<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Infrastructure Security on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</title>
    <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/tags/infrastructure-security/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Infrastructure Security on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.counteruavradar.com/tags/infrastructure-security/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Critical Infrastructure Protection</title>
      <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/knowledge-base/critical-infrastructure-protection/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.counteruavradar.com/knowledge-base/critical-infrastructure-protection/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Critical infrastructure protection is often discussed as if it were a generic high-security template. In practice, it is a consequence-driven design problem. A water plant, a grid substation, a refinery control area, and a communications hub may all count as critical infrastructure, but the operational consequences of disruption, the geographic footprint, and the sensing priorities are not the same.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;CISA&amp;rsquo;s critical infrastructure framework is useful here because it treats security and resilience together. The question is not only whether an asset can detect an intrusion, but whether the organization understands the asset&amp;rsquo;s role, dependencies, and recovery implications well enough to design meaningful protective measures around it.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
