NODE 1c3699f1RE: Question about 'TEMPEST'
"Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1@texaco.com>Wed, 23 Dec 1998 22:17:55 +0800
Tim May wrote:
> The full TEMPEST specs are more or less classified, as might
> be expected. (Because one does not lightly tell one's enemies
> what one is measuring for.)
> Contrary to popular rumor, it is not "illegal" to shield
> computers, to "use TEMPEST methods," as it were.
Rather hard to see how it could be, given that the details are supposed to
be secret! If all of a sudden you got arrested for wrapping wet towels
around screens that would be a Big Clue....
(of course that assumes you live in a country where you get told what you;ve
been arrested for. Hmmmm....)
Ken
NODE 06ca7b8dRe: Question about 'TEMPEST'
"Paul H. Merrill" <PaulMerrill@acm.org>Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:40:54 +0800
The details of TEMPEST are classified, but details of reduction of
emmissions are not. After all, those little FCC notices on your
equipment these days are regarding emmissions. 'Tis all a matter of
degree.
PHM
Brown, R Ken wrote:
>
> Tim May wrote:
>
> > The full TEMPEST specs are more or less classified, as might
> > be expected. (Because one does not lightly tell one's enemies
> > what one is measuring for.)
>
> > Contrary to popular rumor, it is not "illegal" to shield
> > computers, to "use TEMPEST methods," as it were.
>
> Rather hard to see how it could be, given that the details are supposed to
> be secret! If all of a sudden you got arrested for wrapping wet towels
> around screens that would be a Big Clue....
>
> (of course that assumes you live in a country where you get told what you;ve
> been arrested for. Hmmmm....)
>
> Ken