Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Boeing EC-135 Looking Glass aircraft

Expand Messages
  • Xxxxx xxx
    Thank 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
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank 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
      maintained) Jeep.

      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
      concerns.

      --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
      >
      >snip
      > >
      > > Steve Bellovin's orginal URL for the PAL crypto study appears dead.
      > snip
      > Try:
      >
      > http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html
      >
      >
      > snip
    • John Bass
      Anyone that considers major regional, or even global war, unlikely without nukes, needs seriously to consider the evil that lurks in the hearts of men and
      Message 2 of 27 , Nov 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Anyone that considers major regional, or even global war, unlikely without nukes, needs seriously to consider the evil that lurks in the hearts of men and women thinking they are doing the right thing for religous, national, and cultural gain. Especially middle east clerics these days, using war to spread their faith, with little regard for other faiths.

        Until the UN can be replaced with a body that has a mandated charter for human rights, the only thing that stands in the way of major regional wars, are what is left of the cold war infrastructure.

        John Young <jya@...> wrote:
        Today's picayune terrorists are small fry by comparison with
        the giants still robbing national treasuries while spreading fear
        as diversion. Perhaps some day fiction wil catch up to this
        banditry, but that will probably not be done by Tom Clancy and
        others making a bundle off perpetuating the need for heroic
        defenses against chimeras of national security threats, in
        secret and camouflaged by lots of smoke.








        ---------------------------------
        Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • John Young
        This topic winds back to coldwarcomm in the matter of distributing access codes for arming nuclear weapons: revisions, updates, spoofs, and other customary
        Message 3 of 27 , Nov 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          This topic winds back to coldwarcomm in the matter of distributing
          access codes for arming nuclear weapons: revisions, updates, spoofs,
          and other customary means and methods of cloaking the most secure
          communications, a process never finished, never wholly trustworthy.

          Whatever NSA or the national labs cook up for this, in particular Sandia
          at Kirtland AFB, has to be implemented in the weapons storage and
          distribution systems. At one time Sandia handled most of this, and maybe
          still does. The nuclear weapons training school is there along with a
          host of operations connected to storage and handling the devices.
          That role goes back to the earliest day of the atomic era when the
          Air Force began to get the weapons into the supply stream after
          the Los Alamos folks turned over the results of their laboratory
          work to bomb manufacturers and thence to Kirtland for final arming and
          securing.

          The largest nuclear weapons storage area is still at Kirtland AFB,
          Kirtland Undergound Munitions Storage Complex, with Sandia nearby,
          and presumably Sandia monitors the condition of the weapons
          and assures that they are highly secure and ready for use, whether
          stored or poised for action in silos and on planes, ships and subs.

          To minimize the hazards always posed by the best of secure communications
          systems, the distribution pipe is shortened by rigging the weapons at one
          place and then ship them out to the "nuclear weapons storage areas
          (NWSAs)" worldwide. Kirtland rigs and ships for the Air Force; for the
          Navy it is done at the nuclear submarine naval bases at Bangor and
          Kings Bay. These are guesses based on the multi-volume "Nuclear
          Weapons Databook."

          Even so, once the weapons are rigged and sent into the field there are
          presumably requirements to assure protection of access codes subject to
          cracking or betrayal or, as noted here, insanity and vainglory, and this
          presumably involves transmission over communications systems. Remote
          control of access codes is an intriguing methodology, whether by algorithm
          or classified means. Dud weapons also pose a threat as real to the public
          as the real thing.

          A scientist, William Payne, who worked at Sandia on crypto, inventing devices
          for uses that are classified but could fit nicely in a nuke, got into a fight
          with
          the administration, was canned, and then sued the lab. NSA got into the fight
          because he worked with an NSA team on the crypto gadgets, and NSA
          refused him access to his own work during the suit. A lot of info was
          presented

          to the judge by NSA in camera and the judge refused to make it public. Payne
          eventually sued the judge as well as Sandia, and the suit is continuing.

          A long story to call attention to one example of a crypto wizard who probably
          could crack PALs, having probably helped build them, if he got angry enough.
          He claims to have been approached by foreign elements who got wind of his
          fight with Sandia, and offers were made. Payne says he rebuffed them, not
          for him to do to the US what it was doing to him. For now.

          Payne's web site with gobs of documents of the years-long information
          security tussle (the latest dated yesterday):

          <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bpayne37/index.htm>http://mywebpages.comcast
          .net/bpayne37/index.htm



          At 06:48 PM 11/4/2006 +0000, you wrote:

          >
          > Thank 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
          > maintained) Jeep.
          >
          > 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
          > concerns.
          >
          > --- In <mailto:coldwarcomms%40yahoogroups.com>coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com,
          > David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
          > >
          > >snip
          > > >
          > > > Steve Bellovin's orginal URL for the PAL crypto study appears dead.
          > > snip
          > > Try:
          > >
          > >
          > <http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html>http://www.cs.columbia
          > edu/~smb/nsam-160/pal.html
          > >
          > >
          > > snip
          >
          >
        • John Bass
          I think your intended debate of weapons policy and deployment is off topic for this group - something of an endless rathole. -- John John Young
          Message 4 of 27 , Nov 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I think your intended debate of weapons policy and deployment is off topic for this group - something of an endless rathole. -- John



            John Young <jya@...> wrote: This topic winds back to coldwarcomm in the matter of distributing
            access codes for arming nuclear weapons: revisions, updates, spoofs,
            and other customary means and methods of cloaking the most secure
            communications, a process never finished, never wholly trustworthy.









            ---------------------------------
            Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • tsniffin20902
            Ok, While John s ending statement may have been off topic, the rest of his post was interesting and consistent with on-going discussion. However, your reply
            Message 5 of 27 , Nov 5, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Ok, While John's ending statement may have been off topic, the rest of
              his post was interesting and consistent with on-going discussion.
              However, your reply (below)was even further off topic. Let it go..

              Reading through Bellovin's research on PALs was very interesting. It
              forced me to go back through nuc command can control links to
              understand the process. Political and social issues aside, I'm
              curious to hear what others on the list view as alternatives to the
              current PAL/EAS system?

              TS


              --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, John Bass <fpga_toys@...> wrote:

              "Anyone that considers major regional, or even global war, unlikely
              without nukes, needs seriously to consider the evil that lurks in the
              hearts of men and women thinking they are doing the right thing for
              religous, national, and cultural gain. Especially middle east clerics
              these days, using war to spread their faith, with little regard for
              other faiths.

              Until the UN can be replaced with a body that has a mandated charter
              for human rights, the only thing that stands in the way of major
              regional wars, are what is left of the cold war infrastructure."

              --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, John Bass <fpga_toys@...> wrote:
              >
              > I think your intended debate of weapons policy and deployment is off
              topic for this group - something of an endless rathole. -- John
              >
            • John Bass
              A lot more than ending statement ... if it s fair game, I ll surely be happy to debate, and rebuke, the politics he presents so strongly. John tsniffin20902
              Message 6 of 27 , Nov 5, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                A lot more than ending statement ... if it's fair game, I'll surely be happy to debate, and rebuke, the politics he presents so strongly.

                John

                tsniffin20902 <TSniffin@...> wrote: Ok, While John's ending statement may have been off topic, the rest of
                his post was interesting and consistent with on-going discussion.
                However, your reply (below)was even further off topic. Let it go..

                Reading through Bellovin's research on PALs was very interesting. It
                forced me to go back through nuc command can control links to
                understand the process. Political and social issues aside, I'm
                curious to hear what others on the list view as alternatives to the
                current PAL/EAS system?

                TS

                --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, John Bass <fpga_toys@...> wrote:

                "Anyone that considers major regional, or even global war, unlikely
                without nukes, needs seriously to consider the evil that lurks in the
                hearts of men and women thinking they are doing the right thing for
                religous, national, and cultural gain. Especially middle east clerics
                these days, using war to spread their faith, with little regard for
                other faiths.

                Until the UN can be replaced with a body that has a mandated charter
                for human rights, the only thing that stands in the way of major
                regional wars, are what is left of the cold war infrastructure."

                --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, John Bass <fpga_toys@...> wrote:
                >
                > I think your intended debate of weapons policy and deployment is off
                topic for this group - something of an endless rathole. -- John
                >






                ---------------------------------
                Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Lesher
                ... FWIW: Steve promised me an update Real Soon Now on more PAL goodies. I ll let the list know when it is released. -- A host is a host from coast to
                Message 7 of 27 , Nov 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                  >
                  >
                  > Reading through Bellovin's research on PALs was very interesting. It
                  > forced me to go back through nuc command can control links to
                  > understand the process. Political and social issues aside, I'm
                  > curious to hear what others on the list view as alternatives to the
                  > current PAL/EAS system?

                  FWIW:
                  Steve promised me an update Real Soon Now on more PAL goodies.
                  I'll let the list know when it is released.



                  --
                  A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@...
                  & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
                  Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
                  is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
                • Michael Harpe
                  If the knows that contractor from Los Alamos who lived in the trailer park with a junkie he should be able to get a complete set of prints along with documents
                  Message 8 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If the knows that contractor from Los Alamos who lived in the trailer park with
                    a junkie he should be able to get a complete set of prints along with documents
                    on how to bypass the PAL altogether!

                    I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of that incident on here.

                    I think we should be discussing LANLs security!

                    Mike Harpe

                    --- David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:

                    > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Reading through Bellovin's research on PALs was very interesting. It
                    > > forced me to go back through nuc command can control links to
                    > > understand the process. Political and social issues aside, I'm
                    > > curious to hear what others on the list view as alternatives to the
                    > > current PAL/EAS system?
                  • Spencer
                    ... trailer park with ... with documents ... on here. ... interesting. It ... to the ... and I thought this was an information, facts, trivia, and topic site
                    Message 9 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com, Michael Harpe <mharpe79@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > If the knows that contractor from Los Alamos who lived in the
                      trailer park with
                      > a junkie he should be able to get a complete set of prints along
                      with documents
                      > on how to bypass the PAL altogether!
                      >
                      > I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of that incident
                      on here.
                      >
                      > I think we should be discussing LANLs security!
                      >
                      > Mike Harpe
                      >
                      > --- David Lesher <wb8foz@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Reading through Bellovin's research on PALs was very
                      interesting. It
                      > > > forced me to go back through nuc command can control links to
                      > > > understand the process. Political and social issues aside, I'm
                      > > > curious to hear what others on the list view as alternatives
                      to the
                      > > > current PAL/EAS system?
                      >
                      and I thought this was an information, facts, trivia, and topic site
                      on communications, insted of a forum to promote wacked out, off
                      topic, views, or debates.

                      SILLY ME
                    • superc
                      I would disagree, or add the caveat, only as they applied to the Cold War. What happened or happens after 1992 or so is, in my opinion, beyond the intended
                      Message 10 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I would disagree, or add the caveat, only as they applied to the Cold War. What
                        happened or happens after 1992 or so is, in my opinion, beyond the intended ken of this
                        Yahoo group. If I write of Golf class diesel subs and Soviet problems with commo and
                        control of them, or even PAL A devices, that is a Cold War topic. I truly doubt that
                        anyone here, even if they had some knowledge, would (or should) be willing to discuss
                        current PALs or current control methodologies. When we write of DES cryptography we are
                        in Cold War commo methods, when however we discuss triple DES, or modern encryption keys
                        a decade beyond the capability of the 286 or the 486 that sat on our desks in that era,
                        or commo in the upper double digit giga band we have left the arena of the Cold War and
                        are now talking about things we should not talk about.


                        ---------- Original Message -----------
                        From: John Young <jya@...>
                        To: coldwarcomms@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:01:47 -0800
                        Subject: Re: [coldwarcomms] Re: Boeing EC-135 Looking Glass aircraft

                        > Agreed that posts should remain on the topics of the list, but I
                        > understood this thread was about communications of aircraft,
                        > their security and reliability, which, if I understand the field, are
                        > the primary requirements of communications of whatever era
                        > and field of interest.
                        > snip
                      • Michael Harpe
                        Why shouldn t we talk about them? Mike
                        Message 11 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Why shouldn't we talk about them?

                          Mike
                          >...we have left the arena of the
                          > Cold War and
                          > are now talking about things we should not talk about.
                        • John Young
                          Agreed that posts should remain on the topics of the list, but I understood this thread was about communications of aircraft, their security and reliability,
                          Message 12 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Agreed that posts should remain on the topics of the list, but I
                            understood this thread was about communications of aircraft,
                            their security and reliability, which, if I understand the field, are
                            the primary requirements of communications of whatever era
                            and field of interest.

                            Nuclear weapons came into the picture as a corollary of
                            comm security and reliability in the face of increasingly sophisticated
                            attacks as knowledge of codes, ciphers, implementations and weaknesses
                            have become widespread with the rise of digital technology and the
                            Internet. That is, as these technologies came of out the secure, secret
                            realm, in large part due to the wind down of the Cold War and producers
                            seeking new markets in the open realm not limited to governments,
                            the capabilities of cracking and spying came to the market as well,
                            some to be sure on the black market but treachery, betrayal and
                            illegality were always a feature of secrecy-driven regimes, indeed
                            were the primary means nations stole each other's secrets.

                            Coldwarcomms is an intriguing topic for its contribution to the
                            liberation of Cold War mentality -- paranoia, compulsive secrecy,
                            shutting out the public from knowledge of what governments were
                            doing -- and there have been here an impressive amount of
                            disclosure of useful information of what worked and what was
                            snake oil.

                            9/11 slowed that, even reversed it as information was voluntarily
                            withdrawn, in some cases by request of national security-related
                            corporations who joined the reawakened opportunity to reinstitute
                            Cold War games along with a host of practitioners brought back
                            into government and business just when they believed the gravy
                            was gone for good.

                            Spying is up, way up inside the US, thanks to those who know
                            what side the moldy bread gets the grease. Keep that a secret, they warn,
                            or more often they just promote tin-foil-hat ridicule and allege off-topicness
                            -- both hoary tradecraft for hiding what should not be.

                            Whether nuclear weapons are secure is a long-lived aspect of
                            coldwarcomms. Disinfo about the topic was a harem-scarem from
                            Day One, presaging The Day After.
                          • Denny B
                            Can you gents at least change the subject header so we can errr. manage our email better?
                            Message 13 of 27 , Nov 6, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Can you gents at least change the subject header so we
                              can errr. manage our email better?

                              --->
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.