[SCADASEC] An Interesting take on Cyber War - fact or fiction

[Gadi Evron]

Classic infowar. Confusing terminology by experts. :)

I'll speak of HERF.

Let's go to wikipedia for help:
------
"High Energy Radio Frequency weapons (HERF) or High Power Radio Frequency 
weapons (HPRF) are weapons that use high intensity radio waves to disrupt 
electronics. They are a type of directed-energy weapon. They operate 
similarly to electromagnetic pulse (EMP) devices, by inducing destructive 
voltage within electronic wiring. They are usually directional and can be 
focused on a specific target using a parabolic reflector. Faraday cages 
may be used to provide protection from most HERF and EMP effects."

Think about cable-isolation and TEMPEST, then weaponize it.

EMP is a different beast, which is "similar" to these.

 	Gadi.


On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Joe St Sauver wrote:

> Jake mentioned:
>
> #I saw it on Infraguard.  Folks, before you get too bent out of shape,
> #let's not forget that HERF goes by another name:
> #
> #Lightning
>
> I'll restrict my comments just to the HEMP phenomenon described in the
> 2008 Report...
>
> I think that may be a simplification that may cause some to underestimate
> the potential impacts of HEMP, in part because the HEMP waveform has
> different and more complex characteristics than lightning, as described
> at PDF page 49 et. seq. in the 2008 Commission Report. (It would have
> been helpful if the Commission had included at least a nominal graph
> showing the three effects in the report but I didn't notice one; folks
> may want to see http://www.tscm.com/MIL-STD-464.pdf at PDF page 64 for
> a schematic representation, although the magnitudes shown may or may not
> be appropritely large based on commentary in the 2008 Report).
>
> Lightning *is* like the so-called E2 (or intermediate time) EMP, but the
> E2 phenomena is preceding by E1 (prompt EMP) and followed by E3 (late
> time EMP), and it is the combination/sequential application of those effects
> that can provide protection challenges (e.g., E1 can damage protective
> equipment designed to protect against lightning-like threats, opening
> the way for E2 to cause damage, and E3 can couple to components of some
> systems that might otherwise be largely unaffected by just E1 or E2).
>
> I quote from PDF page 49 of the 2008 Report:
>
>   [...] The most significant risk, however, is synergistic because the E2
>   pulse follows on the heels of the E1. Thus where E1-induced damage has
>   circumvented lightning protection, the E2 impact could pass directly
>   into major system components and damage them.
>
>   The late time EMP, or E3, follows E1 and E2 and may last for a minute or
>   more. The E3 pulse is similar in a great many respects to geomagnetic
>   effects induced by solar storms. Solar storms and their impacts on
>   electrical systems with long lines have been thoroughly evaluated and are
>   known to cause serious damage to major electrical system components at much
>   lower levels than the reasonably possible E3 impact. This damage has
>   been incurred in spite of functioning, in-place protective systems.
>   Given the preceding E1 and E2 pulse damage to the protective systems
>   and other system components, damage from E3 to unprotected major
>   system components is virtually assured.
>
>   EMP is inimical to the continued functioning of the electrical power
>   system and the reliable behavior of electronics. Each of the three
>   EMP modes of system insult is sufficient by itself to cause disruption
>   and probable functional collapse of large portions of the
>   interconnected electrical power system at EMP threat levels. In every
>   EMP attack, all three assaults (E1, E2, and E3) are delivered in
>   sequence and nearly simultaneously. It is the Commissions assessment
>   that functional collapse of the electrical power system region within
>   the primary area of assault is virtually certain. Furthermore,
>   widespread functional collapse may result even from a small weapon
>   with a significant E1 component. [continues]
>
> So while it might be tempting to compare EMP to lightning, that analogy
> doesn't really adequately capture the complete phenomena that would
> be present. But I would encourage folks to read the 2008 Commission
> Report and draw their own conclusions rather than relying on my summary.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe
>
> Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own
> _______________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please visit:
> http://news.infracritical.com/mailman/listinfo/scadasec
>
> To review our usage policy, please visit:
> http://www.infracritical.com/usage-scadasec.html
>