3 ms·
I'm astonished that the US Navy doesn't run regular radiation sweeps of their ships and bases to identify accidental or intentional devices that could act like
by com 2y ago
I'm astonished that the US Navy doesn't run regular radiation sweeps of their ships and bases to identify accidental or intentional devices that could act like beacons or exfil channels.
- joezydeco 2y agoThey do. If you read this other review of the Manchester incident[1], there are (or at least used to be) staff that continually swept for TEMPEST[2] hazards. "It appears that, once again, no call for outside help. I am sure we do, as we once did, have people who all they do is look for “Tempest Hazards” on ships. We do still have that, yes?" [1] https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/there-is-dysfunction-and-then-theres https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/there-is-dysfunction-an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)
- com 2y agoExactly. Apparently it's not done frequently enough. Or you know, upgradable software defined radio receivers embedded in the facility or ship that turn on at random times to sample the local RF environment for unpleasant surprises. I mean, even payments service providers must scan for rogue access points in datacenters and office locations, surely, surely this is SOP for the US Navy? Who is actually running anything of any use in the US Navy? Things like cointel? Nuclear safety? Goodness knows how bad things are.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoThe people running the scans installed starlink