hope that you'll find the letter informative and
useful, and we hope you'll send us your comments. Your editor
likes feedback. (Read the FEEDBACK segment in this issue for an
example.)
As a new reader, you'll probably immediately react to the fact
that the November letter is coming to you in January. Well,
that's right. Your editor got involved in too many things and
this letter fell behind schedule. We hope to be back on schedule
in January, and we have confidence that we'll be able to do it.
Stay tuned.
COMSEC EXPO '85
General
Looking back, we don't really understand how a few volunteers
and Galaxy Conferences managed to put on such an event with so
little time for planning and promoting.
Yes, of course there were many glitches and communications
lapses, but let us quote one of the exhibitors: "It was a good
show. Sure some exhibitors will gripe, but don't pay any
attention to the naysayers. We were prepared, and we did well.
We'll be back next year for sure." Overall, the consensus seems
to be that it was an outstanding meeting for a first meeting.
The one common gripe (which is really a nice compliment in a
way) was that the people attending the panel sessions did not
have enough time to spend in the exhibit area. They wanted to
visit the exhibits thoroughly, but found they could not decide on
a panel to skip to make time for the exhibits. In fact, the most
frequently heard comment was praise for the quality of the
panelists, and the quality of the audiences. Panelists were true
experts with the ability to organize their thoughts and to
articulate them well. Questions from attendees were thoughtful
and indicated a high level of understanding.
Volunteers
The volunteers, whose great efforts in planning and managing
assured the success of this show, are:
Program Chairman: Tom Simpson
Track Chairmen:
Track I: Bob Bryant
Track II: Ric Blackmon
Track III: Jack Reed
Special: Paul Bowling
Panels
One of the panels that your editor participated in was the Title
III panel, and during that session we were treated to an analysis
of the laws relating to eavesdropping and recording by Barbara
Ann Rowan. She did an excellent job, and many favorable comments
were heard from the attendees. (By the way, the updated version
of Bar bara's book, "Handbook on State Laws Regarding Secretly
Recording Your Own Conversations" will be available Jan 31 from
Independent Hill Press, POB B37, Alexandria, VA, 22314. $15.00.)
The other panel that your editor participated in was the
two-part affair on technical surveillance countermeasures. Again,
comments by the attendees were very complimentary. From the point
of view of the panelists, we all were impressed with the level of
knowl edge of the people asking questions.
Many folks have commented on the Hackers and Computer Crime pan
els. We've heard that the different points of view expressed were
well and forcibly expressed and that the panelists really got
everyone's attention. -- What different points of view, you say?
Well, we heard that Byron Wels took the position that hackers
should be locked up in prison, and that the hackers disagreed.
Your editor heard only the end of the computer crime panel, and
thoroughly enjoyed the contrast between George Caldwell (Bell
Atlantic Security) and Ian Murphy (Captain Zap); and especially
appreciated the depth of knowledge and professionalism of both
men.
Feedback on the panel on modern telephone systems again was very
positive as to the competence of the panelists. We understand
that modern systems were well described and that they also
discussed the Horizon, Dimension, and Merlin possible weaknesses.
The panels in the Investigations Technology Track were well
attended, and generated a lot of comment. Jack Reed, who was in
charge of that track as Track Chairman, suggests that each panel
ist should have at least 30 minutes next year for his presenta
tion.
Jack also suggests two panels on optical surveillance next year.
He especially suggests more hands-on demonstrations. (We're all
in favor of that. In fact, that was one of our guiding principles
when we defined this conference, namely a minimum of theory and
conjecture and a maximum of practical, down-to-earth nuts and
bolts information. Unfortunately, a lot of the material which was
prepared to guide the panelists was never provided to the panel
ists so each panel chairman was pretty much left without guidance
as to ideas, thrust, and desired content.)
Those people who attended our bonus sessions were laudatory
about what they had seen. Unfortunately, our communication system
left a lot to be desired, and many people were not aware of
everything that was available to them. Paul Bowling was in charge
of the "Special Track" (bonus and early bird sessions), and he
has sug gested some techniques and some equipment which can be
used to make the computer screen information more accessible to
more people next year.
The early bird sessions also suffered due to our lack of good
communication to the attendees. Actually, they were open to every
one, including those who registered for exhibits only, but that
word just didn't get out to everyone.
Exhibits
We noted that traffic in the exhibit area dropped off in mid-
afternoon, and we attribute that to the preponderance of local
people attending the exhibits only -- and, of course, they want
to miss the awful evening traffic rush if they can. Next time
we'll offer something special for them to try to hold them a
little longer so that they'll be tempted to wait until the
evening rush hour has tapered off.
Also, we will be allowing more time for conference attendees to
visit the exhibits.
One of the most popular exhibits was a simulated "shoot out"
with loud sound effects. (It was popular with everyone but the
adjoin ing exhibitors, that is.)
CSA Organization
The Communications Security Association hosted a luncheon for
members at which a start was made on assignments to various
organizing committees. Arnold Blumenthal is in charge of getting
things underway and is looking for help on the membership,
activities, by-laws, and local chapters committees. If you'd
like to get involved, call or write. Much help is needed. You
can reach Arnold at PTN Publishing Company, 101 Crossways Parkway
West, Woodbury, NY 11797. 516-496-8000.
Next Year
Plans are underway for next year's meeting, and your comments
are solicited.
TYPOS THAT GOT INTO PRINT
It's really embarrassing -- especially when you consider that
this is a letter dedicated to communications security, with heavy
emphasis on the need for creating good communications before
expending effort to try to protect those communications.
Boy, have we let some typos slip through!
We wrote: "now being defined" (relating to a new seminar
offering); we printed: "not being defined".
Last month's error is even worse.
Somehow an errant "not" found its way into a sentence relating
to impedance matching; and, of course, made the whole sentence
wrong. Let's try again. It should have read:
"For any reader who is not versed in electronic theory, let us
just say that the idea that it is necessary to match impedance
when tapping a telephone line is a lot of hokum. ... when you
tap a telephone line, you want an impedance mismatch of the
highest order."
More on this in a technical essay later; but, for now, apologies
to all who wondered.
There is no mystery in how these things get through. It's
simple; your editor is the world's worst proofreader. However,
all is not lost. Somehow we're going to lick the incompatibility
problem between our computer and the computer in the firm that
does our typesetting. After that problem is taken care of, there
will no longer be a need for all of our material to be
rekeyboarded -- whatever exists in our file will be transmitted
electronically to their equipment.
FEEDBACK
From Jim Samuels:
"Dear Security Ass,
I would love to go to your COMSEC '85, but you sent me the info
5 days before the date to be there. I have no time to set up air,
time off, mail payment, etc. Please, if you are going to have
something, give me more than 5 days notice.
Our answer: Of course, Jim is right. He should have had many
MONTHS of notice before the date of the event. To anyone who was
disappointed by our late notice: our apologies. It was not by
design. We tried to do too much too fast, but we had a good show
despite our late start. We promise to do better next year.
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ASSOCIATION, MEMBERS-ONLY NEWSLETTER
The Board of Directors has decided that, starting in January,
the COMSEC LETTER will be available only to members.
Subscriptions currently in force will be honored, but no further
independent subscriptions will be accepted. Thus, this letter
becomes the organ of the association.
Membership dues are $50 per year (special rate for students:
$10). CSA, 655 15th St. #320, Washington, DC 20005.
NEW (OLD) FORMAT
To try to catch up we're skipping the typesetting process for
the next few issues, and having the output of our printer
printed. Won't look as nice, but we'll sure get it out faster.
Stand back!
December, 1985
EDITORIAL
In the first two years of publishing this letter we have tried
to provide practical, usable information to assist our readers on
the
road to good communications and the protection of their privacy.
This issue is only 2 pages instead of the usual 4, 6, or 8 pages:
but it may well be the most valuable of all of the letters
because it contains two segments which can be of immeasurable
importance.
First, if you are using, or contemplate using, a Horizon, Dimen
sion, or Merlin telephone system, you should read the segment
entitled, "POSSIBLE WEAKNESSES. DIMENSION, HORIZON, MERLIN".
If the information which has been given to us is true, every
one using one of these systems is in jeopardy. If the informa
tion is not true, it's all a tempest in a teapot. In either
case, as free citizens of a free country, we are entitled to
know the facts.
Second, as free citizens of a free country, we should be aware
of
what our federal legislators are proposing in the bills
entitled "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985".
These bills, if enacted, would remove all protection of oral
communications. These bills, if enacted, would make it a
crime
to receive what is being broadcast on certain frequencies.
These bills, if enacted, would make a shambles out of the law
relating to telephone taps.
POSSIBLE WEAKNESSES. DIMENSION, HORIZON, MERLIN
It is possible that these telephone systems represent the great
est threat to privacy that this country has ever faced.
We have been told that these systems, in some configurations,
can
be reprogrammed remotely. We have been told that a CIA study
details these weaknesses. At present, we are trying to collect
enough information so that we can conduct some tests.
It has been said that one can remotely monitor activity on a spe
cific line by accessing the computer's maintenance line and
giving
it the proper commands. (REMOBS without having the exchange
equipped for REMOBS.) It has been said that it is possible to
turn
on a telephone's hands-free feature by accessing the computer's
maintenance line and giving it the proper commands. It has been
said that by accessing the computer's maintenance line and
issuing
the proper commands, we can cause it to dial a second number
every
time the user makes an outgoing call. If these allegations are
true, these systems represent a horrendous threat.
If any agency of our government has evaluated these systems and
discovered that these weaknesses do indeed exist, that agency has
an obligation to make their findings public immediately.
If these weaknesses do exist, you can bet your bottom dollar
that
some very smart people who don't worry about laws, have already
discovered it, and are using it daily for their own purposes.
ANOTHER THREAT, THIS ONE FROM OUR LEGISLATORS
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1985 would outlaw
almost all radio listening other than commercial broadcasts, CBs,
hams, and a few other categories. This, despite the fact that
when something is transmitted by radio, there is no way to
control who receives it. Congress can pass a million laws to the
contrary, but it cannot change that fact. Propagation of radio
waves is not amenable to control by man-made laws. (And Congress
looks mighty silly even discussing such laws.)
Readers of this letter who are concerned about Big Brother are
urged to check into this situation. Can you imagine that
listening to what has been broadcast on certain frequencies would
be a crime? Supposing you had a not-so-good receiver, with lots
of images, and one of those images happened to be a forbidden
frequency.... There you go, off to jail just 'cuz you had a
receiver which had poor image rejection. (And we wonder how they
think such a law could be enforced!)
Further, in their effort to improve the old law (PL 90-351), our
legislators have removed all protection which had existed regard
ing oral (that is, face-to-face) communications. It used to be
that you were protected from someone leaving a hidden recorder in
your office, or home, or bedroom or whatever; but, if this bill
is enacted, you will no longer have any such protection. Then
there's the old bugaboo, the definition of "intercept". According
to the dictionary, it means to capture something between sender
and intended receiver, thus preventing that something from
reaching the intended receiver. Well, telephone taps do not pre
vent the information being transmitted over telephone lines from
reaching the intended receiver. All they do is to allow someone
to record or listen to the material being transmitted. The tap
does not intercept, it merely eavesdrops.
So our legislators wrote their own special definition of
"interception" into the old law, defining it as the "aural
acquisition" of the material being transmitted. This simply means
that a human hears (with his ears and auditory nerves and brain)
that which is being transmitted. (As a matter of fact, it does
not even specify that a human must "aurally acquire"; could be a
dog or cat or cow or ???) However, this definition was too much
for even the people who wrote it to understand. Now they say
their law does not pro tect data because data is not speech.
Shoot! Data is transmitted out of the modem as a series of tones,
which are in the range of frequencies that can be heard.
Therefore, "aural acquisition" is possible, and so data
transmissions are protected regardless of the mindless repetition
of statements to the contrary.
You should ask your Congressman or Senator to send copies of
this bill(HR 3378) and also the senate version (S 1667). (Also,
get a copy of PL 90-351, because the new bill simply substitutes
words and phrases in place of words and phrases in the old law.
-- Takes a lot of effort to determine just what they intend to
become the new law. D'you suppose they did that on purpose?)
COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ASSOCIATION, MEMBERS-ONLY NEWSLETTER
The Board of Directors has decided that, starting in January,
the COMSEC LETTER will become the official organ of the
association. Subscriptions currently in force will be honored,
but no further independent subscriptions will be accepted.
Membership dues are
$50 per year (special rate for students: $10). CSA, 655 15th St.
#320, Washington, DC 20005.
