U.S. Plans Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies

Thu Jul 8 17:11:44 UTC 2010

On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> 
>> There's a happy medium in there somewhere; it's not clear that having (to
>> use the examples given) air traffic control computers directly on the
>> Internet has sufficient value to outweigh the risks.  However, it seems
>> that being able to securely gateway appropriate information between the
>> two networks should be manageable, certainly a lot more manageable than
>> the NxM complexity involved if you try to do it by securing each and
>> every Internet-connected ATC PC individually.
> 
> What makes you think that isn't exactly what this "Cyber Shield" project is supposed to do?  Heck, what makes you think that's not the way most of these systems already work today?
> 
> Do people really think the guy in the airport control tower is really
> surfing Facebook while he's controlling aircraft on the same computer, or
> that capability is even what is under consideration?

In fact, I know he isn't.  For one thing, the guys in the towers generally do not
use computers at all. Yes, some towers have RADAR displays that are actually
generated by computer, but, they are essentially read-only and they are not
general purpose computers with web browsers, internet connectivity, or even
a keyboard for that matter. However, the guys in the tower primarily use
binoculars, mark 1 eyeballs, flight progress strips, and a lot of ingenuity
to control aircraft within the class D/C/B airspace immediately surrounding
their airport (the local controller) and the aircraft on the ground (the ground
controller). In some cases, clearance delivery is using a computer, but,
technically, he's not controlling aircraft, just in the tower for communication
convenience.

Now, if you wanted to talk about a TRACON or ARTCC, we might (MIGHT)
get into a different realm. In the TRACON, mostly not. Those controllers
are generally also working specialized scopes to control aircraft within
the airspace around some of the busier airports below about 12,000 feet.

In the ARTCC (commonly referred to as "Center") case, mostly they are
using similar equipment to the TRACON, but, have wider areas of coverage
with lower traffic densities and coverage up to 60,000 feet (Flight level 600).
The exception would be the guys working some of the oceanic sectors
who depend on email (yes, email) to receive position reports and other
data from pilots via ARINC, and, to send instructions to AIRINC to relay
to pilots.

However, to the best of my knowledge, even that email based system
is not connected to the internet and the controllers that are doing that
are not doing anything else while they are doing that.

I know this from being a pilot, and, also from having toured the following
ATC facilities:

Towers:
	CCR
	PAO
	SFO

TRACONs:
	SOCAL
	Bay	-- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL
	NORCAL
	Monterey -- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL
	Stockton -- Now defunct, rolled into NORCAL

ARTCCs:
	ZOA (Oakland Center)

Owen