In the 2001 action movie Ocean’s Eleven, criminals use an electromagnetic weapon to black out a portion of Las Vegas. Very futuristic, you may say, but the threat is real and growing.
The problem is growing because the technology available to attackers has improved even as the technology being attacked has become more vulnerable. Our infrastructure increasingly depends on closely integrated, high-speed electronic systems operating at low internal voltages. That means they can be laid low by short, sharp pulses high in voltage but low in energy—output that can now be generated by a machine the size of a suitcase, batteries included.
Electromagnetic (EM) attacks are not only possible—they are happening. One may be under way as you read this. Even so, you would probably never hear of it: These stories are typically hushed up, for the sake of security or the victims’ reputation. Occasionally, though, an incident comes to light.
The linked story goes on to examine the differences between wideband and narrowband attacks at different radio frequencies, the mechanism that is used to conduct an attack, and what is required to defend against such an attack. The article is both well written and understandable.
[Ed's Comment: The type of GPS attack detailed in the linked Article is actually 'conventional' electronic warfare from a mobile ground installation and not from a suitcase. However, as TFA illustrates well, the threat remains present and IT systems are vulnerable.]
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 29 2014, @02:05AM
These are really fairly easy to build too. Maybe not a suitcase sized one that would take out blocks at a time but a directional one capable of taking out most of a building's high-tech can be built in a couple hours out of parts that everyone has easy access to. Without trying to make it compact, you could fit it in the back of a pickup truck or van with room to spare in either.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2014, @03:21AM
There is no such thing as DIY in the post-9/11 world. You are a terrorist.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday August 29 2014, @05:51AM
You are a terrorist unless you are a member of the gov't or the military.
(Score: 1) by modest on Friday August 29 2014, @02:05PM
Not only high-tech, but more fundamental electrical components. There was a speaker at Defcon talking about how she discovered radio frequencies could short out an outlet's GFI.
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/this-hackers-radio-can-fry-your-hair-dryer/ [wired.com]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday August 29 2014, @07:37PM
sounds like the current sensing coils in the GFI are resonating at a particular frequency. Her radio was close enough to emit just enough energy to burn the device out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tynin on Friday August 29 2014, @02:45AM
2005, http://cryptome.org/bartlett-060905.txt [cryptome.org]
...
...
(Score: 4, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Friday August 29 2014, @03:37AM
That's the point of MAD [wikipedia.org].
In the real world, only the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and India have SSBNs. None of them are going to launch in peacetime. If a launch happens at a time of heightened tensions, there will be an immediate and overwhelming counterattack against whoever we were most upset with at the time.
You could suggest then that, for example, China could use that to start an exchange between the US and Russia, or other variations on that theme...but each of those six nations realize full well that it would mean the end of civilization as we know it for everybody, them included. And the ones who're crazy enough to do that sort of thing anyway might as well be in the stone age as far as it comes to actually building and operating an SSBN even if the other six wouldn't prevent them from getting close.
There are real-world concerns when it comes to international terrorism and electromagnetic warfare, but those don't even remotely include anonymous continental-scale nuclear attacks.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday August 29 2014, @03:54AM
Indeed, but I felt I was already quoting too much so I didn't include the bit that voids MAD...
...
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday August 29 2014, @04:08AM
The point is if we cannot identify the enemy to fight against, and it takes us 6+ months to get power stations rebuilt (which we buy from Europe, are not domestically made, and are made to order with 6+ months lead time), in what shape is the US going to be to do anything other than collapse without power on a national scale?
I think I'm might just be freaking out at the idea of this Ukrainian incident escalating into WW3. Nuclear war is one of those.... irrationally rational fears I have that keeps me from sleep on a thankfully rather rare frequency.
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday August 29 2014, @01:58PM
What on earth makes you think that identifying the actual attacker is a necessary step before hitting the "launch" button?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 2) by tynin on Friday August 29 2014, @02:14PM
A fair and amazingly horrifying point.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Friday August 29 2014, @06:28AM
SCUDs are short-range missiles to begin with and couldn't attain anywhere near the necessary altitude for your doomsday scenario even with a conventional warhead. Nuclear warheads powerful enough to do that sort of thing are too heavy for a SCUD. The most something like that could even theoretically do would be Katrina-scale destruction, and that's only if we handwave away countless reasons why such a plot would never succeed.
Despite all the hype, there's really not any reason to be any more afraid of nuclear terrorism than there is of having an out-of-fuel airplane crash into your bedroom. Nuclear bombs are exceedingly expensive and difficult even for industrialized oil-rich nations like Iran to make -- and the designs within reach for rogue nations are too big to weaponize effectively. Best you could hope for would be to sail one into a busy harbor on a cargo boat...but, even then, radiation detectors would pick it out long before it could reach an effective position. And even if it still was set off, it wouldn't be before the exact ship was identified and shortly thereafter traced back to its origination port.
It's not unlike orbital mechanics with insufficient delta vees. You could try this-and-such, but it wouldn't get you this bit you need here. You could solve for that, but in doing so you leave yourself short on the first part.
Don't get me worng; there're all sorts of really nasty things a terrorist could do to lots of people were he so inclined. Hell, toss a sack full of smoke alarms into a municipal water supply and you'll get quite the panic. Blow yourself up in the rape-you-scan at the airport on the day before Thanksgiving. Put something nasty (especially anthrax or ricin) on a quadcopter and crash it into the front steps of a state legislature as they leave for the day.
But, when it comes right down to it, people just don't do that kind of shit, mostly because people really aren't quite that fucked up in the first place. It's not hard to do something really nasty. It's just not worth it, not even for the most disgruntled nutjobs. There're better things to do not only with your life but your death, if that's what floats your boat.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2014, @05:17PM
In the real world, only the US, UK, France, Russia, China, and India have SSBNs. None of them are going to launch in peacetime.
Unless by accident or laziness.. like when some chump in some ICBM bunker hot-wired missile to launch with 2 wires and a battery. Or when live nukes were loaded onto cruise missiles instead of "dummy warheads" used for testing said cruise missiles. Just because something is unlikely, it does not mean it can't happen. The only way that no nukes will be launched is not to have them.
You also forgot about Pakistan.
(Score: 1) by corey on Friday August 29 2014, @07:04AM
The summary says this is news. But this is clearly not, this kind of issue has been around for decades. Maybe there's not much to write about at NetworkWorld at the moment.
I question some of the commentary whenever this topic comes up. Its always 'oh it'll be doomsday, no elec or comms for x months' but I think the susceptibility of a lot of industrial grade equipment to EM overloads is overestimated. Most equipment is metal encased, mounted in metal encased racks, earthed and in a building farish from where the source would be.
Actual EMPs however would have sufficient energy to overcome all this but you're talking about a very different scenario.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 29 2014, @11:01AM
Most industrial kit, absolutely. The PLCs and computers that allow it to all work together in an automated fashion, not a chance.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2014, @09:59AM
I'd like to have a suitcase just strong enough to brick any car stereo blasting hip-hop at >80db.
(Score: 2) by geb on Friday August 29 2014, @11:20AM
For once, the obligatory reference isn't xkcd, it's BOFH. Unexpected.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/04/bofh_2008_episode_12/ [theregister.co.uk]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Geezer on Friday August 29 2014, @01:51PM
It would appear that the Russians already field a battlefield EMP device, albeit a defensive countermeasure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMT-7 [wikipedia.org]
It's vehicle-mounted, so not exactly a suitcase device. I'm wondering if such would be practical in, say, an old jalope cruising Wall Street or Pennsylvania Avenue.