*** new AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
>>>Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs
invulnerable to cyber-attack?
### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100%
Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the
network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you
enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and
your "jamming station/site" be "taken out."
***Two comments:
1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack,
it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing
internet than to construct a backup network.
2. If it were possible to pinpoint the source of a cyber-attack in
realtime, the internet's routers could dump packets from that source
into the bit bucket. The problem is that attack payloads are very
difficult to distinguish from valid payloads. The use of RF links in
no way simplifies this problem, and could well make it harder.
>snip<
>>>Several times in this thread, I have agreed that overcoming local
internet outages would be a reasonable objective. Its your
insistence that we must cover for the loss of the entire internet
that remains completely unjustified.
### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it
is very possible according to "experts" that the Internet could be
attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then
providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local
area does not have connectivity outside the local area.
***Your proposed solution -- an independent message passing network
based on HF links -- would be every bit as vulnerable as the current
internet, as I've pointed out above. What attacker would be foolish
enough to reveal itself by bringing down the internet but leave its
backup running? We're not talking script kiddies here, Walt.
### Local law enforcement and governments might not be able to
contact their state counterpart and states might no be able to
contact the federal government. And in many cases, local governments
and law enforcement need contact at the federal level. Thus there is
a need for the local area to connect to the entire Internet. If the
Internet does not exist, how do a local area connect to the state of
federal government?
***That's a fine question, Walt, but your proposed solution does not
answer it. If attackers bring down the internet, they will also bring
down its backup.
>snip<
>>>So are you suggesting that this amateur-built HF world-wide
messaging system should not employ software?
### Not at all. I am saying that it is the software that is attacked
not the hardware. And that the software is attacked because it is
running on the Internet.
***The software on your proposed backup network would be equally
vulnerable to attack. RF links have no magical ability to separate
attack payloads from valid payloads.
### Speaking of hardware, if you are aware of the public documents on
the Internet that show the physical location of major backbone
hubs...physical connections, then you would realize that 21 well
placed and well times explosive events (attacks) on those physical
locations could disconnect the Internet for several days, perhaps
weeks, until the connections could be rerouted.
***Yes. It would be far more practical and less expensive to mitigate
this risk by replicating these installations -- perhaps in hardened
sites -- than to assemble an HF-based backup network. Doing so would
would have the side benefit of increasing overall internet capacity;
in contrast, why would anyone use your proposed backup network if the
internet was running?
>snip<
>>>I agree that there's cause for concern, but I don't see how the
approach you're suggestion would come anywhere close to addressing
this problem.
### It approaches the problem in that it can be a small part of the
solution. THe DHS had envisioned using an amateur radio national
messaging system for delivery of critical loss of life and properity
messages to various NGOs (non-govermental organizations). Where
information from one remote Zipcode could be delivered to another
Zipcode (large area not specifically individual Zipcodes) and then
the USPS would deliver the messages.
***So in 24 hours, Walt, your rationale for a concerted effort to
build a worldwide HF message-passing system has gone from
"because we CAN do it"
to
"this will provide backup message-passing in the event of a cyber-
attack that brings down the entire internet"
to
"it can be a small part of the solution".
If you're having trouble getting developers excited about this
mission, it should be obvious why.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org
Other areas of interest:
The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/
DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion)
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
