North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
Batz, I believe we are talking about two different perspectives here operational and end user. The concern I have is with the ability of sectors dependent on information infrastructure to operate if there are problems. What web-site is abvailable to the end user is not the value judgement but if NASDAQ can facilitate stock trades, if banks can clear settlements, etc. It does get a little fuzzy in what you consider Internet and what you consider private networks. From a physical perspective they all use a common fiber infrastructure - it all runs in the same trench - so in some terms it does not matter. There has been quite a bit of discussion about physical downage being an inconveniance, and if you limit yourself to just the Internet (web sites, email, porn, etc) this is a valid statement. Where this goes off track is that the Internet is only part of the equation - the operation of several critical infrastructures is dependent on fiber based communications. A cut is a cut - it does discriminate against private networks, security protocols, encryption or anything else. A leased line does not mean you get a special ditch. ----- Original Message ----- From: batz <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, September 5, 2002 7:41 pm Subject: Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > :The question is what if someone was gunning for your fiber. To > date > :cuts have been unintentional. Obviously the risk level is much > higher > :doing a phyisical attack, but the bad guys in this scenario are > not > :teenage hackers in the parents basement. > > This happened recently in Quebec where there is a labour > dispute with Videotron and one of the unions representing its workers. > The dispute has been exaserbated by the sabotage of the companies > fiberlines. > > Now, while this may affect Videotrons bottom line, it only becomes > a > critical infrastructure issue when it becomes a Hydro Quebec > issue, > or it interferes with the provinces ability to deliver services. > > Honestly, if a few million people can't get their porn streams, the > world isn't going to end. If 911 operators, or ambulance services > can't direct emergency crews for 10 people, then you have a serious > problem. > > :There is a good foundation of knowledge on the implications of > cyber > :attacks, but the what-if of an intentional physical attack is an > :important question I believe. The context in this discussion has > been > :very valuable and many thanks to everyone that has offered opinions. > > The What-If questions have to be sorted from a particular view, and > it will be the legislators view which will ultimately matter. You > can bluesky, whiteboard, game and scheme all you like, but there are > only a few opinions that matter when it comes to deciding what > is of importance to national security, and until we hear from > them, > we can be as paranoid and imaginative as we want, and it won't help > the infrastructure become more secure. > > So, as for Nasdaq, vs Google, vs the GSA vs Agriculture vs CNN, > until we have the correct order in which to place these entities, > we can't provide a useful or accurate model of how vulnerable the > infrastructure is. > > You mentioned that you thought Nasdaq would be the most important > asset to protect, but what happens if some Internet > traders on AOL can't make their trades because of a fiber cut, vs > not being able to get their infotainment from CNN, vs weather > and crop data data not getting to farmers on time. It's a relative > and ultimately political discussion. > > > -- > batz > > >
|