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 aheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
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 11/5/20 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anti-social intentions do not publish papers'.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, <nath...@sswireless.net
<mailto:nath...@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....@nanog.org
<mailto:sswireless....@nanog.org>> *On Behalf Of *Alain Hebert
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@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 aheb...@pubnix.net <mailto:aheb...@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: 514-990-5911http://www.pubnix.net <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* <mailto:h...@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
<sskalku...@gmail.com <mailto:sskalku...@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
<http://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.
