11062Re: Boeing EC-135 Looking Glass aircraft
- Nov 4, 2006Thank you for that. Interesting to see Bellovin claims the Soviets
were not offered PAL technology until 71, while the author of Red Star
Rogue claims the technology transfer occurred about half a decade earlier.
All in all I sleep safer (not!) knowing the devices are now protected
by a computerized circuit that is at least as safe and reliable as the
sensors and computer chip in my 90s vintage (an yes, it is fairly well
If you have ever noticed your car alarm is going off as you drive down
the highway, or had a brake or an oxygen sensor go bad and report a
problem where non exists, you will understand my concern.
Lacking a status board, I would assume the vast majority of PAL
malfunctions would go largely unnoticed unless an attempt was being
made to fire the weapon, as most would simply dud the unused warhead.
This realitization naturally raises questions as to how many deployed
warheads are actually functional and how many experience sensor
failure issues which no one notices.
MTBF, Chaos Theory and Murphy's Law come to mind. I am not sure which
scenario is worse. Do you want a non-PAL protected device in the
hands of someone who may react in a negative way to a personal crisis?
Anyone who knew someone who decided one day to kill themself, but who
also gave little external advance notice of rising internal stress
levels, should understand the flaw in that scenario. That, and weapon
security issues, argue strongly for PAL devices, but the increasing of
complexity of such devices creates new reliability problems and
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
> > Steve Bellovin's orginal URL for the PAL crypto study appears dead.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>