- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Youse, Chuck 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

A driver's license. Easy enough to forge. -----Original Message----- From: David Howe [mailto:DaveHowe@gmx.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:26 PM To: Email List: nanog Subject: Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof > There are mechanisms in place that would detect this type of > behavior. (Prebooking multiple flights for the same individual.) Does a domestic flight require a passport or other form of positive ID? if not, they could book as many tickets as needed with a different name per ticket.

1 0

Verizon COs affected by WTC damage?
by Scott Drassinower 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

Verizon has/had a CO (NYCMNYST) in the South Tower of the Trade Center. I would guess this is now destroyed. Does anyone know where exactly in the tower or complex the CO was? They also had sales/administrative offices there on a couple of floors there. Covad is reporting that the West Street CO, near the WTC (NYCMNYWS, 140 West Street) currently has services affected due to a fire in the building. Has anyone else heard about a fire there? -- Scott M. Drassinower scottd(a)cloud9.net Cloud 9 Internet White Plains, NY +1 914 696-4000 / 800 356-5683 http://www.cloud9.net

6 5

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Roeland Meyer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

1 0

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Youse, Chuck 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

Not to mention, forgetting the precision (I second the idea that it takes greater skill than people think to crash a plane), simply navigating these puppies over great distances and finding the targets would require a good amount of training. Yes, yes, GPS and other relatively new navigational goodies make this a lot easier than it would have been, say 20 years ago, but trust me, it's not point-and-click. It may be just coincidental that they utilized Boeing aircraft for this, as Airbus planes have trickier autopilot and collision-avoidance systems that would make intentionally flying into a building in an otherwise healthy airplane rather difficult. Chuck Youse -----Original Message----- From: Dave Stewart [mailto:dbs@ntrnet.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 6:09 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof At 10:26 PM 9/11/2001, Petr Swedock wrote: >The planes were hijacked with knives and re-routed over large >distances: which leads me to believe the original pilots were >long dead. > >The two towers were struck with great precision: it's not as >easy as it sounds. > >The pentagon was *landed* on... in a most precise manner: It >takes a hell of a flyer to put a plane down like that. > >There were no fly-bys and/or go-rounds. > >There were no near misses. > >There is no doubt in my mind that those in control of the >planes were skilled pilots. Keep in mind as well that airspeed would be critical for maximum effect. Moving too fast, the plane flies right through the building, certainly causing massive damage and almost certainly starting a fire. However, that's not optimal. Fly too slowly, and you're on the edge of a stall - no laughing matter in any aircraft, but especially critical in these cases, due to the maneuvers every aircraft performed. Also, fly too slowly, you might not completely penetrate the building. From the beginning, there's been no doubt that the pilots were type-rated on the Boeing 757/767, nor has there ever been any doubt, at least in my mind, that these were not American or United pilots... with the possible exception of the United flight that crashed in PA.

1 0

RE: World Trade Center attack
by Roeland Meyer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

|> From: John Fraizer [mailto:nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net] |> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 7:53 PM |> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Terence wrote: |> > It appears the terrorists are very very afraid of a |> possible US response. |> The _NEED_ to be afraid. Did they forget that we elected a gentleman |> named "BUSH" to the office of President of the United |> States? For those |> of you outside of the US who did not see President Bush |> speak tonight, he |> said, "..we will make NO DIFFERENTIATION between the |> terrorists and those |> states who choose to harbor them." I minor nit but the correct statement was ... "We will make no differentiation between the terrorists and those whom may harbor them". The point being that he didn't use the word "State". However, it was definitely implied. I particularly like the line from this morning ... "We will hunt down and punish those who are responsible." That is a direct restatement of a common phrase, "We will hunt down and kill ..." which is what I take to have actually been on his mind. I don't know about y'all, but I *like* that sort of thinking, in this case. |> It's time to kick terrorist ass and chew bubblegum and we're |> ALL OUT OF |> BUBBLEGUM! (He didn't say that but, you can read between the lines.) The problem is that we are lacking a target. Our Advanced Target Acquisition System (CIA) has been wandering around, minus a pair (what happened to all those '60's and '70's super spooks?) Meanwhile the FBI has been diddeling with CALEA (and mis-placing evidence), rather than doing its job. 'tis a fine fix we're in ... Dick Dastardly on the outside and the Keystoned Kops on the inside.

2 1

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Roeland Meyer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

|> From: Jim Dixon [mailto:jdd@vbc.net] |> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 2:01 AM |> |> On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> |> > |> Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on |> US flights. |> > |> |> > |> Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was |> > |> "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to |> > |> put a dollar |> > |> amount on human lives. |> > |> > excuse me, but I don't think that the airlines were paying |> for those |> > marshals. Please look towards uncle sugar, for that gaff. |> |> The US government paid for the marshals' airplane tickets? To my understanding, the airline didn't charge the marshals and the marshals didn't charge the airline, quid pro quo. I remember some senator raising a big stink about airlines getting preferential treatment, at the time. An aircraft is considered private property. They only did it on domestic flights, as I recall, due to international jurisdictional issues. There was also the issue of firearms and aircraft pressure hulls. There was a big push to find a round that was effective, yet wouldn't create problems there. That was about the time that the Tazer was invented (a real problem with multiple assailants, per man). I recall this from another life and the memory is not clear (as well as being more than 20 years old).

2 1

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Roeland Meyer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

|> From: Dan Hollis [mailto:goemon@anime.net] |> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 12:47 AM |> |> On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote: |> > Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the |> > passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil |> the attack. Now |> > I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure? |> |> Or they could just fly plainclothes armed marshals on US flights. |> |> Apparently they tried this years ago, but stopped because it was |> "uneconomical". I guess the airlines have figured out how to |> put a dollar |> amount on human lives. excuse me, but I don't think that the airlines were paying for those marshals. Please look towards uncle sugar, for that gaff.

2 1

[nom-steer] Disaster in New York; offer of assistance
by Alex Bligh 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

IMPORTANT! This message has been blind-carbon-copied to you. Do not reply-to-all or forward it without the author's permission. [BCC'd to multiple lists, apologies for duplicates] No doubt everybody reading this will alread be aware of the disastrous events unfold in New York and WDC, and untold human cost. As we try and focus back on running networks, it has become evident that much of downtown NY is currently without power, and many telco hotels are running on backup generators. Some are not being started, or cannot start, due to the ash in the air, and some may stop. At least three colo facilities (WTC obviously, 7 WTC next door, Old slip) are down. 25 Broadway (at least) is running on generator power. It is unknown at this stage how much diesel existing facilities have. At least one C/O is gone, and Verizon is having extensive problems in the downtown area. Most transatlantic circuits land in Manhatten, and most are routed through down town area. Though we didn't see much circuit disruption yesterday (apparently UUnet lost some transatlantic capacity - no doubt they can provide more details), I expect more disruption as generators run dry. This is likely to be a difficult week for transatlantic operators. In the spirit of cooperation in adverse circumstances, XO Europe would like to offer free transit to any European ISP with a presence in the UK, in case of any emergency outage caused by the NY / WDC events (i.e. total lack of transit or severe degredation through). We can bring this up quickly in either Telehouse or Harbour Exchange. Obviously we will need to capacity plan this. Please email or ring me first. Don't just point default. XchangePoint has similarly offered to put in private interconnects at minimal notice if required under similar circuimstances (please contact Brett Wilde there). I would encourage other large ISPs with transatlantic capacity spare to join us in this offer. Please feel free to redistribute this message intact. Alex Bligh Senior Technology Officer, Europe XO Communications - http://www.xo.com/ (formerly Nextlink Inc, Concentric Network Corporation GX Networks, Xara Networks) -- Nominet UK Steering Committee Mailing List

1 0

above.net/hurricane electric look out for portential DoS
by Jim Mercer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

the content of the page at www.saverealbig.com is being spammed out with the standard "click here to be removed" blather. partial text: "We at the family of SaveRealBig.com know every American and citizens of other nations around the world are appalled at this great act of terrorism and hope you choose to support relief efforts; by showing your support and purchasing a 3 x 5 US Flag." i would imagine that this, rather tasteless, "entreprenurial" effort might just cause some problems for anyone related to it (above.net/he.net) -- [ Jim Mercer jim(a)reptiles.org +1 416 410-5633 ] [ Now with more and longer words for your reading enjoyment. ]

3 2

RE: Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
by Roeland Meyer 12 Sep '01

12 Sep '01

|> From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg@exigengroup.com] |> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:21 PM |> |> Locked bulletproof door to the cockpit. Survelliance cameras in the |> passenger compartments. That all which was needed to foil |> the attack. Now |> I think it's time to ask why this isn't the standard procedure? "Bulletproof" is not needed when you can't get guns aboard. Guns are as dangerous to the hijacker as to anyone else. They can puncture the pressure hull. Readywhip has been the standard answer to survalance cameras for years. Locks don't do you any good if they aren't used. The real big problem is that we haven't had a hijacking in almost 10 years and no serious terrorism activity since the mid-'70's. The answer then is the same as now, SOGs specifically tasked to take out terrorist bases and training camps. But, that was in the daze of Scair America and BlackOps Rangers.

1 0