>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:17 2024
Received: by 10.35.119.11 with SMTP id w11mr2260359pym.1163203478279;
Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from lvs00-fl-n11.ftl.affinity.com (lvs00-fl-n11.ftl.affinity.com [216.219.253.186])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a28si456613pye.2006.11.10.16.04.37;
Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:04:38 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 216.219.253.186 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com)
Received: from [70.19.138.45] ([70.19.138.45]:56071 "EHLO Raphael.tscm.com")
by ams011.ftl.affinity.com with ESMTP id S376520AbWKKAEh (ORCPT
<rfc822;T..._at_googlegroups.com>);
Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:04:37 -0500
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20061110183906.0a32fcd8_at_tscm.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:51:56 -0500
To: TSCM-L2006_at_googlegroups.com
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] Conducted Signals Analysis Protocol
In-Reply-To: <64CED23E-906C-4075-AFD6-1FA9B67AE218_at_bigpond.net.au>
References: <64CED23E-906C-4075-AFD6-1FA9B67AE218_at_bigpond.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Mike,
It is a little of a case of chicken-or-the-egg (as in which came first).
If the client is willing to pay to have the entire protocol
implemented on a low threat sweep I am happy to oblige, but most
client are not going to shell out 2 hours of labor for each phone
cable segment, then 30 minutes for each segment of power line, etc.
If the threat is high enough then the protocol is automatic, if the
threat is low then the entire protocol is optional.
I have some low threat clients who know that they are low threat, but
still want, and are willing to pay for a comprehensive sweep.
However, I also have a few higher threat customers who refuse to pay
for anything other then a cursory check. Fortunately, most clients
are in the middle, and they recognize that a low level of threat can
be addressed with a cursory sweep.
My personal preference is to take the amount of time that is required
to perform a proper sweep suited to the threat model defined by the
client. Sometimes this means that the sweep is only a one day affair,
other times it means spending 3 to 5 days doing a single room or an
executives office, or ten solid days on 2 or 3 rooms in a small suite
of executive offices in mahogany row.
The longer the client lets me have access, the better job I can do.
-jma
At 05:57 PM 11/10/2006, Michael Dever wrote:
>Jim
>
>Thank you for your detailed Conducted Signal Analysis protocols. I
>assume this protocol is for the 'higher' end of the threat spectrum,
>or is this what you do on ALL sweeps.
>
>Would you care to suggest at what threat level 1-9 (reference your
>web site) that this protocol applies? Also, has anyone ever mapped
>your threat levels to the sorts of equipment and protocols required
>to counter each threat level?
>
>Regards
>Mike
>
>
>
>Michael J. Dever CPP PSP
>
>Dever Clark + Associates
>GPO Box 1163
>Canberra ACT 2601
>Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803
Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467
127 Eastern Avenue #291 Web:
http://www.tscm.com/
Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 E-mail: mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Class, Professional, Ethical, and Competent Bug Sweeps, and
Wiretap Detection using Sophisticated Laboratory Grade Test Equipment.
----------------------- Copyright 2006, Granite Island Group
-------------------------
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:17 CST