elliott@uunet.uu.net> (06/15/91)
We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on
cordless and cellular phone conversations -- here is a product
announcement that looks like it might provide an easy solution for the
cordless phone problem:
From _Electronic Engineering Times_ June 10, 1991, page 20: (heavily
paraphrased)
"One-Chip Voice Security"
A Low-cost, single-chip secure voice system, which can be fitted into
telephones, cellular handsets and other communications equipment, has
been developed by Micro Code (Cambridge) Ltd.
..uses Sierra Semiconductor's CMOS technology...
..duplex voice-band encoder/decoder...
..integration of analog and digital, including configuration EEPROM...
..chip will be made by Sierra in Singapore, target price of $25...
..variable-carrier frequency inversion, more than 10exp9 code settings...
..single 5V supply...
[end of excerpt]
Here's another development I spotted in _Microtimes_ June 10 1991, page 22,
"Realizable Fantasies" by Jim Warren (a monthly column):
[talking about crypto-faxes, and then:]
"Fujitsu may be the first offering a cordless consumer telephone that
scrambles communications between the handset and the base-station
(Azet-R10)."
[end of excerpt]
I wonder if the Fujitsu phone will use the Micro Code chip?
All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been
trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him
that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like
Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and
all that.
Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the
legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations
[author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand
a "back door" into these schemes?
Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliottSleeping Beagle <sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz> (06/16/91)
Paul Elliott x225 <optilink!elliott@uunet.uu.net> writes: > All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been > trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him > that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like > Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and > all that. > Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the > legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations > [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand > a "back door" into these schemes? Land of the free. Hahahahahahaha! (Gratuitous flame off) Well, currently I'm trialling a CT2 type phone. These are meant to be the next generation for home/office cordless phones and they can be used like payphones near special aerials in the street. (If anyone's interested, I'll mail them the not-to-technical article I wrote about CT2 to them.) This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets around that can pick it up anyway. Does anyone know if this is true? How easy is to decode digital comms (it's not packet) with currently available (in the shops) hardware? Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer) sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Ph. +64-4-796306 (voice)
Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com> (06/18/91)
In article <telecom11.461.8@eecs.nwu.edu>, sbeagle@kennels.actrix. gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell > me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets > around that can pick it up anyway. You apparently have one such gadget in your posession! The portable set, itself, contains whatever it needs to receive and decode the digital signals. Someone with another such phone could probably listen to your transmissions, by reverse-engineering and 'hacking' the phone, or perhaps by discovering how to put it into its maintenance or technician mode by entering a magic number into its keypad. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
Dan_Jacobson@att.com (06/19/91)
"Paul" == Paul Elliott x225 <optilink!elliott@uunet.uu.net> writes: > We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on > cordless and cellular phone conversations [...] On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). [Replies: to the Digest.]
bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu (06/19/91)
In article <telecom11.468.10@eecs.nwu.edu> "It Was Written...": > On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John > Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he > was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a > rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his > phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). Although I don't know it for certain, I would assume that Sununu had a limo which is equipped with a cellular STU-III. STU is an acronym for Secure Telephone Unit (III indicating the third generation of such). STU-IIIs come in landline and cellular models, the last I heard. It is also possible that he used another form of communications available to the White House. They've gotta stay in touch, you know! Most U.S. federal agencies have STU-IIIs in order to conduct classified or otherwise confidential conversations. RCA and Motorola are two of the contractors who make/made STU-IIIs. Motorola still makes them and even sells a STU-III clone for public purchase - no doubt for businesses which don't want their conversations monitored; if any of you attended the Spring COMDEX this year, Motorola had a STU-III on display there at their booth. All of the STU-IIIs that I have ever encountered will also pass a clear or secure 2400 bps data signal from a built-in RS-232 port on the phone itself. That is, of course, in addition to passing clear or secure voice. I wonder what Sununu's roaming charges are like? Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250
bud@uunet.uu.net> (06/21/91)
In article <telecom11.470.7@eecs.nwu.edu> bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > In article <telecom11.468.10@eecs.nwu.edu> "It Was Written...": >> On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John >> Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he >> was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a >> rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his >> phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). > Although I don't know it for certain, I would assume that Sununu had a > limo which is equipped with a cellular STU-III. STU is an acronym for > Secure Telephone Unit (III indicating the third generation of such). > STU-IIIs come in landline and cellular models, the last I heard. > It is also possible that he used another form of communications > available to the White House. They've gotta stay in touch, you know! I think that the latter is the more probable. White House communications is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. Most of the technical people for this are Air Force em's. They get to wear civilian clothes, so it isn't real obvious. The military has all sorts of comm paths that can be used from a moving vehicle (on the ground or in the air), especially a White House limo which has had all the goodies installed. Your tax dollars at work! Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew.. standard BS applies
David Lesher <wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> (06/23/91)
Others said: > Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time'. [His car has STU III's and other means, maybe?] > I think that the latter is the more probable. White House communications > |is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. The White House Communications Agency will be very disappointed to learn they are out of work. I hope they get paid unemployment benefits. I can't speak for what John's and/or the pool cars have, but the President's transportation has, in years past, been equipped with customized KY-71's. [I'm sure it also has one or more STU-III's.] The 71 was also called a STU-II, but some users never knew that. The 71 ran full duplex, but needed either four wire, or two dialup circuits! It always had PTT for those times you could only get one path. The STU-III runs full duplex on one dial-up line, or rather it tries to. It can revert to VOX half-duplex when the line is less than perfect. One significant advantage of the 71 was you could *understand* and recognize the other party. I always figured the reason for the cute LCD display on the -III was cuz otherwise you could not be sure it wasn't Joe's Pizza Parlor that you had reached ;-} ;-} One of many advantages of the III is they are far less prone to {hard} failure. Not all the calls work, but you are far less likely to have to get it worked on twice a month. It also offers a far more flexible key control system. On the 71 system, if you wanted to call from your agency X phone to Pete at Agency Y, you had to pass through a GSA run switch that had both sets of keys, or rather you HOPED it did ;-{ BTW, Jay Leno says George has taken up jogging again -- because John has the car ;-} wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <howard@cos.com> (06/26/91)
In article <telecom11.480.2@eecs.nwu.edu> kentrox!bud@uunet.uu.net (Bud Couch) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 480, Message 2 of 11 > In article <telecom11.470.7@eecs.nwu.edu> bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu > writes: > is handled by the military -- the Air Force -- to be exact. Most of > the technical people for this are Air Force em's. Actually, White House communications is the responsibility of a Defense Communications Agency subunit called the White House Communications Agency. WHCA does have operational control of some USAF people, but the overall WH communications support mission is handled by DoD, not the Air Force. Would a former Naval Aviator trust HIS communications to the Air Force? :-) howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc}!cos!howard (703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H] DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.