|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
One would think they were stretching for excuses to shift blame onto
terrorists so they can justify further paranoia.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
So they had to resort to manual control! Wow! Makes you wonder how they handled
these things before the Dreaded Internet took over.
The faddish nature of the Internet (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) has drawn many
moths to its flame. Its remote control capabilities were quickly appropriated by
every industry. Take HVAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVAC). I worked for a
large multinational whose many satellite office HVAC systems were controlled
from the Head Office. You needed to call and request a temperature change. Does
anyone see the silliness of this?
SCADA systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA) used to rely on dedicated
wiring (for short distances), or leased telephone lines (for longer distances).
Though the protocols were simple, cracking such a system required physical
access to the wiring, the appropriate interface equipment, and a thorough
knowledge of the protocols used. Contrast this to internet systems. Web-based
systems need only a password, and you're there. (There are internet-based
systems that use special protocols and software, but these are mostly commercial
products. Still, they are more secure than a web-page system)
We know that internet-based _control_ systems are dangerous from a safety and
security standpoint, but what about data collection. Surely that's safe enough.
What if you spoofed demand data from the power grid. You could make the command
centers think the system is being overloaded or underloaded. Note: power company
command centers use telephones to verify problems. Nonetheless, spoofing data
input in SCADA systems can be disruptive, if not disastrous.
Internet security is a constant fight against the Dark Forces.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 04:42 PM EDT |
Do connect your lights to the internet if it will save your work (and put some
reasonable security on them). If you suffer an attack, deal with it.
Refuse to be terrorized. That's quite easy when the worst case scenario is some
lights going off.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
>> Thirty seconds at the opening ceremony with the lights going down would
have been catastrophic <<
said the sidebar on that page. The body text added
"in terms of reputational hit"
So we turn from thousands dead, London paralyzed for days, to
a couple of guys looking for a career change ...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: albert on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
A few points worth noting:
1. Power failures do happen. There are legitimate public safety issues involved
with large crowds in public places.
2. Prattling on about 'cyber-terrorism' might certainly cause some folks to
assume a power outage is a terrorist attack. You don't want panic in such a
situation.
3. What if a 'real' power failure occurred?
I wonder if the public address systems have backup power.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
