Technology risk without safeguards

Suresh Kalkunte sskalkunte at gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 17:25:27 UTC 2020


Sir, I too believe in taking a low profile approach, but the irony is that
those in academia who I have appoached that do recognize this gap in
safeguards are reticent to take up this topic since it involves research
intersecting with negative actors.

I do not wish to take more time from this group beyond what has been
offered am all ears to being introduced to an intrepid epidemiology
researcher/academic institution who would consider to review the safeguards
I propose.

Regards,
Suresh

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Alain Hebert <ahebert at pubnix.net> wrote:

>     Well,
>
>     I'm just saying...
>
>         Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a good
> way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors.  It would
> be better to address it in an academia setting.
>
>     *Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your local
> jurisdiction have a compliance body able to provide best practices to
> protect the workers.  I hate to bring RFC1149 again, but those high power
> microwave antenna are hell on packet drops on that medium.
>
>     PS: From my experiences with 2 .com about a FPGA Based Firewall and a
> FIPS-140 Encryption Network Card.  And my associate ~15y in the RF radio
> industry.
>
> -----
> Alain Hebert                                ahebert at pubnix.net
> PubNIX Inc.        50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
> P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
> Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443
>
> On 11/5/20 10:22 AM, Suresh Kalkunte wrote:
>
> > Can you provide a case where this may
> > have happened?
> >
> As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the
> rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to
> sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna
> (forgive me for using this as an example a few times so far) for instance
> is capable of significant harm. If I mention, I have been victimized, at
> present we do not have the diagnostic/forensic tests (forensic DNA
> scientists at the NIST can be contacted to verify) to prove intentional
> harm from powerful EMF  has occurred.
>
> My motivation to bring this topic for discussion is to make aware of the
> unlimited risk _if_ someone chooses to use powerful EMF as a method of
> sabotage. I do not relish to discuss this, but I remember reading on NANOG
> some 20-25 years ago, I paraphrase 'those with anti-social intentions do
> not publish papers'.
>
> Regards,
> Suresh
>
>
> On Thursday, November 5, 2020, <nathanb at sswireless.net> wrote:
>
>> To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use
>> the safety tools provided them, they should be fine.  If an untrained
>> individual does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is
>> unfortunate and happens all too often because of people thinking that the
>> worst case things don’t happen to them…
>>
>>
>>
>> Can you provide a case where this may have happened?  Any RF in a Data
>> Center should be on the roof, and isolated from the room at all times.
>> This is standard practice in every RF data room we’ve ever been in, whether
>> it be commercial or Government.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Nathan Babcock
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+nathanb=sswireless.net at nanog.org> *On
>> Behalf Of *Alain Hebert
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
>> *To:* nanog at nanog.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Technology risk without safeguards
>>
>>
>>
>>     Maybe someone is just looking for "inspiration".
>>
>>     There is other venues to work this out "safely", IMHO.
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Alain Hebert                                ahebert at pubnix.net
>>
>> PubNIX Inc.
>>
>> 50 boul. St-Charles <https://www.google.com/maps/search/50+boul.+St-Charles?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>> 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 <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>
>> 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).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20201105/7ea4a284/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list