On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 10:37 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > On Wednesday 26 January 2005 13:56, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 25 January 2005 15:05, linux-os wrote:
> > > > > This isn't relevant at all. The Navy doesn't have any secure
> > > > > systems connected to a network to which any hackers could connect.
> > > > > The TDRS communications satellites provide secure channels
> > > > > that are disassembled on-board. Some ATM-slot, after decryption
> > > > > is fed to a LAN so the sailors can have an Internet connection
> > > > > for their lap-tops. The data took the same paths, but it's
> > > > > completely independent and can't get mixed up no matter how
> > > > > hard a hacker tries.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you didn't hear about the secure network being hit by the "I
> > > > love you" virus.
> > > >
> > > > The Navy doesn't INTEND to have any secure systems connected to a
> > > > network
> > > > to which any hackers could connect.
> > >
> > > What's hard about that? Matter of physical network topology, absolutely no
> > > physical connection, no machines with a 2nd NIC, no access to/from I'net.
> > > Yes, it's a PITA, add logging to a physical printer which can't be erased
> > > if you want to make your CSO happy (corporate security officer).
> >
> > And you are ASSUMING the connection was authorized. I can assure you that
> > there are about 200 (more or less) connections from the secure net to the
> > internet expressly for the purpose of transferring data from the internet
> > to the secure net for analysis. And not ALL of these connections are
> > authorized. Some are done via sneakernet, others by running a cable ("I need
> > the data NOW... I'll just disconnect afterward..."), and are not visible
> > for very long. Other connections are by picking up a system and carrying it
> > from one connection to another (a version of sneakernet, though here it
> > sometimes needs a hand cart).
> >
> > > > Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be a path, either direct, or indirect
> > > > between the secure net and the internet.
> > >
> > > Other than letting people use secure computers after they have seen the
> > > Internet, a good setup has no indirect paths.
> >
> > Ha. Hahaha...
> >
> > Reality bites.
>
> In the reality I'm familiar with, the defense contractor's secure
> projects building had one entrance, guarded by security guards who were
> not cheap $10/hr guys, with strict instructions. No computers or
> computer media were allowed to leave the building except with written
> authorization of a corporate officer. The building was shielded against
> Tempest attacks and verified by the NSA. Any computer hardware or media
> brought into the building for the project was physically destroyed at
> the end.That sounds familiar... Doing any of the things mentioned above would (if detected) result in firing on the spot, loss of security clearance, and a stunningly bad reference if anyone did an employment check. Not to mention possible civil or criminal prosecution in some cases. -- bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
