home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!lynx!nmsu.edu!opus!ted
- From: ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning)
- Subject: Re: Motorola 'Secure-Clear' Cordless Telephones
- In-Reply-To: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu's message of 2 Jan 1993 02:31:05 GMT
- Message-ID: <TED.93Jan2095100@lole.nmsu.edu>
- Sender: usenet@nmsu.edu
- Reply-To: ted@nmsu.edu
- Organization: Computing Research Lab
- References: <C05JAM.MJL@ais.org> <1i2up9INNk5e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 16:51:00 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
-
- In article <1i2up9INNk5e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:
-
- > Yes, technically, it is a felony for you to use a speech-
- >inversion descrambler to monitor these Motorola 'Secure Clear'
- >cordless. Or for that matter, the new Radio Shack DUoPHONE ET-499,
- >cordless phone which also depends on speech-inversion for privacy
- >protection. The public utility of the ECPA has been argued about
-
- Excellent point here. The very simple point is that having some
- basic scrambling of the signal is better than not at all!
-
-
- well, yes, but...
-
-
- i don't remember the reference, but i think that during ww2, several
- bell lab's engineers showed that a person could be trained to
- understand speech inversion scramblers without any hardware aids. the
- scramblers in question were ones which permuted multiple bands in a
- changing manner, and didn't just invert the entire band.
-
- if people's ears can crack the system in real time without special
- hardware then simple speech inversion really shouldn't be called a
- security device.
-
-
-
-