Yes, in the last year or so I've looked at the Google PowerMeter, Microsoft HOHM, etc - 'looked' meaning that I read the web pages, followed a few links, looked at some blogs, looked at some info on controllers, etc. I haven't actually hooked up any systems to hardware and power corps.
Missed HEAT, though. Since originally posting, I've looked into what's evolving in SCADA - I see the reticence to connect to internet, and the slow acceptance of TCP/IP protocol (many proprietary protocols were used, years ago). I trust that any new "SmartGrid systems" will work out the necessary security protections (and not rely on security by obscurity). I don't know much about building management systems, apart from a few radio broadcasts. (much -> 0) ________________________________ Ian Thomas Victoria Park, Western Australia -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Griffith Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 1:46 PM To: 'ozDotNet' Subject: RE: [OT] article - security for smart grids Guess my interest revolves around technology for SmartGrid and demand side management over HAN, NAN, LAN, WAN and Grid connecting to Building Management Systems.. http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/energy%20programs/smartgrid/pages/default.aspx The privately owned power corps are delaying deployment of these technologies as their corporate mission is to sell more energy or install more infrastructure not less. Except of course for the NSW power corps not yet privatized who don't have worry about shareholders (or executives). Check out Microsoft HOHM www.microsoft-hohm.com/ . Also their Harmonized Energy Assessment Tool (HEAT) developed in 2007 for Clinton Foundation C40 program http://www.c40cities.org And Google's PowerMeter www.google.com/powermeter/ PG > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ozdotnet- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of silky > Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2010 6:27 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: [OT] article - security for smart grids > > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > PG - I wasn't aware of the CERT gov thing at all (ausCERT had offices > > all over - I seemed to discover them down some obscure corridor in > > several universities). > > > > I wonder what the overlap would be with the energy regulators, and > > power corps like Horizon, Country Energy, etc? (there are at least 20, I > believe). > > > > Silky - little (?nothing) in the more general ICT press from IDG is > > technically useful, really. But it keeps me in touch, I guess. > > > > The reason that I bothered to OT-flag that article was that I do have > > an interest in the overlapping areas of NBN / trans-sector usage of > > high-speed data links / smart grids / smart energy / energy efficiency > > / technological solutions to some of our profligate over-consumption, > > etc. Which is why I don't get too upset about the climate change / > > global warming hysteria (or unmanageable emotional excess) - it's > > probably good for us in the affluent nations to respond to "GW", since > > there may be some useful by-products - as long as C-trading doesn't > > become yet another unknowable and uncontrollable financial derivative. > > > > On a technical tangent, some time ago Juval Lowy (IDesign) was > > promoting what he termed the "next boom in software" - or the > > "Energynet" concept. In a few email dialogues about 18 months ago, he > > told me that he had been involved in "a few cool initiatives" in that > > area (using .NET), and he reckoned the "potential is the internet > > revolution all over again" - verbatim quote. I think it's a little > > slow to take off, but the info I read in the telecoms arena does display a lot > of interest. > > > > Most of the larger iron ore and oil & gas companies used to use SCADA > > systems - and like you, I had noticed one or two ComputerWorld type > > news articles about security concerns, in the past couple of months. > > I'm out of touch now with what's happening there (NW of WA, oil & gas, > > etc), but I suspect SCADA is still king. > > Right. > > I really don't know much about any of that. I have no idea what "Energynet" > refers to. > > What I found interesting on the SCADASEC list is that mostly, the "ideal" > environment is to keep "core" systems totally seperate from the internet at > large. Interestingly, the security proposals in that link (lots of logging, > centralised access control, etc) tend to go against that model. My (non- > expert) opinion is that a seperated/segregated area for core process is ideal, > and takes precendence over other concerns. > > It also seems to me that keeping the systems on a sort of "obscure" > platform is a good approach; that is could there be a "hardened" .net release, > that contains only X components useful for the various purposes. Probably > far more challenging and would introduce complexity such that it outweighs > any real benefits. I don't know. Arguably interesting to think about. > > > > Thanks for the couple of links. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Ian Thomas > > Victoria Park, Western Australia > > -- > silky > > http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ > > "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy - the joy of > being this signature."
