> Speaking of that, a manhole cover is
> typically protecting some hole, accessway, or vault that's made out of
> concrete.
An oxyacetylene torch or a plasma cutter will slice through regular steel
manhole covers in minutes.
Yes, but we were discussing locked covers, which (given the underlying
assumptions of this discussion) might be a bit heavier. Further, it would
be vaguely suspicious and more noticeable for a "road crew" or "power
company" truck to be deploying such gear, might draw more attention.
The locking covers I have seen here put the lock(s) on the inside cover cam
jackscrew (holes through the jackscrew close to the inside cover seal rod
nut), rather than on the outside cover, thus keeping the padlocks out of the
weather.
More expense.
One way of making a site more resistant to 'inside job' issues is with SCIF-
like controls (see Sensitive compartmented information facility - Wikipedia )
and using combination locks such as the Sargent and Greenleaf 8077AD for
control, and the S&G 833 superpadlock for security (see http://www.sargentandgreenleaf.com/PL-833.php ). The tech would have the
833's key, and the area supervisor the combination. The 8077AD's combination
is very easily changed in the field, and could be changed frequently. The key
to this method's success is that the keyholder to the 833 cannot have the
combination, and the holder of the combination cannot have an 833 key.
Requires a certain atmosphere of distrust, unfortunately. And slows repairs
way down, especially if the 833's key is lost....
Certainly it is *possible* to do it, but given the other variables, does
it make *sense*?
Consider what I was saying about just going to town with a backhoe. You
have a lot to protect.
> Speaking of that, a manhole cover is
> typically protecting some hole, accessway, or vault that's made out of
> concrete.
An oxyacetylene torch or a plasma cutter will slice through regular steel
manhole covers in minutes.
Yes, but we were discussing locked covers, which (given the underlying
assumptions of this discussion) might be a bit heavier. Further, it would
be vaguely suspicious and more noticeable for a "road crew" or "power
company" truck to be deploying such gear, might draw more attention.
Cop: 'What are you fellows doing there with the torch?"
Me: "Us? Oh yea.... some dipstick plugged up our lock here with epoxy,
our quick solution cause of the outage is to cut the lock/blah off
with a torch, bummer, eh? I hate dipsticks..."
Cop: "Cool, have a good night!"
The locking covers I have seen here put the lock(s) on the inside cover cam
jackscrew (holes through the jackscrew close to the inside cover seal rod
nut), rather than on the outside cover, thus keeping the padlocks out of the
weather.
More expense.
and complexity
and parts to lose
and people to have away during normal outage repairs
and ... fail.
Requires a certain atmosphere of distrust, unfortunately. And slows repairs
way down, especially if the 833's key is lost....
Certainly it is *possible* to do it, but given the other variables, does
it make *sense*?
Consider what I was saying about just going to town with a backhoe. You
have a lot to protect.
and I also would ask.. what's the cost/risk here? 'We' lost at best
~1day for some folks in the outage, nothing global and nothing
earth-shattering... This has happened (this sort of thing) 1 time in
how many years? Expending $$ and time and people to go 'put padlocks
on manhole covers' seems like spending in the wrong place...
(yes, I agree also that simply dropping into a manhole with an
axe/hacksaw is pretty simple to do, it's also just about impossible to
realisitcally protect against)
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> writes:
and I also would ask.. what's the cost/risk here? 'We' lost at best
~1day for some folks in the outage, nothing global and nothing
earth-shattering... This has happened (this sort of thing) 1 time in
how many years? Expending $$ and time and people to go 'put padlocks
on manhole covers' seems like spending in the wrong place...
as long as the west's ideological opponents want terror rather than panic,
and also to inflict long term losses rather than short term losses, that's
true. in this light you can hopefully understand why bollards to protect
internet exchanges against truck bombs are not only penny wise pound foolish
(since the manholes a half mile away won't be hardened or monitored or even
locked) but also completely wrongheaded (since terrorists need publicity
which means they need their victims to be fully able to communicate.)
as long as the west's ideological opponents want terror rather than panic,
and also to inflict long term losses rather than short term losses, that's
true. in this light you can hopefully understand why bollards to protect
internet exchanges against truck bombs are not only penny wise pound foolish
(since the manholes a half mile away won't be hardened or monitored or even
Of the two physical disaster scenarios, i.e. catastrophic destruction of
a peering point or multiple long-line break, which do you think is the
less costly -- in both time and treasure -- to remedy? It is
acknowledged that the result of either is loss of service, but which is
the more survivable event? In light of this, where would you focus your
finite mitigation efforts?
locked) but also completely wrongheaded (since terrorists need publicity
which means they need their victims to be fully able to communicate.)
Do you realize that you're putting trust in the sane action of parties
who conclude their reasoning process with destruction and murder?
And how is that different from a US general plotting destruction and the
killing of enemy troops during an offensive? And yet we usually trust our
generals and call them "sane".
