[ISN] Re: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker

From: InfoSec News (isnat_private)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 02:29:10 PDT

  • Next message: InfoSec News: "[ISN] FBI, computer industry join forces against viruses, worms"

    Forwarded from: Nexus <nexusat_private-way.co.uk>
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Hansen" <davidhat_private>
    To: <ukcryptoat_private>
    Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:46 PM
    Subject: Re: FW: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker
    > On 1 Oct 2001 at 3:02, John Doe Number Two wrote:
    > > The Bunker and The Other Bunker were designed and built during the
    > > Cold War as physically secure communications centres. Both offer the
    > > ultimate in protection from a myriad of attacks including; crackers,
    > > terrorist attack, electro-magnetic pulse, HERF weapons, electronic
    > > eavesdropping and solar flares.
    > Nonsense.
    > As someone who (in a previous career) designed, built and
    > maintained such buildings I'm fed up of such writing spouted by PR
    > companies and others.
    > Such a building will provide a level of protection against some of
    > the forms of attack listed. However, like any other form of
    > protection, that protection is not ultimate. The protection
    > provided depends on the installation design, maintenance and
    > operation.
    > For example, a terrorist attack could take many forms, groups of
    > people on foot for example. I doubt whether these buildings will
    > have troops to resist groups of attackers from getting close.
    > Doors (and I have seen some very impressive doors) can always be
    > opened with suitable tools and time, or bypassed if that is
    > easier. Unless the buildings are run in closed down mode all the
    > time (expensive on electricity and filters, not the way to attract
    > staff due to the limited air) a simple gas attack on the air
    > inlets would disable the building easily anyway.
    > While these buildings undoubtedly provide a far more secure
    > environment than the typical tin shed (with or without single-skin
    > block walls) that most "secure" computer spaces are inside, it is
    > deceitful to talk about "the ultimate protection". By all means
    > the company should offer the service, but they should not mis-sell
    > what they offer.
    > There is no such thing as a physically secure building. Even the
    > most important military headquarters in "the west", which are
    > still in use for their original purpose, can be destroyed by a
    > suitable attack.
    > Yes, I have pointed this out to the company before in private.
    > --
    >  David Hansen | davidhat_private  | PGP email preferred
    >  Edinburgh    | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number F566DA0E
    >  If I revoke this key, the only circumstance in which I will not be
    >  prepared to explain my reasons for doing so will be when UK
    >  government authorities have stipulated that providing such an
    >  explanation would be unlawful. See RIP Act 2000.
    ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org
    To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY
    of the mail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 05:17:16 PDT