If, as seemingly is at least possible, the power outage in NAm was the result of one or another of the computer viruses currently circulating. And if, as those more knowledgeable than myself have long contended, that Microsoft products are designed in a way which enables such virus attacks. And if the security of one third of the US population and probably the same proportion of the Canadian population have been severely compromised by the action (or inaction) of the software supplier what does this suggest as an appropriate policy/national security response to the ever greater dependence of the world on a single software supplier?
Does this sound like Science Fiction? MG -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 4:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] now the neo-cons have some explaining to do.. Karen Watters Cole wrote: > Does anyone want to comment on the theory, suggested by Arthur’s > colleague, that the blackout originating in Ohio was caused by a > disabled computer, infected by a virus or worm, thus unable to respond > in an emergency situation; The renowned German computer magazine c't suggested that the power outage in N.America was caused by the W32.Blaster worm that still rages thru unpatched Windoze systems: The Niagara powerplant (where the outage started) belongs to the National Grid USA (http://www.nationalgridus.com), a customer of Northern Dynamics (http://www.opcexperts.com). The powerplant's control system uses OPC ("OLE for Process Control") based on Micro$oft's COM/DCOM model. This includes exactly the security loophole that the W32.Blaster worm exploits. The frequent reboots caused by the worm are blocking the DCOM communication and thus OPC on unpatched systems, as in the powerplants' SCADA systems (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). (article in German: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/ju-15.08.03-001/ ) > or do we just want to speculate that this power crisis was > deliberately triggered to make political points specifically to the > advantage of the electricity industry and its political friends > crafting Energy policy; Why should it be to their advantage? It has put them in the defensive (see subject line of this thread). It rather seems that IF it was deliberately triggered, then by the Democrats, in preparation of the presidential election campaign 2004 (along the lines of http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=434764 ). > or that the Bush2 administration needed something to divert world > attention from the California recall, the poor economy and globocop > occupation news arriving daily from Iraq? Then why didn't Dubya blame it on terrorists? > On a more serious note, hopefully, we should see more interest in new > materials and innovations to improve both capacity and reliability of > existing lines that won’t require as much new construction, grossly > enrich the electricity lobby and/or activate NIMBY. Absolutely. I liked Rifkin's proposal at http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1021569,00.html > Efforts to push through a > jumbo energy package on the heels of a utility crisis will resemble > the forced passage of the USA Patriot Act after 9/11. - KWC The big difference is that the measures of the Patridiot Act are in the vested interest of Dubya's corporate backers and friends (à la Carlyle) whereas the opposite applies to a good solution of the utility crisis. Chris _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
