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> On Behalf Of Alain
Hebert
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM
To: 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
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:
<https://netfire.net/logo_sig_gen2.png>
Matt Harris
|
Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816‑256‑5446
|
Direct
Looking for something?
<https://help.netfire.net/> Helpdesk Portal
|
<mailto:h...@netfire.net> Email Support
|
<https://my.netfire.net/> Billing Portal
<https://netfire.net/Flag-United-States-of-America.jpg>
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.
