No Subject

Here is parts of the article I posted regarding the legality of the use
of emf shielding.  Read it carefully, and I suggest you also read the
posted document in full as well.  This poses many problems to the public
in general, and the private sector in specific.
PERRY, I suggest you read this.              
 
               NACSIM 5100A is  classified, as are all  details of TEMPEST.
          To  obtain  access to  it, contractor  must  prove that  there is
          demand within  the government for the specific  type of equipment
          that intend to  certify.  Since  the standard is classified,  the
          contractors can not sell the equipment to non-secure governmental
          agencies or the public.  This prevents reverse engineering of the
          standard  for its physical  embodiment, the  Certified equipment.
          By  preventing  the   private  sector  from  owning   this  anti-
          eavesdropping equipment,  the NSA has  effectively prevented  the
          them from protecting the information in their computers. 
               A number of  companies produce  devices to measure  the
          emanations from electrical equipment.  Some of these devices
          are  specifically   designed  for   bench  marking   TEMPEST
          Certified equipment.  This does not  solve the problem.  The
          question  arises:  how   much  radiation  at   a  particular
          frequency  is compromising?  The  current answer is to refer
          to NACSIM  5100A.   This document  specifies the  emanations
          levels suitable  for Certification.   The  document is  only
          available  to United  States  contractors having  sufficient
          security  clearance  and  an  ongoing  contract  to  produce
          TEMPEST Certified computers  for the  government.   Further,
          the correct levels are specified by the NSA and there  is no
          assurance that, while these levels are sufficient to prevent
          eavesdropping by unfriendly operatives,  equipment certified
          under NACSIM  5100A will have  levels low enough  to prevent
          eavesdropping by the NSA itself.
               The  accessibility  of  supposedly  correct  emanations
          levels  does  not solve  the  problem of  preventing TEMPEST
          eavesdropping.     Access   to  NACSIM   5100A   limits  the
          manufacturer to selling the equipment  only to United States
          governmental  agencies  with  the  need  to  process  secret
          information.[33]  Without  the right to possess  TEMPEST ELINT
          equipment  manufacturers  who  wish to  sell  to  the public
          sector cannot determine what a  safe level of emanations is.
          Further  those  manufacturers with  access  to  NACSIM 5100A
          should  want  to  verify that  the  levels  set  out in  the
          document are, in  fact, low enough to  prevent interception.
          Without an actual  eavesdropping device with which  to test,
          no   manufacturer  will   be   able  to   produce  genuinely
          uncompromising equipment.

PERRY, now I put up, now YOU SHUT UP!

sheesh.

treason@gnu.

"Treason" writes:

> Here is parts of the article I posted regarding the legality of the use
> of emf shielding.  
[...]
> PERRY, now I put up, now YOU SHUT UP!
> sheesh.
> treason@gnu.

The article you posted is at least 3 years old, if not older.  I have not
checked on the legal references quote in the article, but I called up
Wayne Martin of Lindgren RF Enclosures, and asked him about this.  He
said that he was not restricted to selling TEMPEST equipment to military
or government only, and suggested that if I am looking for TEMPEST-compliant
computers, I should call up a computer manufacturer like IBM or Digital,
and they would be able to sell such systems to me.

Maybe things have changed in the last three years since the article was 
written, or maybe it was incorrect to begin with.  


--
Yanek Martinson    mthvax.cs.miami.edu!safe0!yanek     uunet!medexam!yanek
this address preferred -->> yanek@novavax.nova.edu <<-- this address preferred
Phone (305) 765-6300 daytime   FAX: (305) 765-6708  1321 N 65 Way/Hollywood
      (305) 963-1931 evenings       (305) 981-9812  Florida, 33024-5819

Yanek Martinson makes some very good points about the legality of
TEMPEST:

> "Treason" writes:
> 
> > Here is parts of the article I posted regarding the legality of the use
> > of emf shielding.  
> [...]
> > PERRY, now I put up, now YOU SHUT UP!
> > sheesh.
> > treason@gnu.
> 
> The article you posted is at least 3 years old, if not older.  I have not
> checked on the legal references quote in the article, but I called up
> Wayne Martin of Lindgren RF Enclosures, and asked him about this.  He
> said that he was not restricted to selling TEMPEST equipment to military
> or government only, and suggested that if I am looking for TEMPEST-compliant
> computers, I should call up a computer manufacturer like IBM or Digital,
> and they would be able to sell such systems to me.
> 
> Maybe things have changed in the last three years since the article was 
> written, or maybe it was incorrect to begin with.  

Thanks, Yanek!

And could I suggest to all of us that we be very careful in the
language we use when disagreeing with others? "Treason's" demand that
Perry now "SHUT UP" is intemperate and counterproductive.

Our list is not moderated, that is, there is no censor or moderator
holding people back when they feel the temptation to spew bile all
over the list. With hundred of folks now on this list, great care must
be taken.

Sorry to waste list bandwidth on this point of list etiquette.

--Tim

-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: by arrangement.

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:38:34 -0500
   From: treason@gnu.ai.mit.edu
   Apparently-To: cypherpunks@toad.com

   Here is parts of the article I posted regarding the legality of the use
   of emf shielding.  Read it carefully, and I suggest you also read the
   posted document in full as well.  

We have read it carefully.  What your article claims is that NACSIM
5100A is classified, so if something is built to be TEMPEST certified,
the design is classified, and the actual device can not be sold to the
public, in order to prevent reverse-engineering of the standard.

This, however, does not mean that emf shielding is illegal.  How to do
emf shielding is relatively well understood --- what is classified is
how much shielding is enough.  As your article itself admits, having the
the NACSIM standard isn't very useful anyway, since we can't trust the
levels promulgated by the NSA to be sufficient to prevent them from
listening in.  (What you're saying would be like saying that the NSA has
a classified recommendation that RSA keys be at least XXX bits long ---
just because the recommendation is classified doesn't mean that we can't
use RSA, and if the number of bits were something like 512 bits, if we
found out what it was, we'd probably want to use something bigger
anyway.  :-)

As many other people have pointed out, emf shielding can't be illegal,
since it's required for FCC requirements.  If someone wants to spend
additional money, and put a lot more shielding that what's really
needed, there shouldn't be any problem with that.

Finally, I'm not sure about the complete accuracy of that article you've
posted.  We have one of the first BBN Safekeeper (tm) boxes at MIT,
which is a certificate meter which generates X.509 public key
certificates for use in the Privacy Enhanced Mail (PEM) system.  It *IS*
TEMPEST shielded(*) and BBN is planning on selling it to commercial
companies, TEMPEST shielding and all.  Therefore, I suspect that the
information in that article may be out of date.

   PERRY, now I put up, now YOU SHUT UP!

There's no need to be rude --- especially when you're wrong and can't
even interpret the article which you yourself posted.

						- Ted

(*) There is an amusing story about what happened when they took it to
get it certified as a FCC Class A computing device (which they needed to
do since they were planning on selling it commercially); the FCC tester
kept bringing his testing device closer, and closer, and closer to the
Safekeeper(tm), and when he was finally on top of it, he tapped his
meter and asked: ``Are you sure this is turned on?''  As the story was
told to me, the designer of the box was there for the testing, and this
was one of his prouder moments.  :-)