--- "Peter N. Spotts" wrote:

I agree that this isn't necessarily the place for waving technological hurricane warnings, but the phenomenon, as you probably know, is real. It was part of the nuclear strategies of both sides during the cold war to burst warheads high over each others' countries to take out solid-state communications systems. Interestingly, for communications purposes, the one technology that seemed much less vulnerable to electromagnetic pulse was tube technology. And for communications, who had the largest inventory of tube-based communications gear? Ham radio operators.

Ah, there's something to be said for the good old days ;-)

With best regards,

Pete

Pete, I couldn't agree with you more. EMP is a very real and very scary thing that people should be aware of and prepared for. However, I think that the original poster's message was an unwarranted waste of time. As far as I can tell, this person has never posted to the list before, and didn't bother to leave his own name. This leads me to believe that his agenda is far removed from the purpose of this list, which is the dissemination of advice, information, and help on the SuSE Linux operating system. Perhaps a better way to approach such a topic on this list would have been along the lines of "What do people on this list do, if anything, to protect themselves against an EMP attack?", or "I am seeking advice on protecting myself and my equipment from EMP.". The poster's tone was decidedly not one of someone looking for or offering advice. Hence my beef with it. I would have welcomed a post along the lines of information disbursement, or something like what you have posted above. -Nick __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Nick, On Friday 01 July 2005 14:13, Nick Jones wrote:

...

Pete,

I couldn't agree with you more. EMP is a very real and very scary thing that people should be aware of and prepared for.

True as far as it goes, but the only way to produce the kind of EMP that would disable, say, a whole city is to detonate a nuclear warhead high in the atmosphere. If someone has a nuke and is willing to use it, then I choose loss of electronic systems (air burst) over loss of my life (ground burst) any day. To turn away from solid state electronics or render them all EMP-shielded would be uncalled for. Although it's not the way we're doing things now, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to stop creating enemies than it does to try to make yourself impervious to every conceivable, or even every feasible mode of attack those enemies could muster. And don't forget, out there somewhere is an asteroid or a comet with our name on it!

...

-Nick

Randall Schulz

On 02/07/05, Tim Grant wrote:

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 20:18, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

Although it's not the way we're doing things now, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to stop creating enemies than it does to try to make yourself impervious to every conceivable, or even every feasible mode of attack those enemies could muster.

Don't know what you're smoking, but I want some!

Sorry, couldn't resist..... not ranting, just serious banter. :o)

I'm a peace-through-strength-nic. If you are breathing and have something worth having, you'll either have enemies at a distance or serve them up close. I'd rather do the former. Consider Kuwait's history with Iraq.

As for the topic of the post, if EMP is an issue there will be a sufficient change in our lifestyle that I wonder how many of these solid-state things will still be pertinent.

Tim Grant West Point '81

I think EMP is only an issue for machines that are actually running at the time of release of the pulse. A PC switched off would not be affected. I could of course be wrong about that and please correct me if I am. It would seem to make sense that only a 'live' machine would be affected though. -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Sunday 2005-07-03 at 13:14 -0400, Bruce Marshall wrote:

...

I could of course be wrong about that and please correct me if I am. It would seem to make sense that only a 'live' machine would be affected though.

I would think that currents induced on a circuit board from EMP *could* fry some of the chips. The possibility is there. No different than static can mess up a board you are trying to install.

If the pulse is strong enough. But relatively small radiation can fry an active device (because its electronic properties vary under radiation), and do nothing to an inactive one. Depends. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCyCrVtTMYHG2NR9URAoF0AJ4vlq9rcRrPrJgaKALcaxGhRGW+PQCfQ0h0 SofFtTF4wBQcQL0xvZz3h6s= =dRTr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Even with the PC turned off, there's till the CMOS battery, keeping BIOS settings in memory. suse-list@bout-tyme.net wrote:

On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 17:53 +0100, Kevanf1 wrote:

...

On 02/07/05, Tim Grant wrote: I think EMP is only an issue for machines that are actually running at the time of release of the pulse. A PC switched off would not be affected.

I could of course be wrong about that and please correct me if I am. It would seem to make sense that only a 'live' machine would be affected though.

Keep in mind that most modern PC's still have electric running through them as the on/off switch is electronic not mechanical. Based on that, unless you have the plug pulled it would still be susceptible.

On 04/07/05, James Knott wrote:

Devices don't have to be on, for EMP to cause damage. It generates harmful voltages in the circuitry, that damages solid state devices.

Hmmm, I live and learn :-) Thanks for comments. Now, how do I go about shielding my PC's.... ;-))) -- Take care. Kevan Farmer 34 Hill Street Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

--- "Theo v. Werkhoven" wrote:

And you my friend, could use a lesson in proper list usage, so next time you'd maybe so clever to delete the 90 lines of garbage you now dumped on the list *again*. Pot, black, kettle.

Habit, my apologies. Not fond of lists such as this used as ad space. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Sat, 02 Jul 2005, by robin1.listas@tiscali.es:

I like that "claimer", I might steal it O:-) - but I'm interested in some other thing, those gpg headers of yours:

X-GPG-id: X-GPG-Fingerprint: 71F8... X-GPG-key: Use keyserver...

Do you mean that that header includes a gpg signature of your mail contents? What can we use the check it? I have tried Pine, Balsa, Mozilla, and kmail: none mentions anything about it. :-?

I used to sign with GPG, but I'm not really convinced anymore that it is a usefull thing on mailinglist, so I stopped doing that. However, if someone wants to send me an encrypted mail for any reason, he or she can still find the neccessary info in my headers to do so. Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply.

Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

Sat, 02 Jul 2005, by robin1.listas@tiscali.es:

...

I like that "claimer", I might steal it O:-) - but I'm interested in some other thing, those gpg headers of yours:

X-GPG-id: X-GPG-Fingerprint: 71F8... X-GPG-key: Use keyserver...

Do you mean that that header includes a gpg signature of your mail contents? What can we use the check it? I have tried Pine, Balsa, Mozilla, and kmail: none mentions anything about it. :-?

I don't know about balsa and kmail, but both MozillaMail and pine can handle gpg-signed email and sign outgoing email. Google will turn up good hits for you.

I used to sign with GPG, but I'm not really convinced anymore that it is a usefull thing on mailinglist, so I stopped doing that. However, if someone wants to send me an encrypted mail for any reason, he or she can still find the neccessary info in my headers to do so.

The only reasons I can see at this time for gpg-signing email would be to prove that someone has tampered with the contents of your email and/or to prove that the email came from you.

Theo

-- A lot of us are working harder than we want, at things we don't like to do. Why? ...In order to afford the sort of existence we don't care to live. -- Bradford Angier

Sat, 02 Jul 2005, by robin1.listas@tiscali.es:

The Saturday 2005-07-02 at 07:44 -0400, ken wrote:

...

The only reasons I can see at this time for gpg-signing email would be to prove that someone has tampered with the contents of your email and/or to prove that the email came from you.

Exactly so. Some one was routinely forging email with in my name, on a SuSE list....

But we've never met IRL, so how do I know that that GPG id 6D8D47D5 belongs to the real mr. Carlos E.R. (who, for all we know, could be an avid Windows XP enthousiast who only ever sees MSDN)? Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply.

Sat, 02 Jul 2005, by robin1.listas@tiscali.es:

The Saturday 2005-07-02 at 14:28 +0200, Theo v. Werkhoven wrote:

...

...

Exactly so. Some one was routinely forging email with in my name, on a SuSE list....

But we've never met IRL, so how do I know that that GPG id 6D8D47D5 belongs to the real mr. Carlos E.R. (who, for all we know, could be an avid Windows XP enthousiast who only ever sees MSDN)?

True. That's the problem with gpg/pgp, that it lacks a certification authority. It rely instead on a "web of trust".

But, you can know whether an email claiming to come from me, with insults, and therefore suspicious at least, has the same identity than other emails of the same person sent previously over the months.

It is the only thing I can do...

Don't worry, I think we'll recognize a bodysnatcher when we see one :-) Theo -- Theo v. Werkhoven Registered Linux user# 99872 http://counter.li.org ICBM 52 13 26N , 4 29 47E. + ICQ: 277217131 SUSE 9.2 + Jabber: muadib@jabber.xs4all.nl Kernel 2.6.8 + See headers for PGP/GPG info. Claimer: any email I receive will become my property. Disclaimers do not apply.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2005-07-02 at 18:17 -0400, James Knott wrote:

If you want a trusted authority, you can get a free S/MIME digital certificate from http://www.thawte.com/email. Many companies also hand them out to employees or customers.

I know, we spaniards can get a free and official pkcs7 certificate from the goverment mint (FNMT, Fábrica Nacional de Moneda y Timbre). It identifies us for transactions with the goverment, like tax forms and payments. And it can be used for email, as a side benefit. But I reserve it for very important emails, not for a list ;-)

You can also save your GPG keys on a key server.

I have done that months ago ;-) But as Theo pointed out, nobody really knows that those gpg keys with which I sign my email really pertain to a person named C.R., or I'm impersonating "him"... Or, said otherwise, anybody can put keys on a key server claiming to be anybody. There is no way to certify identities with pgp/gpg - except the web of trust.

I have Mozilla configured to support both GPG and S/MIME.

So have I. But not all MUAs can. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFCxzM9tTMYHG2NR9URAve+AJ9Rr32OoqPkDVa/saa+vvQyRtyg7gCdF6T1 vWAREKHs8QJfjfP0uZc1Yfc= =vm8Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sunday 03 July 2005 00:02, James Knott wrote:

Mozilla and many other mail programs also support S/MIME encryption and signature. You can get a free digital certificate from www.thawte.com/email.

Doesn't encrypting using a key someone else created defeat the purpose of it? The private keys should be kept private

On Sunday 03 July 2005 00:45, James Knott wrote:

Anders Johansson wrote:

...

On Sunday 03 July 2005 00:02, James Knott wrote:

...

Mozilla and many other mail programs also support S/MIME encryption and signature. You can get a free digital certificate from www.thawte.com/email.

Doesn't encrypting using a key someone else created defeat the purpose of it? The private keys should be kept private

The only one who'd have the private key is the person who generated it.

Well, that's not exactly a universal truth. It depends

It's merely certified by Thawte.

Fair enough, I thought they gave you the key as well. I hadn't looked at it before

However the public key can be distributed far and wide. So if I want to send you an encrypted e-mail, I'd encrypt with your public key.

Yeah, I was aware