Non-Electric Detonators

Non-Electric Detonators are linear signal transmission devices designed to transmit an energetic signal through shock tube to a specific detonating output. Shock tube is a hollow extruded tube containing a thin layer of energetic material on its inner diameter. Once initiated, the shock tube transmits a signal to a detonating output charge, typically incorporating an instantaneous output or a pre-determined pyrotechnic event. Non-Electric Detonators are available in either single or dual shock tube configurations. shock tube detonators are designed to initiate explosives and other energetic materials. They are used in military demolitions, explosive ordnance disposal, minefield clearing, explosives testing, and special applications. EBA&D manufactures devices of varied length with specific output and associated accessories. Detonators are designed to be interoperable with munitions, cap wells, detonating cords, high explosives, and Lead-In-Lines. Dual Lead Detonators are used when conditions or mission requirements deem it necessary to have the maximum reliability. Common applications of Dual Lead-In-Lines are close quarters breaching, urban breaching, obstacle clearing, and critical target destruction. Detonating Cord   https://sites.google.com/site/copperminingphotofromindia/explosives-and-blasting-in-mines/non-electric-detonators

Make A Phone Detonator - Shooting Eggs

UK Surveilance Radio Transmissions - Spying on the Spies (2012)

Tutorial: How to replace the BIOS chip in a computer motherboard

From BULLRUN to NOCON and LACONIC

On September 5, The Guardian, The New York Times and ProPublica jointly revealed that NSA has a top secret program to break encryption systems used on the internet. This is done by for example inserting vulnerabilities into commercial encryption and IT systems. This program is codenamed BULLRUN, which, according to NSA documents, is not a regular sensitive information compartment, but a "secure COI".

COI or CoI stands for Community of Interest, a more common computer security feature by which network assets and/or users are segregated by technological means. This is done through a logical or physical grouping of network devices or users with access to information that should not be available to the general user population of the network. According to the 2011 Classification Manual (pdf), information residing on secure COIs may not be taken out of the COI or moved to other databases without appropriate approval.

ECI = Exceptionally Controlled Information; PTD = Penetrating Target Defences
IIB = Initial Infrastructure Build ?

According to a GCHQ briefing sheet about BULLRUN, there are at least two other COIs: ENDUE and NOCON, both for sensitive materials. These Community of Interest codenames were revealed here for the first time. For classification purposes they are treated as dissemination markings: they appear at the very end of a classification line, separated from other markings (like NOFORN and ORCON) by a single forward slash. For example: TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN/BULLRUN
Surprise

As the COI codenames BULLRUN, ENDUE and NOCON are used within a Top Secret environment for highly sensitive NSA operations, it was quite a surprise to find the NOCON marking on another document too: an appendix (pdf) of a very secret NSA document. This appendix is about Public Key crypto s

ystems and has no date, but seems to be from the 1980s. It was declassified by the NSA in March 2007 upon request of the Cryptome website:

The document was marked TOP SECRET UMBRA LACONIC NOCON. This old style classification marking (without slashes between the categories and terms) means that the document has the overall classification level TOP SECRET and was protected by putting it in the UMBRA compartment, which was designated for the most sensitive communications intercept material. The LACONIC and NOCON markings will be explained below.


LACONIC

The function of LACONIC is clarified in the NSA's internal Cryptolog (pdf) magazine, 2nd issue from 1988, which says that LACONIC is not a clearance or a classification, but a handling control marking. It's described as a restrictive distribution indicator for certain techniques - what kind of techniques is blacked out. Access to documents marked with LACONIC does not require a special clearance, but the reader must have a need to know certain details about those undisclosed things.

An indication about what kind of techniques are blacked out can be found in the Cryptolog (pdf) issue of January/February 1986. There it's said that "LACONIC access" is required for attending the CRYSCO-86 conference about computer technology and cryptanalysis, so it seems likely that LACONIC is about sensitive computer codebreaking techniques.

This comes close to the BULLRUN program and therefore it's not unthinkable that LACONIC was one of its forerunners, allthough according to the New York Times, the direct predecessor of BULLRUN was a program codenamed MANASSAS.

The LACONIC marking was retired as of October 2006 and apparently replaced by a new compartment within the control system for Exceptionally Controlled Information (ECI).


NOCONTRACT

In addition to restricting access to people with the need-to-know, the 1988 Cryptolog explanation says that LACONIC was also designed to deny access to contractors and consultants. Therefore, LACONIC had always to be accompanied by the NOCONTRACT marking. Apparently this marking could also be shortened to NOCON, as can be seen in the aforementioned document about public key crypto systems.

The Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/7 from April 12, 1995 ruled that as from that date, the NOCONTRACT marking should not be used anymore. This because it had "clearly outlived [its] usefullnes". Officials could now release intelligence bearing the NOCONTRACT marking to appropriately cleared and access-approved contractors. It's no surprise that this came at a time when US intelligence agencies started their large-scale outsourcing to private contractors.

However, it seems strange that Directive 1/7 eliminated the NOCONTRACT marking in 1995, but at the same time we still see NOCON as a COI in recent BULLRUN documents. A possible explanation could be that NSA still wanted to keep some sensitive materials out of the hands of contractors, and therefore continued to use the NOCON marking internally.

This could also explain the fact that NOCON, like the BULLRUN and ENDUE COI markings, are not listed in the extensive classification marking manuals for the intelligence community. The 2010 BULLRUN Classification Guide confirms that "the BULLRUN data label (for use in databases) and marking (for use in hard- or soft copy documents) are for NSA/CSS internal use only".


Conclusion

At least since the 1980s, NSA used the LACONIC marking to protect sensitive information, which was probably related to computer codebreaking techniques. Whether LACONIC was for internal NSA use only is not entirely clear, but as LACONIC material was not meant for contractors and consultants, it had to be accompanied by the NOCONTRACT marking which was used throughout the intelligence community.

After the general use of NOCONTRACT or NOCON was prohibited in 1995, NSA seems to have continued it as an internal marking. Similar are the probably more recent markings ENDUE and BULLRUN, which are all used for highly sensitive information that is protected by putting it in separated and secured parts (COIs) of NSA's internal computer networks

http://electrospaces.blogspot.pt/2013/10/from-bullrun-to-nocon-and-laconic.html

XerXes DoS Attack (part2)

Xerxes DoS Attack (part 1)

Sdot Micha 2005 Arrow 3 Israeli Base

This moment is a big victory to me, personnal and politically, no one would get the blogger was shutdown, the specification about the Arrow 3 base for 2005 were gone, no country around the world gets satellite images over the Israeli terretory, Sdot Micha images wre a big victory, I'm celebrating with a lot of friends on the frequency. Now, grand grand father has nothing to say to me right now. He lost his argument, I'm sorry grand Pa.

Caros amigos e amigas, através de alguns contactos, foi-me solicitado que informasse um grupo de pressão, recentemente criado, que envolvem forças de segurança pública, sobre a matéria de impugnação do cargo de Presidente da República. Face ao estudo da jurisprudência sobre esta matéria, penso que a cassação da manifestação de vontade, de um eleitor singular, ou grupo de cidadãos eleitores, poderá... ser efectuada do seguinte modo:
1. Caso o Presidente da República tenha recebido formalmente uma queixa crime sobre corrupção em altos cargos de Estado, como sejam, o presumível "desvio" de verbas da Segurança social, para depósito particular de cargo público, ou o presumível "desvio" de dinheiro público na aquisição de equipamento que implique verbas avultadas, e caso não tenha enviado essa queixa crime para à PGR, com a sua assinatura a validar a investigação judicial, a lei justifica a impugnação do cargo de Presidente da República, por fraude e corrupção.
2. O prazo de lei, para a manifestação de vontade na impugnação, é de 15 dias após o recebimento da queixa crime, com a devida tomada de conhecimento formalizada.
3. O Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, tem 5 dias, para apreciar as provas, e 3 dias para se pronunciar.

Um amigo meu aqui da frequência está de cana, 13 anos, por posse e tráfico de estupefacientes, foi agarrado com 30 sabonetes. E eu estava-lhe a dizer o seguinte: primeiro, o batimento de maluco, ou seja não sou culpado, por mais que a Polícia insista no porquê, o argumento é que não te convém falar, sempre primeiro dizer que não és culpado. Segundo, no tráfico mundial de droga, existem correios, e... transportadores de larga envergadura, os correios normalmente batem se de malucos, que não sabiam que transportavam droga, mas o melhor argumento é dos grandes traficantes, que é sou intermediário, preciso por necessidade primária para viver, portanto, e aceitei ser intermediário, logo a acusação não deduz tráfico puro ou seja, venda directa no mercado, assim, embora haja lugar sempre a uma pena, esta pode ser suspensa, e no caso da Polícia questionar quem era o comprador final, pode se dizer, era para fazer uma entrega numa cabine telefónica, sem contactos, e já lá estava o dinheiro