Virus.Org  IT Security News and Information Portal. We offer the latest IT security news, updates, product reviews, books, and articles for all you IT security professionals out there. Enter and get the best IT security information on the Internet.

 

. Welcome to the Virus.Org Mailing List Archive  
.
.


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


[ISN] Re: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker
.

  • To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  • Subject: [ISN] Re: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker
  • From: InfoSec News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 06:12:59 -0500 (CDT)
.
 
Forwarded from: Nexus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: FW: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker


> On 1 Oct 2001 at 3:02, John Doe Number Two wrote:
>
> > PRESS RELEASE
> > The Bunker and The Other Bunker were designed and built during the
> > Cold War as physically secure communications centres. Both offer the
> > ultimate in protection from a myriad of attacks including; crackers,
> > terrorist attack, electro-magnetic pulse, HERF weapons, electronic
> > eavesdropping and solar flares.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> As someone who (in a previous career) designed, built and
> maintained such buildings I'm fed up of such writing spouted by PR
> companies and others.
>
> Such a building will provide a level of protection against some of
> the forms of attack listed. However, like any other form of
> protection, that protection is not ultimate. The protection
> provided depends on the installation design, maintenance and
> operation.
>
> For example, a terrorist attack could take many forms, groups of
> people on foot for example. I doubt whether these buildings will
> have troops to resist groups of attackers from getting close.
> Doors (and I have seen some very impressive doors) can always be
> opened with suitable tools and time, or bypassed if that is
> easier. Unless the buildings are run in closed down mode all the
> time (expensive on electricity and filters, not the way to attract
> staff due to the limited air) a simple gas attack on the air
> inlets would disable the building easily anyway.
>
> While these buildings undoubtedly provide a far more secure
> environment than the typical tin shed (with or without single-skin
> block walls) that most "secure" computer spaces are inside, it is
> deceitful to talk about "the ultimate protection". By all means
> the company should offer the service, but they should not mis-sell
> what they offer.
>
> There is no such thing as a physically secure building. Even the
> most important military headquarters in "the west", which are
> still in use for their original purpose, can be destroyed by a
> suitable attack.
>
> Yes, I have pointed this out to the company before in private.
>
>
> --
>  David Hansen | [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | PGP email preferred
>  Edinburgh    | CI$ number 100024,3247 | key number F566DA0E
>  If I revoke this key, the only circumstance in which I will not be
>  prepared to explain my reasons for doing so will be when UK
>  government authorities have stipulated that providing such an
>  explanation would be unlawful. See RIP Act 2000.



-
ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org

To unsubscribe email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY
of the mail.




 
.
.
 
Copyright (c) Virus.Org 1997-2006.
All Trademarks Acknowledged.
Please view our Terms and Conditions and our Privacy Policy.