Guy Fraser wrote:
On Fri, 2006-14-04 at 13:01 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Friday 14 April 2006 15:47, Mike McCarty wrote:
Your choice entirely. Encryption does work, and I also have checked that
nothing is detectable outside my boundaries. Then of course it can be tied
to mac addresses. It's perfectly possible to have the facility without risk.
If you don't need it, fine.
Any machine to which there is physical access has only
relative security. The fewer physical access points there
are the higher the relative security can be. Removing the
antenna almost removes one of the access points.
I say almost because, should the firmware or hardware not
properly disable the wireless I/F, someone who knew I was
here and had a high-power transmitter and a focussed high
gain antenna with a sensitive receiver could still get
access.
Very true. Removing the antenna may not actually do what
you want, it will certainly reduce the antenna gain, but
does not prevent transmission or reception. What you
should do is install a 50 Ohm shielded terminator. You
will need a BNC adaptor for you antenna connector, which
TNC. And even a 50 ohm termination (presuming that the
receiver uses 50 ohm impedance, which is almost certain,
given the frequencies involved) will not completely
isolate. And then there are IF amp. attacks, etc.
with you to make sure you get the right one. You can
likely get the adaptor and terminator at an electronics
supply store, or from a radio system installer.
I could build my own using parts in my junk box, actually.
We used to do a lot of wireless connections and determined
that even heavily shielded radios could communicate
effectively over a couple feet with no antennae installed
on either one. We also determined that using 100mW TX
Of course, this is a violation of FCC regs... :-)
[snip]
arrays it could be possible to receive a signal covertly
from hundreds of feet away, but then you don't necessarily
need a wireless router to do that anyway.;^) If you are
Yah, I've got a 6 foot cable running between the router and
my machine, and a 6 foot cable (coiled up, it's true) between
the router and the DSL modem, both unshieled twisted pair
(CAT5 stuff).
interested, there are a few good articles about Tempest
surveillance that are enlightening. I used to work on
anti-tempest compliant devices for law enforcement and
military applications, back in the late 80's. I can only
imagine how much better the new tempest stuff is. :^O
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/security/tempest.htm
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
