Re: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker

[InfoSec News <isn () c4i org>]

Forwarded from: Nexus <nexus () patrol i-way co uk>

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Hansen" <davidh () spidacom co uk>
To: <ukcrypto () chiark greenend org uk>
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 | davidh () spidacom co uk  | 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 majordomo () attrition org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY
of the mail.