undefined | Better HN

0 pointsavs73310y ago0 comments

I think the commenter was generally referring to developing secure systems for themselves.

The NSA 'owns' at least one semiconductor fab[1] in Texas, and used to (or still does) own another secure CMOS facility in Santa Clara [2]. Add in several facilities owned by defense contractors as well as the facilities at places such as Lincoln Lab. When you have the ability to develop and build your own secure technology, it would seem perfectly 'logical' to force others to use lesser, less secure hardware.

[1] http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/NSA-...

[2] http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-9/iss...

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

hellbanner10y ago· 1 in thread

End of [1]: "The NSA issued a statement acknowledging that an antenna it was using interfered with garage door openers."

I didn't know antennaes could interfere with transmission.?

avs733OP10y ago

I would imagine it was what was coming out of the antenna...

Just another one of those fantastic science/technology/journalistic chain phone calls that result in nonsense being communicated to the public.

nickpsecurity10y ago

Yes. Sandia and others have certified fabs for developing classified stuff. The NSA has their own developments called Government Off The Shelf (GOTS) tools. They also contract out developments from defense contractors through certifications like their Type 1 process. They keep the best stuff for themselves and defense contractors.

Here's an interesting example I copied in a design at one point:

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/programs/inline_media_encryptor/index...

Compare that to the average tool for disk encryption. I bet the commercial one leaves off some requirements or countermeasures. ;)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse