|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:32:08 -0400 To: William Knowles <erehwon@dis.org>, cryptography@c2.net From: Jay Holovacs <holovacs@idt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.95.980521042335.20362G-100000@kizmiaz.dis.org> The whole article is built on one anonymous statement and a reporter's comments. Notice complete lack of any authenticatable sources: >From: drudge@drudgereport.com >To: DRUDGE@drudgereport.com >Subject: DRUDGE-REPORT-EXCLUSIVE 5/20/98 >A veteran employee of LORAL SPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS has described to the >DRUDGE REPORT just what went down during a LORAL review of the 1996 failure. > >"The most interesting aspect of the accident was this: engineers who >reviewed the recovered payload debris noticed something special that was >missing: encryption hardware." > Unidentified source, single sentence quote (upon what this whole article is based). It gets better: >The LORAL source, who worked at LORAL's satellite manufacturing facility >when the Chinese launches began, continues: Former employee (unspecified: janitor?) working when launches began... > "I spoke to one of our >engineers about a year after the explosion, he is like many at LORAL, >retired military officers from the black programs of our military. His >assumption was that the Chinese kept the encryption IC board with the intent >of reverse engineering its function and that espionage was China's intent." > Here we go into a third-hand story, from unnamed source, quoting from unnamed engineer a year after the incident, making assumptions as to what happened and who got the board. > >"Similar devices are used to communicate with American spy satellites, and >the Pentagon and intelligence agencies worried that anyone who could crack >the code could take control of the satellites themselves," NEW YORK TIMES >hotshot Jeff Gerth reported last week. > > OK, this 'knowledgeable' source makes this wild assumption that reverse engineering this board will enable them to control US spy satellites (like they would share the same encryption keys). Sure it would be better if they don't get a sample, but the whole key to encryption technology if properly done is that the enemy doesn't get access to the data simply by capturing the equipment. Jay This is not to defend Clinton or Loral. Just a shot at unverified speculation passed off as journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |