I understand that your proposed HF system would be entirely
independent of the internet, Walt. My points are
1. If we could reliably distinguish attack payloads from valid
payloads, we'd already be doing this on the internet -- where its
easier to accomplish given the hierarchical routing structure. Our
ability to detect attack payloads has significantly improved over
time, but are far from 100% -- in part because we're chasing a moving
target.
2. Since we can't distinguish attack payloads from valid payloads,
your HF-based system would be equally vulnerable. What would stop an
attacker from injecting an attack payload into your system that when
delivered to its destination exploits a buffer overrun in the
operating system and installs a bot that can then be commanded by
subsequently delivered messages? Since it relies on HF links, your
proposed system requires large numbers of user-operated nodes to
perform the routing and terminal functions; it would be trivial for
an attacker to join this system, operate one or more nodes, and use
them to inject his attack.
3. I did not say that an attack on the internet would bring down your
proposed HF-based system. I said that an attacker would be foolish to
bring down the internet without simultaneously bringing down your
backup system. This would be accomplished with independent but
synchronized attacks.
4. My suggestion that internet backbone hubs be replicated and
hardened was in response to your mentioning their vulnerability to
physical attack. I made no claim that such hardening would render the
internet less vulnerable to a cyber-attack.
A parallel email system implemented with the same software technology
used in today's internet would provide no increase in protection from
a committed attacker. None of the amateur protocols in use today were
designed to resist intentional attack. Inspecting these applications
with static analysis tools would likely reveal long lists of
vulnerabilities.
The "redundancy from multiple identical systems" approach only works
when you can deploy so many independent systems that an attacker
cannot hope to disable them all, and is thus deterred from attacking
any. This may work with strategic weapons, but no one remotely
understands how to manage thousands of independent worldwide email
systems.
I do believe there is a role for an RF-based email system that would
complement the internet's email delivery system by supporting
portable operation and by standing ready to compensate for local
outages. The "boil the ocean" approach that you've been advocating
can only delay the development and deployment of this far more
practical application.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> $$$ Comments to comments.... Hi Hi.
>
> Walt/K5YFW
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:06 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before
Transmitting: An
> Experiment
>
>
> *** new AA6YQ comments below
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "DuBose Walt Civ AETC
CONS/LGCA"
> <walt.dubose@> wrote:
>
> >snip<
>
> >>>Walt, what would make an HF-based system constucted by amateurs
> invulnerable to cyber-attack?
>
> ### If you are NOT connected to the Internet and don't use 100%
> Internet protocols, it would be almost impossible to attack the
> network except at the RF level and if that is done 1) you and you
> enemy lose use of the frequency and 2) you can be DFed and
> your "jamming station/site" be "taken out."
>
> ***Two comments:
>
> 1. If you have new protocols that are invulnerable to cyber-attack,
> it would be much more practical to deploy these on the existing
> internet than to construct a backup network.
>
> $$$ 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
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/
