4 ms·

Given that the failure mode seems to rely on force applied to a specific generator from other generators this particular attack could only take down some percen

Given that the failure mode seems to rely on force applied to a specific generator from other generators this particular attack could only take down some percentage of all running generators at any given time correct?

anotheryou 6y ago
I think it's not unlikely that a very high percentage of these protective relay is from the same manufacturer running the same "operating system" with the same vulnerability. With that it doesn't matter if it's the same hardware model and also not which generator sits behind it. From the article it sounds like that force would have killed any generator.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
  Where is that force coming from though?
  - anotheryou 6y ago
    the grid? you're thinking of this?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24911509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24911509
Veserv 6y ago
Sure, but the OC was clearly alluding to the fact that the real risk is a true mass attack. If you could do anything to every generator, what is the worst thing you could do? If you use this technique you could probably blow out some percentage of generators. Would that take down the grid? For how long? How hard would it be to recover? We already know power grids can be taken down by cyberattacks, just look at the cyberattack Russia did against Ukraine's power grid [1]. The main difference is that they were probably not trying to permanently take down their grid. If you could do something that would destroy enough capacity to keep the grid down for months the casualties would be immense. There would be immediate consequences like the loss of heating and cooling resulting in exposure deaths, but these pale in comparison to losses of fresh water, fuel production and thus food transport, fertilizer production and thus food production, manufacturing and thus goods, cargo port throughput and thus shipping. Modern society in the developed world utterly depends on our power grid. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ukraine-cyberattack-power-grid-blackout-destruction/ https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ukraine-cyberattack-power...

anotheryou 6y ago

I think it's not unlikely that a very high percentage of these protective relay is from the same manufacturer running the same "operating system" with the same vulnerability. With that it doesn't matter if it's the same hardware model and also not which generator sits behind it. From the article it sounds like that force would have killed any generator.

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
Where is that force coming from though?
- anotheryou 6y ago
  the grid? you're thinking of this?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24911509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24911509

Veserv 6y ago

Sure, but the OC was clearly alluding to the fact that the real risk is a true mass attack. If you could do anything to every generator, what is the worst thing you could do? If you use this technique you could probably blow out some percentage of generators. Would that take down the grid? For how long? How hard would it be to recover? We already know power grids can be taken down by cyberattacks, just look at the cyberattack Russia did against Ukraine's power grid [1]. The main difference is that they were probably not trying to permanently take down their grid. If you could do something that would destroy enough capacity to keep the grid down for months the casualties would be immense. There would be immediate consequences like the loss of heating and cooling resulting in exposure deaths, but these pale in comparison to losses of fresh water, fuel production and thus food transport, fertilizer production and thus food production, manufacturing and thus goods, cargo port throughput and thus shipping. Modern society in the developed world utterly depends on our power grid. [1] https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ukraine-cyberattack-power-grid-blackout-destruction/ https://www.wired.com/story/russia-ukraine-cyberattack-power...