Been thinking about this a lot, and forgive me if it's already been brought up. However, one thing I've heard time and time again about this whole incident, is American people screaming about the lack of security. The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the same security we display in most of our networks as well. Look at Microsoft's Windows for instance. Probably one of the most insecure OS'es on the Internet at the moment. Yet, millions of people still tolerate it. Time and time again, it has been the target of attacks. However, Microsoft releases a flimsy patch, and tells us everything is going to be OK. A few months later (sometimes weeks or days), it gets nailed again. All of this, for convenience. Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night. -- Robert Hough (rch@acidpit.org)
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:
The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the same security we display in most of our networks as well.
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints. These hijackers were ticketed passengers. No carry-on? OK, so it will reduce hiding places for non-metallic weapons. On the other hand, so much for taking your laptop with you - are you willing to entrust your laptop to baggage handlers? Willing to put your Palm in your checked luggage? This is just my feeling, but I honestly believe these measures are only giving the *appearance* of security, apparently to make the general public feel better. I do agree, though, with the comments on network security - so many, many are much more lax about the security of their networks than airports have been. As an anecdote, when I came to my current job last year, the network was wide open. Since, I've placed servers behind firewalls, and blocked things like NetBIOS (you wouldn't believe the cry that went up from customers when I did that - they *want* to use NetBIOS shares between business offices in various cities)
| Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past | security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased | security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the | number of people passing the checkpoints. And thus reduce the number of people and bags etc that need to be checked, which will allow for more time to do thorough checks. Why is it important that non-passengers be able to get all the way to the gate?
At 10:55 PM 9/12/2001, Mathias Körber wrote:
And thus reduce the number of people and bags etc that need to be checked, which will allow for more time to do thorough checks. Why is it important that non-passengers be able to get all the way to the gate?
I understand that, and I don't believe it's important that non-passengers get all the way to the gate. My point is that the hijackers were ticketed passengers. Short of strip search, it's entirely possible that the weapons they had would not have been discovered. Unless we're going to do at least a pat-down of all passengers. In short, from what I've seen, the "security" measures now being put in place would have done little or nothing to avert yesterday's attacks. As has been pointed out earlier - enter the country legally, do everything exactly as authorities ask. Then take whatever action you want once the flight is in the air. The air marshall program is a good idea - I worry a little that a group of determined people could overpower him/her and end up in possession of their weapon.
On Wednesday 12 September 2001 09:22 pm, Dave Stewart wrote:
My point is that the hijackers were ticketed passengers. Short of strip search, it's entirely possible that the weapons they had would not have been discovered. Unless we're going to do at least a pat-down of all passengers.
If the weapons would have been discovered will be something fo a later debate if we ever find the weapons (knives - plastic or metal).
In short, from what I've seen, the "security" measures now being put in place would have done little or nothing to avert yesterday's attacks.
Not so much the security measures of yesterday (since they are very much in the past now) but the fact that the US has a relaxed security infrastructure at the airports, borders, etc...probably gave the terrorists a sense that they could get through airport security undetected....I doubt they would have tried the same tactics on an LL or European airline.
As has been pointed out earlier - enter the country legally, do everything exactly as authorities ask. Then take whatever action you want once the flight is in the air.
The air marshall program is a good idea - I worry a little that a group of determined people could overpower him/her and end up in possession of their weapon.
Bottom line is that airport security as well other public transportation and public establishments must have better security...it's time for us to join the paranoia the rest of the world has...not a good thing but unfortunately it is necessary. steve
Not that this has anything to do with NANOG, but ... Why be limited to just AN air marshall? Allow some already licensed citizens to carry their own handguns on planes after running them through some sort of civilian air marshall program - maybe run by the National Guard at high school level or earlier for the future members to get a headstart, and by the FBI for those actively on planes. For those in the program who don't choose to carry all the time off the planes, provide issue weapons that get turned in at the far end for those coming with none, and provide checking/storage at either end for those more comfortable their own but perhaps not wanting a weapon with them at some business meeting. Yes, you may lose a plane or two through screwups or until training and screening get refined, but far better hundreds in the unlucky plane than thousands when buildings or sports stadiums or monster urban cryo-LNG tanks are successful targets. Its not that the terrorists would be personally afraid of these civilians, but they would be rightly afraid their success rate would be severely crimped. If all the passengers of the planes this week were aware of what was really about to happen, I suspect the outcome would have been a lot different. If you are apt to be dying anyway, make sure the bastards don't get their way totally. One plane apparently did that. But if you then tilt the scale towards the public's side a bit more than hand to hand combat with a knife (or gun or bomb) wielding terrorist allows, and add a few civilian marksmen you have a much safer plane that I would not mind flying on. Go to your local gun club and watch the local police come for their annual requalifying now that they need a properly lead proofed and ventilated range the city/town can no longer afford, and then watch the average club member shoot. On average, guess who is the better shot by far! This juncture should not be one where the public is further disarmed, but should be one where Americans, even those that don't like guns, should seriously consider learning to use them well if and when needed, and should be demanding more of their rights to self defense be returned. And give them bonus frequent flyer miles or special discounts, and a Saturday of intense training every 3 months or so that they even get paid to attend. Make the system popular, but demand some serious training. And don't whine about Columbine and guns and school kids. Normal American kids and guns are fine. Some quality instruction helps. I grew up in a neighborhood in Cambridge Mass where all the kids had access to guns and could shoot as much as they could afford. Noone got hurt. One of the Harvard Professors (www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/05.27/mm.perry.html ) across the street owned marsh islands off the north shore and the neighborhood kids took turns being his kid's guests. You could shoot all you wanted but had to bring or pay for your own ammo. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns. That was in the early 50s and I was pretty young as we moved away from there at the end of my 7th grade. I was a lucky city kid with access to instruction and shooting space. Country kids will all laugh because they always had such access. We didn't have garbage TV back then and more important did not have prescription psych mind-rape drugs being pumped into school kids as a bad crutch or source of Federal $$s by school systems that have wandered far away from real teaching ability. Keep the psychs and their Columbine/Wakefield style drugs OUT of schools and certainly out of any civilian air marshall program and you can have a safe system. ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Stewart" <dbs@ntrnet.net> To: "Mathias Körber" <mathias@koerber.org>; <nanog@merit.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:22 PM Subject: RE: Lack of Security
At 10:55 PM 9/12/2001, Mathias Körber wrote:
And thus reduce the number of people and bags etc that need to be checked, which will allow for more time to do thorough checks. Why is it important that non-passengers be able to get all the way to the gate?
......
The air marshall program is a good idea - I worry a little that a group of determined people could overpower him/her and end up in possession of their weapon.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mathias K�rber wrote: |+ |+| Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past |+| security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased |+| security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the |+| number of people passing the checkpoints. |+ |+And thus reduce the number of people and bags etc that need to be checked, |+which will allow for more time to do thorough checks. |+Why is it important that non-passengers be able to get all the way to the gate? |+ Being in Canada and traveling to the US on occasion I was suprised the first time I went and found that non-passengers could get to the gate by just passing through security the same as passengers. Yet in Canada, only passengers with valid tickets/boarding passes can get through security, which seems a lot more sane to me at least. Keith
Yes, security in airports is a serious problem. However this can happen at any level. The problem is the terrorist and their "kamikaze" mentality. If a terrorist creates a makeshift bomb, attaches it to their bodies and decides to walk into the nearest mall, what stops this individual from killing hundreds? Airport security is an issue, but it is not the answer to terrorism, by ANY means. What if these terrorist decided to take four vehicles filled with explosives to the Holland Tunnel, Midtown Tunnel, GW Bridge and the Williamsburg bridge? What would we do then? Blame bridge and tunnel security? Once again, the problem is the terrorist. The intelligence agencies in the United States are the best in the world. Get your shit straight! ~ Clarke ~
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, clarke wrote:
The intelligence agencies in the United States are the best in the world.
Get your shit straight!
~ Clarke ~
If our 'best' had no hint that what happened yesterday was going to occur, then perhaps the statement above is wrong. (Either way(if they knew, or not) expect changes, and more money for them.)
Stopping terrorism of this nature is impossible. In the free society that we live in, and I emphasize the work FREE, it's impossible to stop these kind of attacks. Those who blame the government intelligence agencies should not have any problem when their FREE rights and privacy are taken away from them in the near future. Security at what cost? Our freedom and privacy? ~ Clarke ~ ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Suiter <todd@s4r.com> To: clarke <nclarke@mindspring.com> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Don't blame Intelligence or Security Agencies.....
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, clarke wrote:
The intelligence agencies in the United States are the best in the
world.
Get your shit straight!
~ Clarke ~
If our 'best' had no hint that what happened yesterday was going to occur, then perhaps the statement above is wrong. (Either way(if they knew, or not) expect changes, and more money for them.)
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, clarke wrote:
The intelligence agencies in the United States are the best in the world.
This is actually not true. In order for anyone to get world class explosives, they would need to be well connected and to have access to explosives, that is, someone will have to supply them. Among these network of terrorists, some of them deal with supplying explosives, some with aquiring them, some with planning, some with other financial aspects. Like any other military (or large organization), they have a few departments. Most of the people are rather sane, and work in a more or less normal manner to do their "job". The ones carrying out the missions are the vast minority of such an organization. Intelligence gathering should and must be at the preliminary stage, by infiltrating such organizations, in any possible way. An operation of the size the US witnessed involved many people, at all levels of the organization. If the organization was well covered by the CIA/???, then the information would have reached them long time before the actual hit. This is what intelligence is all about. --Ariel
Get your shit straight!
~ Clarke ~
-- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
". The ones carrying out the missions are the vast minority of such an organization.
This is highly incorrect, especially when looking at extremist Muslamic religous groups. Religious Extremism. Islamic extremists literally pose the largest danger in terms of religious terrorism. Sunni terrorists, such as Ramzi Yousef, convicted in the New York Trade Center bombing, tend to be representative of this trend, whereas Shi'a terrorists continue to pursue their goals in a more collective fashion, obtaining direction and support from Iran. Although the Sunni-Shi'a schism remains, some cooperation between members of the two branches of Islam has been evident. Muslim terrorists are often Mujahadeen, devoted to Islam and committed to Jihad, ("Holy War"), possessing combat experience of such locations as Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Well-schooled in handling weapons, explosives and communications equipment, they know the value of the Internet, fax machines, cellular telephones and encryption. Increasingly sophisticated and willing travellers, they have access to excellent false documentation and international contacts, and can blend easily into a local émigré community, where they can plan and execute attacks without being readily identified. It is their nebulous, unstructured characteristics, combined with zealous dedication, which contribute in large measure to the menace they present. Osama bin Laden is one such extraordinary example, made several times more dangerous by virtue of his immense wealth, personal capabilities, and charisma.
Intelligence gathering should and must be at the preliminary stage, by infiltrating such organizations, in any possible way. An operation of the size the US witnessed involved many people, at all levels of the organization. If the organization was well covered by the CIA/???, then the information would have reached them long time before the actual hit.
This is what intelligence is all about.
Intelligence is the best weapon for countering terrorism, but getting good intelligence on terrorism is challenging because it necessitates direct communication with the terrorists. CIA guidelines have discouraged hiring terrorist spies. This limits the information we can gather on terrorists and their agendas. ~ Clarke ~
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:15:23 EDT, alex@yuriev.com said:
The intelligence agencies in the United States are the best in the world.
Mossad would disagree with you. Ever wondered why no one hijacks El Al flights?
I always thought it was due to two factors: 1) Proper security design at the airports that make all the obvious single-person low-tech attacks fairly unlikely to work, forcing the use of high-tech or conspiracy solutions. 2) The reluctance of anybody to be the on-the-ground part of a conspiracy or the seller of a high-tech solution, when you *know* that your continued life expectancy is very short unless you plan to spend the rest of your life hiding under a bush in one of the more inhospitable jungles of New Guinea. ObNanog: Proper security is a layered thing, and studying known working examples of layered security is always instructive... Now if everybody would just install the patches, we'd have (1) covered on the net and could start worrying about (2) ;) Valdis Kletnieks Operating Systems Analyst Virginia Tech
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Mathias K�rber wrote:
| Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past | security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased | security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the | number of people passing the checkpoints.
And thus reduce the number of people and bags etc that need to be checked, which will allow for more time to do thorough checks. Why is it important that non-passengers be able to get all the way to the gate?
Why is it important that they not? It seems to me that the only difference between a person with a ticket and a person without now is just the ticket. Neither have baggage and all have to go through the same checkpoints. The only thing is more time for shaking people down that either raise suspicion or set the metal detector off. What does the removal of curbside checking provide? My wife brought up an interesting point. We travel with small children, and they tend to need things to keep them occupied while they're in small confined spaces for hours at a time. They also need things like diapers, formula, pacifiers, snacks, etc. which will be impossible to transport without some sort of carry on bag. Make no mistake, these are reactionary feel good measures that are designed to make people feel safer, but will probably not amount to anything significant except more irritable passengers. If they thought air rage was bad now, it's only going to get worse because flying was already becoming a huge pain in the ass. I can only imagine what this is going to do to the airline industry, considering they were already having enough problems. Midway Airlines already closed up shop according to CNN this morning. I'm certainly not comfortable checking my laptop with baggage handlers. There's no telling where it will end up, whom it will end up with, or what shape it will end up in. You won't see anyone contest these new rules either, because no one wants to be seen as rocking the boat. This is what politicians and beuracrats do. Regards, -- Joseph W. Shaw II Network Security Specialist/CCNA Unemployed. Will hack for food. God Bless. Apparently I'm overqualified but undereducated to be employed.
| Why is it important that they not? It seems to me that the only | difference between a person with a ticket and a person without now is just | the ticket. Neither have baggage and all have to go through the same | checkpoints. The only thing is more time for shaking people down that | either raise suspicion or set the metal detector off. What does the | removal of curbside checking provide? The difference is that those with tickets will get on the plane and thus pose a higher potential security risk. So they should be screened more closely, which will require time and resources. Not screening those who don't want to fly will free up those resources. Why should non-passenger be screened in the first place. They can stay outside the security perimeter. | My wife brought up an interesting point. We travel with small children, | and they tend to need things to keep them occupied while they're in small | confined spaces for hours at a time. They also need things like diapers, | formula, pacifiers, snacks, etc. which will be impossible to transport | without some sort of carry on bag. Make no mistake, these are reactionary Here I agree. I do think that as a short-term measure this is OK, until new procedures have been worked out, *tested* and implemented, but in the long term carry-on will have to return.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Dave Stewart wrote:
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:
The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the same security we display in most of our networks as well.
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints.
And by reducing the number of people passing the checkpoint, you can more thoroughly check a higher number of people. -- Dominic J. Eidson "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
Terribly sorry to stray so much from on topic, but I have a question I can't satisfactorily answer my self. First I wish to convey my deep sorrow and sympathy to all listmembers directly or indirectly affected by this attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with you here in Canada, and we shall strike with one heart and mind at those that perpetrated this act. My question follows: You can't get into a cab in NYC that doesn't have a shield that protects the cabbie from the passengers. Why on earth is the cabin even accessible from the passenger compartment? Could planes not be constructed to isolate the cabin entirely from the passengers? You could certainly provide limited seating for pilots that were flying along forward of this partition. Is there any good reason for the amount of trust which is required in the present model? Regards, Geoff Zinderdine DSL Support Technician MTS Communications ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stewart" <dbs@ntrnet.net> To: <nanog@merit.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Lack of Security
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:
The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the same security we display in most of our networks as well.
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers past security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints.
These hijackers were ticketed passengers.
No carry-on? OK, so it will reduce hiding places for non-metallic weapons. On the other hand, so much for taking your laptop with you - are you willing to entrust your laptop to baggage handlers? Willing to put your Palm in your checked luggage?
This is just my feeling, but I honestly believe these measures are only giving the *appearance* of security, apparently to make the general public feel better.
I do agree, though, with the comments on network security - so many, many are much more lax about the security of their networks than airports have been. As an anecdote, when I came to my current job last year, the
network
was wide open. Since, I've placed servers behind firewalls, and blocked things like NetBIOS (you wouldn't believe the cry that went up from customers when I did that - they *want* to use NetBIOS shares between business offices in various cities)
| You can't get into a cab in NYC that doesn't have a shield that | protects the | cabbie from the passengers. Why on earth is the cabin even | accessible from | the passenger compartment? Could planes not be constructed to isolate the | cabin entirely from the passengers? You could certainly provide limited | seating for pilots that were flying along forward of this partition. | | Is there any good reason for the amount of trust which is required in the | present model? I think not, and hope that Boeing and Airbus (and other manufacturers) will start redesigning their planes with an option of a completely separate flight-deck etc. There will likely be severe drawbacks to this though: - no medical attention possible to pilots if one suffers a sickness and a doctor happens to be on board - no possibility of a steward(ess) of passenger taking over in case the flight-crew gets disabled.
How does the pilot go to the bathroom? How does the pilot change positions with a relief pilot on flights over 12 hours? How does the pilot/co-pilot perform emergency maintance in the lower avionics compartments if their is some type of failure? How can the pilot visually inspect any type wing damage/other damage that may/may not have an effect on how the plane flies? If both pilots are killed/overcome/pass out, how would a passenger/flight attendant get to the controls to bring the plane down with direction from ATC? The current model needs trust as it allows for a greater number of survival possibilities for the aircraft. Don't band-aid the problem. Eliminate the problem. I have a friend that used to work in security for a large major airline. The Air Marshalls have never disappeared. You just don't know they are there. The only people that know they are there is the flight crew. They dress like you and me and act like you and me. An Air Marshall on any one of those 4 flights could have easily eliminated the situation unless the pilot was an imposter from takeoff. --- Geoff Zinderdine <geoffz@mts.net> wrote:
Terribly sorry to stray so much from on topic, but I have a question I can't satisfactorily answer my self. First I wish to convey my deep sorrow and sympathy to all listmembers directly or indirectly affected by this attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with you here in Canada, and we shall strike with one heart and mind at those that perpetrated this act. My question follows:
You can't get into a cab in NYC that doesn't have a shield that protects the cabbie from the passengers. Why on earth is the cabin even accessible from the passenger compartment? Could planes not be constructed to isolate the cabin entirely from the passengers? You could certainly provide limited seating for pilots that were flying along forward of this partition.
Is there any good reason for the amount of trust which is required in the present model?
Regards,
Geoff Zinderdine DSL Support Technician MTS Communications
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stewart" <dbs@ntrnet.net> To: <nanog@merit.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Lack of Security
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:
The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the
security we display in most of our networks as well.
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers
security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints.
These hijackers were ticketed passengers.
No carry-on? OK, so it will reduce hiding places for non-metallic weapons. On the other hand, so much for taking your laptop with you - are you willing to entrust your laptop to baggage handlers? Willing to
your Palm in your checked luggage?
This is just my feeling, but I honestly believe these measures are only giving the *appearance* of security, apparently to make the general
same past put public
feel better.
I do agree, though, with the comments on network security - so many, many are much more lax about the security of their networks than airports have been. As an anecdote, when I came to my current job last year, the network was wide open. Since, I've placed servers behind firewalls, and blocked things like NetBIOS (you wouldn't believe the cry that went up from customers when I did that - they *want* to use NetBIOS shares between business offices in various cities)
===== - -Andy Ellifson - __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Robert Hough wrote:
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
So are you advocating a loss of freedom in the physical world for security? I'm willing to accept certain measures to make the planes and airports more secure, sure. But I refuse to lose any freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights. Of course, many believe that's outdated anyway. The 5th and 4th Amendments are already pretty useless thanks to the "war on drugs". The 2nd is the big enemy right now to most. After that's finally chipped away the 1st will probably be next, all in the interest of National Security and safety. I should go find my tin foil... And since my primary job these days is security, I can say insecure systems come from three primary causes; human error, human ignorance and human laziness. Neither of which will be erradicated anytime soon. Human error generally causes the problem, human ignorance means you don't know there's a problem, and human laziness keeps you from fixing it. Remember guys, while there's a lot of 0-day used by the underground, most attacks are for known and correctable bugs. Regards, -- Joseph W. Shaw II Network Security Specialist/CCNA Unemployed. Will hack for food. God Bless. Apparently I'm overqualified but undereducated to be employed.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, Joe Shaw wrote:
So are you advocating a loss of freedom in the physical world for security? I'm willing to accept certain measures to make the planes and airports more secure, sure.
No, I was talking about convenience.
But I refuse to lose any freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights. Of course, many believe that's outdated anyway.
Convenience and American Rights are two different things. I wish more American people would learn the difference. I'm not saying that you don't, as you were unsure as to what I was talking about. However, I have to ask. How is improving and tightening security around air ports, sea ports, and borders a infringing on your rights?
And since my primary job these days is security, I can say insecure systems come from three primary causes; human error, human ignorance and human laziness.
Agreed 100% - and I don't claim to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. However, you have to start somewhere to get the ball in motion. You have to get people used to the idea of having to take extra steps in order to accomplish something. Again, I'm not saying your rights should be revoked. I'm saying some of the conveniences we are used to need to be made a little less convenient.
Remember guys, while there's a lot of 0-day used by the underground, most attacks are for known and correctable bugs.
Yes, just like the tragedy that occured on Tuesday. They used a well known exploit in our system. Could we have stopped them with better security? It doesn't matter - preventing from happening again, is what matters to me. -- Robert Hough (rch@acidpit.org)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 07:34:00AM -0400, Robert Hough wrote:
Yes, just like the tragedy that occured on Tuesday. They used a well known exploit in our system. Could we have stopped them with better security? It doesn't matter - preventing from happening again, is what matters to me.
The problem I have with all of the FAA action is that anyone with a valid rating can rent a plane, even planes this large if they have enough money. I would guess the hijackers wanted a plane full of people for additional shock value, but obtaining an empty (but full of fuel) plane would be even easier for them, and almost no FAA security measures would stop them. Additionally, on a private plane they could load on it explosive cargo without too much effort, adding even more punch to the process. I do believe we need to figure out how these planes were hijacked, and take steps to prevent it from happening again. That said, I find it highly unlikely that eliminating curbside checkin will have any effect other than to inconvenience travelers. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 07:34:00AM -0400, Robert Hough wrote:
Yes, just like the tragedy that occured on Tuesday. They used a well known exploit in our system. Could we have stopped them with better security? It doesn't matter - preventing from happening again, is what matters to me.
The problem I have with all of the FAA action is that anyone with a valid rating can rent a plane, even planes this large if they have enough money. I would guess the hijackers wanted a plane full of people for additional shock value, but obtaining an empty (but full of fuel) plane would be even easier for them, and almost no FAA security measures would stop them. Additionally, on a private plane they could load on it explosive cargo without too much effort, adding even more punch to the process.
I do believe we need to figure out how these planes were hijacked, and take steps to prevent it from happening again. That said, I find it highly unlikely that eliminating curbside checkin will have any effect other than to inconvenience travelers.
Interesting comments on radio today in the UK. An editor for a 'flight' magazine who specialises safety and ops says that the US you guys tend to treat getting on an internal flight a bit like us Brits treat getting on a bus. ie quick and last minute. Also he said that you can carry legally a 7 inch knife in your luggage on internal flights. Now from various reports I've seen the hijackers where armed with knives and 'claimed' to have bombs - no mention of firearms. I think that this will change and the 1997 recommendations on flight safety could well be implemented on domestic fights too. What impact could this have....less travelling and more electronic (video) meetings perhaps, which IMO is could 'cos long distance travel can be a real drag. just my 2 pence worth... -- Martin Hepworth Senior Systems Administrator Solid State Logic Ltd +44 (0)1865 842300 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 01:55:51PM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Also he said that you can carry legally a 7 inch knife in your luggage on internal flights.
I believe any 'legal' knife can be kept in checked luggage, and that is still the case. The FAA used to have a rule allowing the carry on of knives 4" and shorter, although most US prohibited carring anything larger than 3", so that is what most airports checked. I understand this is quite different from Europe, in the US many Americans carry items like swiss army knives or leathermans on a daily basis, including on planes. Interestingly enough several people make ceramic knives. See http://www.ceramic-knives.com/ for the kitchen variant, there are companies that make more weapon like versions. I can only assume that one of these would not set off a magnetometer, and would be easy to get past security. To keep this somewhat on topic, there is a general security parallel here that applies to planes, networks, millitary weapons and anything else you can imagine. Someone on the inside with nothing to lose can essentially always get past security. These people had spent years training to be pilots. Taking another couple of years to be actual employed pilots of an air carrier would probably have been something they were willing to do, putting them right at the controls. Employees behind firewalls can always copy the company secrets to a floppy and mail them to whoever they want. To a large extent the only deterrant to this sort of activity is the reprocussions that occur after the fact. Most actions cannot be taken by one person, they must have the support of larger groups. Everyone involved must be held responsible in the most severe way, so that no one is willing to help in the future. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Leo Bicknell wrote: [..]
To keep this somewhat on topic, there is a general security parallel here that applies to planes, networks, millitary weapons and anything else you can imagine. Someone on the inside with nothing to lose can essentially always get past security. These people had spent years training to be pilots. Taking another couple of years to be actual employed pilots of an air carrier would probably have been something they were willing to do, putting them right at the controls. Employees behind firewalls can always copy the company secrets to a floppy and mail them to whoever they want. [..]
Our "security" measures didn't work. Lets not bother with "security" at all.
Has anyone received a request like the one that was I forwarded below? [Stuff Deleted] We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call. Get ready for a big outage.... [More Stuff Deleted]
Should this request not be via the telcos pre-empting the circuits ? Also does the military not operate its own private network services both voice/data ? Regards, Kevin On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
Has anyone received a request like the one that was I forwarded below?
[Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
Get ready for a big outage....
[More Stuff Deleted]
I just sent eveything that I was forwarded, I don't know anymore nor have I heard this from my provider. I find this hard to believe and I just wanted to see if someone knew something that I didn't. kevin pop account writes:
Should this request not be via the telcos pre-empting the circuits ?
Also does the military not operate its own private network services both voice/data ?
Regards, Kevin
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
Has anyone received a request like the one that was I forwarded below?
[Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
Get ready for a big outage....
[More Stuff Deleted]
Lets hope that the message is not correct as it would not be in the spirit of why the network was designed. BTW Over here in Ireland Friday will be a national day of morning I have never seen so many people touched by any event. My heart goes out to all those affected. Regards, Kevin On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
I just sent eveything that I was forwarded, I don't know anymore nor have I heard this from my provider. I find this hard to believe and I just wanted to see if someone knew something that I didn't.
kevin pop account writes:
Should this request not be via the telcos pre-empting the circuits ?
Also does the military not operate its own private network services both voice/data ?
Regards, Kevin
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
Has anyone received a request like the one that was I forwarded below?
[Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
Get ready for a big outage....
[More Stuff Deleted]
Why would the "Military" do this? This makes little no no sense, and seems to be a troll. "so there would be more bandwidth" - yeah, right. - Daniel Golding -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Seth M. Kusiak Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:39 AM To: nanog@merit.org Subject: Military asking to ISPs to shut down equipment? Has anyone received a request like the one that was I forwarded below? [Stuff Deleted] We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call. Get ready for a big outage.... [More Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
i received a call telling me to send all my money to nigeria. randy
Randy writes:
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
i received a call telling me to send all my money to nigeria.
Note also that the military contacted the ISP "in tern" -- surely it's significant that the military is using some variant of RFCs 2549 or 1149. As Nostradamus said, "In the City of God there will be much guano, on buildings, statues, and verily, even filling communication lines." Jim Shankland
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
[Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
Get ready for a big outage....
[More Stuff Deleted]
Well, back in 1999 I was courting Qwest for a new DS3, because they had facilities in the building I was in. When I asked for a list of peers I was told I would have to sign an NDA to find that out, to which I replied I'd find out either way, it would only matter if I got the infor from them or did the research myself. They then started telling me about this super secret OC-192 network they were building for the government, but being sales critters I took it very lightly. It's possible that Qwest could be having problems that may be causing problems with that network, if it exists, but I'm highly suspicious of e-mails saying that the Army wants people to shut down. Regards, -- Joseph W. Shaw II Network Security Specialist/CCNA Unemployed. Will hack for food. God Bless. Apparently I'm overqualified but undereducated to be employed.
I'd be surprised if it were true.. military people are paranoid on security. I know for instance the UK military entirely operate their own network which is 100% physically separate and at no points allow it to fall under civilian control. Steve On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Joe Shaw wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
[Stuff Deleted]
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
Get ready for a big outage....
[More Stuff Deleted]
Well, back in 1999 I was courting Qwest for a new DS3, because they had facilities in the building I was in. When I asked for a list of peers I was told I would have to sign an NDA to find that out, to which I replied I'd find out either way, it would only matter if I got the infor from them or did the research myself. They then started telling me about this super secret OC-192 network they were building for the government, but being sales critters I took it very lightly. It's possible that Qwest could be having problems that may be causing problems with that network, if it exists, but I'm highly suspicious of e-mails saying that the Army wants people to shut down.
Regards, -- Joseph W. Shaw II Network Security Specialist/CCNA Unemployed. Will hack for food. God Bless. Apparently I'm overqualified but undereducated to be employed.
-- Stephen J. Wilcox IP Services Manager, Opal Telecom http://www.opaltelecom.co.uk/ Tel: 0161 222 2000 Fax: 0161 222 2008
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 01:38:48PM +0000, Seth M. Kusiak wrote:
We just received a call from our ISP that they were contacted by Quest Communications who is a major National ISP who in tern was contacted by the Military and were asked to shut down a lot of their equipment connecting clients to the Internet so that there would be more bandwidth. Other ISP supposedly received the same call.
I can't speak for Qwest, but over here there is no network issue. There was a brief surge of traffic tuesday morning right after the event as people flocked to news outlets, but by tuesday afternoon traffic was at normal levels, and has been ever since. As of now we have lots of headroom, and our network is intact, and from what I see of other providers that's pretty much true across the board. There seems to be a lot of FUD out lately. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Leo Bicknell wrote: [..]
The problem I have with all of the FAA action is that anyone with a valid rating can rent a plane, even planes this large if they have enough money. I would guess the hijackers wanted a plane full of people for additional shock value, but obtaining an empty (but full of fuel) plane would be even easier for them, and almost no FAA security measures would stop them. Additionally, on a private plane they could load on it explosive cargo without too much effort, adding even more punch to the process.
Buying a set of tickets is considerably cheaper than leasing the entire plane just for yourself and paying for the fuel load. Why bother loading explosives, seems this did the job for them with a nearly fully fueled plane. Get over the inconveniences. They appear to have curbed terrorism effectively in other parts of the world.
| Get over the inconveniences. They appear to have curbed | terrorism effectively | in other parts of the world. While I agree that the inconveniences should not stop better security, I doubt that other parts of the world have effectively curbed terrorism. It may be that just no-one tried determinedly enough in recent years.. Unless you mean Israel or some such places with which I have no experiences, but Europe, while overall better does not feel secure enough from the few times I have been through FRA, HAM, OSL, CPH etc in the last years...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote:
The problem I have with all of the FAA action is that anyone with a valid rating can rent a plane, even planes this large if they have enough money. I would guess the hijackers wanted a plane full of people for additional shock value, but obtaining an empty (but
The passengers were a small "insurance policy" that they wouldn't be blown out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash 60-300 innocent people who are unwillingly along for the ride. The terrorists knew that this moral issue would weigh in their favor.
full of fuel) plane would be even easier for them, and almost no FAA security measures would stop them. Additionally, on a private plane they could load on it explosive cargo without too much effort, adding even more punch to the process.
The same goes for rental cars/trucks.
I do believe we need to figure out how these planes were hijacked, and take steps to prevent it from happening again. That said, I find it highly unlikely that eliminating curbside checkin will have any effect other than to inconvenience travelers.
I agree. Baggage checked at the curb goes through the same procedures as baggage carried to the ticket counter. It's just more convenient. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
that's really unnecessary! _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
It's far beyond unnecessary, it's absolutely disgusting. Joe On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, EA Louie wrote:
out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's really unnecessary!
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, EA Louie wrote:
out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's really unnecessary!
In that case, you would have been seriously offended by the first draft of the message. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, EA Louie wrote:
out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's really unnecessary!
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
In retrospect, I would like to offer my sincere aplogy to camels everywhere. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
out of the air by intercepting fighters. It's psychologically difficult enough to splash a camel-humping terrorist, let alone have to splash ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that's really unnecessary!
In retrospect, I would like to offer my sincere aplogy to camels everywhere.
[injecting some humor into an otherwise worthless conversation] apology accepted by camels everywhere. One hump, or two? _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (27)
-
alex＠yuriev.com -
Andy Ellifson -
Ariel Biener -
Barton F Bruce -
Christian Kuhtz -
clarke -
Daniel Golding -
Dave Stewart -
Dominic J. Eidson -
EA Louie -
Geoff Zinderdine -
Jim Shankland -
Joe Shaw -
John Fraizer -
Keith Woodworth -
kevin pop account -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hepworth -
Mathias K�rber -
polarcat＠darwin.smarter.net -
Randy Bush -
Robert Hough -
Seth M. Kusiak -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Stephen Miller -
Todd Suiter -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu