Technology risk without safeguards
rsk at gsp.org
Fri Nov 6 19:59:24 UTC 2020
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 09:05:34AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> Following staff home and picking them off with a rifle is so much
> cheaper and carries a better probability of success.
So does following them home and leaving them brand new unopened large
bottles of Woodford Reserve. I highly recommend this approach for anyone
who has selected me as a target and promise that I will duly report on
its progressive deleterious effects. For accuracy, repeated trials
over an extended period of time may be necessary but this is an ordeal
I'm selflessly prepared to undertake for the sake of science.
p.s.1: I've worked in high-energy EM environments twice, in two different
contexts. The safety measures were thorough and rigorous: it would have
been very hard to screw up and even if any of us had, the inverse-square
law would probably have saved us from serious harm.
p.s.2: The large quantities of power conduits, cables, shelving, racks,
HVAC ductwork, etc. that are typical of datacenters constitute a haphazard
but modestly effective EM shield, as measured on an ad hoc basis by anyone
who tries to receive external signals inside them (even when everything
is powered down) will quickly discover. Thus an attempt to pull off a
movie villain-grade underground attack designed to fry a staff member
would likely require that the victim stand still on a selected spot
(on the lowest-level floor) with a minimal amount of metal under it.
I recommend that prospective attackers use the Wile E. Coyote (Sooper
Genius) methodology, draw a large X on that spot, and install a sign
that says "Free Birdseed". I'm certain this will work.
More information about the NANOG