PDA

View Full Version : how does "big brother" know what you're doing


racky
02-12-2010, 12:13 PM
a question for the infotech guys. so i'm in an area where pr0n isn't allowed anywhere in the country. i'm at a base that has wireless internet. it's run by the base and not by the host nation. it's rumored a person actually got in trouble for having skype sex with his wife. how is "big brother" able to know that they were skype sexing and how are they able to find out who the guy was being that the internet was wireless? i asked around and some think it's a FUD scare tactic, but others say they can see everything you do on you're computer monitor. makes me wonder if it's safe to check my bank account using the wireless connection.

bigmike82
02-12-2010, 12:27 PM
It's somewhere in between.

Unless there's some sort of program installed on the machine that records the activities (or there's a camera set up watching the screen), they can not see what's on the monitor.

That said...given a good packet analysis tool, they can pretty much reproduce *any* non-encrypted traffic that leaves your machine. Emails, VoIP calls, video streams...it's all fair game. Encrypting the traffic does make it more difficult to spoof, but if they're in charge of the network, it's possible for them to MITM (man-in-the-middle) that encrypted session, especially if it's only SSL (used mainly for encrypting websites).

gn3hz3ku1*
02-12-2010, 12:27 PM
use a proxy

racky
02-12-2010, 1:42 PM
will using a proxy make me anonymous? won't that make me more vulnerable? foxyproxy with firefox ftw?

Barbarossa
02-12-2010, 1:44 PM
They read your brain waves. Oh man, I hope they didn't hear that.
(lalalalala Pelosi lalalalalalla) :TFH:

gn3hz3ku1*
02-12-2010, 1:59 PM
will using a proxy make me anonymous? won't that make me more vulnerable? foxyproxy with firefox ftw?

end of the day it matters who big bro is.. if he has three letters. you are SOL either way...

Decoligny
02-12-2010, 2:08 PM
If it is the Military that is running the server that makes the hard connection to the World Wide Interweb, they sure can see everything going on at any particular computer.

I have seen the Comm Group people with a wall of monitors with randomly chosen computer screens showing exactly what was being done on each computer.

There is no way they can live monitor every single computer at the same time, but they have the capability to mirror every single thing going on on all the computers.

DarkHorse
02-12-2010, 4:22 PM
When I was in SWA, a guy got busted for looking at pr0n on one of the PC's at our worksite. I don't know how they found out, but they did.

He went from E4 to E2 overnight.

stormy_clothing
02-12-2010, 4:23 PM
Trying to cover your tracks can be viewed in a very negative way. service in and out of any military or government facility is heavily monitored for all the reasons that it needs to be. Even if they don't know it's you but see the traffic in especially if it's through TOR ect there going to find out wtf's going on just in case of espionage at the very least.

stormy_clothing
02-12-2010, 4:24 PM
give us an address and we'll get some porn sent to you

gn3hz3ku1*
02-12-2010, 4:30 PM
yea dude def dont try TOR

gn3hz3ku1*
02-12-2010, 4:31 PM
some o6 used my desktop to look at whatever he wanted too after hours....

GROSSSSS! last i heard.. the was trying to dodge the book they threw at him.

tatso7
02-12-2010, 4:50 PM
If a simple computer tech in India can troubleshoot a computer in the US thru screen sharing session, they (military) definately has the capability to remotely look into your computer.

racky
02-12-2010, 4:59 PM
When I was in SWA, a guy got busted for looking at pr0n on one of the PC's at our worksite. I don't know how they found out, but they did.

He went from E4 to E2 overnight.

well yeah on a goverment PC it's obvious they'll get busted. but i was talking about people's personal PC's

sfwdiy
02-13-2010, 7:36 PM
I've long suspected the IT dept can view what's on your monitor. I know there are programs where you can take over the screen and mouse of any computer as if it were your own. Seems it would be a much easier task to just monitor the screen so why not?

There's a huge difference between sniffing traffic being transmitted over a network and viewing what's actually being displayed on a monitor.

In order to actually view what's being displayed on a computer's screen that info in it's entirety has to be transmitted to another machine over the network. This is done all the time. See here: Virtual Network Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Network_Computing). Viewing someone's screen without their knowledge or permission would require you to install software of this type onto their computer and turn on the necessary network services without their knowledge. Doing this remotely is so close to impossible that it might as well be.

However, any traffic you send or receive over the internet can be viewed by anyone with access to a computer positioned between you and the information source. See image below:

http://taksuyama.com/images/proxy_server_hardware_config.png

Your computer would be any of the ones on the far right side, on the LAN. The machine labeled "Proxy Server" sits between your computer and the rest of the Internet. Anyone with access to the proxy server and the proper knowledge can see what you're sending or receiving over the Internet. If they have access to the proxy, it's a safe bet they know what they're doing. For instance, if you type "OMG i can haz pr0n" into the Google search box, they can view that text going out. They can also see all the pr0n that Google responds with coming back in.

Are there ways around this to hide your privacy? Sure. Do you want to try to circumvent this setup at a .mil installation? Probably not. I'm sure you'll attract far more attention by attempting to hide what you're doing than by actually browsing a few pr0n sites. That, and unless you're absolutely certain that your Tiger Style is more powerful than your SysAdmin's Dragon Style, you're probably gonna get busted.

--B

Scratch705
02-13-2010, 7:53 PM
you want to be sneaky with porn? get it sent in pieces. like a jigsaw puzzle.

of course someone who sends it in email/snail mail will have to get creative and not make it obvious by just cutting it in squares or sending it all at once. or hide it by painting over it with a water soluble ink. like get those porn jigsaw puzzles, and have them paint over it with water color to hide the real image and when you receive it, just wipe it with a moist towel and reveal the real picture.

but then again i'm sure the mail guys in the military have thought of that too?

Cokebottle
02-13-2010, 8:06 PM
When I was in SWA, a guy got busted for looking at pr0n on one of the PC's at our worksite. I don't know how they found out, but they did.

He went from E4 to E2 overnight.
At my last job, we were taken on a tour of the IT facilities.
All traffic in and out went through the corporate server.
Every web address request from every machine was logged.
Unacceptable sites were pre-blocked.
Unlisted sites that generated a lot of traffic during working hours were visited by the IT staff. If they were not related to the business, they were added to the blocked list of sites.

Also, all email communications routed through, and were stored, on the corporate Access server. The company had government contracts, so there was a requirement to store all emails whether the user deleted them or not.

They didn't log the actual traffic... simply the destinations.
If he was surfing pr0n, he was probably not doing it from Calguns.

One of my first boss's duties involved programming. Some of his programming tools and references came from "questionable" sites... and more than once he was called into IT and questioned about accessing sites that were known for piracy/cracking.

fabguy
02-13-2010, 8:31 PM
OK I LOL'd on that one.

Got to watch the accidental pr0n too. Once I was doing market research on semiconductor companies, and I figured out that I could skip the Google search and just type the company name in the URL address bar. This will expand the company name to its web address. Worked fine for most chip companies, Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments, but when I tried that with Maxim Semiconductor, I typed in "Maxim" and got a little surprise, a gentleman's magazine instead of a chip maker website. I immediately ran down to the IT dept and told them what happened, then made sure it was documented in writing, copy to HR and my boss, in case it later came up that they needed to find something to hang me with.

I've long suspected the IT dept can view what's on your monitor. I know there are programs where you can take over the screen and mouse of any computer as if it were your own. Seems it would be a much easier task to just monitor the screen so why not?
Yeah thats true, thats why you NEVER get a computer with a built in camera. Ever wonder how they get all that voyuer pr0n. Remember the last thing you were doing while your computer was facing you? :kest:

sfwdiy
02-13-2010, 8:43 PM
Yeah thats true, thats why you NEVER get a computer with a built in camera. Ever wonder how they get all that voyuer pr0n. Remember the last thing you were doing while your computer was facing you? :kest:

Someone would need physical access to the computer in order to install software that would activate the camera and record video. Such software exists and has legitimate purposes but it can't be installed remotely without the user's consent.

Protip: Most voyeur pr0n is staged.

--B

CSACANNONEER
02-13-2010, 8:51 PM
They read your brain waves. Oh man, I hope they didn't hear that.
(lalalalala Pelosi lalalalalalla) :TFH:

I heard that if you stick your right pinky in your left ear while smearing rotting bannanas on your face, it will block all outgoing signals from the chips "they" have installed in our brains.

PRKArms
02-14-2010, 5:10 AM
It's somewhere in between.

Unless there's some sort of program installed on the machine that records the activities (or there's a camera set up watching the screen), they can not see what's on the monitor.

That said...given a good packet analysis tool, they can pretty much reproduce *any* non-encrypted traffic that leaves your machine. Emails, VoIP calls, video streams...it's all fair game. Encrypting the traffic does make it more difficult to spoof, but if they're in charge of the network, it's possible for them to MITM (man-in-the-middle) that encrypted session, especially if it's only SSL (used mainly for encrypting websites).


Thats not entirely true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

sfwdiy
02-14-2010, 10:55 AM
The scenario I'm considering is one in which the computer was issued to you by the organization that is supplying you with the access to the net. In the case of a corporation, it's the corporate issue laptop that's been pre-configured with the standard corporate software load, which could include the screen monitoring software.

If that's the case, then yes it's possible. I think it's unlikely that they would do this surreptitiously. If I were the sysadmin I'd make it quite clear that I had the ability to both see your Internet traffic and view your screen any time I felt like it. Also, ethically I'd have a hard time viewing another adult's screen without their knowledge unless I already had reason to suspect that they were violating a company policy or law in the first place. That's why most VNC software can tell you you're being observed.

Are the laptops used by deployed soldiers supplied by the military or are they personal machines? In either case I can see the military putting the required monitoring software on there to ensure compliance with the no-pr0n laws.

I'm pretty sure they're personal machines. I don't think the military installs anything on them either. In fact, I'm not sure they would be allowed to do so. It wouldn't really be necessary anyway. If you're on my network there are ways I can keep tabs on you without extra software.

One good policy is to require MAC address registration before a computer can join the network. That way I know exactly which machines belong to which users, and figuring out who is surfing tijuanadonkeyshow.com during work hours is not difficult. :p

Thats not entirely true....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

Anything's possible, but I'm much more worried about what's probable. Van Eck is really cool stuff though. I always wanted to try to build a Van Eck box but I don't have the time or the money.

--B

racky
02-15-2010, 12:47 PM
I'm pretty sure they're personal machines. I don't think the military installs anything on them either. In fact, I'm not sure they would be allowed to do so. It wouldn't really be necessary anyway. If you're on my network there are ways I can keep tabs on you without extra software.

One good policy is to require MAC address registration before a computer can join the network. That way I know exactly which machines belong to which users, and figuring out who is surfing tijuanadonkeyshow.com during work hours is not difficult. :p



yeah the PCs i was talking about are personal laptops people bring with them. they don't get registered with the base. it's just free wi-fi all around. so that brings me back to the my original post of how some people think it's FUD. i can't figure out how the comm guys know who's doing what on their personal computers when they don't get registered with the comm office. i'd ask the comm guys myself but i don't know any.

racky
02-15-2010, 4:30 PM
I would imagine the military IT guys (at a minimum) check the traffic incoming and outgoing to be sure there isn't any classified info being disclosed.

now that is what they're really good at. a person would get a pretty bad nasty-gram when something gets sent out and isn't supposed to.

so back to the pr0n, everyone send me their pr0n now that know it's unsafe. it's lonely here :(. so the whole foxyproxy thing isn't safe right?

Paul
02-15-2010, 4:34 PM
a question for the infotech guys. so i'm in an area where pr0n isn't allowed anywhere in the country. i'm at a base that has wireless internet. it's run by the base and not by the host nation. it's rumored a person actually got in trouble for having skype sex with his wife. how is "big brother" able to know that they were skype sexing and how are they able to find out who the guy was being that the internet was wireless? i asked around and some think it's a FUD scare tactic, but others say they can see everything you do on you're computer monitor. makes me wonder if it's safe to check my bank account using the wireless connection.

Skype sets off alarm bells on the non-secure Internet ("nipper net") big time. All traffic across the NPRNET is scanned in both direction as it crosses though the gateway firewalls connecting the military networks to the civilian Internet, Skype port numbers are well known. Within minutes someone is capturing and looking at the traffic. One of my contractors connected into a wireless access point and within a couple hours the phone call came into IT to pull the pull and provide an explanation.

Swatguy10_15
02-15-2010, 4:36 PM
give us an address and we'll get some porn sent to you

Lol exactly! Well get ya some stuff! just pm youre shipping.We got ya! To answer youre question. EVERYTHING you do at a foreign base down to a fob is tracked and recorded. Especially fobs and bases in "combat zones" its not always about the "porn" and such mainly its to prevent the dissemination of critical information to the wrong people. yea the rules pertaining to porn and stuff kindof suck but theres a reason for everything..(well sometimes) but youre still safe checking your accounts and such, everything they do is monitored and those monitors are monitored..There just making sure no ones freely giving haji intel.. :)

fabguy
02-15-2010, 5:40 PM
I heard that if you stick your right pinky in your left ear while smearing rotting bannanas on your face, it will block all outgoing signals from the chips "they" have installed in our brains.

My neighbor is a dentist and he says it's in the fillings of your teeth. He said they can track every movement you make, and everything you do. So they even know about The hair growing from your palms. muhahahaha...

gn3hz3ku1*
02-16-2010, 8:00 AM
just remember big brother invented the internet...

bigmike82
02-16-2010, 8:09 AM
"Even if it were just someone surfing pr0n, they have your IP address on every web page request and it's a simple matter to sniff the other packets you send on a daily basis to identify you. Your email packets would have that same IP address on 'em, etc"
Not always. Depending on the DHCP lease-time, you can have a different IP on different days.

And if you use, say, a Linux machine and change the MAC on your wireless card, you could browse for hours without being caught (changing your MAC every time you're blocked). Note that I do NOT recommend doing this, as you *will* get caught if you set off enough red flags. They may not be able to track you via the normal monitoring, but what they *can* do is triangulate your position fairly accurately. Then, all it takes is the guy pulling the camera feed, seeing you, and you'll have a nice little visit by your local MPs.

This is why you have friends with thumb drives back state-side. ;)

TonyM
02-17-2010, 8:55 AM
just remember big brother invented the internet...

Al Gore is Big Brother?

Cokebottle
02-17-2010, 8:14 PM
Al Gore is Big Brother?
Nahh... he's being serious.

The internet was originally (mid '70s) constructed for communication between military and educational institutions.
It was a DARPA project, commissioned in 1958 after Sputnik flew.

The first web server was set up around mid 1991.
In mid 1994, it was still only getting around 100k hits per day.
The WWW was a CERN project.

JDay
02-18-2010, 10:35 PM
Use an encrypted proxy and they wont know what you're doing on the net.

Cokebottle
02-19-2010, 4:40 PM
Use an encrypted proxy and they wont know what you're doing on the net.
Won't work if you're going through a local business or government gateway server.
The connection to the proxy would be logged and probably investigated.
Every outside destination IP address is logged if the gateway's server is configured to do so.

There's a good possibility that the destination IP addresses for known encrypted proxies would be blocked.

Hojji1
02-19-2010, 6:26 PM
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20100219_Student_claims_school_spied_on_him_via_co mputer_webcam.html

FBI is investigating.

http://cbs3.com/local/Lower.Merion.School.2.1506516.html

stan
02-19-2010, 7:27 PM
you guys think you need th enetwork to see what someone's doing?

you should read up on van eck phreaking. cliff notes is you intercept the radio signal bleeding from the monitor / video cable, and decode that into the original signal. someone can see your monitor from whatever range they can catch the signal at.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 2:24 AM
I'll believe it when they make the specs public.

"OMG, dudz, we can spy on your monitorz with our l33t super secret intercept gadget."

I'm skeptical. Not saying it can't happen...but I'm skeptical until there's actually independent research done to verify.

stan
02-20-2010, 9:54 AM
I'll believe it when they make the specs public.

"OMG, dudz, we can spy on your monitorz with our l33t super secret intercept gadget."

I'm skeptical. Not saying it can't happen...but I'm skeptical until there's actually independent research done to verify.

if you're talking about my post on van eck phreaking, look it up. very possible to do.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 11:56 AM
I did look it up.

I want to see a system that works from across the street. I'm not saying it's not possible, but everything I've read is purely theoretical (or in the case of the eckbox implementation, only works when you are right next to the monitor). Give the strength of the signals leaving the monitor, you'd need a very large array of antennas to capture the signal in any meaningful fashion. It's cool from a theoretical standpoint, but until I see an actual practical implementation, I will remain skeptical.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-20-2010, 12:58 PM
I did look it up.

I want to see a system that works from across the street. I'm not saying it's not possible, but everything I've read is purely theoretical (or in the case of the eckbox implementation, only works when you are right next to the monitor). Give the strength of the signals leaving the monitor, you'd need a very large array of antennas to capture the signal in any meaningful fashion. It's cool from a theoretical standpoint, but until I see an actual practical implementation, I will remain skeptical.

just because you can not find info about it on the internet does not mean it does not exist.

JDay
02-20-2010, 1:01 PM
Won't work if you're going through a local business or government gateway server.
The connection to the proxy would be logged and probably investigated.
Every outside destination IP address is logged if the gateway's server is configured to do so.

There's a good possibility that the destination IP addresses for known encrypted proxies would be blocked.

Well since the user is on a US base that wouldn't matter since they're technically in the US. Host countries laws don't matter at that point.

JDay
02-20-2010, 1:04 PM
I'll believe it when they make the specs public.

"OMG, dudz, we can spy on your monitorz with our l33t super secret intercept gadget."

I'm skeptical. Not saying it can't happen...but I'm skeptical until there's actually independent research done to verify.

Tempest. Its even been demonstrated. Secure government systems are usually hardened against Tempest attacks, has a side benefit of protecting those systems against EMP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST

JDay
02-20-2010, 1:10 PM
I did look it up.

I want to see a system that works from across the street. I'm not saying it's not possible, but everything I've read is purely theoretical (or in the case of the eckbox implementation, only works when you are right next to the monitor). Give the strength of the signals leaving the monitor, you'd need a very large array of antennas to capture the signal in any meaningful fashion. It's cool from a theoretical standpoint, but until I see an actual practical implementation, I will remain skeptical.

You don't call a range of hundreds of meters "from across the street"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST#Public_research

In 1985, Wim van Eck published the first unclassified technical analysis of the security risks of emanations from computer monitors. This paper caused some consternation in the security community, which had previously believed that such monitoring was a highly sophisticated attack available only to governments; van Eck successfully eavesdropped on a real system, at a range of hundreds of metres, using just $15 worth of equipment plus a television set.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 1:27 PM
Show me the damn specs. Everyone keeps saying its been done...show me.

"just because you can not find info about it on the internet does not mean it does not exist. "
Right. But in the absence of other verifiable evidence, I place it squarely in the FUD category until shown otherwise.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 2:11 PM
The only place that I've seen which gives you relatively specific pieces of information is eckbox. Everything else simply describes using an antenna to capture the signals.

Hell, there's one university study that showed you can capture signals from a keyboard in such a way as to know what keys were depressed. Problem is, their methods required 2 seconds *PER KEYSTROKE* to decode. And that's for a single key. Screen renderings a great deal more complex.

Again...I'm not saying it's not possible. But I remain skeptical until I see actual, verifiable and reproducible evidence of it.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-20-2010, 2:54 PM
The only place that I've seen which gives you relatively specific pieces of information is eckbox. Everything else simply describes using an antenna to capture the signals.

Hell, there's one university study that showed you can capture signals from a keyboard in such a way as to know what keys were depressed. Problem is, their methods required 2 seconds *PER KEYSTROKE* to decode. And that's for a single key. Screen renderings a great deal more complex.

Again...I'm not saying it's not possible. But I remain skeptical until I see actual, verifiable and reproducible evidence of it.

i think the people are in the know don't really care to share it with anyone.. esp now to prove to anyone they can do it... what would they gain from it?

either way.. let's get back on topic.. dude if your on a base and they really want to get you.. you are sol.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 5:19 PM
"what would they gain from it? "
It's not the guys who know how to do it.

It's the entire IT security community which is comprised of thousands and thousands of researchers that *should* have come up with *something*. That they haven't is indicative of the fact that it's not nearly as easy or straightforward as 'common' knowledge makes it seem.

JDay
02-20-2010, 5:36 PM
"what would they gain from it? "
It's not the guys who know how to do it.

It's the entire IT security community which is comprised of thousands and thousands of researchers that *should* have come up with *something*. That they haven't is indicative of the fact that it's not nearly as easy or straightforward as 'common' knowledge makes it seem.

The reason they haven't come up with a working Tempest device is because its a serious crime to possess, build or sell them. You can rest assured that certain three letter agencies have them however.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_119.html

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 6:32 PM
"You can rest assured that certain three letter agencies have them however."
Sure. Right next to the UFOs at Area 51, right?

I don't buy it. IF it was as powerful as people claim it to be, there'd be more widespread use of it, and there'd be a hell of a lot more public research about it than there is.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-20-2010, 6:56 PM
"what would they gain from it? "
It's not the guys who know how to do it.

It's the entire IT security community which is comprised of thousands and thousands of researchers that *should* have come up with *something*. That they haven't is indicative of the fact that it's not nearly as easy or straightforward as 'common' knowledge makes it seem.

okay i dont think anyone cares if you believe it or not.. area 51? uhh okay.... can we get back on topic?

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 7:13 PM
"okay i dont think anyone cares if you believe it or not.. "
You obviously do as you felt a need to respond.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-20-2010, 8:56 PM
yea you're right. i just don't understand how since you can not find it on the internet then you wont believe it. have you ever thought some skills people need to keep secret? that is like saying. prove to me the Israelis have nukes.. yea okay buddy good luck finding concrete evidence on that one..

Cokebottle
02-20-2010, 8:59 PM
Well since the user is on a US base that wouldn't matter since they're technically in the US. Host countries laws don't matter at that point.
I wasn't talking about the host country restricting access.... I was referring to the probability that all known anon/encrypted proxies are probably blocked by the base's gateway servers.

I can't go ANYWHERE from my office without IT knowing what IP addresses I have accessed.

Cokebottle
02-20-2010, 9:03 PM
I don't buy it. IF it was as powerful as people claim it to be, there'd be more widespread use of it, and there'd be a hell of a lot more public research about it than there is.
Proof of concept was developed and demonstrated over 20 years ago.

In those same 20+ years, we've gone from 4.77Mhz to 3Ghz, 128k of RAM being usable to 2 gig practically required, 40meg hard drive being huge to a 500gig drive being "cramped".
Cell phones have gone from 5 pound "bricks" to a single chip... the human interface determines the minimum size.

Doheny
02-20-2010, 9:05 PM
Thank you for your service. (sorry, no help w/ the po*n.)

Cokebottle
02-20-2010, 9:06 PM
yea you're right. i just don't understand how since you can not find it on the internet then you wont believe it. have you ever thought some skills people need to keep secret? that is like saying. prove to me the Israelis have nukes.. yea okay buddy good luck finding concrete evidence on that one..
Ditto.

Even outside of the "security" arena... try finding information online, or even in a book store, on learning scuba diving, or many trades.
Particularly trades... detailed information is very sparse.

Not everything on this planet is online.
As far as Van Eck Phreaking... I'm sure there is detailed information available, but make sure that you have multiple antivirus and antispyware utilities updated before visiting... and even then you'll probably end up being infected with something.

bigmike82
02-20-2010, 9:20 PM
"i just don't understand how since you can not find it on the internet then you wont believe it."
That's what research is about. I can only go by what the evidence is telling me. I refuse to put on a tin-foil hat and think the government is capable of doing something simply because someone says it is. Unless I have actual evidence, preferably of the reproducible kind, I can only come to the conclusion that the capabilites of remote video intercept are very much over-stated.

That said, I've been researching it further, and have come up with some interesting pieces of info. The notion that you can buy 100 dollars worth of stuff from radioshack and suddenly be able to spy on computers is silly. The idea that you can set something up *next* to a monitor (or other EM generating device) and see what's going on isn't unreasonable, and I said as much when I brought up Eckbox. Oak Ridge manufactured a portable unit at one point...but their own spec picture shows the unit NEXT to the target device.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/mssed/rfms/archives_video.shtml

Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible, but given the physical constraints, I do not believe it to be a probable, or viable, method of surveillance. We no longer use dumb VDTs...most monitors utilize a MUCH more complex signal.

This is an interesting aspect of IT security, and worth some thought. But for 99.999% of people, businesses and government agencies, it's pure FUD.

Sources:
http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempestintro.html
http://www.surasoft.com/articles/tempest.php
http://www.smartcomputing.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/g0804/23g04/23g04.asp

JDay
02-21-2010, 1:46 AM
I wasn't talking about the host country restricting access.... I was referring to the probability that all known anon/encrypted proxies are probably blocked by the base's gateway servers.

I can't go ANYWHERE from my office without IT knowing what IP addresses I have accessed.

These wireless connections aren't run by the base, they're typically paid for and shared by 3-5 guys.

JDay
02-21-2010, 1:49 AM
"i just don't understand how since you can not find it on the internet then you wont believe it."
That's what research is about. I can only go by what the evidence is telling me. I refuse to put on a tin-foil hat and think the government is capable of doing something simply because someone says it is.

The fact that the government spend billions a year to protect against this type of attack is proof enough that it is viable and we have the capability.

bigmike82
02-21-2010, 9:06 AM
"The fact that the government spend billions a year to protect against this type of attack is proof enough that it is viable and we have the capability."
That, by itself, is meaningless. How much does the government spend a year to fight global warming?

And, though I've seen the term 'billions' thrown around, I want to see a source. Haven't found one yet, so the assumption is that it's substantially less.

In 1991, a CIA Inspector General report called for an Intelligence Community review of domestic TEMPEST requirements based on threat. The outcome suggested that hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on protecting a vulnerability that had a very low probability of exploitation. This report galvanized the Intelligence Community to review and reduce domestic TEMPEST requirements.

Currently, many agencies are waiving TEMPEST countermeasures within the United States

Contractors and government security officials interviewed by the Commission commend the easing of TEMPEST standards within the last two years.

Given the absence of a domestic threat, any use of TEMPEST countermeasures within the US should require strong justification.

And finally...

Domestic implementation of strict TEMPEST countermeasures is a prime example of a security excess because costly countermeasures were implemented independent of documented threat or of a site's total security system.

Source:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/jsc/chap5.html

You also have to remember that emissions controls aren't limited *just* to signal leakage from monitors. It also refers to leakage from cell phones, pagers, radios, and so forth. EMI controls, black rooms, and the like, aren't a bad thing, nor an unnecessary precaution for highly-classified environments. Focusing on monitors and keyboards, however, is simply money down the drain.

stan
02-21-2010, 10:51 AM
well i dunno about you guys but i tend to use 4096 bit AES encryption and TOR for anything i really am concerned about someone seeing.

to the OP though, i have an idea. Look into some rubberhose encryption software. http://iq.org/~proff/marutukku.org/current/src/doc/maruguide/t1.html

rubberhose allows a set of data to have multiple decryptions. its intended for things like human rights workers or whatever, and the idea is that you can give multiple answers when being beaten and they can never tell if you've decrypted the real data or some fake data you seeded.

another option would be some steganography tools. you could have the sensitive data hidden within an image file's data by someone on the outside, and decrypt it when you get it.

definitely look into GPG for emails to people about all this - gnu privacy guard. with gpg and a firefox plugin called firegpg, you can have very simple tools to do high levels (4096 bit aes is what i use) of encryption. you'll need a way to exchange public keys with whoever you're talking to though, which might be a problem if your only access is via a possibly compromised connection


i think i covered a decent amount there

JDay
02-21-2010, 2:13 PM
"The fact that the government spend billions a year to protect against this type of attack is proof enough that it is viable and we have the capability."
That, by itself, is meaningless. How much does the government spend a year to fight global warming?

And, though I've seen the term 'billions' thrown around, I want to see a source. Haven't found one yet, so the assumption is that it's substantially less.









And finally...



Source:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/jsc/chap5.html

You also have to remember that emissions controls aren't limited *just* to signal leakage from monitors. It also refers to leakage from cell phones, pagers, radios, and so forth. EMI controls, black rooms, and the like, aren't a bad thing, nor an unnecessary precaution for highly-classified environments. Focusing on monitors and keyboards, however, is simply money down the drain.

They keywords there are "within the US", systems outside the US are still shielded. The reason they are waiving the requirement in the US is because over here the systems are usually located deep within secure facilities. You know, where there is almost zero risk.

JDay
02-21-2010, 2:20 PM
well i dunno about you guys but i tend to use 4096 bit AES encryption and TOR for anything i really am concerned about someone seeing.

TOR has one major security issue, anyone can run a TOR node. It would surprise me if governments didn't run several of them. Especially since it was originally a US Naval Research Laboratory project. As you can see below you should not rely on TOR for privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_%28anonymity_network%29#Weaknesses

DNS leaks

As with many anonymous web surfing systems, direct Domain Name System (DNS) requests are usually still performed by many applications, without using a Tor proxy. This allows someone monitoring a users connection to determine (for example) which WWW sites they are viewing using Tor, even though they cannot see the content being viewed. Using Privoxy or the command "torify" included with a Tor distribution is a possible solution to this problem.[12] Additionally, applications using SOCKS5 – which supports name-based proxy requests – can route DNS requests through Tor, having lookups performed at the exit node and thus receiving the same anonymity as other Tor traffic.[13]

As of Tor release 0.2.0.1-alpha, Tor includes its own DNS resolver which will dispatch queries over the mix network. This should close the DNS leak and can interact with Tor's address mapping facilities to provide the Tor hidden service (.onion) access to non-SOCKS aware applications.[14]

Traffic analysis

Like all current low latency anonymity networks, Tor is vulnerable to traffic analysis from observers who can watch both ends of a user's connection [15] such as the United States government, which can monitor all domestic internet activity using equipment installed in compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)

Steven J. Murdoch and George Danezis from University of Cambridge presented an article[16] at the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy on traffic-analysis techniques that allow adversaries with only a partial view of the network to infer which nodes are being used to relay the anonymous streams. These techniques greatly reduce the anonymity provided by Tor. Murdoch and Danezis have also shown that otherwise unrelated streams can be linked back to the same initiator. However, this attack fails to reveal the identity of the original user.[16] Murdoch has been working with, and funded by, Tor since 2006.

Eavesdropping by exit nodes

In September 2007, Dan Egerstad, a Swedish security consultant, revealed that he had intercepted usernames and passwords for a large number of email accounts by operating and monitoring Tor exit nodes.[17] As Tor does not, and by design cannot, encrypt the traffic between an exit node and the target server, any exit node is in a position to capture any traffic passing through it which does not use end-to-end encryption, e.g. SSL. While this may or may not inherently violate the anonymity of the source, depending on the data transferred, it affords added opportunities for data interception by self-selected third parties, greatly increasing the risk of exposure of sensitive data by users who are careless or who mistake Tor's anonymity for security.[18]

stan
02-21-2010, 2:45 PM
agree there in a sense. tor has its place, though. everything has its holes but you have to consider the value to an observer, you only need to make it not worth the work for what you're doing. obviously all security is based on that principle. TOR is just a way to increase the effort necessary.

LEOLEO
02-21-2010, 3:23 PM
Hey, it works on my head! (I think, but I won't know until I unwrap myself.)

bigmike82
02-21-2010, 3:30 PM
The reason they are waiving the requirement in the US is because over here the systems are usually located deep within secure facilities.

That's not completely true. Drive around the south bay and you'll come across plenty of defense firms with easy access to the street. Thing is...in other countries, nothing stops the host country from renting an entire building (or several) and setting up giant arrays of antennas to monitor the embassies. The EM shieldings in foreign countries, btw, aren't designed to primarily protect against monitor emissions. They're protecting cell phones...radios...WiFi. In these cases, protecting the monitor cables is an added bonus, but not a primary concern.

I say again...the notion that the government undetectably can, and does, monitor the EM emissions of computer monitors is pure FUD. That they can monitor *other* forms of emissions (such as cell, radio, 802.11, etc) IS a fact, and those specs you can find with a modicum of research.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-21-2010, 6:23 PM
That's not completely true. Drive around the south bay and you'll come across plenty of defense firms with easy access to the street. Thing is...in other countries, nothing stops the host country from renting an entire building (or several) and setting up giant arrays of antennas to monitor the embassies. The EM shieldings in foreign countries, btw, aren't designed to primarily protect against monitor emissions. They're protecting cell phones...radios...WiFi. In these cases, protecting the monitor cables is an added bonus, but not a primary concern.

I say again...the notion that the government undetectably can, and does, monitor the EM emissions of computer monitors is pure FUD. That they can monitor *other* forms of emissions (such as cell, radio, 802.11, etc) IS a fact, and those specs you can find with a modicum of research.

pure FUD? okay then.... FAS? the MFers who like to leak US gov info... you are using such a bunch of patriots as a reference....

bigmike82
02-21-2010, 6:39 PM
"you are using such a bunch of patriots as a reference"
Sorry. Whom you prefer I use? The same people who *profit* through spreading the same Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt? Never mind the fact that what I cited came directly from the US Government.

*shakes head*

gn3hz3ku1*
02-21-2010, 6:51 PM
"you are using such a bunch of patriots as a reference"
Sorry. Whom you prefer I use? The same people who *profit* through spreading the same Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt? Never mind the fact that what I cited came directly from the US Government.

*shakes head*
you said this:
Source:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/jsc/chap5.html

These Mofos are scum

bigmike82
02-21-2010, 7:06 PM
Yeah, that's the source.
You know what the document is?

Redefining Security
A Report to the
Secretary of Defense
and the
Director of Central Intelligence

February 28, 1994
Joint Security Commission
Washington, D.C. 20505

racky
02-22-2010, 7:13 AM
wow this thread became awesome. all because i wanted to know how to search pr0n :driving:

bigmike82
02-22-2010, 8:09 AM
Hah!

Seriously. Get a buddy to send you an encrypted USB drive with some. That's probably the safest way. ;)

gn3hz3ku1*
02-22-2010, 8:18 AM
Yeah, that's the source.
You know what the document is?

yea buddy these guys keep on doing FOI requests and putting our stuff out on the web.. what patriotic organization does that?

bigmike82
02-22-2010, 9:08 AM
"What patriotic organization does that?"
The kind that wants accountability about where YOUR tax dollars are going?

gn3hz3ku1*
02-22-2010, 12:10 PM
"What patriotic organization does that?"
The kind that wants accountability about where YOUR tax dollars are going?

yea the kind that likes to release US secrets to our enemies...

gn3hz3ku1*
02-22-2010, 12:11 PM
okay obviously this is getting off topic. arguing with you is not going to change your thoughts and you def wont change mine. so if you want to take this to PM feel free. if not sorry to the OP for taking this off topic. You obviously are serving our nation and i appreciate you for it, you would also fully understand the notion of opsec that it is better to STFU about capabilities and not put it on the internet.

JDay
02-22-2010, 12:51 PM
yea the kind that likes to release US secrets to our enemies...

You obviously have no idea how FOIA requests work. Anything that is classified or sensitive is blacked out on those documents before they're released. Either that or you're just trolling.

gn3hz3ku1*
02-22-2010, 12:59 PM
i have worked with more than my share of FOIA. enough (U) can add up.

bigmike82
02-22-2010, 1:07 PM
"you would also fully understand the notion of opsec that it is better to STFU about capabilities and not put it on the internet."
*rolls eyes* This isn't hidden because of OPSec. It's 'hidden' because it doesn't exist the way some people make it seem like it does.

"yea the kind that likes to release US secrets to our enemies..."
The Citizens of this country are the enemy? ;)

Yeah, this has gotten off-topic.

OP, an encrypted drive would be the way to go, I think. Since you're on base, there's no real good way to securely browse the web without 'them' being able to spy on you. Thanks for your service. :)

nemisis1400
02-22-2010, 5:55 PM
Warning OFF TOPIC

...Kinda, oh and it's NSFW i think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZTlB0Civw

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WkZTlB0Civw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WkZTlB0Civw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZTlB0Civw