[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Using lasers to communicate
} At 10:38 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: [i.e. [email protected] == me]
} >
} >Eavesdropping and channel-blocking and physical-location-discovery are
} >related threats to which most traditional data channels are susceptible.
[snip]
} >larger mirror. Then (under computer control) the various small mirrors
} >on the laser table are rapidly inserted and withdrawn from the light beam,
} >causing the laser beam to follow first one path, then another, then another
} >through the (smoky) air -- all to the delight of the audience.
} >
} >This technology could easily be adapted to make a communication channel
} >safer from the various threats of eavesdropping, interruption, and tracing.
} >A single point-to-point channel could be made to follow various paths
} >having common elements only VERY close to the endpoints. Better still,
} >a network of more than two nodes could be constructed without needing to
} >provide multiple transceivers at each node (and with possibly multiple
} >beam paths between each pair). With known methods of routing and
} >collision avoidance, we could thus not only route around any known opposition
[snip]
On Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:03:38 -0800, gw <[email protected]> wrote:
} KNOWN opposition ... hmmm. you're back to obscurity=security.
} It's always expensive to eavesdrop (tapped any fiber cables in pressure
} jackets recently?) ...
[snip]
I was also thinking about security by redundancy. It is fairly
inexpensive for an opponent simply to cut a fiber run. The scheme
I'm talking about allows you to provide additional signal paths much more
cheaply than the opponent can interrupt them.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "He who buys for price alone is
:: Lou Poppler <[email protected]> :: [the suits'] lawful prey."
:: http://www.msen.com/~lwp/ ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- John Ruskin