$250K Reward Offered In California Power Grid Attack

An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press reports that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. has put up a $250,000 reward for 'information leading to an arrest and conviction in a startling attack mounted nearly a year ago on telephone lines and the power grid in Silicon Valley.' Besides cutting power lines, the attackers also cut AT&T fiber-optic phone lines, thereby denying some people access to 911, and fired shots into a PB&E substation, knocking out 17 transformers in Silicon Valley and causing $15 million in damage. As of this post, the perpetrators are still unidentified and continue to elude the FBI. Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday was brought before the Senate Energy Committee to explain why the FERC disseminated via insecure media a sensitive document describing where all the nation's power grids are particularly sensitive to a physical attack. FERC responded with assurances that databases are currently being scrubbed and procedures being implemented to safeguard critical data."

Comments

Why?

[cold fjord]

. Meanwhile, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday was brought before the Senate Energy Committee to explain why the FERC disseminated via insecure media a sensitive document describing where all the nation's power grids are particularly sensitive to a physical attack.

Because nobody will take security seriously until something bad happens? And once that something bad happens there will be plenty of people screaming, "False flag!"

Re:Why?

[Ravaldy]

It's human nature. We are reactive.

Re:Why?

[cold fjord]

Security is a design principle not a fashion statement, and good practice in dealing with critical infrastructure.

Re:Why?

[timeOday]

"More easily", sure. But if somebody is willing to cut cables and shoot guns at equipment, it is more reasonable to worry about catching them afterwards than preventing it. Making the entire grid literally bullet proof is a preposterous idea.

I've been thinking about this a lot as I listen to Kevin Mitnick's autobio, Ghost in the Wires. He devotes his entire life to circumventing various defenses, then laughs at everybody for being 'so easily' fooled. His entire view is basically juvenile - that everything (such as the phone system) just naturally exists and ought to be perfect, so it's amazing if he can prove otherwise. When in fact nobody ever said it was. All the stuff that exists and usually works is just the product of mostly ordinary people doing their 9-5 jobs and trying to keep the wheels turning until their shift ends so they can go home and do something else.

Re:Why?

[dlt074]

"This was mostly like one drunk teenager. "

i wish you were right on this. this attack was no drunken stunt. it was deliberate and calculated. i advocate hardening our vital infrastructure and i don't get any piece of the pie. the power grid goes down for any length of time, people are going to die.

ignore and hide from the facts all you like it won't change the fact that people around the world wish to do us harm and are working to do so.

Re:Why?

[cusco]

The morons of the Survivalist or Militia movements could take down the entire US electrical grid tomorrow were they able to stop fighting amongst themselves long enough. A score of more-or-less simultaneous strikes like this spread at random across the country would crash the grid, hard. You don't need inside information, deep understanding of the power distribution system, electrical engineering training, financing, or high tech weaponry, nothing more than a watch, a deer rifle and a vehicle to get you there. Electrical engineers have been complaining about this for well over two decades, but since making the grid more resilient will cost money the suits don't want to listen. If Al Qaeda were really what the gov't has tried to convince us they were you'd be without power several days a week.

Re:Why?

[cold fjord]

" Making the entire grid literally bullet proof" is a straw man. Nobody is thinking of that, and it isn't really possible. What is possible and reasonable is hardening critical infrastructure, improving redundancy, and making it easier to repair. If all you are prepared to do is cut cables and shoot a high power rifle that isn't going to get you very far very quickly against some elementary precautions for various parts of the infrastructure.

Re:Why?

[Some_Llama]

drunk teenager is not the answer with the fewest assumptions if you take into account the facts.

"involved snipping AT&T fiber-optic lines to knock out phone and 911 service in the area and firing shots into a PG&E substation."

how do you get drunk teenager from that? from your years as a wild youth coordinating safe ingress and egress from locations allowing deliberate phone line sabotage and long range high powered rifle targeting intermediate power supply stations on a whim after too many beers?

the only razor applied here was the one to any hint of sanity.

That much?

[korbulon]

I could fund a trip to Mars with that kind of cash!

Simplified "homeland security"

[MikeRT]

Get rid of most of the useless garbage and institute a simpler system:

1. Declare certain sites strategic risk sites which means their security personnel have heightened authority to detain and shoot suspects similar to sensitive federal facilities.
2. Encourage said site operators to hire US Army and USMC veterans.
3. Arm said veterans with selective fire weapons and have them regularly patrol these sites.

Faster, cheaper and more accountable (private security guards have no qualified immunity).

Re:Simplified "homeland security"

[k6mfw]

Actually I prefer more of their profits going into maintenance such as clearing tree branches growing into power lines, replacing sagging lines and decaying poles. Infrastructure! It's what keeps this country going. Wasting on more on security for something that happens very rarely is not good investment into future (but hey like most Americans don't think of such things).

Re:Simplified "homeland security"

[Rich0]

The thing I get is why not just have the government run security for them in the first place?

That's what I don't get about breeder reactors. People argue that terrorists will get their hands on weapons-grade materials. So instead we plan to bury tons of waste underground if we ever find a place we can store it, at a cost of billions of dollars.

It would make a lot more sense to just stick the breeder reactors in the middle of army bases. Security isn't THAT hard of a problem since we already guard actual functional nuclear warheads. Surely if the terrorists can't get their hands on those, we can protect some fuel located in the middle of a reactor core under boiling water which is only n% weapons-grade material.

Re: So they fix the barn door after the horse gets

[jythie]

I think the poster was referring to the FERC trying to redact and re-release a document when it is already out there in its original form, thus the action is meaningless.

Re:LOL

[aardvarkjoe]

These attacks have cost them 10s to 100s of millions. Yet, they are only willing to put up .25M. This shows how poorly ran American companies are today.

The amount of money they offer for a reward only has to be high enough to make it worthwhile for someone who has information to come forward. The amount of money they lost in the attack is really irrelevant. It's not like they'll get that money back if there's a conviction.

Re:Link?

[GrumpySteen]

Here you go

If terrorism/sabotage was a real threat...

[swb]

...wouldn't we have seen it by now?

Despite the alphabet soup of government agencies, surveillance and Federal laws, America is a pretty easy place to move around and generally maintain a low profile. And many "critical infrastructure" sites really aren't well defended/guarded -- take your pick, a handful of people with nominal skill and training could cause all manner of chaos.

If the risk of attack was really that great, why haven't we seen it by now?

I always hesitate to ask this question and post too many specific examples for fear of attracting the wrong kind of attention, but let's just take oil refining as an example. The last time they closed a refinery down for maintenance two states away, the price of gas here shot up quite a bit -- we all hear the stories about inadequate refinery capacity. So what happens if 3 or 4 refineries go offline at the same time in close geographic proximity? Are we talking just a buck a gallon price hike, or are we talking shortages worse than the infamous 1970s gas lines along with all the attendant economic disruption?

I think if there were people intent on doing real damage, we would have seen it by now. It's a trivial armchair exercise to think of things that make you go "whoa!" And if you think of actual, organized sabotage involving direct state sponsorship and not just theocratic nutjobs the scenarios get even worse because you're now talking training that goes beyond emptying AK-47s in the desert.