Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] huawei

Eugen Leitl eugen at leitl.org
Sat Jun 15 05:25:38 PDT 2013


----- Forwarded message from Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> -----

Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:44:32 -0400
From: Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com>
To: Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: huawei

With the CPU and RAM available in a router that has to actually continue
functioning at the same time?  Exactly how much data through put would you
consider to be usable in this scenario?

Again, my point is not that its impossible but that all these things are
impractical AND there are easier/faster/cheaper ways of capturing traffic.
 There are also easier/faster/cheaper ways of disrupting traffic.  Routers
in the core are great places to execute a targeted man in the middle
attack.  They're great places to disrupt traffic by behaving erratically,
intentionally mangling dynamic routing protocols, or by simply going dark.
 They're terrible places for gathering non-targeted information because the
amount of data flowing through them means that that the likelihood of any
give packet having any value is very very low.  If the goal includes
stealing data then leveraging edge routing is much more realistic and
leveraging PCs is several orders of magnitude better because there is much
more available horsepower and its much easier to make a PC passively listen
for interesting data on its own.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 07:51:22PM -0400, Scott Helms wrote:
> > Really? In a completely controlled network then yes, but not in a
> > production system.  There is far too much random noise and actual latency
> > for that to be feasible.
>
> The coding used for the stegano side channel can be made quite robust,
> see watermarking.
>
>

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org
AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B  47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5



More information about the liberationtech mailing list