3 ms·
Sadly, given the current situation, we'll probably have to migrate from the current (easy to use and available) system to something more secure (and fragile).
by msm_ 3y ago
Sadly, given the current situation, we'll probably have to migrate from the current (easy to use and available) system to something more secure (and fragile).
Some people will die, but if that happens again there's not much choice.
- jacquesm 3y agoNo, I don't think we should. What we should do is hunt these perps down and take them out of circulation for a long long time. Because it isn't possible to make a system both easy to access and secure at the same time and if the price is that people will get killed who have nothing to do with any of this then we will end up losing our critical infrastructure just as sure as if you bombed it.
- msm_ 3y agoIt's very hard to find a source of a radio signal sent from a middle of nowhere (having only a few trains to trinagulate). Of course we should do this, but if someone starts abusing this to raise chaos in the country, we may have no other choice. And we have an enemy country very interested in causing problems nearby. >Because it isn't possible to make a system both easy to access and secure at the same time Not right now, but since 2009 we're implementing GSM-R, and we still don't have it. It's not a bad solution, but nobody really cared until the recent abuse happened.
- jacquesm 3y agoLegacy... hard to overcome that in a few years when it took many, many decades to deploy the original gear. This stuff is quite expensive, deployed everywhere and needs to continue to be backwards compatible while the new solution is rolled out, which is difficult to achieve.