1993-10-13 - Re: Spread-spectrum net (vulnerability of)

Header Data

From: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7f34eb938f934f02dabc936b018a366eb88825563d0d37ac769b49e2607e0e28
Message ID: <Qgj7uXW00awI9RBUdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply To: <9310130301.AA12952@netcom5.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-13 22:19:59 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 15:19:59 PDT

Raw message

From: Matthew J Ghio <mg5n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 15:19:59 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Spread-spectrum net (vulnerability of)
In-Reply-To: <9310130301.AA12952@netcom5.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Qgj7uXW00awI9RBUdi@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Sure, this is possible. But it doesn't help *that* much. Triangulation
> of signal spots any antenna quickly, and they cut that off immediately.
> You can get increasingly elaborate about hiding the signal source, and
> restoring antennae quickly as they're pinched, but it's sort of a losing
> battle unless you assume real time response by the underground lead by
> a brilliant EE type.

Switching frequencies rapidly to prevent triangulation is still the best
defense.  In my previous post I was just pointing out the silliness in
worrying about someone going around and shooting at transmitters.





Thread