Cyber Attacks On Power Generation

Back when this blog was new (Dec '004) I put up a post called Internet Security, where I discussed the problems of controlling critical infrastructure with the Internet, wireless, or worse yet wireless Internet. George Tenent then head of the CIA said we had a problem. Let me quote a bit to give you the flavor:

What George is saying is that the Inherent Design of the internet is not compatible with infrastructure security. Duh.

What we actually need is less stupidity.

What we need to do is to provide more security for our networked systems. The Internent is not the answer to infrastructure control problems. It is inherently insecure. As a controls engineer I have been arguing this point for at least five years. Well before 9/11.

Wiring up a factory to use the Internet Protocol (IP) for in factory and inter factory control is a stupid idea. Since the IP is well understood using it to destroy a facility would be rather easy. Nothing new to learn except the control settings of the individual factory or company.

Worse is controlling a factory with wireless internet. With that kind of setup you don't have any fire wall between your operations and the outside world. In fact you don't even need to know IP or wireless protocols to cause trouble. All you need is a jammer to bring a factory to its knees. And the jammer need not be on continuously. An intermittent jammer could wreak havoc with sensitive factory processes.

Well it has started. According to the CIA

The CIA on Friday admitted that cyberattacks have caused at least one power outage affecting multiple cities outside the United States.

Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, said that CIA senior analyst Tom Donahue confirmed that online attackers had caused at least one blackout. The disclosure was made at a New Orleans security conference Friday attended by international government officials, engineers, and security managers from North American energy companies and utilities.

Paller said that Donahue presented him with a written statement that read, "We have information, from multiple regions outside the United States, of cyber intrusions into utilities, followed by extortion demands. We suspect, but cannot confirm, that some of these attackers had the benefit of inside knowledge. We have information that cyberattacks have been used to disrupt power equipment in several regions outside the United States. In at least one case, the disruption caused a power outage affecting multiple cities. We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet."

Let me tell you that as long as I am designing plants no controls or critical infrastructure will use the Internet protocols or the Internet. Ever. As long as I am designing plants no controls or critical infrastructure will use wireless. Ever. To do is inviting trouble. I will use wires. Coax. Shielded twisted pairs. Fiber. Preferably in conduit except for nodes. All with custom protocols. No easy access, except locally. There is nothing wrong with using encoded data over the internet to report plant operation. There will be no possibility of plant control remotely. Ever.

To do so would be stupid. I wasn't born yesterday.

Yes. It raises the capital costs and the time required to connect everything together. What is one plant outage worth? What is meeting one extortion demand worth? Once you pay the Danegeld, how do you get rid of the Dane?

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Internet Security

Via Drudge.

George Tenet says that we need to tighten up Internet Security to blunt attacks on our infrastructure.

Former CIA Director George J. Tenet yesterday called for new security measures to guard against attacks on the United States that use the Internet, which he called "a potential Achilles' heel."

"I know that these actions will be controversial in this age when we still think the Internet is a free and open society with no control or accountability," he told an information-technology security conference in Washington, "but ultimately the Wild West must give way to governance and control."

I agree with George about our Internent vulnerability. I disagree that we need more "governance and control" to solve the problem.

The way the Internet was built might be part of the problem, he said. Its open architecture allows Web surfing, but that openness makes the system vulnerable, Mr. Tenet said.

Access to networks like the World Wide Web might need to be limited to those who can show they take security seriously, he said.

What George is saying is that the Inherent Design of the internet is not compatible with infrastructure security. Duh.

What we actually need is less stupidity.

What we need to do is to provide more security for our networked systems. The Internent is not the answer to infrastructure control problems. It is inherently insecure. As a controls engineer I have been arguing this point for at least five years. Well before 9/11.

Wiring up a factory to use the Internet Protocol (IP) for in factory and inter factory control is a stupid idea. Since the IP is well understood using it to destroy a facility would be rather easy. Nothing new to learn except the control settings of the individual factory or company.

Worse is controlling a factory with wireless internet. With that kind of setup you don't have any fire wall between your operations and the outside world. In fact you don't even need to know IP or wireless protocols to cause trouble. All you need is a jammer to bring a factory to its knees. And the jammer need not be on continuously. An intermittent jammer could wreak havoc with sensitive factory processes.

Some current and future aircraft designs are using IP as a communications protocol instead of a custom one. Aircraft. Stupid.

My prescription: all factory intercommunication ought to be done with custom protocols done over hard wires or better yet fiber optic cable. Control functions need to be separated from data collection. Fire walls are essential - several levels of fire wall in fact.

This does not need new Internet rules or governance. It just needs an end to stupidity.