Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Spook specs?
Message-ID: <1991Feb8.021239.20949@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 02:12:39 GMT
References: <1991Feb6.032648.22323@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA
Lines: 34
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz)

In article <1991Feb6.032648.22323@cbnews.att.com> JEWELLLW@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU (Larry W. Jewell) writes:
>What are the specs. for Tempest?  I'm curious because some of
>the stuff I will be doing is VERY subject to industrial
>espionage, and I'd like to know if the Government's standards
>are good enough for industry?



Unfortunately, the exact Tempest specs are classified; I can,
on an unclassified basis, say what you would need to get access 
to in order to get a reasonably good Tempest specification..  While I
think the numbers have changed, the main documents used to be
MIL-HDBK-232, "Red/Black Engineering Criteria," and NACSIM 5100
and 5200.  I can't remember which were which in the NACSIMs; one
specified maximum radiation limits and one specified test methods.
MIL-HDBK-232 and the test method were CONFIDENTIAL; the radiation
limits were SECRET.


The bottom line, however, is that (1) you probably don't have
a sufficient threat to warrant the HIGH expense of Tempest for
industrial use, and (2) it's not impossible to build Tempest-compliant
boxes even without the specs, as there are approved enclosures,
power line filters, etc., that you can wrap around any device.
EXPENSIVE.
-- 
howard@cos.com OR  {uunet,  decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
(703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H]
DISCLAIMER:  Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation
for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.