[8422] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: NSA abandons some cool stuff
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arnold G. Reinhold)
Wed Jan 10 10:48:18 2001
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <v04210107b6819818e326@[24.218.56.92]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010108180900.007dbd10@pop.sprynet.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:55:43 -0500
To: David Honig <honig@sprynet.com>
From: "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 6:09 PM -0800 1/8/2001, David Honig wrote:
>At 07:51 PM 1/8/01 -0500, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>...
> By shielding the fixtures, they effectively
>>place the lights outside of the enclosure.=A0
>
>Yes. But 1. you'd still want a filter the power mains
>inside your physically secured zone 2. The site had a
>generator... and presumably a guarded perimeter (think
>1/R^2) so emissions were probably less important than
>listening sensitivity...
I suspect they would not rely on the guarded perimeter for TEMPEST,=20
at least not back then. The 1/R^2 attenuation applies to reception=20
as well. One would put distance between the antennae and the=20
buildings housing the computers and other sources of noise.
>
>I'll bet the wiring to
> >those fixtures is within carefully grounded conduit.
>
>Building codes often require this, anyway, though probably
>not grounded to the extent of someone concerned with emissions.
I doubt they require conduit in rural NC. And my guess is you'll see=20
welded straps bridging each joint.
>Again, it makes much more sense (cost, number of items to check
>periodically) to put isolation centrally.
The kind of filtering you need for TEMPEST is pretty fancy (and=20
expensive no doubt). I have heard numbers like 100+ db. The filters=20
have to be located at boundary of the shielded enclosure. I don't=20
believe you can do it centrally.
The more I think about it, the less convinced I am that this was a=20
intercept receiving site. If it were, why was it abandoned? Surely=20
NSA does not have less need for that sort of thing in the post-cold=20
war era? And why put one in North Carolina?
It may have been a site for operational control of NSA satellites.=20
The large antennae and secluded location would make jamming more=20
difficult. The dual systems and self-contained power would insure=20
high availability and the shielding and fibre optics might also be=20
directed to EMP protection. The 1995 abandonment might have been due=20
to a realization that NSA could safely share satellite control=20
facilities with other DOD satellite owners, once the=20
money-is-no-object era ended.
>
>>It would be fun to take a tour!
>
>It looks like those RF astronomers would be willing, if you
>shut your cell phone off while visiting :-), though likely
>miffed that you're more interested in the facility than in the
>astronomy...
>
>---------
>
>Another possibility is that they were so freaked by the static sensitivity
>of early MOS devices that they grounded the carpets...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
