FW: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker

[Barnaby Prendergast]

I beg to differ; surely in terms of protection from physical attack such 
buildings are the ultimate protection until they are superceded by a 
building with superior protection qualities. For a time Cesar codes were 
probably the ultimate in encryption...
:)
B


>From: "David Hansen" <davidh@spidacom.co.uk>
>Reply-To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>Subject: Re: FW: AL Digital Acquires Second Nuclear Bunker
>Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:46:41 +0100
>
>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.
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp