Technology risk without safeguards
ahebert at pubnix.net
Wed Nov 4 17:31:38 UTC 2020
Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
Alain Hebert ahebert at pubnix.net
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
> Looking for something?
> *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>
> *Email Support* <mailto:help at netfire.net>
> *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 <sskalkunte at gmail.com
> <mailto:sskalkunte at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG