[SCADASEC] Water Supply Poisoning Threat
Hatton, Louis
LAH4 at PGE.COM
Wed Aug 27 11:39:09 CDT 2008
I don't find the idea funny as I can think of many ways to use a pound
of any substance. And to make assumptions, especially those that under
estimate your opponent are very dangerous. Terrorists, are focused,
dedicated, and fixed upon an end state. This fixation makes them
dangerous and of concern. On 9/11 some 40 terrorists shut down all air
traffic in North America for 2-3 weeks? Caused how many hundreds of
millions in damage? Almost took out the Home of the President of the
US. Caused major damage to the Pentagon, the center of the US Military
Command. They may not be well educated in terms of how to poison a
well, but they seem to me to be very smart and capable of generating a
desired effect in people.
As to the pound of Cyanide. We have been assuming that it would have
gone into the water supply, can you not think of other places to place
it, I can and it would have been more devastating...and that may have
his downfall...
-----Original Message-----
From: scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com
[mailto:scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com] On Behalf Of Adriel
Desautels
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:25 AM
To: scadasec at news.infracritical.com
Subject: Re: [SCADASEC] Water Supply Poisoning Threat
Right,
That is why I found the "terrorist" with "one pound of cyanide"
to be so funny. It strikes me that most terrorists aren't very well
educated/smart people.
Regards,
Adriel T. Desautels
Chief Technology Officer
Netragard, LLC.
Office : 617-934-0269
Mobile : 617-633-3821
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45
Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com - "We make IT Safe"
Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security
Netragard Whitepaper Downloads:
-------------------------------
Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j Three Things you
must know : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn
ab3a at comcast.net wrote:
> In general, you're entirely correct, though it depends upon many
things. Among them: the size of the water treatment plant, the volume
of raw water that you're introducing the sample in, the detention time
of the clear-well water, the coagulant one was using, and so forth.
>
> I tell people that if you're interested in poisoning a large water
treatment plant, you'd better bring your poison in barrels, because it
will take at least that much to be effective. Our treatment plants put
out 150 Million gallons per day on a TYPICAL day and we have been known
to go over the 200 Million gallon per day mark in unusual circumstances.
>
> Go ahead, do the math.
>
> Jake Brodsky
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Adriel Desautels <adriel at netragard.com>
>> Jake,
>> Very nice detailed response, you've answered quite a few of my
>> questions. My suspicion was/is that one pound of cyanide poison
>> introduced into a very large volume of waster would have little to no
>> affect on the end consumer. My theory (might be wrong I'm no chemist)
>> is that 1 pound of cyanide would be so diluted that it would be
harmless.
>> Is that the probable case?
>>
>> Granted I'm certain that it depends on the poison injection
point
>> and the concentration of the poison. Likewise it also depends on the
>> person handling it to be smart enough to not kill themselves. Doesn't
>> make for much of a threat when you're an army of dead people. ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Adriel T. Desautels
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> Netragard, LLC.
>> Office : 617-934-0269
>> Mobile : 617-633-3821
>> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45
>>
>> Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group:
>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com - "We make IT Safe"
>> Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security
>>
>> Netragard Whitepaper Downloads:
>> -------------------------------
>> Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j Three Things
>> you must know : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn
>>
>>
>> Brodsky, Jake wrote:
>>> I'm a bit closer to the issue than Lou might be. :-)
>>>
>>> Water treatment plants are surprisingly effective, given how
>>> primitive the processes look at first glance. The fundamental parts
>>> of surface water treatment are primary filtration (remove the
>>> sticks, dead animals, mud, etcetera), flocculation, filtration, and
disinfection.
>>>
>>> In the scheme of things most of the heavy lifting is done with sand
>>> and charcoal filters. We aid that effect by mixing very small
>>> amounts of chemical coagulants. An effective water treatment plant
>>> will maintain an array of several of these chemical coagulants for
>>> use in various situations.
>>>
>>> Whatever poison one might use must be water soluble, and capable of
>>> staying in solution at various pH levels. We adjust the pH of the
>>> water with common chemicals such as Lime, to bring it close to 7.
>>> It should also be able to remain poisonous after chlorination.
>>> That's no small feat.
>>>
>>> There are some poisons that could do this. Some are naturally
>>> occurring, such as arsenic. At plants where the ground water
>>> contains arsenic, they use special adsorbing filters to remove it.
>>>
>>> We also have a rather funny, crude test we use to test our water at
>>> the
>>> plant: a fish tank. The species of fish is carefully selected
>>> because of its tendency to react quickly to water chemistry or
biology problems.
>>> If the fish get sick or die, we have to shut the plant down.
>>>
>>> Remember, our water doesn't go straight in to the distribution
system.
>>> It goes in to enormous reservoirs called clear-wells. These are
>>> finished water storage areas designed to feed the distribution
>>> system's needs at a moment's notice while giving the plant time to
>>> adjust their process to keep up with changing river conditions.
>>>
>>> There are constant tests being performed on the water at various
>>> stages through the plant. We know what the water quality is from
>>> the river, we know what has to be done to make sure it's safe.
>>>
>>> Now, one assumption we do not make is what might happen were someone
>>> to inject or dump such poisons in to an elevated storage tank.
>>> These storage are not something easily hidden. We have been
>>> installing alarms in various key places so that we can be alerted to
an unexpected entry.
>>> But there are ways around this as well. I won't go in to gory
details.
>>> Suffice it to say that this is yet another system, like grid
>>> interties, that relies upon trust and a person's sense of self
>>> preservation to keep the public safe.
>>>
>>> Jake Brodsky
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com
>>> [mailto:scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Hatton, Louis
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 6:34 PM
>>> To: scadasec at news.infracritical.com
>>> Subject: Re: [SCADASEC] Water Supply Poisoning Threat
>>>
>>> I am not qualified to discuss the lethality of a particular
>>> substance in water, regardless the concentration. But, I will
>>> discuss the "fear factor" should someone do something like that.
>>> Most of us like to go the lakes, oceans and water ways for
>>> recreation of many kinds. Then we go home and never think about
>>> what we are drinking. The last time I checked outboard motor fuel
>>> was hazardous to my health and it leaks from my motor, the water is
>>> used to cool the engine and help to muffle the exhaust. Look around
>>> the fuel dock at all the products floating on the water. But, we go
>>> home and drink with out a second thought. On the lake, many of us
>>> have reached over and had a glass of water, unfiltered and
unfettered because we were thirsty. Not a care in the world.
>>>
>>> But, let someone suggest tossing in 50 to 100 gallons of Arsenic and
>>> you would be gravely concerned. Ask questions of your water agency
>>> about their ability to filter it out. It is not the actual threat
>>> that is the cause of all the trouble, but rather the perception of
>>> the threat that is at issue, and how we mitigate that perception.
>>>
>>> How many cities along the Mississippi River use that river for
>>> drinking water? How many cities use the same river for waste water
removal?
>>> Someone on the list suggested that "Pollution was a matter of
dilution"
>>> and they may be right to a point, it just depends upon what you are
>>> diluting as to how much people will yell about it.
>>>
>>> Lou Hatton
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com
>>> [mailto:scadasec-bounces at news.infracritical.com] On Behalf Of Adriel
>>> Desautels
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:08 PM
>>> To: scadasec at news.infracritical.com
>>> Subject: Re: [SCADASEC] Water Supply Poisoning Threat
>>>
>>> Realistically how much damage would that much poison cause in that
>>> volume of water? It strikes me that the poison would be highly
diluted?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Adriel T. Desautels
>>> Chief Technology Officer
>>> Netragard, LLC.
>>> Office : 617-934-0269
>>> Mobile : 617-633-3821
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45
>>>
>>> Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group:
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com - "We make IT Safe"
>>> Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security
>>>
>>> Netragard Whitepaper Downloads:
>>> -------------------------------
>>> Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j Three Things
>>> you must know : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn
>>>
>>>
>>> ab3a at comcast.net wrote:
>>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406664,00.html
>>>>
>>>> It's an attempt to poison city water.
>>>>
>>>> We're lucky they don't know enough detail to be dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> For now.
>>>>
>>>> Jake Brodsky
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the scadasec
mailing list