Re: Secure passwords?

Juergen Nieveler <juergen.nieveler.nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9720611B3788Djuergennieveler@xxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "nemo_outis" <abc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If you would not notice somebody looking (or other forms of
>> surrepitious observation and/or recording) there is something
>> desperately wrong, either with you or with your environment.
>
> Please note that I included Tempest-attacks. Is your house
> tempest-shielded?
>
> Juergen Nieveler



Nope, not required as as a result of my risk and threat assessments. Nor
is protection against laser interferometry on windows and a few other
exotic attacks.

However, I have posted on how to tackle threats such as Tempest related
attacks, including my preference for older low-MHz laptops (lesser emsec
concerns, no exposed cables, no need to isolate power supplies, possible to
use RF-shielded enclosures rather than shielded rooms, etc.). Constructing
full room-size high-MHz Faraday cages is a bear - the grounding aspects
alone present significant challenges (as do seals, conduits, air exchange,
etc.)

Despite your gibe, physical security does not mean that one must always
escalate to Fort Knox. No, it means that the level of physical security
should be commensurate with the threats, the risks they pose, and the
consequences of security breaches. However, all but the very lowest levels
of physical security require freedom from direct visual observation by
others.

But you knew that already; it's just fun to tease me :-)

Regards,


.