[Spooks] Question about spy numbers

[Hendrik Dietrich]

Gnaw, i write this explanation the second time because i killed my Kindernet
explorer short before i ended this message...

Achtung - Achtung (:-)) Jon,

here are some things to think about when looking at the number stations.
* I guess mthat by far the most of the data are dummy messages and just a
few messages are real messages to spies or whoever has to listen to
something secret. Reason: First, it helps making the code hard to break. The
codebreakers would first have to find out to divide the real messages from
dummy data before they can even start breaking the real code. Second, it
would give hints of the number of receivers and their activity. If a secret
service finds out there is one station getting more active and short after
that they would see a lot of secret action in their country, they would
increase their own intelligence and protection work whenever the number of
messages or the spy counter goes up. The best rule is to send the same
amount of data everytime OR something which doesnt give a clue about the
real traffic, which means you have to add some amount of useless extra byte.
The result of encryption should look like noise to every statistic math
attack. Maybe some stations are only on air for test and keep-alive, so they
can use it when they need it ? By the way, the stuffing of a coded bitstream
is a nice thing when it comes to computer-aided encryption and coding and
also decoding and decryption. Did u know that its used for digital TV too,
where (to say it the easy way) the resulting bitstream which goes to the RF
has a constant number of bits per second, consisting of a variable number of
needed bits and a variable number of bits that no one really needs ?
Thats what i had to say about "are all those really messages to spies".
I guess there are also other people who dont want to broadcast all their
secrets unencrypted, military and government for example.

*Enigma code ?
Enigma used a kind of "rolling" code, the code was evolving out of a given
starting position. Modern one-way (who says modern, they had been there
right after WWII as far as i know) encryption which look like made for radio
broadcasts are so-called one time pads. Its a code just used for a single
transmission. You have no benefit of breaking thuis code, because it will
never be used again (if the operators arent too stupid or whatever).
Used the right way, OTP might be unbreakable, even when not buried between
stuffing data. The "highest" form of hiding messages is the so-called
steganography, which means hiding a message in a picture. No one would care
for 30 "wrong" byte in a 250 KByte JPEG while you wouldnt see a distortion
in the picture, but they might be secret message carriers.

*Why those old-fashioned voice announcements by doped people or synthesized
doped people ? 
Because old-fashioned things have proven their possibilities.
For reception and decoding, you need just a radio (better kitchen radio,
world band receiver, homebrewed ham radio equipment), a tiny piece of paper
with the code written on it and the ability to calculate a few numbers.
A calculator and a recorder will help too.
Imagine youre a spy and caught. Having a radio is nothing wrong in most
countries, if they ask you what you need it for you could say youre
listening to the foreign service of (insert friendly country name) or you
are a amateur radio enthusiast. But you talked about encrypted digital radio
 (encrypted packet for example) ...
... picking you up with some very special radio modem and decoder software
that doesnt fit to the "broadcast listener or radio amateur" image might get
people from secret service a bit more nosy. In the last Mail you read that
there must be an "answer channel" for digital transmissions in difference to
voice, thats not the case, thanks to Mister Reed and Mister Solomon, but
sucessful radio data transmission is a kind of art or gambling, as most hams
and rf engineers and radio modem user can tell you... even the 11 Mbit/s
from WLAN arent useable always.
If you think about Internet as secret message carrier: That is done a milion
times or more each day, of course. But there you leave traces, even the
smallest. With radio broadcasts, you *CAN NOT* trace down the receiver by
the propagation path or listening to the transmission, as you could do on
Internet. NO WAY ! EVERYONE IN THE RECEPTION AREA IS UNDER SUSPECT ! WE KNOW
WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO ! YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE NEXT
NUMBER TRANSMISSION YOU CAN GET ! DONT TRY TO HIDE !

At last another thought: There are situations where you can use a backpack
or pocket size radio, a wire antenna and a earphone, but not a computer and
very special software or things.

So, why not go on, live your live and dont care for the number transmissions
any more than before. the "run and hide" game by finding them. using your
imagination if right this 59118 59118 is going to your neighbour telling him
that he should make a copy of his boss' e-mail.testing your DF. checking
short-wave propagation. wondering what it is. using the announced numbers
for a nice bingo game. Image how those new start broadcasting, or
lincolnshire poacher announcers look like. Use up record tape. Heat your
computers processor by converting them to MP3. Or, if you live close to a
transmitter site, use it to bring some light to your garden hut as people in
my home town do with a medium-wave hi-power broadcast station :-))

What will we hear tomorrow ?

Greetings,
Don Hendi

-- 
+++ Jetzt WLAN-Router für alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++
GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl