Originally posted by GT100FV
The NIPR and SIPR are separated by hardware not software.
In part only and the same old vulnerabilities still exist.
www.forscom.army.mil/pubs/Pubs/PAM/FCPAM25-25.doc Read the relevant parts concerning what might result in breaches of security. Tell me why password security is so important when it's hardware that separates others from gaining access?
The bandwidth issue you quoted was in reference to the satellites the Air Force was using.
I realised that but it's not ONLY the case for the air force but for all US military commands.
Even if the info about anti gravity is true, it would have been classified at a higher level than SIPR,
Why? Why is it that secret in your opinion when our physics tells us rather expressly that it's logical and very much possible? Why classify the abundantly obvious?
meaning on an even more secure network, definitely not accessible from a home computer.
Speculation i can't really disprove beside for the obvious 'impossibility' that probably wont be all that impossible. If there is one way to get me all up in arms it's to suggest that something is 'impossible' as i have found that most people who use the word seem to assume that their ignorance is a telling indication of what might be.
www.afa.org...
www.afa.org...
Some document but PDF has pretty pictures of intelligent looking people that would disagree with you.
I have yet to hear it explained how the encryption would have been overcome, even if we assume there were no hardware issues with hacking into the secure network.
Because encryption assumes no standards are breached. Remember ENIGMA?
Although the Enigma cipher has cryptographic weaknesses, it was, in practice, only their combination with other significant factors which allowed codebreakers to read messages: mistakes by operators, procedural flaws, and the occasional captured machine or codebook.
en.wikipedia.org...
In theory such security is great and all but in practice that matters nothing as long as there really is no physical separation of data transmission.
Originally posted by GT100FV
You might also consider that folks who work with NIPR/SIPR systems might could be considered a reliable subject matter expert vs. Wikipedia/Google/etc...
Well it's clearly not separate so why not just give up the foolish attempts to prove something that can not be?
What I consider is that personal experience carries more weight, than assumptions based on open source browsing on the internet.
Personal experiences are in the end no better indicators of objective reality than tenth hand opinions. Don't tell me that i can't know because i am not dealing directly with this issue in my daily life.
For example let's say you make widgets for a living(and have a lot of experience with widgets), then you have someone trying to tell you about widgets that has never seen a widget, but has read about them on the internet. And furthermore this person is trying to inform you that you are incorrect about your information on widgets, because they have read about them.
What would your feelings be regarding the opinion of this widget debunker?
I would check out his claims and compare it with my beliefs and then see what others who know as much as i do, about my area of expertise,have to say about his claims. With the Internet everyone can be a honest to god 'expert' in that they can support ( by shear accident if you wish to believe that) the objectively accurate point of view without having any background information. It is simply no longer enough to claim to be a expert and you must be able to defend each and every minuscule part of what you believe as others can easily exploit your ignorance on even the remotest contradiction in your field of expertise.
My opinion can never establish objective reality independent of what it really is so there is no point to have a opinion about what you can in fact be relatively sure about by standard investigative techniques.
Stellar
