3 ms·

I hope you have a reference as to how an optic fiber cable can be tapped like that. I also hope you've seen how heavily jacketed these cables are. The cables ar

by goku12 1y ago

I hope you have a reference as to how an optic fiber cable can be tapped like that. I also hope you've seen how heavily jacketed these cables are. The cables are so sensitive to mechanical disturbances (but without interference to communication) that it can often sense itself getting shifted around. Tapping it will require a lot more than that. How do you avoid such tip offs? And as far as I know, emails are not E2E encrypted, but they are almost always encrypted in transit. Why go through all the trouble just to get encrypted data? Now I concede that all those things (OFC, TLS) may have vulnerabilities that can theoretically be exploited. But do you send such valuable information over the internet that it's worth their cost and effort to retrieve it? And if your answer is yes by some chance, would you transmit it without taking adequate security measures? In comparison, Google and the others have billions of emails simply sitting unencrypted in their storage, ready for access at zero cost. I can't see your argument contradicting the information security risk posed by these companies.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>I hope you have a reference as to how an optic fiber cable can be tapped like that. I also hope you've seen how heavily jacketed these cables are. LMGTFY [1][2]. I'm wondering at which point will we reach that utopic nirvana when HN and internet users in general will take the initiative and 30 seconds of their time to google something they find perplexing/unreal instead of going like "uhm, source?". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/new-nuclear-sub-is-said-to-have-special-eavesdropping-ability.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/new-nuclear-sub-...
- goku12 1y ago
  > I'm wondering at which point will we reach that utopic nirvana when HN and internet users in general will be able to google something they find perplexing/unreal before asking others to do it for them. Look. Perhaps you should use a bit more discretion before you decide to come out all guns blazing on sarcasm and condescendation. I have some professional experience in the field - and it tells me there are many inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, I did 'the google' before typing the previous reply. I could of course be just ignorant about the latest achievements. But that's where references matter. That's all I asked for. So here is the problem. Operation Ivy Bell happened in mid 1960s to mid 1970s. If you knew the communication infrastructure of that time, you would have realized that it was distinctly NOT optic fiber. Those came much later. But what really confirmed that doubt is that they used the induction principle of a transformer to tap the cable. That won't work on optic fibers. That's not how the EM field propagates in an OFC - they're more similar to waveguides than telephone cables. And this distinction certainly matters here. Today's world is certainly not the same as in 60s. The sort of high-volume communication didn't exist back then. Neither did the ability to listen to or manipulate so many people all at once. Today's dangers - like the one with email messages - didn't exist back then. Back then 'cable' leaks like this used to happen. But have you heard of anything similar to Hillary's email leak or the Halloween mails?
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >I have some professional experience in the field [...] That won't work on optic fibers. I'm not a professional in this field like you, but even I know that undersea fiber optic cables have actively powered repeaters/amplifiers spread across their length, so it's logical to assume those amplifiers, with their 16kW power source, generate quite some EMF at repeater points that could be picked up via side channel analysis by sophisticated and well funded state actors like US submarines equipped with dedicated surveillance equipment, as we can infer from the Snowden NSA leaks.
    - goku12 1y ago
      I did consider the possibility of tapping signals using the EMI from the repeaters and amplifier pumping lasers. But an OFC carries an incredible amount of data over several individual fibers. And each individual fiber carries several channels using multiplexing (WDM). I don't think that their timing is synchronized either. In short, I find it hard to believe that these signals can be practically tapped from the EMI from the supporting systems. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I wouldn't mind being proven with any sort of relevant literature.

by goku12 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>I hope you have a reference as to how an optic fiber cable can be tapped like that. I also hope you've seen how heavily jacketed these cables are. LMGTFY [1][2]. I'm wondering at which point will we reach that utopic nirvana when HN and internet users in general will take the initiative and 30 seconds of their time to google something they find perplexing/unreal instead of going like "uhm, source?". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/new-nuclear-sub-is-said-to-have-special-eavesdropping-ability.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/new-nuclear-sub-...

goku12 1y ago
> I'm wondering at which point will we reach that utopic nirvana when HN and internet users in general will be able to google something they find perplexing/unreal before asking others to do it for them. Look. Perhaps you should use a bit more discretion before you decide to come out all guns blazing on sarcasm and condescendation. I have some professional experience in the field - and it tells me there are many inconsistencies in your argument. And yes, I did 'the google' before typing the previous reply. I could of course be just ignorant about the latest achievements. But that's where references matter. That's all I asked for. So here is the problem. Operation Ivy Bell happened in mid 1960s to mid 1970s. If you knew the communication infrastructure of that time, you would have realized that it was distinctly NOT optic fiber. Those came much later. But what really confirmed that doubt is that they used the induction principle of a transformer to tap the cable. That won't work on optic fibers. That's not how the EM field propagates in an OFC - they're more similar to waveguides than telephone cables. And this distinction certainly matters here. Today's world is certainly not the same as in 60s. The sort of high-volume communication didn't exist back then. Neither did the ability to listen to or manipulate so many people all at once. Today's dangers - like the one with email messages - didn't exist back then. Back then 'cable' leaks like this used to happen. But have you heard of anything similar to Hillary's email leak or the Halloween mails?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >I have some professional experience in the field [...] That won't work on optic fibers. I'm not a professional in this field like you, but even I know that undersea fiber optic cables have actively powered repeaters/amplifiers spread across their length, so it's logical to assume those amplifiers, with their 16kW power source, generate quite some EMF at repeater points that could be picked up via side channel analysis by sophisticated and well funded state actors like US submarines equipped with dedicated surveillance equipment, as we can infer from the Snowden NSA leaks.
  - goku12 1y ago
    I did consider the possibility of tapping signals using the EMI from the repeaters and amplifier pumping lasers. But an OFC carries an incredible amount of data over several individual fibers. And each individual fiber carries several channels using multiplexing (WDM). I don't think that their timing is synchronized either. In short, I find it hard to believe that these signals can be practically tapped from the EMI from the supporting systems. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I wouldn't mind being proven with any sort of relevant literature.