3 ms·

2015: “While we have not yet identified the shooter, there's some indication it was an insider," said Caitlin Durkovich, assistant secretary for infrastructure

2015: “While we have not yet identified the shooter, there's some indication it was an insider," said Caitlin Durkovich, assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at the Department of Homeland Security.

csilverman 6y ago
I always wondered about this. First thing that crossed my mind at the time was that it was (1) idiots who thought it would be fun to cause high-profile trouble, or (2) terrorists, but it sounded a bit sophisticated for #1 and as far as I know, no one ever claimed credit for it. After reading one of the references (https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/ https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-gri...), and learning that they think it might have been an insider, a third possibility occurs to me: what if it was someone—maybe a PG&E employee—who knew first-hand how unprotected this infrastructure was, and wasn't being taken seriously? Especially given the Homeland Security report a year earlier about how easy this kind of attack would be. Conspiracy-theory stuff, maybe, but: > The assault...became a harsh wake-up call for energy providers, who have since become obsessed with the physical security of their remote power stations. > PG&E alone has pledged to spend $100 million to improve security at its facilities...Transformers are often custom designed, sometimes costing $3 million each—and replacements are slow. Plus, physical attacks on energy distribution machines are much more effective at taking out the power grid than a computer hack. And it's incredibly easy to pull off, several energy utility firms told CNNMoney. > Experts attending GridSecCon, held by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation this week, are now discussing the need to enclose electronics in 1/2-inch thick armor plating that can stop high-powered rifle rounds. Power utilities have started loading remote substations with infrared cameras, gunshot audio sensors and even seismic recorders that catch vibrations.
- bargle0 6y ago
  There’s a fourth option: intentional vandalism that isn’t terrorism, like the fire on the USS Miami.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - csilverman 6y ago
    Yeah, arbitrary vandalism was the first option I considered. Can't rule it out, although whoever did this seems to have shown more caution/coordination than you'd expect from a couple of drunk idiots taking potshots at street signs.
    - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
      Not drunk idiots, an insider. Compare e.g. the incident where a disgruntled worker decided to flood an area with raw sewage through false radio commands (https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/08_1145.pdf https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/08_1145.pdf)
      - roywiggins 6y ago
        Or the guy fingered for the 2001 anthrax attacks. If it was an insider, it was probably someone with a workplace grievance. Maybe someone who had raised concerns about security and wanted to prove himself correct, or just someone with a boss they disliked who wanted to make trouble.
      - Sevrene 6y ago
        Oh wow, that's my local area and I had never heard of this. Thanks for posting. Makes you wonder what happens that doesn't get discovered.
- skylanh 6y ago
  Well, if we're doing actionable conspiracy theories then: - it caused $15 million in damage, and $100 million in updated security -> contractor needing work - it was a "domestic terrorism" event -> what legislation or policies were on the table at this time? Those would be my starting points.
  - csilverman 6y ago
    Someone else mentioned job security/contracts as a possible motivation. It makes sense. I'm less sure about the terrorist angle. The point of a terrorist act is to advance or discourage a specific political agenda; that only works if you're clear about who you are and why you did it, though. These guys never did that (although maybe scaring PG&E into securing their facilities roughly fits the definition of goal-oriented violence, even if it wasn't motivated by politics).
  - rocqua 6y ago
    Or what else happened at that time that could benefit from - losing power - losing network connection - a distraction in the news
- luma 6y ago
  Maybe somebody trying to sell physical infrastructure security solutions to PG&E?
  - csilverman 6y ago
    I actually hadn't considered the idea that they might have a financial interest in grid security. It makes a certain kind of sense.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

csilverman 6y ago

I always wondered about this. First thing that crossed my mind at the time was that it was (1) idiots who thought it would be fun to cause high-profile trouble, or (2) terrorists, but it sounded a bit sophisticated for #1 and as far as I know, no one ever claimed credit for it. After reading one of the references (https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/ https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-gri...), and learning that they think it might have been an insider, a third possibility occurs to me: what if it was someone—maybe a PG&E employee—who knew first-hand how unprotected this infrastructure was, and wasn't being taken seriously? Especially given the Homeland Security report a year earlier about how easy this kind of attack would be. Conspiracy-theory stuff, maybe, but: > The assault...became a harsh wake-up call for energy providers, who have since become obsessed with the physical security of their remote power stations. > PG&E alone has pledged to spend $100 million to improve security at its facilities...Transformers are often custom designed, sometimes costing $3 million each—and replacements are slow. Plus, physical attacks on energy distribution machines are much more effective at taking out the power grid than a computer hack. And it's incredibly easy to pull off, several energy utility firms told CNNMoney. > Experts attending GridSecCon, held by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation this week, are now discussing the need to enclose electronics in 1/2-inch thick armor plating that can stop high-powered rifle rounds. Power utilities have started loading remote substations with infrared cameras, gunshot audio sensors and even seismic recorders that catch vibrations.

bargle0 6y ago
There’s a fourth option: intentional vandalism that isn’t terrorism, like the fire on the USS Miami.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- csilverman 6y ago
  Yeah, arbitrary vandalism was the first option I considered. Can't rule it out, although whoever did this seems to have shown more caution/coordination than you'd expect from a couple of drunk idiots taking potshots at street signs.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
    Not drunk idiots, an insider. Compare e.g. the incident where a disgruntled worker decided to flood an area with raw sewage through false radio commands (https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/08_1145.pdf https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/08_1145.pdf)
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      Or the guy fingered for the 2001 anthrax attacks. If it was an insider, it was probably someone with a workplace grievance. Maybe someone who had raised concerns about security and wanted to prove himself correct, or just someone with a boss they disliked who wanted to make trouble.
    - Sevrene 6y ago
      Oh wow, that's my local area and I had never heard of this. Thanks for posting. Makes you wonder what happens that doesn't get discovered.
skylanh 6y ago
Well, if we're doing actionable conspiracy theories then: - it caused $15 million in damage, and $100 million in updated security -> contractor needing work - it was a "domestic terrorism" event -> what legislation or policies were on the table at this time? Those would be my starting points.
- csilverman 6y ago
  Someone else mentioned job security/contracts as a possible motivation. It makes sense. I'm less sure about the terrorist angle. The point of a terrorist act is to advance or discourage a specific political agenda; that only works if you're clear about who you are and why you did it, though. These guys never did that (although maybe scaring PG&E into securing their facilities roughly fits the definition of goal-oriented violence, even if it wasn't motivated by politics).
- rocqua 6y ago
  Or what else happened at that time that could benefit from - losing power - losing network connection - a distraction in the news
luma 6y ago
Maybe somebody trying to sell physical infrastructure security solutions to PG&E?
- csilverman 6y ago
  I actually hadn't considered the idea that they might have a financial interest in grid security. It makes a certain kind of sense.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]