🚀 go-pugleaf

 -=> Quoting Robert Cain to All <=-

 RC> : 
 :  TD> ......... simple speech inversion really shouldn't be called a
 :  TD> security device.
 
 RC> What about the modern analog devices that use split band inversion
 RC> where one of 32 programmable split points in the voice band may be
 RC> selected and changed at 60 Hz or faster at "random?"  .......
                             
 RC> Combine this with spread spectrum or Pulson modulation and, well....


  Well.....We were talking about simple speech inverters. But, to up the 
  ante; yes, in my opinion split band rolling code inverters are  
  vulnerable. I offer these thoughts in support of this position.

                1. Assume that recovery of information does not have to 
  be in real time. The analyst will know that what he is trying to work back 
  to (i.e. analogue speech waveforms) contain many predictabilities. That 
  knowledge alone makes plain brute force attack unnecessary and undermines 
  the theoretical protection of a given number of combinations.
                
                2. The use of an intermediate analogue medium, that of 
  sight, might assist an analyst in recreating predictable patterns.
                
                3. Such good scramblers are relatively freely available on 
  the open market internationally for wireless use, while powerful encryptors 
  are not. 
  
                4. 'Less than fully secure' is a term often used by good 
  manufacturers themselves. Though I have met (usually junior) sales staff
  from reputable companies who will make out otherwise.

                5. There is, I believe, an analogy to the security provided  
  by passwords. Viewed on a straight number crunching basis (as is discussed 
  elsewhere) an 8 character password is impressively strong. But....... 
  

        As for Pulson modulation, no comment! I look forward to furthering my 
  education in due course!



___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11