First off I must say that it took two times of me reading this article before I decided to make my opinion known. Its a very well chosen topic and with some strong key points. However in question with using internet technology are we to assume that this internet technology would be a hardwire base? Or are we to go into a massive wireless senario. I could almost ask in internet do you mean use the protocols that the internet use?

I think the key point in the Emergency systems is that we had a wireless transfer of information. The key was to keep it primitive due to the possiblity of a disaster such as a severe nuke attack or whatever severe case may be in hand. In primitive fashion I could see the use for times that required a device to be made due to the disaster taking out the primary transmission device. This would allow a transmission sender to send its signal from any of these 'outposts'. In case that the other choices had been doomed a fate unspeakable. The protection to this 'door of information' was a simple: signal-information-signal.. far simpler than what you would see in a frame on the internet. Reason being? Well in a true emergency where the original transmission devices were destroyed there could be a secondary method to transmit that wouldnt require much effort or time. Yes this method is considered stupid in todays society because the curious are many and the knowledge to and desire to tinker becomes greater, thus posing a risk that a random Joe would try to become a transmission sender as well.

Now I agree that we do need some form of protection on this and encryption may be the key. But to what extent should we make this secure? This topic could be debated forever if we had the chance but in all respect our common goal between what we want and what FCC should be Secure and simple. The problem with using a internet based system comes in a few forms as I see it. First off a hardwired network. In a event of a powerful disaster part of the hardwired network may be down correct? Well we always have that case where there is a alternate route to the desinations.. however latency creates a time delay and in a emergency, time may be our worst enemy. Also to think about this problem is that these transmissions or networks would have to run through some sort of ISP or CO (Central Office) correct? Issues I see with this is a problem with power. In the event that a disaster occurs as I mentioned before and the power kills. Our 'routers' our useless and our point to transmit is cut. Again this can again be shielded by a secondary route. Another issue I see in this could be the problem of what network would we put this on and would the bandwidth be enough to ensure that transmission is sent? Is there any possible chance that the line could be saturated during the time of a emergency or the possiblity that this network running thousands of miles might have a issue regarding DoS attacks when some kiddie feels like its time to relieve some of its sexual frustration? I could possibly go on to look at other issues to this as well but im sure my general point has been made.

I ask however what about the possiblities of space transmission via satallites. Could this be a possible way to reach a widespan area with the absolute minimal access to be destroyed and minimal possiblity to be commonly spoofed (I use commonly because im sure somebody has the ablility to spoof it.) Could we create a device that was simple enough to generate transmission in time of desperate need however apply a strong enough security practice? However these are just minor thoughts that slip into my mind when reading this article. I leave it at that.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/613/16463#16463