Sir, I too believe in taking a low profile approach, but the irony is that those in academia who I have appoached that do recognize this gap in safeguards are reticent to take up this topic since it involves research intersecting with negative actors.
I do not wish to take more time from this group beyond what has been offered am all ears to being introduced to an intrepid epidemiology researcher/academic institution who would consider to review the safeguards I propose. Regards, Suresh On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Alain Hebert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 [email protected] > 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: 514-990-5911 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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> *On >> Behalf Of *Alain Hebert >> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 4, 2020 10:32 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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 [email protected] >> >> 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: 514-990-5911 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 <[email protected]>* >> >> | >> >> *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 <[email protected]> >> 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). >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >
