> > This should give a good overview: > > https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf > > It is in fact quite interesting. >
Thanks for sharing that. Excellent read, really interesting stuff. Couple quick takeaways: - The design is clearly well thought out to account for the environment of tunnels and moving trains. - They have designed redundancy and diversity into the systems that would really make it difficult to execute a prolonged attack. - Certain aspects of the underground environment actually make some things easier than a wide open area. On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 6:25 AM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 at 23:48, Shane Ronan <sh...@ronan-online.com> wrote: > >> Please provide details on public transit systems that are controlled via >> Wifi, I find that very interesting. >> > > This should give a good overview: > > https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/128950142/COMST2661384.pdf > > It is in fact quite interesting. > > And yes these are low bandwidth but on the other hand often stretch wifi > to the very limits on the distance between bases. I am not claiming this is > the same use case as a warehouse. I am pointing out that the argument that > a system critical implementation _must_ be based on licensed frequencies > does not hold as nothing could be more critical than a system that prevents > trains from colliding. > > I do claim that the reason these metro train systems can boast of a very > high uptime is not that it would be especially hard to jam their wifi based > systems. No it is in fact probably quite easy to do so. It is just that > nobody does it. Because that way lies jail and there are also so many other > ways to stop the trains (rocks on the tracks etc). The same holds true for > the warehouse as someone trying to cause trouble could just as easily do > something to the power, cut a fiber cable, start a fire, call in a bomb > threat, etc. > > Also having a licensed frequency only stops those that are law abiding and > it is never legal to cause harmful interference to sabotage the operations > of a warehouse. > > That leaves the risk that the wifi frequencies are blocked by other legal > users of the frequencies. This risk is especially low on the new 6 GHz > frequencies because the range is not great and you do have full control of > what equipment enters your warehouse. The risk is essentially that the > neighbor is also a warehouse with a wifi based system. The physical > separation would in most cases be enough that this is not a problem and > otherwise it would not be too much trouble to talk to the neighbor to agree > on some frequency split on the bases at the border between the two systems. > No need to pay a third party or the government for that. > > I did read about a use case for a private 5G network however. A system > covering the harbor. Wifi would be at a disadvantage here because it is a > large outside area with a lot of third parties entering, both ships and > trucks. I imagine there also exists similar such a large mining operation > etc. > > Regards, > > Baldur > > > > >
