BTW Dave...if I come up to your neck of the woods, I'll take you out to some place that you can recommend that serves good crab cakes, New England Clam Chowder and lobster.
See me comments *** Walt/K5YFW [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:13 PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: [digitalradio] Re: PC-ALE Signal Detect Before Transmitting: An Experiment 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. *** I would disagree because DNS, routers, switches, network management software, load balancing, firewall, filters all are virtually not seen by the human eye and sometimes when there is an "automatic" notification of a problem or new "hack" is used, its days before its known. If you don't what the attack is going to look like, you have a hard time defending against it. That's it...for every measure there is a counter-measure. For every counter-measure there is a measure. Its a FAST moving target. And this is the reason I think a scaled down simple network would be less of a target. The attacker would first have to get on the air, establish their credentials and be accepted to the network. Even my encrypted signature mail folder on occasion gets SPAM. If I restrict my incoming E-Mail to only one known valid domain, I have no SPAM unless messages from my network control center are considered SPAM. I wanna use the KISS theory. 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. *** Its really to install a "bot" or any malware if your system is 90% text based. Before MIME E-Mail, malware was unknown. We take a GIANT leap backwards. KISS. Hi Hi. *** If you try to join my system and I can't authenticate your call sign, you ain't gettin in. With no hard feelings to non-U.S. amateur radio operators, I talking about only U.S. amateur radio operators. Any "tribal" contacts would be between only specific authorized stations. (BTW "tribal" is the international politically correct name to be used for sovereign nation.) 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. *** Ok...understand and that is true but again we have made it more complicated to the enemy...and the society that enemy comes from is not know for a large scale amateur radio contingent or operational capability nor is their government know for its RF capability. They are well known for their Internet capability. Know your enemy. 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. *** Ok...understand. I think the reason we haven't replicated them is because the threat of a cyber-attack is stronger than a physical 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. *** Agree and I don't propose using current E-Mail software, amateur radio or commercial. One other thing, and I know this is very controversial, but we can use encryption for network control and transmission control which the Internet as a whole doesn't do...except for VPNs. And I might mention that there is some assumption by Internet gurus that some VPN circuits might well be able to withstand a cyber-attack. I know the VPN that I run for my office use isn't even hackable by our network gurus. 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. *** Well if we have hundreds of independent RF networks that we can "patch together" if needed, we may well over come this problem. I would have to disagree with you last statement that "no one remotely understands how to manage thousands of independent worldwide email systems." because this some of the very "stuff" that some of the ARRL HSMM WG members are talking about and that the organizations they work for are actually working on this. What can be done with an ad hoc mesh network scaled down to an HF level I believe is workable especially if you are not really mobile. 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. *** I believe that with forward looking local and regional level HF messaging systems (note I didn't say E-Mail), I think if we can't ""boil the ocean", we may be able to raise it to a temperature so that the foes don't want to enter it. *** 73 for today (and the week) and CU Monday. -- Walt/K5YFW 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 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/
