$$$ Comments to comments.... Hi Hi. Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:06 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment *** new AA6YQ comments below --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >snip< >>>Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs invulnerable to cyber-attack? ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100% Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and your "jamming station/site" be "taken out." ***Two comments: 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack, it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing internet than to construct a backup network. $$$ I'm not talking about new protocols. A cyber-attack on the Internet comes over a hard connection that everyone with Internet connectivity has access to. $$$ Using RF and non-internet protocols, specifically the Ethernet protocol(s) then you limit first the access to the network initially to those individuals who are already using HF data modes and then to those who will start using that method of communications...friend or foe. $$$ Remember cyber-space is not RF. We cannot run RF over an "hard wire" Internet network...RF just doesn't run on DSL, cable, WiFi like it does on HF using an antenna. If you run Pactor III on 13cm it doesn't mean that a WiFi signal can "copy" your signal any more than a Pactor III modem connected to a 13cm receiver can copy a WiFi signal. $$$ I suppose you could call Pactor III or MT63, etc. a protocol; but again, they don't run on the same media as the Internet. $$$ Therefore use of RF (HF) data modes on a network that is not connected by any media to the Internet isolates it from current cyber-attacks. You must first build a message system and operate it before someone can attack it...and then they must be able to attack it with a high degree of anonymity. 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. $$$ Again you have missed the point. The proposed system (as you call it) is NOT associated with or connected to the Internet by any media. You can plug you RJ-45 Ethernet plug into my IC-746 mic jack all you want but it isn't going to modulate the rig. If I don't connect my amateur radio station to the Internet, nothing on the Internet is going to hurt my transmissions. I have eliminated anything on the Internet from "my" network. >snip< >>>Several times in this thread, I have agreed that overcoming local internet outages would be a reasonable objective. Its your insistence that we must cover for the loss of the entire internet that remains completely unjustified. ### No insistance that we must do anything. I am only saying that it is very possible according to "experts" that the Internet could be attacked at the software level and rendered inoperatable. Then providing local Internet capability is of no great use if the local area does not have connectivity outside the local area. ***Your proposed solution -- an independent message passing network based on HF links -- would be every bit as vulnerable as the current internet, as I've pointed out above. What attacker would be foolish enough to reveal itself by bringing down the internet but leave its backup running? We're not talking script kiddies here, Walt. $$$ Again you are missing the point...the network has NO connection to the Internet. The Internet is irrelevant.. Nothing on the Internet affects the radio network. Is that so hard to understand? ### 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. $$$ I don't see how that an attack on the Internet could possibly bring down the proposed network if the two are NOT connected in any way? They could of course but the likely hood is not likely because as you say the "packets" that cause the problem to the Internet resemble normal Internet packets. We do not and should not and probably would not have the same packet structure as the Internet thus the bad guys would have to attack the Internet as well as the radio network with two different attacks and I don't see them making stealthier enough packets to do that on an RF network. >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. Sure, any software is subject to compromise/attack, even smoke signal. But if you are poised for a naval attack and you are attacked by air, then you have a real problem. It works the same why here in reverse. If know we are going to be attacked air, we defend by air and send our troops/warships out. Then the enemy must defend itself against air and naval attack. Military tactics 101. ### 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? $$$ Perhaps so but it still required you to "harden" your software...and that is where the attack will most likely be as there is less of a risk factor to those who are attacking. >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. $$$ My original position, NO not my position or plan, but that of DHS is/was to have amateur radio operators to take some of the messaging burden of messaging handling and my proposal for an HF data network long precedes my two year subscription to this reflector. Walt/K5YFW 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 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/
