Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
-----
Alain Hebert [email protected]
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443
On 11/4/20 12:24 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
Matt Harris
|
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446
|
Direct
Looking for something?
*Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>
|
*Email Support* <mailto:[email protected]>
|
*Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/>
We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello,
I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1)
damage to equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a
person at the workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if
not, I look forward to your feedback. As a software developer who
has subscribed to the NANOG mailing list for a number of years, I
post this note relying on intellectual honesty that I have had the
opportunity to observe since 1996-97.
The below described technology risk is applicable to
computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by
Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic
device) and the risk of health sabotage affecting people (jamming
a human) managing the Internet infrastructure enabled by
intentional application of powerful radiofrequency fields (RF)
emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from a kitchen heating
appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power Line of
sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a
harm causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral
Power Density calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm
<http://www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm>).
This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human
operated or IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a)
subterrain placement aided by a compact/mini directional
horizontal drilling machine (eg. principle of placing a stent in
the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement in an obscure
over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the target of
opportunity.
With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection
to block the passage of powerful RF and the absence of
diagnostic/forensic tests to detect biomarkers expressed
post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination of RF frequency,
Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident on a
person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic
equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to
your attention is with an interest to build the momentum for
ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context.
While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to
ultimately get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF
communications equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough
to cause harm to a person are generally well aware of the necessary
precautions and take them on a day to day basis when working with this
equipment. If there's evidence that some part of our industry is
ignoring or failing to train their team members on safety best
practices, then let's hear that out specifically and I'm all for
working to rectify that.
On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high
powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam
communications signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by
virtue of the amount of power necessary. Quite basically, there are
much easier ways to go about injuring someone if that's what you want
to do. Of course, intentionally injuring another person is a criminal
act in just about every jurisdiction. As far as the latter goes, the
ability to jam RF communications has existed for as long as RF
communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish it is
relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely
many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has
enforcement power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on
anyone who does so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for
ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks
specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the
legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more
can really be said here.
