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

Re: FH radios

To: [email protected] (Jason Rentz)
Subject: Re: FH radios
From: David Lesher <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 21:52:55 -0500 (EST)
Cc: [email protected]
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Jason Rentz" at Dec 26, 95 02:25:35 pm
Reply-To: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]

> I agree; but, if the information you are passing is truly that important
> just use a landline phone.  Eliminate the possable "leak".
> I'm not claiming that a landline phone is secure, but your cordless is
> connected to it, so no matter how good your security is on the phone its no
> longer secure once it leaves the base station and enters the landline.

Argh....
Phones are ANYTHING but secure. Hence the STUIII & PGPphone.

An encrypted rf link is far better than any POTS....

-- 
A host is a host from coast to [email protected]
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

References:
- Re: FH radios
  - From: [email protected] (Jason Rentz)

Prev by Date: Re: Employer Probing Precedents?
Next by Date: ideath remailer permanently down / PGP key changes for Greg Broiles
Prev by thread: Re: FH radios
Next by thread: Re: [Rant] Flame threads and factual accuracy
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread