×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040

timothy posted about a year ago | from the 2039-on-the-other-hand dept.

Earth 143

dryriver writes with a report from CNN that the asteroid known as 2011 AG5 will not hit Earth in 2040 as early calculations had led some to fear when it was first spotted last year. "To narrow down the asteroid's future course, NASA put out a call for more observation. Astronomers from the University of Hawaii at Manoa took up the task and managed to observe the asteroid over several days in October. 'An analysis of the new data conducted by NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, shows that the risk of collision in 2040 has been eliminated,' NASA declared Friday."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

143 comments

Do we want to know? (1)

Praetor.Zero (1048272) | about a year ago | (#42372389)

Serious question: Would we want them to tell us if an asteroid were going to impact the earth with sufficient force to elimate the current dominant life form?

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372441)

Yes.

Re:Do we want to know? (4, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42372499)

It has a diameter of about 140 meters. Its not a planet killer.
You watch too much TV. Nobody can keep a secret in this world. Not least of all, government officials.

Re:Do we want to know? (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#42372625)

Yeah, it'd have a large local/regional impact, but not planet-wide. Estimates of the impact seem to hover around 100-150 megatons of TNT equivalent, which is 2-3 Tsar Bombas [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373789)

If it lands in the same spot as the Tsar Bomba, it would damage things in Norway. IIRC, there were a few shattered windows in Norway from the Tsar Bomba. Nevermind that. The blew that thing up in a very remote area. If it hit London... wow, just wow. Not a global killer; but certainly a global game changer.

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374559)

It is unlikely though that it hits an area with dense population. The chance is 75% that it hits the ocean, and most of the land area has just a low population density..

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

cstacy (534252) | about a year ago | (#42374303)

Yeah, it'd have a large local/regional impact, but not planet-wide. Estimates of the impact seem to hover around 100-150 megatons of TNT equivalent, which is 2-3 Tsar Bombas [wikipedia.org] .

Meeza thinkin' if da asteroid iz like a bomba, it be doing plenty of kabloohee!

Re:Do we want to know? (-1, Flamebait)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42373269)

if it collided with the mid-eastern US it might actually do the planet a favor

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about a year ago | (#42373843)

I'm going to break the rules and feed a troll here by replying with a very simple sentiment: Go fuck yourself, asshole. Some things aren't fit to joke about. Also, next time you decide to try to be funny, at least get it straight: the region is known as the Mid-Atlantic. Have a nice day, prick.

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372511)

You don't know much about 2011 AG5. Does ya?
 
In all seriousness... you're a moron. Please shut up, sit down and let the adults talk.

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | about a year ago | (#42372577)

Yes, since even with current technology it might be feasible to avoid the collision if we know its trajectory decades in advance. For example, if a probe flies close to the asteroid, the gravitational pull of the probe will alter the path of the asteroid a tiny bit, but a tiny bit can be enough if it happens a long time before the asteroid gets too close to earth.

Re:Do we want to know? (-1, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42373277)

if every american shot at the assteroid with their beloved guns, surely the planet would be saved, right?

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373733)

Interesting questions. We know that you can stop a train with a BB gun, so you might actually be right.
Here is the article about stopping the train: http://what-if.xkcd.com/18/

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373887)

Hmm, let's see:
  asteroid energy of impact = ~100 megatones of TNT.
if we assume that about 100 million Americans can fire a semi-automatic firearm that discharges about 100 grams of TNT, then the energies/momentums don't balance out:
100 megatones vs 10 million kilograms of TNT.

That said, the problem isn't the mass per se -- it's the centralized, focused, collection of mass.

If 1 million Americans could fire ultrahigh velocity rifle bullets at the asteroid -- and hit it, shattering it -- at about 5 km above the surface of the Earth, the individual fragments might be small enough to be significantly slowed down (and dispersed) by the atmosphere, such that they no longer posed a life threatening risk.

So, yeah, us Americans could potentially save the planet after all. We just need more ultrahigh velocity assault rifles.
Thanks for your question!

Re:Do we want to know? (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42373999)

5km isn't enough to "significantly slow down (and disperse)" such a large volume of material. The impact area is still too localised, even though the object is shattered. More than that, the range of conventional "high velocity" firearms isn't enough to reach the asteroid at 5km. And even if it was, your 1 million shooters would all have to be directly under the "dispersal" zone. They'd be vaporised.

If you could shatter it fine enough at a sufficient distance - multiple Earth-moon distances - so that the spread was at least planet-wide, you might reduce any local damage to tolerable levels. You still get all the energy dumped into the atmosphere, but in this case, that's not enough to worry about compared to the effect of a single impact site.

Most asteroids seem to be pre-shattered anyway. Loosely held piles of smashed rock, gravel and dust. Unless you can cause it to spread significantly apart, breaking it up isn't doing much to change its nature, it will still impact would the same force it would have anyway. It will also be able to take a massive amount of damage without breaking apart, by shifting internally to absorb the energy. Compare the impact of smashing a wrecking ball into a solid boulder, verses dropping it on a pile of sand and gravel.

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42374093)

"So, yeah, us Americans could potentially save the planet after all. We just need more ultrahigh velocity assault rifles."

you morons can rationalize anything can't you

luckily the rest of the world knows how rediculous your empire is

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374577)

No, if my part of the world were going to be destroyed, and I knew about it far enough in advance, I'd make it a point to shoot all the people I ever wanted to shoot. You are making your case to be on that list.

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year ago | (#42372689)

I believe Humans and Mammals are the dominant life form primarily due to our ability to withstand cataclysmic events like that.

It's why dinosaurs died out and mammals took over.

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#42373113)

I believe Humans and Mammals are the dominant life form primarily due to our ability to withstand cataclysmic events like that.

It's why dinosaurs died out and mammals took over.

Except that toward the end of the Permian, "proto-mammals" that were in most ways a great deal like modern mammals were the dominant form of animal life on land. And then something happened to cause the worst mass extinction event in the planet's history ... which cleared the way for the dinosaurs and reduced mammals to a small niche for almost 200 million years. What class of creatures end up winning looks like a roll of the dice as much as anything,

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42373283)

"toward the end of the Permian, "proto-mammals" that were in most ways a great deal like modern mammals were the dominant form of animal life on land. And then something happened to cause the worst mass extinction event in the planet's history ... which cleared the way for the dinosaurs and reduced mammals to a small niche for almost 200 million years"

maybe the dinosaurs ate all the mammals?

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374541)

It is and it isn't a roll of the dice. Whether or not a creature is already adapted for the radically different conditions that occur during a mass extinction is pretty much random. They can't plan ahead, because evolution doesn't work that way. They haven't spent millions of years adapting for conditions that don't yet exist, they've adapted for the conditions that do exist. Then suddenly the rug is pulled out from under them when the Earth's environment changes en masse. So, when the disaster happens you're either well-suited for the new situation or you're not. In that respect if you take a large group of creatures (say, mammals), there will be winners and losers, and sometimes they are *all* losers (i.e. they all go extinct). Like you say, it *looks* a lot like a roll of the dice. However, whether a particular species survives isn't simply "luck". There will be a specific reason why they survive while other creatures do not. For example, at the end of the Cretaceous, one of the reasons that dinosaurs seem to have died out while mammals and lizards survived is the fact that most of the former are relatively large creatures that would be exposed on the surface and have greater food demands, while the latter two include a lot of small species that can also burrow into the ground and in some cases hibernate if climate turns cold.

Think of this kind of like an obstacle course where the "random" aspect is the choice of the exact obstacles on the field, but whether or not a particular species makes it through the course isn't random (i.e. there are good reasons why certain species make it through *that* particular course). The survivors then diversify once conditions go back to normal and a lot of previously-occupied niches that are now empty creates new opportunities. Even when creatures survive mass extinctions they are often decimated. For example, a paper just came out recently that looks at lizards and snakes before and after the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction [pnas.org] . The large ones tended to die out and the ones that survived tended to be small -- i.e. it wasn't "random". There was a definite bias to survivors versus non-survivors.

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

tuxgeek (872962) | about a year ago | (#42372815)

Most people don't want to know, and some shouldn't even be told if the Earth was about to be obliterated by a comet or very large asteroid.
But you can rest assured, sooner or later something will come at us and impact the planet. It's happened before, it'll happen again

Re:Do we want to know? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373719)

> with sufficient force to elimate the current dominant life form?

The ants? Bacteria? Rats?

Re:Do we want to know? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#42376965)

What you are talking about is commonly called the "War Of The Worlds scenario" after the Orson Welles broadcast that caused such a major panic and I would say that even if NASA had a 100% certainty that it would hit they'd not tell the public until something had been done to stop it or it was nearly on top of us for precisely that reason.

As K said to J in MIB 1 "A person is smart, people are dumb, dangerous panicky animals and you know it" and that is why you simply couldn't tell the populace about such a thing, because while an individual could understand and accept it the herd would go nuts, you'd have looting and suicides and just a giant mess on your hands on TOP of the asteroid problem. That is why I always laugh when I see Michael Bay's Armageddon, it shows everybody just sitting there quietly and watching the sky when IRL we'd be seeing cities in total chaos and anarchy left and right, the public would just flip their shit.

Instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372391)

It will hit Earth in 2013. Happy New Year everybody.

Gollum's penis ring (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372411)

TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks system noise to FRS

This post is one example of why Tor developers should focus on anti-TEMPEST-ing the Tor Browser, in color, fonts, etc.
===
I don't operate any wireless equipment at my living location. This includes computers, computer equipment, routers, non-computer equipment, etc.

I'm having a problem with one of my LCD monitors.

It works without problems. That was until I picked up some heavy static noises from a hand held radio. I eliminated all sources of generating this type of noise until I came towards an LCD monitor. When the monitor is on and there is content on the screen the radio makes several types of garbage(static) sounds. As I manipulate contents on the screen, maximize and minimize windows, open different applications, the radio responds with scratchy(static) noises to match the activity on the screen. This includes typing and mouse movement.

When I switched the desktop background to a solid black color without wallpaper, the radio noise went down to almost nothing. But when I loaded any program with a white background, the noise from the radio exploded in volume.

When I passed the radio across different computer and non-computer electronic devices other than the LCD monitor, the wired mouse made a high pitched squeal sound within the static. None of the other computing devices such as the tower generated any noise.

I tried CRT monitors and separate computers attached to the CRT monitors but they did not generate any noise in the radio. On the computer connected to the net, I unplugged the cable leading to the router to rule this out but it made no difference, the LCD monitor is at fault.

While monitoring the radio noise, there were several instances where the noise on the channel being monitored stopped, and I switched to another channel and the same noise appeared. Why would the noise from the LCD switch channels during normal use of the LCD? Back and forth throughout the day the noise generated by the LCD would switch from one channel to the next and back to the first channel again.

The noise extends several steps within my living location. I'll test this another day to determine if it extends outside my living location and if so by how many feet.

The computer/monitor are grounded and attached to a surge protector. I'm not sure what I need to do to stop this, or if I should ignore it.

I assumed LCDs would be quieter than CRTs when it came to noise.

Unless I have a radio tuned to a specific channel, the LCD does not generate any noise which I can detect, unless it's above my hearing capacity.

The LCD monitor also functions as speakers, and while the sound cable is connected to the tower, I have disabled the onboard sound in my BIOS. The only other connection is the DVI cable to the tower.

How may I decrease this noise or eliminate it? It seems like the LCD is a mini radio station. When I turn it off the noise in the radio stops, if I blacken the screen the noise lessens. When I switch to a colorful background or load white screened applications like a web browser the noise jumps up loudly. I've tried grabbing and moving a browser window around the screen and the movement matches the noises in the radio.

Would any of this be considered normal?
==-
This certainly isn't unheard of, it's because some part of the monitor is unshielded. The more fix-it stuff is at the top of the following, with the technical backdrop that just might be good to know is at the bottom.

Unfortunately, the issue is most likely the panel charging the LCs. The only thing you can do is see if the manufacturer will replace it or upgrade you. Complain to the manufacturer, be sure to come up with some important thing it's interfering with(if I recall some medical devices use some sort of radio).

If the issue is actually internal wiring which is highly unlikely as detailed below, and it isn't in warranty, attempt to shield it yourself. To shield it yourself, you'll need thin foil(not kitchen foil) and electrical tape.

So, in any given monitor, there's 3 main parts. Input, logic, and output. Output, as previously mentioned, can't really be shielded. To shield both of the other sections, all you really need to do is manipulate the wiring to reduce the number of holes in the foil wrap needed to put it all back together. Obviously this will take some trial and error, and time.

USEFUL INFO THAT ISN'T REQUIRED:

Shielding wires can best be thought of as a encasing a wire in a Faraday cage, made of foil. If you want to see an example, Apple's iPod charging cords are all shielded, strip the insulation and see for yourself. This shielding acts doubly, keeping EM noise from messing with the signal, and keeps the signal's own noise from leaving.

WHY IT IS THE CHARGING PANEL AND NOT WIRING:
Because of the specific details you provided( bravo to you, the amount of data provided helped ), I can conclude that the charging panel(the array of electrodes responsible for producing the image) is putting out the interference. Three of your observations prove this.

First, you state the noise ceases completely when the monitor is turned off, which is consistent with it being EM noise.
Second, the noise's perceived pitch changes when the display is manipulated, which is to be expected, as the electrode charges would change as the display changes.
Third, a black screen is "quieter" than a white screen. Black is the lowest charge state, with the only power in use going to the backlight.

As for your questions:
Noise hopping channels isn't unheard of, though I don't know the science behind it. My best guess is that because the noise isn't an intended result of the electricity, small changes in voltage/amperage result in those hops.
(indirect question-ish) The mouse was likely the only other emitter because it has a fairly high density of wires + it emits light.
===-
@W00t:

What 1s the d1fference between - and where may 1 obta1n the non-k1tchen "foil" you ment1oned?

The d1sturbances sound l1ke a bugged env1ronment. The squeal com1ng from one area and/or dev1ce could mean the locat1on of the bug has been found - and 1 know adding a small dev1ce and/or mod1f1cation to a keyboard and/or mouse 1s s1mple enough - espec1ally for a quick 1n and out the door type bugging.

1s there an affordable method of sh1elding the equ1pment while not violating FCC/TEMPEST laws? Would a simple screen d1mmer attached to the monitor bring the no1se down? Or would 1t be best to put out the extra money requ1red by purchas1ng spec1al paint or wallpaper wh1ch blocks RF signals?

Whether or not 1t's a bug, at this point you are broadcast1ng your computer mon1tor and 1ts activ1t1es, down to the keyboard and mouse movements. What 1s the use of using Tor or any other l1ke serv1ce 1f you are pwned over the a1r waves?
====-
You could use kitchen foil, it's just more unwieldy to work with.

Yes, it could be a bug, I was running under the assumption you had no reason to believe you were bugged, and if you did you ran bug sweeps. If you believe you are bugged, you should definitely dismantle things to make sure a bug isn't simply piggybacking on the same power source.

Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it.
=====-
Thanks, W00t.

"Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it."

I have modified my browser to function with a black background and my choice of text colors and unchecked the option for all pages to use their own colors, so every page I visit is black with my choice of font/links colors. I'll rescan to determine if this lessens the noise. It's ugly, but tolerable. Coupled with a black theme for the desktop, including the background and system wide applications should also help - including disabling images in the browser.

You mentioned foil. I'm not an electrician, but wouldn't wrapping cords with foil and finishing the job off with a layer of strong black tape possibly conduct electricity? Are you suggesting I cover all wires leading to the computer(s) using this method? Wouldn't they each require special grounding? How many repeating layers of this and/or other material is needed? Have you tried "conductive tubing?"

While I want to shield enough to block noisy RF, I don't want to create a microwave type scenario where RF is contained but it still remains and is possibly amplified so as to add to the degeneration of my health, if that's possible.

1. Ferrite beads
2. Split beads
3. Toroids

CONDUCTIVE TUBING & FERRITE SNAP BEAD
http://www.lessemf.com/wiring.html [lessemf.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMF_measurement [wikipedia.org]

I could try some or all of the three options above in addition to your advice? TY
===-
Anyways this reminding me of Van Eck phreaking look it up, some pretty interesting stuff.

Yep, had the same thought.

Countermeasures are detailed in the article on TEMPEST, the NSA's standard on spy-proofing digital equipment. One countermeasure involves shielding the equipment to minimize electromagnetic emissions. Another method, specifically for video information, scrambles the signals such that the image is perceptually undisturbed, but the emissions are harder to reverse engineer into images. Examples of this include low pass filtering fonts and randomizing the least significant bit of the video data information.
====-
can someone please point me to techie LCD monitor internal guides? If I'm going to take it apart I'd like to know what to expect. I've read more about Van Eck and Tempest than anyone can teach me here. Now I'm looking for LCD guides of what's inside.
===-
To be honest, its not the whats inside the LCD monitor you should be worrying about if you want to phreak LCD's . You should be worry more about the RF side of things, and figuring out the spread spectrum clock signal so you can pick up the signal. Top if off background noise is going to be bitch when it comes to LCD. Old CRT monitors are way easier to phreak those thing throw off EM radiation like nobody business.
===-
The noise coming from the LCD monitor is appearing on FRS channels:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service [wikipedia.org]

It continues for several minutes before it jumps to another channel then after a few minutes jumps back to the original channel. One of my concerns is the ability for others to pluck this noise from the air (Van Eck/TEMPEST) and monitor my activity, or possibly use an attack against the computer somehow. A recent UN report mentioned a high tech method(s):

* U.N. report reveals secret law enforcement techniques

"Point 201: Mentions a new covert communications technique using software defined high frequency radio receivers routed through the computer creating no logs, using no central server and extremely difficult for law enforcement to intercept."

- http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf [unodc.org]
- http://www.hacker10.com/other-computing/u-n-report-reveals-secret-law-enforcement-techniques/ [hacker10.com]

In addition, I don't want my LCD monitor constantly sending monitor and/or system activity to a FRS channel(s) for others to hear. I choose wired over wireless for a reason, and there shouldn't be any noise coming from my LCD monitor and appearing over FRS, unless there is a bug or problem with the monitor. All of my
CRT systems are silent on FRS.

When I position the radio near different components, the power supply doesn't emit any noise on FRS, but it could be a problem, I don't know, I'll move to that once I resolve the LCD monitor problem, unless the PSU is the problem and not the monitor.

I may take apart the LCD monitor, I'm looking for a good list of what I'll find if I do.

I peered inside the vents on the top/back left hand side with a strong flashlight and came across a strange piece of silver tape inside, here's how I describe it:

OOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG__

OO = a small thin black material coming out from underneath the silver piece of tape
GG = the strip of silver tape
__ = the bottom right hand portion of the silver tape is raised enough to allow a pinky finger entry

The silver tape/material/opening under tape is on the top left corner inside the monitor. The rest of the length and area inside that I can see contain no tape or black material. I've seen photos of planted bugs in people's living spaces and most if not all of the invasive ones are wrapped/covered in silver foil. I've found no other reason for that strip and material to be there, but what do I know.
=====
In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"
===-
I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside.
If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it.
Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you.

And shield your monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
====-
"I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside."

Does Tails support this at boot?

If not, is there a Linux LiveCD which allows this and does not give you root access at boot?

I've looked at several different distributions which allow you to boot into RAM and remove the CD, but they all give you root and that's a very insecure environment to run TBB in!

"If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it."

It doesn't blink on the several distros which boot into RAM, but I don't want to run Tor as root or reconfigure the permissions/PAM/etc. just to use TBB. As above, with Tails and many LiveCDs which don't boot into RAM, 99% of them have this blinking light issue. The actual INSTALLS I've done to HDD experience constant light activity too, even more so, without anything to explain them.

For Linux, I've ran rkhunter, chkrootkit, tiger, and other tools and nothing malicious is found. Without a deep binary analysis I don't know what else I could do.

For Windows, I use a few programs in the SysInternals Suite and they display strange usage on the system and reference programs which cannot be found with a search on the system, references to impersonation, spoofing, and more. I've ran almost every N.American scanner on the Windows systems, including command line only rootkit detectors and I've seen some strange 'strings' of binaries mentioned, but have no idea on how to clean the system.

I prefer to run LiveCDs because all installations, Windows and Linux, contain unexplainable frenzies of blinking lights, far worse than the blink every second on most LiveCDs. I'm wondering if this is firmware malware on my NIC or the CDROM itself. This has existed for years and never goes away, no matter what system I use, this strange baggage seems to re-infect everything.

"Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you."

Disable what?

"And shield your monitor."

Thanks. I'm investigating and most of the guides require specific addons to the computer's cabling system. Most of the guides appear incomplete, or are in another language other than English.

Any comments on the Tempest/blinking light possibility?

Any comments on why it's spewing out noise to FRS stations and freq hopping?
===-
More comments from elsewhere:

@kb2vxa:

"You're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

I respect your opinion and I don't wish to argue against it, but please look at it from the way I and some others have. I want to eliminate the noise created by the LCD monitor. If this was such a common experience, I would expect at least one of the dozens of other electronic equipment to generate some noise, however faint, on FRS - but they do not.

"You are under the wrong impression that somehow RF hash from the back light can somehow carry data. A liquid crystal display (LCD) does not generate its own light like a CRT or plasma screen and requires a light source to make the display visible. Even those that do cannot transmit computer data being none reaches the monitor."

The LCD is connected to a tower, which other devices connect to. Under testing I've heard the CDROM drive accessing data noises within the FRS channels, along with mouse movements and keyboard activity, along with other noises. When I disable the LCD monitor, all of these disturbances vanish. This means the weakness is in the monitor, and my tower is well shielded or shielded enough so as not to generate any noise in radios I can notice. The reference I made to the strange tape and material within the back side of the LCD monitor at the top could be a sign of some type of antenna or device for amping.

"Their FRS radios will only hear what yours does, RF hash, no data whatsoever THAT IS if one is standing outside your house tapping the radio and scratching his head wondering what's the matter with his radio. You and only you know what it is and where it's coming from."

And what of experienced and curious sysadmins? Rogue crackers? Bored HAMs?
Are there any remote radio injection attacks against systems? This is something I'll research later, as I do believe it was mentioned in at least one whitepaper on side channel attacks.

"Thanks for the chuckles, if the report reveals secrets it would not be published but sent by secret courier to the KGB in Moscow."

I'm not aware of any secrets revealed within the document. But it did raise an interesting point without exposing the method(s) delivered to us from an interesting party. This wasn't just some random article written by some anonymous, disturbed fellow and posted to a pastebin or conspiracy minded blog or forum. And one cannot deny the dozens of TEMPEST attacks available today.

"So... all this and no word on moving the radio farther from the monitor. Why don't you try talking somewhere besides in front of the computer if it bothers you so much?"

Thank you for considering conversation as my reason for posting this, but it is not. I would not choose a noisy channel to talk on. Clear conversation is not the point of this thread. I desire the elimination of this garbage coming from the LCD monitor. I don't care if no one in the world can pick up on it and hear it, I would like to properly resolve it and not ignore it.

One can also dredge up the subject of EMF on health, too, but I have not experienced any disturbance of health from exposure to this noise and most people would argue any possible EMF effects on health to be one of one's over active imagination and not real world application.

[-]

A continued discussion was posted elsewhere, this may be useful in the voyage to remove this "noise":

[-]

In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

[-]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"

[-]

Any comments on the silver tape and material inside the back of the LCD? ...Disconnection of the LED CDROM and HDD lights could be something I should do to relieve one possible issue.

[-]

Some articles with examples:

"If everything is just right, you can pick up signals from some distance. "I was able to eavesdrop certain laptops through three walls," says Kuhn. "At the CEBIT conference, in 2006, I was able to see the Powerpoint presentation from a stand 25 metres away."

uhn also mentioned that one laptop was vulnerable because it had metal hinges that carried the signal of the display cable. I asked if you could alter a device to make it easier to spy on. "There are a lot of innocuous modifications you can make to maximise the chance of getting a good signal," he told me. For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.

As for defending against this kind of attack, Kuhn says using well-shielded cables, certain combinations of colours and making everything a little fuzzy all work."

- http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/seeing-through-walls.html [newscientist.com]

=!==-!=
TO EASILY VIEW THE PDF files below:
=!==-!=

Online viewer for PDF, PostScript and Word:

"This is an online viewer, with which you can view PDF and PostScript files as browsable images and Word documents as web pages. Given a URL on the net or a file on your computer, the viewer will try to retrieve the document, convert it and show it to you. No plugin software is required."

http://view.samurajdata.se/ [samurajdata.se]

The viewer software is open source, licensed under the GNU Public License.
=!==-!=

Electromagnetic eavesdropping risks of flat-panel displays
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Eavesdropping attacks on computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iss2006-tempest.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations: eavesdropping risks of computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.html [cam.ac.uk]
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations of LCD TV sets
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emc2011-tv.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

"Q: Can I use filtered fonts also on flat-panel displays

My experience so far has been that with LCDs, the video cable is the most significant source of radiated information leakage. Where an analogue video cable (with 15-pin VGA connector) is used, low-pass filtered fonts have the same benefits as with CRTs. Where a purely digital video cable is used (DVI-D, laptop-internal displays with FPD/LVDS links, etc.) only the last step, namely randomizing the least-significant bits, should be implemented.

Where the video signal is entirely encoded in digital form, the low-pass filtered step will not have the desired effect. In fact, it can actually increase the differences between the signal generated by individual characters, and thereby make automatic radio character recognition more reliable."

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/softtempest-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Remotely Eavesdropping on Keyboards (and read the comments!)

"The researchers from the Security and Cryptography Laboratory at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne are able to capture keystrokes by monitoring the electromagnetic radiation of PS/2, universal serial bus, or laptop keyboards. They've outline four separate attack methods, some that work at a distance of as much as 65 feet from the target.

In one video demonstration, researchers Martin Vuagnoux and Sylvain Pasini sniff out the the keystrokes typed into a standard keyboard using a large antenna that's about 20 to 30 feet away in an adjacent room."

- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/remotely_eavesd.html [schneier.com]

=

Video eavesdropping demo at CeBIT 2006
- http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/09/video-eavesdropping-demo-at-cebit-2006/ [lightbluetouchpaper.org]

=

Optical Emission Security â" Frequently Asked Questions

"Q: What about LEDs?

For devices with RS-232 serial ports, it is customary to provide a status indicator LED for some of the signal lines (in particular transmit data and receive data). Often, these LEDs are directly connected to the line via just a resistor. As a result, anyone with a line of sight to the LED, some optics and a simple photosensor can see the data stream. Joe Loughry and David A. Umphress have recently announced a detailed study (submitted to ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) in which they tested 39 communications devices with 164 LED indicators, and on 14 of the tested devices they found serial port data in the LED light. Based on their findings, it seems reasonable to conclude that LEDs for RS-232 ports are most likely carrying the data signal today, whereas LEDs on high-speed data links (LANs, harddisk) do not. Even these LEDs are still available as a covert channel for malicious software that actively tries to transmit data optically.

I expect that this paper will cause a number of modem manufacturers to add a little pulse stretcher (monostable multivibrator) to the LEDs in the next chip set revision, and that at some facilities with particular security concerns, the relevant LEDs will be removed or covered with black tape.

The data traffic on LEDs is not a periodic signal, and therefore, unlike with video signals, periodic averaging cannot be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The shot-noise limit estimation technique that I used to estimate the CRT eavesdropping risk can even more easily (because no deconvolution is needed) also be applied to serial port indicators and allows us to estimate a lower bound for the bit-error rate at a given distance. I have performed a few example calculations and concluded that with a direct line of sight, and a 100 kbit/s signal (typical for an external telephone modem), at 500 m distance it should be no problem to acquire a reliable signal (one wrong bit every 10 megabit), whereas for indirect reflection from the wall of a dark room, a somewhat more noisy signal (at least one wrong bit per 10 kilobit) can be expected to be receivable in a few tens of meters distance.

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/optical-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Ancient Story on Slashdot: Coming to a Desktop near you: Tempest Capabilities

"New Scientist has an interesting article about a new toy we will all want. It's a card that plugs in one of your PCI slots and allows you to scan the EMF spectrum and read your neighbours terminal. In about 5 years you might be able to get one for just under £1000. (Modern Tempest Hardware costs about £30000) "

http://www.yro.slashdot.org/story/99/11/08/093250/coming-to-a-desktop-near-you-tempest-capabilities [slashdot.org]

=

"Any unshielded electrical device with a variable current (including LCDs) will give out EMF radiation. It's the nature of the beast.

For that matter, light is EMF radiation, so unless you have your LCD in a coal-mine, it's reflecting EMF all the time it's switched on.

Then, there's the fact that screen monitoring isn't the only monitoring you can do. I used to use a radio, tuned into the bus for the PET, as a sound card. Worked surprisingly well, for all that very clunky metal shielding. What's to stop a much higher-quality receiver from seeing the data, in an unshielded box, being sent TO the LCD, or to any other device on the machine?

It's a mistake to assume that Tempest technology is single-function and that that single-function only works in a single situation."

- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2333&cid=1553178 [slashdot.org]

=

800Mbps Wireless Network Made With LED Light Bulbs
- http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/1322201/800Mbps-Wireless-Network-Made-With-LED-Light-Bulbs [slashdot.org]

=

There are a lot of other files, many in PPT format, which can be found easily on this subject of LCD monitor (and other computing devices) TEMPEST sniffing.

===

Sources for this discussion:

- http://forums.radioreference.com/computer/255488-lcd-monitor-broadcasts-noise-radio-why.html [radioreference.com]
- http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10919 [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion] .onion link above requires a running Tor client session in order to view. (https://www.torproject.org)

This on-going discussion backed up to Pastebin(s) in order to retain it as an artifact. Many of these
types of discussions are REMOVED from the net because of the nature of the discussion (TEMPEST).

Re:Gollum's penis ring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372497)

I come to slashdot for the +5 Informative spam. Jesus dood this shit is so old news its from 1990. If you wanna spam for tinfoil hats for your monitor, post a quick link to a meme site with a cat, a monitor, covered in tinfoil and a donation link button for 10$.

Re:Gollum's penis ring(You Need..) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373487)

MyCleanPC it'll fix all your problems;p

Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#42372459)

Well....

That all depends.

I hear the North Koreans are planning to land thrusters on it and propel it into the imperial bourgeois West...

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year ago | (#42372531)

So Opportunity and Curiosity need to be on alert then? On a more serious note: theoretical physics, as little as I understand, leads me to believe by looking for them we are actively inviting them to hit us. Shouldn't we figure out how to stop them and worry about seeing them later? If we can't stop it I would contend there is no use in knowing it'll happen.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372619)

Its hard to find a solution for a problem if u dont know anything about it.

Speed, size, course and spin (to name only a few aspects) of the object are important to find a way to make it not hit us.

But maybe u think we could just hollywood like blow everything up and thats it?

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42372697)

But maybe u think we could just hollywood like blow everything up and thats it?

In fact this is a realistic option with an asteroid this small. Its only 140 meters, or a football field and a half in diameter.

Shattering it into much smaller fragments is actually an option, as only some of those would still hit earth, and many of those would be small enough to burn up in the atmosphere. Most that don't burn up, would (statically at least) hit ocean.

Most asteroids, from what we know, are loose accumulations of space debris without a solid core. It might shatter rather easily.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374117)

One of the problems you don't address is that in many cases an ocean impact is worse. On land, if pieces don't hit you, all is well. With water the impact moves out in all directions and will most likely devastate coastal cities. The only good thing is tsunamis move very slow, so we might be able to save most everybody, if it is far out in open ocean. If it isn't then look at the impact on the Yucatan, a similar impact could wipe out the Caribbean and all of the coastal cities in the Gulf of Mexico, and that's only acute devastation from a tsunami.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42374121)

Most asteroids, from what we know, are loose accumulations of space debris without a solid core. It might shatter rather easily.

Impact modelling apparently says rubble-pile asteroids are harder to break up than solids.

But they will also have a large amount of their mass as dust/sand/gravel. If you can spread it out, it will burn up above 50km, only the large solid masses will impact. But we need to do proper asteroid missions on members of multiple asteroid families. Too many unknowns.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374643)

Shattering it into much smaller fragments is actually an option, as only some of those would still hit earth

You may be forgetting about the political consequences. The still significantly sized fragments may end up on other continents. If country A blows up a comet to save itself, and the fragments destroy a city of country B, country B might see this as an act of war / terrorism.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42372647)

theoretical physics, as little as I understand, leads me to believe by looking for them we are actively inviting them to hit us.

Its clear you understand little.

But I'd be interested in how one sends an invitation to a 140 meter ball of rock.
Will it RSVP?

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372899)

Schrodingers Asteroids.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year ago | (#42373059)

I was thinking more along the lines of Heisenburg. As parent noted I know very little, but I was trying to make a funny about the so-called Observer Effect. I think I failed at both the funny and smart part though. :) I still think we should blow this sucker up, just to make sure we can if the time comes. To me "exploding into tiny hopefully harmless pieces" has less modes of failure than "attach rocket and try to nudge." Of course this may piss off the asteroid rights set, but they have questionable lobbying power. Are there other ideas out there I am missing out on? I've only really heard of either nudge it or Michael Bay it.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373175)

Lasers, Solar Sails. And gravity tugs.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#42373249)

I still think we should blow this sucker up, just to make sure we can if the time comes. To me "exploding into tiny hopefully harmless pieces" has less modes of failure than "attach rocket and try to nudge."

You must be young. Those of us who grew up in the 80s know that when you blow up an asteroid, you don't get tiny harmless pieces; you get small fast-moving pieces that are just as deadly as the original rock and much harder to hit.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373845)

Those smaller pieces also have massively greater total surface area, and will thus impart a larger percentage of their energy to the atmosphere, and a smaller percentage to the lithosphere. I never understood why this was such a hard concept to grasp.

Not like the atmosphere can't handle a little warming, right?

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42374103)

It's about being hit by bird-shot rather than a deer-slug. Both are bad, but only one is survivable. Reducing a resurfacing event to a mere extinction event, or an extinction event to a civilisation killer, or a civilisation killer to a large natural disaster.

If we can reduce the severity, there's a greater chance we can take measures to preserve the species, and the knowledge of our civilisation. One week in a suburban bunker vs six months. Or a year in a large government nuclear shelter, vs... no chance survival at all.

In the case of a small object like 2011AG5, breaking it up at sufficient distance would render most of its mass harmless. Not breaking it up would be like setting off multiple Tsar Bombs at the impact site.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year ago | (#42375779)

...when you blow up an asteroid, you don't get tiny harmless pieces; you get small fast-moving pieces that are just as deadly as the original rock and much harder to hit.

You got one part right: at the point of blowing it up, the total momentum is conserved. You then fail to understand the full physical picture. Each space rock, regardless of size, loses a lot of material due to compressive heating as it enters the atmosphere. If you have one large rock, ablating, say, 1cm deep leaves a pretty large chunk to hit the earth's surface. If a few hundred small rocks each lose 1cm to ablation, there's almost nothing left to hit the surface.

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#42376785)

Wow. Three replies and all of them took me seriously. Is 43 too young to turn into a grumpy old man?

Re: Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42374573)

Yeah it is kinda sad how some people understand the observer effect as the effect of an eye taking a look at something. The observer effect is the effect of a single photon being absorbed or emitted. That photon does not need to be detected by an eye, it is just that a particle can not be observed if it does not interact with a photon.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

asm2750 (1124425) | about a year ago | (#42372677)

Actually, has anyone even tried calculating the amount of Delta V needed to move an object like an asteroid? It would be nice if we could park a few at a Lagrangian point and exploit it for space craft/colony building materials.

Although, processing said raw materials into usable product is another story.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42372885)

Yes, people have calculated it. Depending on how far out you are, it can be enough to paint the asteroid white.

--
BMO

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42374149)

That's to give a potential impactor enough delta-v to miss the planet.

Both Frosty and asm2750's proposals require taking a non-impactor and giving it enough delta-v to hit Earth or go into HEO. That would likely require a lot more delta-v, and vastly more control, than the impact-avoidance scenarios.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42375033)

But that's wrong.

Delta v can be applied in any case with white paint for either capture or avoidance. It's all the same math.

--
BMO

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42375465)

The difference between an object hitting Earth and one that just barely misses might be a few tens of metres per second, if you catch it early enough. But the difference between the orbit of the best suitable asteroid and a successful impact (or capture) could be anything up to kilometres per second.

Worse, any miss is a good miss. Whether it scrapes the atmosphere, or swings wide of the moon, it's all good. A hit, otoh, requires aching levels of accuracy. If a million states are called a "miss" but just one is a "hit", then the two situations are not symmetrical.

Even if the white paint scheme could provide enough delta-v to bring a useful asteroid near enough to Earth, I doubt it could be used with enough precision to actually steer it to crash or capture.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42375551)

Delta V is Delta V and whether it is applied with white paint, ion thrusters, chemical rockets, gravity, etc, makes no difference if the magnitude and direction is the correct amount for capture or mere avoidance.

Your thinking is too narrow. You are hung up on whether the application is high-tech enough, when the technology doesn't matter except for cost.

Seriously.

--
BMO

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42375597)

You are hung up on whether the application is high-tech enough,

[Sigh] Try reading what I actually wrote. Missing and hitting are not symmetrical situations.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42375655)

>[Sigh] Try reading what I actually wrote

I did.

You are hung up on the technology when all this is really just a lot of math called "orbital mechanics" and whether you use the gravity well of Jupiter or the gloved hand of an astronaut giving a sufficient shove (because the further out you are, the less of a shove you need) makes not one bit of difference if the vector is correct.

Missing and hitting are all the same situations with the same math.

--
BMO

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year ago | (#42375961)

No you clearly didn't. I explained how the two are not comparable. Twice. This is attempt three.

An object on a collision course with Earth may require only the slightest nudge to send it off-course enough to miss, a few tens of metres per second. Small amount of force.

But if you want to target something into Earth (or into a Lagrange capture), you are not starting with an asteroid that is in a convenient orbit that is just a few tens of metres per second away from a perfect intercept. Instead you will have to deal with whatever orbit it's in, and looking at actual asteroids, that typically requires several kilometres per second in order to move it into an intercept orbit. (Plus a second burn of about half a km/s if you want to capture it into orbit, in order to circularise apogee.) Large amount of force.

Several kilometres per second is not the same as a few tens of metres per second.

Do you understand? Whether you are using a change of albedo, a rocket, or wishful thinking. Kilometres are bigger than metres. They Are Not The Same.

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (0)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42376043)

>you are not starting with an asteroid that is in a convenient orbit that is just a few tens of metres per second away from a perfect intercept.

Really?

REALLY?

This is the basis for your dispute with me? You rule out asteroids that may be convenient, and then say it's going to be difficult to delta-v something?

Go away.

--
BMO

Re:Asteroid 2011 AG5 Will Miss Earth In 2040??? (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42375725)

Furthermore, I find your signature/tagline most ironic since you can't see that the math for missing and hitting is all the same except for the tolerances for the resulting answer. The algorithms are identical.

--
BMO

2038 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372539)

It wouldn't matter. Time ends some time in 2038 when the 32 bit signed time value overflows.

Re:2038 (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#42372707)

If there was any wisdom the Mayans passed down to us, it was that clocks and calendars do not control time.

But just in case, we are all switching to 64bit clocks.

Re: 2038 (1)

skitchen8 (1832190) | about a year ago | (#42373071)

I totally just heard about this the other day. Wonder if it'll blow by like nothing like y2k or actually have bad effects. From what I read the choices are watch everything die, convince closed source proprietary apps to restart development and switch to 64 bit, or force it to be unsigned and break many functions that add or subtract time. Is this right?

Re: 2038 (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year ago | (#42373333)

I totally just heard about this the other day. Wonder if it'll blow by like nothing like y2k or actually have bad effects. From what I read the choices are watch everything die, convince closed source proprietary apps to restart development and switch to 64 bit, or force it to be unsigned and break many functions that add or subtract time. Is this right?

Thankfully such things are being done by engineers and scientists and not politicians.

If they was made by politicians they would wait until the last day to recognize it and start acting like they was really busy trying to solve it at 23:45 and then they would pass the deadline.

Good work, NASA (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#42372587)

You know how much government and private sector money you could had got if you tried to do a "white lie" like saying that it could hit, and even could be a planet killer? Everyone would want to have a working colony in mars or self-sustaining orbital colonies by 2020, if not before. It could had been a lie for the greater good.

Re:Good work, NASA (0)

rroman (2627559) | about a year ago | (#42372639)

Actually no. I'm quite sure, that in such case Muslims and many other religion guided idiots would claim that the asteroid is God intended punishment and would suicidebomb any attempts to deflect it in order to preserve God's will.

Re:Good work, NASA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372761)

"muslim and other religious guided idiots"

that statement is definitely insulting, off topic and uncalled for
(a) equating muslims with religious idiots is promoting a dangerous stereotype. Especially unfair as a lot of observations in astronomy are thanks to them (their work, their translations and open mindedness toward science)
(b) even if you do not believe in any religion you have no more proof that believers of any religion are better guided than atheist... there are a many misguided atheists as well. You have the freedom right to believe anything you want... but being as blatantly racist and stereotypical, that is cheap and uncalled for

Re:Good work, NASA (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year ago | (#42372867)

"muslim and other religious guided idiots"

that statement is definitely insulting, off topic and uncalled for (a) equating muslims with religious idiots is promoting a dangerous stereotype. Especially unfair as a lot of observations in astronomy are thanks to them (their work, their translations and open mindedness toward science) (b) even if you do not believe in any religion you have no more proof that believers of any religion are better guided than atheist... there are a many misguided atheists as well. You have the freedom right to believe anything you want... but being as blatantly racist and stereotypical, that is cheap and uncalled for

Damn that was an excellently worded reply, and very true. Muslims have made immense contributions to the world of mathematics, especially trigonometry, architecture, and engineering, philosophy, navigation and medicine during their golden age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Sciences [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good work, NASA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372871)

ok....

I'm quite sure, that in such cases, many fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist idiots from many other religions would claim that the asteroid is God's intended punishment and would suicide-bomb, gridlock congressional approval for action, protest armed forces funerals, misinform the public on their controlled media outlets, stone heretics, suppress women, and generally impede any attempts to deflect it in order to preserve God's will.

Better?
Seriously, if you're going to fly in to save the day every time someone on Slashdot expresses an ignorant opinion or denigrates a religion, I recommend you quit your day job.

Re:Good work, NASA (1)

rroman (2627559) | about a year ago | (#42374561)

I actually don't want to discuss religion under this article, but I have to react.
The statement might be insulting, but I'm quite sure it is true - I'm not trying to be politically correct on Slashdot.
(a) Vast majority of muslims are religious idiots. From pools conducted in muslim countries, non trivial portion of people support terrorism, al-Qaeda, or bin Laden ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Recent_polls [wikipedia.org] ). That are normal people, not a few fundamentalist idiots that would be an exception in muslim society. This actually is just about terrorism and killing people - to call somebody religious idiot, I don't need him to support terrorism, just support for stoning people for adultery ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Support_for_stoning [wikipedia.org] ), insulting Quran, apostasy is enough. Even forcing women to wear burqas, forbidding women to drive cars, to divorce husband, are grounds to call them religious idiots (Don't have statistic for that but I suspect it will be much higher percentage than the percentage of people supporting stoning). Even so called secularized muslims seem to be secularized as long as they don't have the majority in society (just an example from a debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r018ohLUuL4&feature=player_detailpage#t=411s [youtube.com] ). I, based on such data, conclude that vast majority of muslims can be safely called religious idiots. I BY NO MEANS CLAIM, THAT ALL OF THEM ARE, but the portion is great enough.

And as for the contributions from muslims to sicence and culture ... yes they did, what does it have to do with religion and religious idiocy ?

(b) In social studies there can't be any conclusive proof but we have clues. For example statistic about people in prison, atheists are there far less often than religious people: http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists [freethoughtpedia.com] . And atheists don't have an imposed twisted sense of morality provided by any abrahamic religion.

I'm trying to be as objective as possible and not stereotypical. If I got the facts wrong please correct me, but I think, that the facts I provided point towards my opinions.

Re:Good work, NASA (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about a year ago | (#42374951)

Why should we care about being scolded buy someone who can't understand the difference between race and religion? Being a Muslim - or member of any other group that defines itself by it's belief in magic - is a cultural thing, not a race thing. That the first thing that leaps into your brain is race shows who the racist actually is.

For sale: End of the World 2040 Survival Kits . . (3, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42372661)

. . . only slightly used in 2012 . . .

Re:For sale: End of the World 2040 Survival Kits . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373419)

. . . only slightly used in 2012 . . .

The only thing that ended was 12/21/12 stupidity. I wonder when the media will come up with another end of the world? 12/21/12 was the biggest non event yet. The media was so afraid people would blow their brains out from fear they barely mentioned it so 12/21/12 was the quietest day when it comes to talk of 2012 end of the world in years. I say the world will end December 21, 2112, prove me wrong! It's easy naming a date for the end of the world. The problem is most will be 10 or 15 billion years off! Hell define "end of the world"? The rock we call Earth may be around tens of billions of years from now it just won't support life. The end of the current civilization? I think you could make a good case it's already started.

Re:For sale: End of the World 2040 Survival Kits . (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#42373495)

Man, I'm barely two decades old and I've lived through dozens of predicted doomsdays. September 6, 1994 - the world did not end. July 1999 - the world did not end. All of the 2000 predictions, from apocalyptic Y2K bugs to Jerry Falwell, were wrong. Nibiru did not hit the Earth in 2003, probably because it doesn't exist. 6/6/2006 was unremarkable except for an abnormal number of heavy metal album releases. The Large Hadron Collider did not destroy the planet, although it did find the Higgs Boson. May 21 2011 was quiet. And the 14th b'ak'tun began with no real damage.

And those are just the ones I remember. According to Wikipedia, the "Mayan Apocalypse" was the 52nd doomsday prediction in the past two decades. And there are already five more specific predictions. There's a variant on a theory that predicted the Second Coming to occur in 1980, then 1988, then 2000, and now it's predicted for 2018-2028. Another nutjob is predicting the same for sometime in 2020-2037 (after his 1962 prediction failed). But don't worry, it's not just Christians making stupid predictions - a certain bit of the Talmud schedules the Messiah to arrive around 2240, and certain Muslims are claiming either 2129 or 2280 as the end date. And I am sure, given a few more years, the non-religious armageddon nutjobs will catch up - perhaps they'll twist the 2038 Problem into an apocalypse prediction, just like they did to Y2K.

Re:For sale: End of the World 2040 Survival Kits . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#42374209)

Doomsdays and End of the Worlds are excellent business opportunities. Disgruntled old COBOL programmers made fortunes off Y2K. The same thing will happen with disgruntled old C programmers in 2038.

This latest Mayan astrological huff featured End of the World package tours to the Mayan ruins, and Survive the End of the World Shelters. Given any catastrophe, or even faux catastrophe, someone will try to make a buck off it. And there are enough idiots who will spend money on anything, not matter how worthless it is.

Two decades old, you are, then? Ask your parents about their Pet Rocks from the 70's or lock them up in Wikipedia.

Another Miss (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372737)

What? ANOTHER asteroid will miss Earth?
That's never happened before. Thanks for the good news.

O come on Nasa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42372747)

Why not tell a little white lie that this asteroid will hit earth in 2040.....maybe......you would get more funding than the DOD and don't even worry about anyone finding out as with your new space-rockets and orbital anti-asteroid weapon platforms they will take care of AG5 before it even has a chance to come near us to miss.

Everyone wins :) well except for AG5 but its a rock and who cares about that we get to enjoy margaritas in space.

Re:O come on Nasa (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#42372911)

>Why not tell a little white lie that this asteroid will hit earth in 2040

Because after we spend $TRILLIONS on the mission, and the conspiracy is revealed, when the real thing comes along, people won't believe it. It's tough enough convincing people to evacuate a barrier island before a hurricane or to get Mr. Truman away from Mt. St. Helens before the eruption.

Also

>assuming such a secret can be kept

General Petraeus couldn't even keep his affair secret and he was an intelligence expert. This is why the moon hoaxers are fucking stupid, thinking that not just one, but thousands of engineers, scientists, and politicians can keep a lid on a consipiracy all at once.

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead" - Franklin

--
BMO

Re:O come on Nasa (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year ago | (#42373313)

"Because after we spend $TRILLIONS on the mission, and the conspiracy is revealed, when the real thing comes along, people won't believe it. It's tough enough convincing people to evacuate a barrier island before a hurricane or to get Mr. Truman away from Mt. St. Helens before the eruption"

what politician cares about what happens after they retire from politics? its someone else's problem

Incentives. (1)

deimtee (762122) | about a year ago | (#42372783)

What we really need is to find a nice largish asteroid (200 - 600 metres) that is going to make a close approach in 10 to 20 years, then hit a few years later. It would divert a lot of resources from the war on X and into space development. Bonus points if the delta V to capture it is achievable.

Irrelevant post end of the world event (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#42372785)

Why do we care? The end of the world was two days ago, and now we have ceased to be, I do not see the point of this post

By the way, how was the end of the world for you? Did you have a nice weather?

Re:Irrelevant post end of the world event (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#42372853)

By the way, how was the end of the world for you? Did you have a nice weather?

Yes, the weather was fine, about the same as here in the much hyped afterlife which, IMO, seems highly overrated.

Re:Irrelevant post end of the world event (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#42372979)

afterlife which, IMO, seems highly overrated.

Very true. Death did not even release me from back pain. How disapointing!

Damn! (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#42372933)

So just how long do we have to wait for this "doomsday" thing?

I'm going to have to spend Christmas catching up on two months' chores that I've been skipping.

Re:Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373919)

So just how long do we have to wait for this "doomsday" thing?

I'm going to have to spend Christmas catching up on two months' chores that I've been skipping.

Tell me about it! My wife stopped taking the pill and now there's already a new countdown underway.

TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks noise to FRS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373383)

TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks system noise to FRS

This post is one example of why Tor developers should focus on anti-TEMPEST-ing the Tor Browser, in color, fonts, etc.
===
I don't operate any wireless equipment at my living location. This includes computers, computer equipment, routers, non-computer equipment, etc.

I'm having a problem with one of my LCD monitors.

It works without problems. That was until I picked up some heavy static noises from a hand held radio. I eliminated all sources of generating this type of noise until I came towards an LCD monitor. When the monitor is on and there is content on the screen the radio makes several types of garbage(static) sounds. As I manipulate contents on the screen, maximize and minimize windows, open different applications, the radio responds with scratchy(static) noises to match the activity on the screen. This includes typing and mouse movement.

When I switched the desktop background to a solid black color without wallpaper, the radio noise went down to almost nothing. But when I loaded any program with a white background, the noise from the radio exploded in volume.

When I passed the radio across different computer and non-computer electronic devices other than the LCD monitor, the wired mouse made a high pitched squeal sound within the static. None of the other computing devices such as the tower generated any noise.

I tried CRT monitors and separate computers attached to the CRT monitors but they did not generate any noise in the radio. On the computer connected to the net, I unplugged the cable leading to the router to rule this out but it made no difference, the LCD monitor is at fault.

While monitoring the radio noise, there were several instances where the noise on the channel being monitored stopped, and I switched to another channel and the same noise appeared. Why would the noise from the LCD switch channels during normal use of the LCD? Back and forth throughout the day the noise generated by the LCD would switch from one channel to the next and back to the first channel again.

The noise extends several steps within my living location. I'll test this another day to determine if it extends outside my living location and if so by how many feet.

The computer/monitor are grounded and attached to a surge protector. I'm not sure what I need to do to stop this, or if I should ignore it.

I assumed LCDs would be quieter than CRTs when it came to noise.

Unless I have a radio tuned to a specific channel, the LCD does not generate any noise which I can detect, unless it's above my hearing capacity.

The LCD monitor also functions as speakers, and while the sound cable is connected to the tower, I have disabled the onboard sound in my BIOS. The only other connection is the DVI cable to the tower.

How may I decrease this noise or eliminate it? It seems like the LCD is a mini radio station. When I turn it off the noise in the radio stops, if I blacken the screen the noise lessens. When I switch to a colorful background or load white screened applications like a web browser the noise jumps up loudly. I've tried grabbing and moving a browser window around the screen and the movement matches the noises in the radio.

Would any of this be considered normal?
==-
This certainly isn't unheard of, it's because some part of the monitor is unshielded. The more fix-it stuff is at the top of the following, with the technical backdrop that just might be good to know is at the bottom.

Unfortunately, the issue is most likely the panel charging the LCs. The only thing you can do is see if the manufacturer will replace it or upgrade you. Complain to the manufacturer, be sure to come up with some important thing it's interfering with(if I recall some medical devices use some sort of radio).

If the issue is actually internal wiring which is highly unlikely as detailed below, and it isn't in warranty, attempt to shield it yourself. To shield it yourself, you'll need thin foil(not kitchen foil) and electrical tape.

So, in any given monitor, there's 3 main parts. Input, logic, and output. Output, as previously mentioned, can't really be shielded. To shield both of the other sections, all you really need to do is manipulate the wiring to reduce the number of holes in the foil wrap needed to put it all back together. Obviously this will take some trial and error, and time.

USEFUL INFO THAT ISN'T REQUIRED:

Shielding wires can best be thought of as a encasing a wire in a Faraday cage, made of foil. If you want to see an example, Apple's iPod charging cords are all shielded, strip the insulation and see for yourself. This shielding acts doubly, keeping EM noise from messing with the signal, and keeps the signal's own noise from leaving.

WHY IT IS THE CHARGING PANEL AND NOT WIRING:
Because of the specific details you provided( bravo to you, the amount of data provided helped ), I can conclude that the charging panel(the array of electrodes responsible for producing the image) is putting out the interference. Three of your observations prove this.

First, you state the noise ceases completely when the monitor is turned off, which is consistent with it being EM noise.
Second, the noise's perceived pitch changes when the display is manipulated, which is to be expected, as the electrode charges would change as the display changes.
Third, a black screen is "quieter" than a white screen. Black is the lowest charge state, with the only power in use going to the backlight.

As for your questions:
Noise hopping channels isn't unheard of, though I don't know the science behind it. My best guess is that because the noise isn't an intended result of the electricity, small changes in voltage/amperage result in those hops.
(indirect question-ish) The mouse was likely the only other emitter because it has a fairly high density of wires + it emits light.
===-
@W00t:

What 1s the d1fference between - and where may 1 obta1n the non-k1tchen "foil" you ment1oned?

The d1sturbances sound l1ke a bugged env1ronment. The squeal com1ng from one area and/or dev1ce could mean the locat1on of the bug has been found - and 1 know adding a small dev1ce and/or mod1f1cation to a keyboard and/or mouse 1s s1mple enough - espec1ally for a quick 1n and out the door type bugging.

1s there an affordable method of sh1elding the equ1pment while not violating FCC/TEMPEST laws? Would a simple screen d1mmer attached to the monitor bring the no1se down? Or would 1t be best to put out the extra money requ1red by purchas1ng spec1al paint or wallpaper wh1ch blocks RF signals?

Whether or not 1t's a bug, at this point you are broadcast1ng your computer mon1tor and 1ts activ1t1es, down to the keyboard and mouse movements. What 1s the use of using Tor or any other l1ke serv1ce 1f you are pwned over the a1r waves?
====-
You could use kitchen foil, it's just more unwieldy to work with.

Yes, it could be a bug, I was running under the assumption you had no reason to believe you were bugged, and if you did you ran bug sweeps. If you believe you are bugged, you should definitely dismantle things to make sure a bug isn't simply piggybacking on the same power source.

Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it.
=====-
Thanks, W00t.

"Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it."

I have modified my browser to function with a black background and my choice of text colors and unchecked the option for all pages to use their own colors, so every page I visit is black with my choice of font/links colors. I'll rescan to determine if this lessens the noise. It's ugly, but tolerable. Coupled with a black theme for the desktop, including the background and system wide applications should also help - including disabling images in the browser.

You mentioned foil. I'm not an electrician, but wouldn't wrapping cords with foil and finishing the job off with a layer of strong black tape possibly conduct electricity? Are you suggesting I cover all wires leading to the computer(s) using this method? Wouldn't they each require special grounding? How many repeating layers of this and/or other material is needed? Have you tried "conductive tubing?"

While I want to shield enough to block noisy RF, I don't want to create a microwave type scenario where RF is contained but it still remains and is possibly amplified so as to add to the degeneration of my health, if that's possible.

1. Ferrite beads
2. Split beads
3. Toroids

CONDUCTIVE TUBING & FERRITE SNAP BEAD
http://www.lessemf.com/wiring.html [lessemf.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMF_measurement [wikipedia.org]

I could try some or all of the three options above in addition to your advice? TY
===-
Anyways this reminding me of Van Eck phreaking look it up, some pretty interesting stuff.

Yep, had the same thought.

Countermeasures are detailed in the article on TEMPEST, the NSA's standard on spy-proofing digital equipment. One countermeasure involves shielding the equipment to minimize electromagnetic emissions. Another method, specifically for video information, scrambles the signals such that the image is perceptually undisturbed, but the emissions are harder to reverse engineer into images. Examples of this include low pass filtering fonts and randomizing the least significant bit of the video data information.
====-
can someone please point me to techie LCD monitor internal guides? If I'm going to take it apart I'd like to know what to expect. I've read more about Van Eck and Tempest than anyone can teach me here. Now I'm looking for LCD guides of what's inside.
===-
To be honest, its not the whats inside the LCD monitor you should be worrying about if you want to phreak LCD's . You should be worry more about the RF side of things, and figuring out the spread spectrum clock signal so you can pick up the signal. Top if off background noise is going to be bitch when it comes to LCD. Old CRT monitors are way easier to phreak those thing throw off EM radiation like nobody business.
===-
The noise coming from the LCD monitor is appearing on FRS channels:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service [wikipedia.org]

It continues for several minutes before it jumps to another channel then after a few minutes jumps back to the original channel. One of my concerns is the ability for others to pluck this noise from the air (Van Eck/TEMPEST) and monitor my activity, or possibly use an attack against the computer somehow. A recent UN report mentioned a high tech method(s):

* U.N. report reveals secret law enforcement techniques

"Point 201: Mentions a new covert communications technique using software defined high frequency radio receivers routed through the computer creating no logs, using no central server and extremely difficult for law enforcement to intercept."

- http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf [unodc.org]
- http://www.hacker10.com/other-computing/u-n-report-reveals-secret-law-enforcement-techniques/ [hacker10.com]

In addition, I don't want my LCD monitor constantly sending monitor and/or system activity to a FRS channel(s) for others to hear. I choose wired over wireless for a reason, and there shouldn't be any noise coming from my LCD monitor and appearing over FRS, unless there is a bug or problem with the monitor. All of my
CRT systems are silent on FRS.

When I position the radio near different components, the power supply doesn't emit any noise on FRS, but it could be a problem, I don't know, I'll move to that once I resolve the LCD monitor problem, unless the PSU is the problem and not the monitor.

I may take apart the LCD monitor, I'm looking for a good list of what I'll find if I do.

I peered inside the vents on the top/back left hand side with a strong flashlight and came across a strange piece of silver tape inside, here's how I describe it:

OOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG__

OO = a small thin black material coming out from underneath the silver piece of tape
GG = the strip of silver tape
__ = the bottom right hand portion of the silver tape is raised enough to allow a pinky finger entry

The silver tape/material/opening under tape is on the top left corner inside the monitor. The rest of the length and area inside that I can see contain no tape or black material. I've seen photos of planted bugs in people's living spaces and most if not all of the invasive ones are wrapped/covered in silver foil. I've found no other reason for that strip and material to be there, but what do I know.
=====
In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"
===-
"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer' personal computer' CD-ROM drive"

Yes and the hard drive and in some PC's the cooling fans as well are under CPU control.

You can also do it with PC's where the CPU does not control the fan, but the hardware has a simple thermal sensor to control it's speed. You do this by simply having a process that uses power expensive instructions in tight loops, thus raising the CPU temprature (it's one of the side channels I was considering a long time ago when thinking about how the temp inside the case changed various things including the CPU clock XTAL frequency).

The change in sound side channel is one of the first identified problems with Quantum Key Distribution. Basicaly the bod who came up with the idea whilst first testing the idea could tell the state of "Alice's polarizer" simply by the amount of noise it made...

The CD-ROM motor idea I'd heard befor but could not remember where till I followed your link.

Dr Lloyd Wood has worked with the UK's Surrey Uni, the European Space Agency and Americas NASA and one or two other places as part of his work for Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. He has been involved with CLEO (Cisco router in Low Earth Orbit) and other work on what's being called "The Space Internet".

Of interest is his work on Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN). It's not been said "publicaly" as far as I'm aware but the work has aspects that are important to anonymity networks such as TOR.

You can read more on Dr Wood's DTN work etc at,

http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/dtn/ [surrey.ac.uk]

The UK occupies an odd position in the "Space Race" it is the only nation who having put a satellite into space then stopped further space rocket development (the Black Knight launch platform was considerably safer and more economic than the then US and CCCP systems). The UK has however continued in the Space Game and is perhaps the leading designers of payloads for scientific and industrial satellites (it probably is on military sats as well but nobody who knows for sure is telling ;-)

Clive Robinson
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/interesting_win.html#c1049823 [schneier.com]
===-
I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside.
If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it.
Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you.

And shield your monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
====-
"I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside."

Does Tails support this at boot?

If not, is there a Linux LiveCD which allows this and does not give you root access at boot?

I've looked at several different distributions which allow you to boot into RAM and remove the CD, but they all give you root and that's a very insecure environment to run TBB in!

"If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it."

It doesn't blink on the several distros which boot into RAM, but I don't want to run Tor as root or reconfigure the permissions/PAM/etc. just to use TBB. As above, with Tails and many LiveCDs which don't boot into RAM, 99% of them have this blinking light issue. The actual INSTALLS I've done to HDD experience constant light activity too, even more so, without anything to explain them.

For Linux, I've ran rkhunter, chkrootkit, tiger, and other tools and nothing malicious is found. Without a deep binary analysis I don't know what else I could do.

For Windows, I use a few programs in the SysInternals Suite and they display strange usage on the system and reference programs which cannot be found with a search on the system, references to impersonation, spoofing, and more. I've ran almost every N.American scanner on the Windows systems, including command line only rootkit detectors and I've seen some strange 'strings' of binaries mentioned, but have no idea on how to clean the system.

I prefer to run LiveCDs because all installations, Windows and Linux, contain unexplainable frenzies of blinking lights, far worse than the blink every second on most LiveCDs. I'm wondering if this is firmware malware on my NIC or the CDROM itself. This has existed for years and never goes away, no matter what system I use, this strange baggage seems to re-infect everything.

"Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you."

Disable what?

"And shield your monitor."

Thanks. I'm investigating and most of the guides require specific addons to the computer's cabling system. Most of the guides appear incomplete, or are in another language other than English.

Any comments on the Tempest/blinking light possibility?

Any comments on why it's spewing out noise to FRS stations and freq hopping?
===-
More comments from elsewhere:

@kb2vxa:

"You're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

I respect your opinion and I don't wish to argue against it, but please look at it from the way I and some others have. I want to eliminate the noise created by the LCD monitor. If this was such a common experience, I would expect at least one of the dozens of other electronic equipment to generate some noise, however faint, on FRS - but they do not.

"You are under the wrong impression that somehow RF hash from the back light can somehow carry data. A liquid crystal display (LCD) does not generate its own light like a CRT or plasma screen and requires a light source to make the display visible. Even those that do cannot transmit computer data being none reaches the monitor."

The LCD is connected to a tower, which other devices connect to. Under testing I've heard the CDROM drive accessing data noises within the FRS channels, along with mouse movements and keyboard activity, along with other noises. When I disable the LCD monitor, all of these disturbances vanish. This means the weakness is in the monitor, and my tower is well shielded or shielded enough so as not to generate any noise in radios I can notice. The reference I made to the strange tape and material within the back side of the LCD monitor at the top could be a sign of some type of antenna or device for amping.

"Their FRS radios will only hear what yours does, RF hash, no data whatsoever THAT IS if one is standing outside your house tapping the radio and scratching his head wondering what's the matter with his radio. You and only you know what it is and where it's coming from."

And what of experienced and curious sysadmins? Rogue crackers? Bored HAMs?
Are there any remote radio injection attacks against systems? This is something I'll research later, as I do believe it was mentioned in at least one whitepaper on side channel attacks.

"Thanks for the chuckles, if the report reveals secrets it would not be published but sent by secret courier to the KGB in Moscow."

I'm not aware of any secrets revealed within the document. But it did raise an interesting point without exposing the method(s) delivered to us from an interesting party. This wasn't just some random article written by some anonymous, disturbed fellow and posted to a pastebin or conspiracy minded blog or forum. And one cannot deny the dozens of TEMPEST attacks available today.

"So... all this and no word on moving the radio farther from the monitor. Why don't you try talking somewhere besides in front of the computer if it bothers you so much?"

Thank you for considering conversation as my reason for posting this, but it is not. I would not choose a noisy channel to talk on. Clear conversation is not the point of this thread. I desire the elimination of this garbage coming from the LCD monitor. I don't care if no one in the world can pick up on it and hear it, I would like to properly resolve it and not ignore it.

One can also dredge up the subject of EMF on health, too, but I have not experienced any disturbance of health from exposure to this noise and most people would argue any possible EMF effects on health to be one of one's over active imagination and not real world application.

[-]

A continued discussion was posted elsewhere, this may be useful in the voyage to remove this "noise":

[-]

In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

[-]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"

[-]

Any comments on the silver tape and material inside the back of the LCD? ...Disconnection of the LED CDROM and HDD lights could be something I should do to relieve one possible issue.

[-]

Some articles with examples:

"If everything is just right, you can pick up signals from some distance. "I was able to eavesdrop certain laptops through three walls," says Kuhn. "At the CEBIT conference, in 2006, I was able to see the Powerpoint presentation from a stand 25 metres away."

uhn also mentioned that one laptop was vulnerable because it had metal hinges that carried the signal of the display cable. I asked if you could alter a device to make it easier to spy on. "There are a lot of innocuous modifications you can make to maximise the chance of getting a good signal," he told me. For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.

As for defending against this kind of attack, Kuhn says using well-shielded cables, certain combinations of colours and making everything a little fuzzy all work."

- http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/seeing-through-walls.html [newscientist.com]

=!==-!=
TO EASILY VIEW THE PDF files below:
=!==-!=

Online viewer for PDF, PostScript and Word:

"This is an online viewer, with which you can view PDF and PostScript files as browsable images and Word documents as web pages. Given a URL on the net or a file on your computer, the viewer will try to retrieve the document, convert it and show it to you. No plugin software is required."

http://view.samurajdata.se/ [samurajdata.se]

The viewer software is open source, licensed under the GNU Public License.
=!==-!=

Electromagnetic eavesdropping risks of flat-panel displays
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Eavesdropping attacks on computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iss2006-tempest.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations: eavesdropping risks of computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.html [cam.ac.uk]
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations of LCD TV sets
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emc2011-tv.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

"Q: Can I use filtered fonts also on flat-panel displays

My experience so far has been that with LCDs, the video cable is the most significant source of radiated information leakage. Where an analogue video cable (with 15-pin VGA connector) is used, low-pass filtered fonts have the same benefits as with CRTs. Where a purely digital video cable is used (DVI-D, laptop-internal displays with FPD/LVDS links, etc.) only the last step, namely randomizing the least-significant bits, should be implemented.

Where the video signal is entirely encoded in digital form, the low-pass filtered step will not have the desired effect. In fact, it can actually increase the differences between the signal generated by individual characters, and thereby make automatic radio character recognition more reliable."

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/softtempest-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Remotely Eavesdropping on Keyboards (and read the comments!)

"The researchers from the Security and Cryptography Laboratory at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne are able to capture keystrokes by monitoring the electromagnetic radiation of PS/2, universal serial bus, or laptop keyboards. They've outline four separate attack methods, some that work at a distance of as much as 65 feet from the target.

In one video demonstration, researchers Martin Vuagnoux and Sylvain Pasini sniff out the the keystrokes typed into a standard keyboard using a large antenna that's about 20 to 30 feet away in an adjacent room."

- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/remotely_eavesd.html [schneier.com]

=

Video eavesdropping demo at CeBIT 2006
- http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/09/video-eavesdropping-demo-at-cebit-2006/ [lightbluetouchpaper.org]

=

Optical Emission Security â" Frequently Asked Questions

"Q: What about LEDs?

For devices with RS-232 serial ports, it is customary to provide a status indicator LED for some of the signal lines (in particular transmit data and receive data). Often, these LEDs are directly connected to the line via just a resistor. As a result, anyone with a line of sight to the LED, some optics and a simple photosensor can see the data stream. Joe Loughry and David A. Umphress have recently announced a detailed study (submitted to ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) in which they tested 39 communications devices with 164 LED indicators, and on 14 of the tested devices they found serial port data in the LED light. Based on their findings, it seems reasonable to conclude that LEDs for RS-232 ports are most likely carrying the data signal today, whereas LEDs on high-speed data links (LANs, harddisk) do not. Even these LEDs are still available as a covert channel for malicious software that actively tries to transmit data optically.

I expect that this paper will cause a number of modem manufacturers to add a little pulse stretcher (monostable multivibrator) to the LEDs in the next chip set revision, and that at some facilities with particular security concerns, the relevant LEDs will be removed or covered with black tape.

The data traffic on LEDs is not a periodic signal, and therefore, unlike with video signals, periodic averaging cannot be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The shot-noise limit estimation technique that I used to estimate the CRT eavesdropping risk can even more easily (because no deconvolution is needed) also be applied to serial port indicators and allows us to estimate a lower bound for the bit-error rate at a given distance. I have performed a few example calculations and concluded that with a direct line of sight, and a 100 kbit/s signal (typical for an external telephone modem), at 500 m distance it should be no problem to acquire a reliable signal (one wrong bit every 10 megabit), whereas for indirect reflection from the wall of a dark room, a somewhat more noisy signal (at least one wrong bit per 10 kilobit) can be expected to be receivable in a few tens of meters distance.

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/optical-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Ancient Story on Slashdot: Coming to a Desktop near you: Tempest Capabilities

"New Scientist has an interesting article about a new toy we will all want. It's a card that plugs in one of your PCI slots and allows you to scan the EMF spectrum and read your neighbours terminal. In about 5 years you might be able to get one for just under £1000. (Modern Tempest Hardware costs about £30000) "

http://www.yro.slashdot.org/story/99/11/08/093250/coming-to-a-desktop-near-you-tempest-capabilities [slashdot.org]

=

"Any unshielded electrical device with a variable current (including LCDs) will give out EMF radiation. It's the nature of the beast.

For that matter, light is EMF radiation, so unless you have your LCD in a coal-mine, it's reflecting EMF all the time it's switched on.

Then, there's the fact that screen monitoring isn't the only monitoring you can do. I used to use a radio, tuned into the bus for the PET, as a sound card. Worked surprisingly well, for all that very clunky metal shielding. What's to stop a much higher-quality receiver from seeing the data, in an unshielded box, being sent TO the LCD, or to any other device on the machine?

It's a mistake to assume that Tempest technology is single-function and that that single-function only works in a single situation."

- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2333&cid=1553178 [slashdot.org]

=

800Mbps Wireless Network Made With LED Light Bulbs
- http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/1322201/800Mbps-Wireless-Network-Made-With-LED-Light-Bulbs [slashdot.org]

=

There are a lot of other files, many in PPT format, which can be found easily on this subject of LCD monitor (and other computing devices) TEMPEST sniffing.

===

Sources for this discussion:

- http://forums.radioreference.com/computer/255488-lcd-monitor-broadcasts-noise-radio-why.html [radioreference.com]
- http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10919 [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion] .onion link above requires a running Tor client session in order to view. (https://www.torproject.org)

This on-going discussion backed up to Pastebin(s) in order to retain it as an artifact. Many of these
types of discussions are REMOVED from the net because of the nature of the discussion (TEMPEST).

Tightest Vagina on Vulcan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42373929)

TEMPEST Attacks! LCD Monitor leaks system noise to FRS

This post is one example of why Tor developers should focus on anti-TEMPEST-ing the Tor Browser, in color, fonts, etc.
===
I don't operate any wireless equipment at my living location. This includes computers, computer equipment, routers, non-computer equipment, etc.

I'm having a problem with one of my LCD monitors.

It works without problems. That was until I picked up some heavy static noises from a hand held radio. I eliminated all sources of generating this type of noise until I came towards an LCD monitor. When the monitor is on and there is content on the screen the radio makes several types of garbage(static) sounds. As I manipulate contents on the screen, maximize and minimize windows, open different applications, the radio responds with scratchy(static) noises to match the activity on the screen. This includes typing and mouse movement.

When I switched the desktop background to a solid black color without wallpaper, the radio noise went down to almost nothing. But when I loaded any program with a white background, the noise from the radio exploded in volume.

When I passed the radio across different computer and non-computer electronic devices other than the LCD monitor, the wired mouse made a high pitched squeal sound within the static. None of the other computing devices such as the tower generated any noise.

I tried CRT monitors and separate computers attached to the CRT monitors but they did not generate any noise in the radio. On the computer connected to the net, I unplugged the cable leading to the router to rule this out but it made no difference, the LCD monitor is at fault.

While monitoring the radio noise, there were several instances where the noise on the channel being monitored stopped, and I switched to another channel and the same noise appeared. Why would the noise from the LCD switch channels during normal use of the LCD? Back and forth throughout the day the noise generated by the LCD would switch from one channel to the next and back to the first channel again.

The noise extends several steps within my living location. I'll test this another day to determine if it extends outside my living location and if so by how many feet.

The computer/monitor are grounded and attached to a surge protector. I'm not sure what I need to do to stop this, or if I should ignore it.

I assumed LCDs would be quieter than CRTs when it came to noise.

Unless I have a radio tuned to a specific channel, the LCD does not generate any noise which I can detect, unless it's above my hearing capacity.

The LCD monitor also functions as speakers, and while the sound cable is connected to the tower, I have disabled the onboard sound in my BIOS. The only other connection is the DVI cable to the tower.

How may I decrease this noise or eliminate it? It seems like the LCD is a mini radio station. When I turn it off the noise in the radio stops, if I blacken the screen the noise lessens. When I switch to a colorful background or load white screened applications like a web browser the noise jumps up loudly. I've tried grabbing and moving a browser window around the screen and the movement matches the noises in the radio.

Would any of this be considered normal?
==-
This certainly isn't unheard of, it's because some part of the monitor is unshielded. The more fix-it stuff is at the top of the following, with the technical backdrop that just might be good to know is at the bottom.

Unfortunately, the issue is most likely the panel charging the LCs. The only thing you can do is see if the manufacturer will replace it or upgrade you. Complain to the manufacturer, be sure to come up with some important thing it's interfering with(if I recall some medical devices use some sort of radio).

If the issue is actually internal wiring which is highly unlikely as detailed below, and it isn't in warranty, attempt to shield it yourself. To shield it yourself, you'll need thin foil(not kitchen foil) and electrical tape.

So, in any given monitor, there's 3 main parts. Input, logic, and output. Output, as previously mentioned, can't really be shielded. To shield both of the other sections, all you really need to do is manipulate the wiring to reduce the number of holes in the foil wrap needed to put it all back together. Obviously this will take some trial and error, and time.

USEFUL INFO THAT ISN'T REQUIRED:

Shielding wires can best be thought of as a encasing a wire in a Faraday cage, made of foil. If you want to see an example, Apple's iPod charging cords are all shielded, strip the insulation and see for yourself. This shielding acts doubly, keeping EM noise from messing with the signal, and keeps the signal's own noise from leaving.

WHY IT IS THE CHARGING PANEL AND NOT WIRING:
Because of the specific details you provided( bravo to you, the amount of data provided helped ), I can conclude that the charging panel(the array of electrodes responsible for producing the image) is putting out the interference. Three of your observations prove this.

First, you state the noise ceases completely when the monitor is turned off, which is consistent with it being EM noise.
Second, the noise's perceived pitch changes when the display is manipulated, which is to be expected, as the electrode charges would change as the display changes.
Third, a black screen is "quieter" than a white screen. Black is the lowest charge state, with the only power in use going to the backlight.

As for your questions:
Noise hopping channels isn't unheard of, though I don't know the science behind it. My best guess is that because the noise isn't an intended result of the electricity, small changes in voltage/amperage result in those hops.
(indirect question-ish) The mouse was likely the only other emitter because it has a fairly high density of wires + it emits light.
===-
@W00t:

What 1s the d1fference between - and where may 1 obta1n the non-k1tchen "foil" you ment1oned?

The d1sturbances sound l1ke a bugged env1ronment. The squeal com1ng from one area and/or dev1ce could mean the locat1on of the bug has been found - and 1 know adding a small dev1ce and/or mod1f1cation to a keyboard and/or mouse 1s s1mple enough - espec1ally for a quick 1n and out the door type bugging.

1s there an affordable method of sh1elding the equ1pment while not violating FCC/TEMPEST laws? Would a simple screen d1mmer attached to the monitor bring the no1se down? Or would 1t be best to put out the extra money requ1red by purchas1ng spec1al paint or wallpaper wh1ch blocks RF signals?

Whether or not 1t's a bug, at this point you are broadcast1ng your computer mon1tor and 1ts activ1t1es, down to the keyboard and mouse movements. What 1s the use of using Tor or any other l1ke serv1ce 1f you are pwned over the a1r waves?
====-
You could use kitchen foil, it's just more unwieldy to work with.

Yes, it could be a bug, I was running under the assumption you had no reason to believe you were bugged, and if you did you ran bug sweeps. If you believe you are bugged, you should definitely dismantle things to make sure a bug isn't simply piggybacking on the same power source.

Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it.
=====-
Thanks, W00t.

"Dimming the screen would reduce noise, but not completely eliminate it."

I have modified my browser to function with a black background and my choice of text colors and unchecked the option for all pages to use their own colors, so every page I visit is black with my choice of font/links colors. I'll rescan to determine if this lessens the noise. It's ugly, but tolerable. Coupled with a black theme for the desktop, including the background and system wide applications should also help - including disabling images in the browser.

You mentioned foil. I'm not an electrician, but wouldn't wrapping cords with foil and finishing the job off with a layer of strong black tape possibly conduct electricity? Are you suggesting I cover all wires leading to the computer(s) using this method? Wouldn't they each require special grounding? How many repeating layers of this and/or other material is needed? Have you tried "conductive tubing?"

While I want to shield enough to block noisy RF, I don't want to create a microwave type scenario where RF is contained but it still remains and is possibly amplified so as to add to the degeneration of my health, if that's possible.

1. Ferrite beads
2. Split beads
3. Toroids

CONDUCTIVE TUBING & FERRITE SNAP BEAD
http://www.lessemf.com/wiring.html [lessemf.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_interference [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMF_measurement [wikipedia.org]

I could try some or all of the three options above in addition to your advice? TY
===-
Anyways this reminding me of Van Eck phreaking look it up, some pretty interesting stuff.

Yep, had the same thought.

Countermeasures are detailed in the article on TEMPEST, the NSA's standard on spy-proofing digital equipment. One countermeasure involves shielding the equipment to minimize electromagnetic emissions. Another method, specifically for video information, scrambles the signals such that the image is perceptually undisturbed, but the emissions are harder to reverse engineer into images. Examples of this include low pass filtering fonts and randomizing the least significant bit of the video data information.
====-
can someone please point me to techie LCD monitor internal guides? If I'm going to take it apart I'd like to know what to expect. I've read more about Van Eck and Tempest than anyone can teach me here. Now I'm looking for LCD guides of what's inside.
===-
To be honest, its not the whats inside the LCD monitor you should be worrying about if you want to phreak LCD's . You should be worry more about the RF side of things, and figuring out the spread spectrum clock signal so you can pick up the signal. Top if off background noise is going to be bitch when it comes to LCD. Old CRT monitors are way easier to phreak those thing throw off EM radiation like nobody business.
===-
The noise coming from the LCD monitor is appearing on FRS channels:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Radio_Service [wikipedia.org]

It continues for several minutes before it jumps to another channel then after a few minutes jumps back to the original channel. One of my concerns is the ability for others to pluck this noise from the air (Van Eck/TEMPEST) and monitor my activity, or possibly use an attack against the computer somehow. A recent UN report mentioned a high tech method(s):

* U.N. report reveals secret law enforcement techniques

"Point 201: Mentions a new covert communications technique using software defined high frequency radio receivers routed through the computer creating no logs, using no central server and extremely difficult for law enforcement to intercept."

- http://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purposes.pdf [unodc.org]
- http://www.hacker10.com/other-computing/u-n-report-reveals-secret-law-enforcement-techniques/ [hacker10.com]

In addition, I don't want my LCD monitor constantly sending monitor and/or system activity to a FRS channel(s) for others to hear. I choose wired over wireless for a reason, and there shouldn't be any noise coming from my LCD monitor and appearing over FRS, unless there is a bug or problem with the monitor. All of my
CRT systems are silent on FRS.

When I position the radio near different components, the power supply doesn't emit any noise on FRS, but it could be a problem, I don't know, I'll move to that once I resolve the LCD monitor problem, unless the PSU is the problem and not the monitor.

I may take apart the LCD monitor, I'm looking for a good list of what I'll find if I do.

I peered inside the vents on the top/back left hand side with a strong flashlight and came across a strange piece of silver tape inside, here's how I describe it:

OOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG__

OO = a small thin black material coming out from underneath the silver piece of tape
GG = the strip of silver tape
__ = the bottom right hand portion of the silver tape is raised enough to allow a pinky finger entry

The silver tape/material/opening under tape is on the top left corner inside the monitor. The rest of the length and area inside that I can see contain no tape or black material. I've seen photos of planted bugs in people's living spaces and most if not all of the invasive ones are wrapped/covered in silver foil. I've found no other reason for that strip and material to be there, but what do I know.
=====
In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"
===-
"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer' personal computer' CD-ROM drive"

Yes and the hard drive and in some PC's the cooling fans as well are under CPU control.

You can also do it with PC's where the CPU does not control the fan, but the hardware has a simple thermal sensor to control it's speed. You do this by simply having a process that uses power expensive instructions in tight loops, thus raising the CPU temprature (it's one of the side channels I was considering a long time ago when thinking about how the temp inside the case changed various things including the CPU clock XTAL frequency).

The change in sound side channel is one of the first identified problems with Quantum Key Distribution. Basicaly the bod who came up with the idea whilst first testing the idea could tell the state of "Alice's polarizer" simply by the amount of noise it made...

The CD-ROM motor idea I'd heard befor but could not remember where till I followed your link.

Dr Lloyd Wood has worked with the UK's Surrey Uni, the European Space Agency and Americas NASA and one or two other places as part of his work for Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. He has been involved with CLEO (Cisco router in Low Earth Orbit) and other work on what's being called "The Space Internet".

Of interest is his work on Delay and Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN). It's not been said "publicaly" as far as I'm aware but the work has aspects that are important to anonymity networks such as TOR.

You can read more on Dr Wood's DTN work etc at,

http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/dtn/ [surrey.ac.uk]

The UK occupies an odd position in the "Space Race" it is the only nation who having put a satellite into space then stopped further space rocket development (the Black Knight launch platform was considerably safer and more economic than the then US and CCCP systems). The UK has however continued in the Space Game and is perhaps the leading designers of payloads for scientific and industrial satellites (it probably is on military sats as well but nobody who knows for sure is telling ;-)

Clive Robinson
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/12/interesting_win.html#c1049823 [schneier.com]
===-
I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside.
If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it.
Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you.

And shield your monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding [wikipedia.org]
====-
"I don't think there should be anymore blinking if you remove the CD/DVD inside."

Does Tails support this at boot?

If not, is there a Linux LiveCD which allows this and does not give you root access at boot?

I've looked at several different distributions which allow you to boot into RAM and remove the CD, but they all give you root and that's a very insecure environment to run TBB in!

"If it keeps blinking, find out which process uses it."

It doesn't blink on the several distros which boot into RAM, but I don't want to run Tor as root or reconfigure the permissions/PAM/etc. just to use TBB. As above, with Tails and many LiveCDs which don't boot into RAM, 99% of them have this blinking light issue. The actual INSTALLS I've done to HDD experience constant light activity too, even more so, without anything to explain them.

For Linux, I've ran rkhunter, chkrootkit, tiger, and other tools and nothing malicious is found. Without a deep binary analysis I don't know what else I could do.

For Windows, I use a few programs in the SysInternals Suite and they display strange usage on the system and reference programs which cannot be found with a search on the system, references to impersonation, spoofing, and more. I've ran almost every N.American scanner on the Windows systems, including command line only rootkit detectors and I've seen some strange 'strings' of binaries mentioned, but have no idea on how to clean the system.

I prefer to run LiveCDs because all installations, Windows and Linux, contain unexplainable frenzies of blinking lights, far worse than the blink every second on most LiveCDs. I'm wondering if this is firmware malware on my NIC or the CDROM itself. This has existed for years and never goes away, no matter what system I use, this strange baggage seems to re-infect everything.

"Anyway, you can disable it when you're not using it, if it's bothering you."

Disable what?

"And shield your monitor."

Thanks. I'm investigating and most of the guides require specific addons to the computer's cabling system. Most of the guides appear incomplete, or are in another language other than English.

Any comments on the Tempest/blinking light possibility?

Any comments on why it's spewing out noise to FRS stations and freq hopping?
===-
More comments from elsewhere:

@kb2vxa:

"You're making a mountain out of a mole hill."

I respect your opinion and I don't wish to argue against it, but please look at it from the way I and some others have. I want to eliminate the noise created by the LCD monitor. If this was such a common experience, I would expect at least one of the dozens of other electronic equipment to generate some noise, however faint, on FRS - but they do not.

"You are under the wrong impression that somehow RF hash from the back light can somehow carry data. A liquid crystal display (LCD) does not generate its own light like a CRT or plasma screen and requires a light source to make the display visible. Even those that do cannot transmit computer data being none reaches the monitor."

The LCD is connected to a tower, which other devices connect to. Under testing I've heard the CDROM drive accessing data noises within the FRS channels, along with mouse movements and keyboard activity, along with other noises. When I disable the LCD monitor, all of these disturbances vanish. This means the weakness is in the monitor, and my tower is well shielded or shielded enough so as not to generate any noise in radios I can notice. The reference I made to the strange tape and material within the back side of the LCD monitor at the top could be a sign of some type of antenna or device for amping.

"Their FRS radios will only hear what yours does, RF hash, no data whatsoever THAT IS if one is standing outside your house tapping the radio and scratching his head wondering what's the matter with his radio. You and only you know what it is and where it's coming from."

And what of experienced and curious sysadmins? Rogue crackers? Bored HAMs?
Are there any remote radio injection attacks against systems? This is something I'll research later, as I do believe it was mentioned in at least one whitepaper on side channel attacks.

"Thanks for the chuckles, if the report reveals secrets it would not be published but sent by secret courier to the KGB in Moscow."

I'm not aware of any secrets revealed within the document. But it did raise an interesting point without exposing the method(s) delivered to us from an interesting party. This wasn't just some random article written by some anonymous, disturbed fellow and posted to a pastebin or conspiracy minded blog or forum. And one cannot deny the dozens of TEMPEST attacks available today.

"So... all this and no word on moving the radio farther from the monitor. Why don't you try talking somewhere besides in front of the computer if it bothers you so much?"

Thank you for considering conversation as my reason for posting this, but it is not. I would not choose a noisy channel to talk on. Clear conversation is not the point of this thread. I desire the elimination of this garbage coming from the LCD monitor. I don't care if no one in the world can pick up on it and hear it, I would like to properly resolve it and not ignore it.

One can also dredge up the subject of EMF on health, too, but I have not experienced any disturbance of health from exposure to this noise and most people would argue any possible EMF effects on health to be one of one's over active imagination and not real world application.

[-]

A continued discussion was posted elsewhere, this may be useful in the voyage to remove this "noise":

[-]

In addition, my CDROM drive light blinks once every second, sometimes with a second or 1/2 second in between, and I found this:

[-]

http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html#subj9 [ncl.ac.uk]

"I'd worry about a Tempest virus that polled a personal computer's
CD-ROM drive to pulse the motor as a signalling method:

* Modern high-speed CD-ROM drive motors are both acoustically and
electrically noisy, giving you two attack methods for the price of one;

* Laptop computer users without CRTs, and the PC users that can afford
large LCD screens instead of CRTs, often have CD-ROM drives;

* Users are getting quite used to sitting patiently while their
CD-ROM drives grind away for no visibly obvious reason (but
that's quite enough about the widespread installs of software from
Microsoft CD-ROMs that prompted Kuhn's investigation in the first place.)"

[-]

Any comments on the silver tape and material inside the back of the LCD? ...Disconnection of the LED CDROM and HDD lights could be something I should do to relieve one possible issue.

[-]

Some articles with examples:

"If everything is just right, you can pick up signals from some distance. "I was able to eavesdrop certain laptops through three walls," says Kuhn. "At the CEBIT conference, in 2006, I was able to see the Powerpoint presentation from a stand 25 metres away."

uhn also mentioned that one laptop was vulnerable because it had metal hinges that carried the signal of the display cable. I asked if you could alter a device to make it easier to spy on. "There are a lot of innocuous modifications you can make to maximise the chance of getting a good signal," he told me. For example, adding small pieces of wire or cable to a display could make a big difference.

As for defending against this kind of attack, Kuhn says using well-shielded cables, certain combinations of colours and making everything a little fuzzy all work."

- http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/04/seeing-through-walls.html [newscientist.com]

=!==-!=
TO EASILY VIEW THE PDF files below:
=!==-!=

Online viewer for PDF, PostScript and Word:

"This is an online viewer, with which you can view PDF and PostScript files as browsable images and Word documents as web pages. Given a URL on the net or a file on your computer, the viewer will try to retrieve the document, convert it and show it to you. No plugin software is required."

http://view.samurajdata.se/ [samurajdata.se]

The viewer software is open source, licensed under the GNU Public License.
=!==-!=

Electromagnetic eavesdropping risks of flat-panel displays
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/pet2004-fpd.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Eavesdropping attacks on computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iss2006-tempest.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations: eavesdropping risks of computer displays
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.html [cam.ac.uk]
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-577.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

Compromising emanations of LCD TV sets
- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emc2011-tv.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

=

"Q: Can I use filtered fonts also on flat-panel displays

My experience so far has been that with LCDs, the video cable is the most significant source of radiated information leakage. Where an analogue video cable (with 15-pin VGA connector) is used, low-pass filtered fonts have the same benefits as with CRTs. Where a purely digital video cable is used (DVI-D, laptop-internal displays with FPD/LVDS links, etc.) only the last step, namely randomizing the least-significant bits, should be implemented.

Where the video signal is entirely encoded in digital form, the low-pass filtered step will not have the desired effect. In fact, it can actually increase the differences between the signal generated by individual characters, and thereby make automatic radio character recognition more reliable."

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/softtempest-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Remotely Eavesdropping on Keyboards (and read the comments!)

"The researchers from the Security and Cryptography Laboratory at Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne are able to capture keystrokes by monitoring the electromagnetic radiation of PS/2, universal serial bus, or laptop keyboards. They've outline four separate attack methods, some that work at a distance of as much as 65 feet from the target.

In one video demonstration, researchers Martin Vuagnoux and Sylvain Pasini sniff out the the keystrokes typed into a standard keyboard using a large antenna that's about 20 to 30 feet away in an adjacent room."

- https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/remotely_eavesd.html [schneier.com]

=

Video eavesdropping demo at CeBIT 2006
- http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2006/03/09/video-eavesdropping-demo-at-cebit-2006/ [lightbluetouchpaper.org]

=

Optical Emission Security â" Frequently Asked Questions

"Q: What about LEDs?

For devices with RS-232 serial ports, it is customary to provide a status indicator LED for some of the signal lines (in particular transmit data and receive data). Often, these LEDs are directly connected to the line via just a resistor. As a result, anyone with a line of sight to the LED, some optics and a simple photosensor can see the data stream. Joe Loughry and David A. Umphress have recently announced a detailed study (submitted to ACM Transactions on Information and System Security) in which they tested 39 communications devices with 164 LED indicators, and on 14 of the tested devices they found serial port data in the LED light. Based on their findings, it seems reasonable to conclude that LEDs for RS-232 ports are most likely carrying the data signal today, whereas LEDs on high-speed data links (LANs, harddisk) do not. Even these LEDs are still available as a covert channel for malicious software that actively tries to transmit data optically.

I expect that this paper will cause a number of modem manufacturers to add a little pulse stretcher (monostable multivibrator) to the LEDs in the next chip set revision, and that at some facilities with particular security concerns, the relevant LEDs will be removed or covered with black tape.

The data traffic on LEDs is not a periodic signal, and therefore, unlike with video signals, periodic averaging cannot be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. The shot-noise limit estimation technique that I used to estimate the CRT eavesdropping risk can even more easily (because no deconvolution is needed) also be applied to serial port indicators and allows us to estimate a lower bound for the bit-error rate at a given distance. I have performed a few example calculations and concluded that with a direct line of sight, and a 100 kbit/s signal (typical for an external telephone modem), at 500 m distance it should be no problem to acquire a reliable signal (one wrong bit every 10 megabit), whereas for indirect reflection from the wall of a dark room, a somewhat more noisy signal (at least one wrong bit per 10 kilobit) can be expected to be receivable in a few tens of meters distance.

- http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/emsec/optical-faq.html [cam.ac.uk]

=

Ancient Story on Slashdot: Coming to a Desktop near you: Tempest Capabilities

"New Scientist has an interesting article about a new toy we will all want. It's a card that plugs in one of your PCI slots and allows you to scan the EMF spectrum and read your neighbours terminal. In about 5 years you might be able to get one for just under £1000. (Modern Tempest Hardware costs about £30000) "

http://www.yro.slashdot.org/story/99/11/08/093250/coming-to-a-desktop-near-you-tempest-capabilities [slashdot.org]

=

"Any unshielded electrical device with a variable current (including LCDs) will give out EMF radiation. It's the nature of the beast.

For that matter, light is EMF radiation, so unless you have your LCD in a coal-mine, it's reflecting EMF all the time it's switched on.

Then, there's the fact that screen monitoring isn't the only monitoring you can do. I used to use a radio, tuned into the bus for the PET, as a sound card. Worked surprisingly well, for all that very clunky metal shielding. What's to stop a much higher-quality receiver from seeing the data, in an unshielded box, being sent TO the LCD, or to any other device on the machine?

It's a mistake to assume that Tempest technology is single-function and that that single-function only works in a single situation."

- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2333&cid=1553178 [slashdot.org]

=

800Mbps Wireless Network Made With LED Light Bulbs
- http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/1322201/800Mbps-Wireless-Network-Made-With-LED-Light-Bulbs [slashdot.org]

=

There are a lot of other files, many in PPT format, which can be found easily on this subject of LCD monitor (and other computing devices) TEMPEST sniffing.

===

Sources for this discussion:

- http://forums.radioreference.com/computer/255488-lcd-monitor-broadcasts-noise-radio-why.html [radioreference.com]
- http://clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10919 [clsvtzwzdgzkjda7.onion] .onion link above requires a running Tor client session in order to view. (https://www.torproject.org)

This on-going discussion backed up to Pastebin(s) in order to retain it as an artifact. Many of these
types of discussions are REMOVED from the net because of the nature of the discussion (TEMPEST).

1 to possibly worry about? APOPHIS - 2029/2036 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42375203)

Take a read - make what you will of it, but here is the part I read that concerned me SOME:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

From -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis [wikipedia.org]

---

"However, a possibility remained that during the 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis would pass through a gravitational keyhole, a precise region in space no more than about a half-mile wide,[7] that would set up a future impact on April 13, 2036"

---

* In the meantime, live out your lives... since there really isn't a thing we can do about it, imo @ least!

(Funniest part is, the captcha for this post is "paranoia"...)

APK

P.S.=> Am I concerned? As concerned as I would be about any potential danger warnings... but, after all of the Niburu/PlanetX stuff, in addition to the Mayan Calendar stuff too that never came to pass?? Well... you know!

HOWEVER/Again - I've got my live to lead & live, until then - so do you all!

... apk

But in fact: (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year ago | (#42375753)

that's what they want you to think.

They wouldn't want anyone getting wind of their TS/SAR plans for a giant rocket to get all the politicians and Wall St. Bankers off the planet in 2039.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...