Best scope for 5-6k

[asmi]

And how is this air gapped??? There is no way your proposed solution will be accepted for any even mildly secured system. Air gapped means there is no physical link between two systems which can carry random data, let alone execute code. And no transfer of systems from one place to the other to prevent cross contamination.

No, air-gapped means no untrusted device from private network can access anything outside it. My solution meets this criteria if we consider PC a trusted device.

[KungFuJosh]

And how is this air gapped??? There is no way your proposed solution will be accepted for any even mildly secured system. Air gapped means there is no physical link between two systems which can carry random data, let alone execute code. And no transfer of systems from one place to the other to prevent cross contamination.

No, air-gapped means no untrusted device from private network can access anything outside it. My solution meets this criteria if we consider PC a trusted device.

Air-gapped means nothing on a private network at all can access an external network.

[asmi]

Air-gapped means nothing on a private network at all can access an external network.

That's not really practical. In pretty much all companies I ever worked with and knew enough about their infrastructure, network separation was always implemented via VLANs and managed switches, which means that separation is logical and not neccesarily physical.
Also I presumed that there is a need for data exchange between devices on a private network with outside world (otherwise there would be no point in connecting a PC to private network at all), and without such "DMZ" PC you would be forced to use much less practical means like carrying flash drives.

[tautech]

Air-gapped means nothing on a private network at all can access an external network.

That's not really practical. In pretty much all companies I ever worked with and knew enough about their infrastructure, network separation was always implemented via VLANs and managed switches, which means that separation is logical and not neccesarily physical.
Also I presumed that there is a need for data exchange between devices on a private network with outside world (otherwise there would be no point in connecting a PC to private network at all), and without such "DMZ" PC you would be forced to use much less practical means like carrying flash drives.

Or a common but remote drive.
Local stuff gets kept local but anything to be shared gets pushed to a remote drive.....any old NAS could be used for instance and even PW protected if required.

[KungFuJosh]

Air-gapped means nothing on a private network at all can access an external network.

That's not really practical.

So what? I didn't invent the term. That's what it means though.

[Pitrsek]

Ask for a test drive of PicoScope 3000E from your local distributor. I have older (8bit) mso from picoscope I use as daily driver, I'm very happy with it.

[J-R]

Mitigating risk is complicated and companies take different approaches for various reasons.  One company I work for only requires 12 character passwords, mixed case, a special character and doesn't require password changes.  Another company I work for requires 16 character passwords and requires password changes every 90 days and of course you can't re-use passwords at all.  Their password change screen is literally a dozen lines long with various stipulations.  Also, if you don't log in once every 14 days, they disable your account.

Using VLANs is generally acceptable, but to truly lock it down does require a significant amount of lift that most companies don't want to deal with on a daily basis for non-secure networks (port security, full change management/auditing, layered approvals, physical security, etc.).  So it can be simpler to set up a second physical network for the critical systems.  And sure enough, the second company I mentioned does use this method.  Each company site has on-premise IT that is allowed to make changes to the non-secure systems so that they can keep things working smoothly without creating too much of a burden, but the secure network equipment is only accessible to the single corporate IT team and making any changes whatsoever is a big deal, even requiring meetings.  Also, the secure side is separated with a completely different set of user accounts, separate MFA system and even dedicated PAW workstations that you have to use as jump boxes to even get to it.

Also, not every security employee/researcher will agree on every aspect of IT security.  A lot of things are still in flux, or not necessarily proven.

[asmi]

So what? I didn't invent the term. That's what it means though.

I'm looking at it from the practical standpoint, theory does not interest me. And all my experience shows that if some business process is cluncky and not efficient, people will look for ways to circumvent it regardless of consequences for such circumvention. And they will find it eventually - security purists won't like it, but when the choice is between getting task done to generates a cashflow versus theoretical beliefs of security purists, the former will win most of the time - if not always.

[2N3055]

So what? I didn't invent the term. That's what it means though.

I'm looking at it from the practical standpoint, theory does not interest me. And all my experience shows that if some business process is cluncky and not efficient, people will look for ways to circumvent it regardless of consequences for such circumvention. And they will find it eventually - security purists won't like it, but when the choice is between getting task done to generates a cashflow versus theoretical beliefs of security purists, the former will win most of the time - if not always.

I agree. This whole IT security shitshow got out of control.
I know several people that do serious IT stuff and they tell me that main reason for downtime recently is either huge workload around mandatory patching of non-existent (like patch applies to component they are not using) or highly theoretical, 0 probable, problems (like patching something that is vulnerable only if you overlap dozens of unlikely scenarios, that are possible to be executed only by system admins, who OTOH already have root access and could just log in to server and do whatever they like anyways), or they have bugs introduced by patches, some "security hardening" makes their systems not working anymore etc...

Basically, they have more downtime incidents because of security process, while never did have any real security incidents...

That is one thing, and I am talking about industries that have real need for real security. Other thing is when nail and hammer manufacturers think they are CIA and apply NIST standards for intelligence agencies.

So hypothetically speaking, let's have a network of the PC workstations. Those PC workstations are considered secure and network is isolated from outside world.
You add a scope to it.
How does that make network less secure? What is the attack vector?
If anything we can say that scope can be attacked by the network, not vice versa.
Basically, scope or not, you still need insider that will physically (physical access to device) compromise any of the given devices on the network to be able to do something. And scope is least mainstream device to do so...

The security industry ( I propose the name #the Big Virus ) is huuuge money and they work on promoting paranoia. For years now their security recommendation scoring frameworks are stupid and have no resemblance to real risk calculations.  They take same bug reports and keep reclassifying it over and over and make NEW patches. New patch is binary the same, but is connected to new CVE so you need to apply new patch to satisfy the form. Auditors are lost in all the informations and simply want you to apply all the new patches because they cannot be bothered to actually read all the risk assessments and rule on them. They say" well, we would like you to follow the good practice".....

It is a shitshow... And it is getting worse by the day. Few of the people I know resigned and moved to doing something else.

That is one thing. Other thing is using national security as an excuse to promote monopoly, because competition that actually plays by the market rules is just doing better job. And since in the USA, more and more, they make only weapons and military equipment, or are connected to the companies that do, it is easy enough to enforce that. If you want our business, here are the rules...

[KungFuJosh]

So what? I didn't invent the term. That's what it means though.

I'm looking at it from the practical standpoint, theory does not interest me. And all my experience shows that if some business process is cluncky and not efficient, people will look for ways to circumvent it regardless of consequences for such circumvention. And they will find it eventually - security purists won't like it, but when the choice is between getting task done to generates a cashflow versus theoretical beliefs of security purists, the former will win most of the time - if not always.

So what? I'm not talking about practical application of network security. I'm talking about the definition of a term. I can be pedantic too.

[Doctorandus_P]

WiFi is airgapped to. Yes?

[n55_6mt]

It's certainly painful complying with the ever-changing demands from our corporate cyber security teams, but I do understand the rationale and sympathize with their own job.

There are unfortunately many examples of very major and real damages resulting from seemingly passive threat vectors. I can't detail what we work on/ manufacture, but the security requirements are often flowed down from higher levels and we just need to meet those requirements. I can see where my org could realistically face a targeted attack from a nation-state actor, so that brings a need for a higher level of paranoia.

The limitations on things like test equipment, 3D printers, computers and computer peripherals, etc. are all annoying but aren't generally critical to day-to-day operations. Those are all commodity items that can be easily substituted with vetted items sourced through controlled supply chains.

It's way worse when you're straddling IT and OT like I am and trying to navigate the land of old and new that was often bridged decades ago when everyone just viewed security as a burden. The ERP guys want data, the network guys want security, operations needs to have no downtime. Machines that run 30+ year old controllers need to be worked on and supported, so IT wants to make sure that the data pathways in and out of those systems is going to only allow the correct people access. How does this happen when the protocol gateway is actually a small IPC that runs Windows 95?

It's a fun world.

Anyway, air gapped has always been understood to be a totally isolated system network that has no means to exchange data with an outside network. If you can edit a config file and gain access, it's not air gapped. Air gapping is a great thing in theory. Easy and cheap to implement. Just don't plug it in or touch it. Ever. But it's nearly impossible to really live with. Users get complacent and undisciplined, which is why most IT teams will not allow "just airgap it" as a solution without a ton of additional controls.

[abeyer]

Basically, they have more downtime incidents because of security process, while never did have any real security incidents...

That is one thing, and I am talking about industries that have real need for real security.

I don't disagree there is plenty of security theater out there, and plenty of grifters making money off of it, but I kinda don't believe that. I don't even work in security, nor at places with "real need for security" in most ways, but have still gotten dragged into dealing with the aftermath of real security incidents that absolutely do happen.

Other thing is when nail and hammer manufacturers think they are CIA and apply NIST standards for intelligence agencies.

National Institute of Standards and Technology? That NIST? They write standards for everyone, not rules for intelligence agencies. I've not gone through them in detail, so maybe I'm missing something, but everything I've ever read in their cybersecurity docs is actually pretty good advice and tempered with a lot of advice to consider your own risk exposure, risk tolerance, and mitigations that that actually make sense given those.

So hypothetically speaking, let's have a network of the PC workstations. Those PC workstations are considered secure and network is isolated from outside world.
You add a scope to it.
How does that make network less secure? What is the attack vector?

One example of many... I know some scopes w/ wifi offer to make their web remote control available by advertising themselves as a wifi AP so you don't have to enter network credentials on the scope. Even if it's not the default, sooner or later some user will flip it on, and likely with no password or a default or weak one. Attacker compromises scope via wifi, gets code execution and a remote shell, and uses it as a jump host to get access to the rest of the machines on the wired network.

[nctnico]

One example of many... I know some scopes w/ wifi offer to make their web remote control available by advertising themselves as a wifi AP so you don't have to enter network credentials on the scope. Even if it's not the default, sooner or later some user will flip it on, and likely with no password or a default or weak one. Attacker compromises scope via wifi, gets code execution and a remote shell, and uses it as a jump host to get access to the rest of the machines on the wired network.

An example of such an attack is deployed by Stuxnet. This piece of malware was specifically targeted at Iranian nuclear facilities which where air-gapped. The worm managed to get in through infected removable media which was brought across the air-gap. It sounds far fetched but nevertheless a very real (cyber) attack.

Several decades ago I was involved in a project for the Dutch railroads. The systems dealing with train operations are also air-gapped and they are pretty strict about what is being attached / brought in. And for good reason; a problem in those systems can lead to death and destruction. There really is no joke or semantic discussion where it comes to systems needing to be air-gapped. People trying to bypass it will soon have skidmarks on their bums from landing at high speed on the curb after getting kicked out of the door.

[Martin72]

Topic: Best scope for 5-6k

Maybe the title should be changed...

[2N3055]

Topic: Best scope for 5-6k

Maybe the title should be changed...

I am guilty of adding to silly network security discussion. Mea culpa.
But we learned we are all in the same risk category as Iranian nuclear reactors...
I never knew....

To make it worse, OP never got back to here to even make a beep they read original posts.
I still stand on my recommendation to OP, before it got hijacked to completely different direction...
OP was not the one going in "spying scopes" direction....

[KungFuJosh]

It was his first post on the site, and he got the full eevblog-style tangential response.

[BillyO]

Personally, I have no issue with threads going where they may.  I know many around here might disagree with me, but that is the essence of open and free discussion.  Open and free discussion is how new ideas are born and how discoveries are made.

[resonant_frequency]

Hi all,

I am back. I've been reading along but haven't had a chance to reply. Wow y'all really sidetracked this thread.

The Batronix Magnova looks pretty cool but I think we're prefer a more mature product.

Right now the SDS3034X HD looks like the winner to me. $4790 for 350 MHz, 12 bit ADC, 400Mpts and 16 digital channels seems hard to beat. Is there anything about this scope that should make me reconsider? Or another to look at?

One concern I have is that some of the onscreen text looks somewhat small and we do have some older sets of eyes. Was this an issue for people?

[tautech]

Hi all,

I am back. I've been reading along but haven't had a chance to reply. Wow y'all really sidetracked this thread.

The Batronix Magnova looks pretty cool but I think we're prefer a more mature product.

Right now the SDS3034X HD looks like the winner to me. $4790 for 350 MHz, 12 bit ADC, 400Mpts and 16 digital channels seems hard to beat. Is there anything about this scope that should make me reconsider? Or another to look at?

One concern I have is that some of the onscreen text looks somewhat small and we do have some older sets of eyes. Was this an issue for people?

Without getting a unit out to check for sure, some other Siglent models do have a Window setting in the Display menu to change the font size from default to large....although this is not mentioned in the SDS3000X HD user manual.
P278
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS3000X_HD_UserManual_EN01B.pdf

Maybe it's there and just not in this version of the manual. 
Other members with a 3kX HD might have a look at this for you.

[tautech]

Hi all,

I am back. I've been reading along but haven't had a chance to reply. Wow y'all really sidetracked this thread.

The Batronix Magnova looks pretty cool but I think we're prefer a more mature product.

Right now the SDS3034X HD looks like the winner to me. $4790 for 350 MHz, 12 bit ADC, 400Mpts and 16 digital channels seems hard to beat. Is there anything about this scope that should make me reconsider? Or another to look at?

One concern I have is that some of the onscreen text looks somewhat small and we do have some older sets of eyes. Was this an issue for people?

Without getting a unit out to check for sure, some other Siglent models do have a Window setting in the Display menu to change the font size from default to large....although this is not mentioned in the SDS3000X HD user manual.
P278
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS3000X_HD_UserManual_EN01B.pdf

Maybe it's there and just not in this version of the manual. 
Other members with a 3kX HD might have a look at this for you.

Where are the SDS3000X HD owners ?

Yup they do have the large or small font window feature....just got one out to check.
See attached.

[Martin72]

The screen on the SDS3000X HD is still big enough for my aging eyes, so I have the font size set to “Small.”
For now...

[2N3055]

Hi all,

I am back. I've been reading along but haven't had a chance to reply. Wow y'all really sidetracked this thread.

The Batronix Magnova looks pretty cool but I think we're prefer a more mature product.

Right now the SDS3034X HD looks like the winner to me. $4790 for 350 MHz, 12 bit ADC, 400Mpts and 16 digital channels seems hard to beat. Is there anything about this scope that should make me reconsider? Or another to look at?

One concern I have is that some of the onscreen text looks somewhat small and we do have some older sets of eyes. Was this an issue for people?

Without getting a unit out to check for sure, some other Siglent models do have a Window setting in the Display menu to change the font size from default to large....although this is not mentioned in the SDS3000X HD user manual.
P278
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS3000X_HD_UserManual_EN01B.pdf

Maybe it's there and just not in this version of the manual. 
Other members with a 3kX HD might have a look at this for you.

Where are the SDS3000X HD owners ?

Yup they do have the large or small font window feature....just got one out to check.
See attached.

In a gym...

[tautech]

Hi all,

I am back. I've been reading along but haven't had a chance to reply. Wow y'all really sidetracked this thread.

The Batronix Magnova looks pretty cool but I think we're prefer a more mature product.

Right now the SDS3034X HD looks like the winner to me. $4790 for 350 MHz, 12 bit ADC, 400Mpts and 16 digital channels seems hard to beat. Is there anything about this scope that should make me reconsider? Or another to look at?

One concern I have is that some of the onscreen text looks somewhat small and we do have some older sets of eyes. Was this an issue for people?

Without getting a unit out to check for sure, some other Siglent models do have a Window setting in the Display menu to change the font size from default to large....although this is not mentioned in the SDS3000X HD user manual.
P278
https://int.siglent.com/u_file/document/SDS3000X_HD_UserManual_EN01B.pdf

Maybe it's there and just not in this version of the manual. 
Other members with a 3kX HD might have a look at this for you.

Where are the SDS3000X HD owners ?

Yup they do have the large or small font window feature....just got one out to check.
See attached.

In a gym...

And how did that go for you ?    ?

 

[2N3055]

And how did that go for you ?    ?

 

Quite well actually... Gotta keep the cogs running....

On the topic, I, same as the Martin, keep the scope in small font mode. I am short sighted (talking about eyes here...  ) but screen is big enough so I can see it.
On SDS800xHD I do sometimes enable larger font and funny enough on 7000A despite 15 " screen. HD resolution makes smallest fonts quite small and 7000A is a big scope I cannot always bring closer.... 800xHD you can plant in the middle of work almost like large multimeter...
It is all about how far the scope is from you.