|
|
|
| Authored by: mbouckaert on Friday, October 12 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
There were news articles recently with hints about what the targets would be.
Like, the power grid. Not Facebook.
I believe that indeed too many important subsystems that control important parts
of the world's physical infrastructure do not implement anything reflecting the
damage that an attack could cause. Think of it like Stuxnet draining Lake
Mead.
It's not a trivial problem. There are way too few "air gaps", because
they all require human intervention, and human intervention costs too much.
They should be "easy" to create, with appropriate training and
staffing. I mean, with appropriate $ resources, they could be quickly created.
I don't know what would be needed to unlock these resources. Better give Jamie
a bonus.
---
bck[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 13 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
> What would a "digital Pearl Harbor" even be?
There's a building in downtown Manhattan that houses a lot of gear.
Oh, I expect the Northeast US routing tables would stabilise again
after maybe 24 hrs, but having Wall St offline for a fraction of that
would cause significant collateral damage...
I don't consider myself a terrorist, just someone who keeps security
near the front of my mind. So when I see a modern civilzed nation
(not the US) that could allow its communications infrastructure to
suffer major disruption from an oil soaked rag in a public street,
I wonder if we deserve this technology.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
