[Spooks] (no subject)

[Ralph Cameron]

One can estimate the target area by checking the propagation from the source
to the destination. Assuming Cuba as the source - they seem to be more
active on CW in the evening which may suggest something. Their traffic
patterns are repeatable , e.g. 150 characters per message and three
destinations per transmission with the first two groups and the last two
groups repeated.   there is obviously a way to tell when the traffic is
valid - it may be as simple as time of day . I have yet to see a repeated
group on over 50 messages so that suggests one time pads.

Continuous sending such as this is a great way to have resources committed
by interceptors. Look at the number reports generated here.

Preambles can sometimes be revealing too.


----- Original Message -----
From: "jmm" <jmm@cvni.net>
To: <spooks@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Spooks] (no subject)


> Visit http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/spooks to unsubscribe from
this list
>
> It is also a possibility that dummy traffic is sent when there is nothing
> "of value" to transmit.
>
> This way of doing has several aims
>
> - Preventing intercepters from easily finding when there is real traffic
>
> - Misleading (and increase effort and thus operating costs) of opponent
>   cryptanalysers
>
> - Holding the frequency, detering anyone (other services, broadcasters
>   pirates, ...) from using this frequency. "Nature abhors vacuum" and
>   this is (or at least once was) true for the HF spectrum. For instance,
>   by the time of Cold War, Radio Moscow International used to broadcast
>   its FF programme on up to 14 different frequencies at the same time,
>   even in mid-afternoon (Who was listening to them besides retired
>   and unemployed people ? New-born babies, maybe ?)
>
> If we take the case of E03, how can we explain the transmission is
> *always* 200 5FG long ? There must be a way to discriminate groups that
> "carry a useful load", if any, from those that do not.
>
> I am just wondering if having a transcript of these messages undergone a
> suite of statistical tests compared to similar pseudo-random computer
> generated message would receal something. Has anyone tried ?
>
> (Yes, I know, computer pseudo random numbers generators are not the
> absolute panacea, but it would nevertheless be instructive)
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:37:48PM +0100, ary@luna.nl wrote:
> >
> > I don't think so. These stations seldom react to what's happening in the
world.
> > Besides that, after all these years I still have the feeling that this
is a
> > military operation, not Mossad.
> >
> > Ary
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 22:19:55 +0100, you wrote:
> >
> > >Hello all!
> > >I'm new to all this and I have a question:
> > >Could the omnipresence of E10 transmissions mean, that Mossad is
preparing a large operation in Europe? Or is it perhaps related to the Al
Quaeida arrests in Paris this W-E?
> > >
> > >Thanx!
> > >
> _______________________________________________
> Spooks mailing list
> Spooks@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/spooks
>
> -
> Visit http://www.spynumbers.com/ for complete information about Spy
Numbers Stations