Slashdot Mirror


Schmidt Predicts Digital Sky Is Falling

Danse writes "Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. According to this article on Security Focus, he has been touring the country, proclaiming the dangers of "zero-day viruses" and "affinity worms" that will create the kind of havoc that nothing else short of a nuclear exchange could cause. "Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet, declares Schmidt. The power grid could fail catastrophically by 2005!" How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?"

506 comments

  1. There's no hope. by acceleriter · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Grab your current machines, stock up on new motherboards, CDRW's, DVD-R's, emulators, and crypto tools while you still can.

    The fact that we have the DMCA, that freedom is being eroded in the face of national ID cards and the loss of anonymity on the net indicate that the sky is falling.

    --

    CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    1. Re:There's no hope. by T1girl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry now that I ate all the peanut butter and drank the wine that I was saving for Y2K. I think I still have some of the crackers and canned beef stew, though.

    2. Re:There's no hope. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Ive been saying this for years.. and called a 'nut'... too bad end the end it seems I was right..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:There's no hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crackers? Why were you storing up computer criminals for Y2K?

    4. Re:There's no hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be right, but you're still a nut.

    5. Re:There's no hope. by rmadmin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You were right? How does some "Ex Microsoft, now Government official" make it written in concrete? He is warning of stuff, not saying it's GOING to happen. If you look at the security most servers (even corporate machines) had 5-10 years ago, it was pretty weak in general. If you look at security today, everyone complains, but it has improved dramatically (Yes, even by MS).

      I do though, believe this is a real threat. I'm pretty sure someone will take a go at it also. The thing is, my mom has the best advise for this, 'Prevention is the best medicine'. Well, take it out of context a little, and it works. :-)

    6. Re:There's no hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the sky is falling and not suprisingly--Microsoft in the government. I would be worried if I had been head of security for MS because I would know the direction that they are heading, as well as, the lack of security focus that
      they have. MS is taking over the country, trust me.
      I noticed a windows error on an Arrival/Departure screen at the airport last week and Windows 2000 in the hospital the week before. Kind of makes you feel safe to know that these life critical places are running the MOST insecure OS in existance.

    7. Re:There's no hope. by anonymous_wombat · · Score: 1, Troll

      I am sure that a government with the resources and technical knowhow of the US government could cause a catastrophic failure of much of our critical infrastructure through software. I do not know how many other governments or organizations also have this ability. It is good that someone is publicizing this threat. Do we want to wait for a catastrophe to happen before taking this seriously?

    8. Re:There's no hope. by KeyserDK · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of hope outside the US =).

      --
      still reading?
    9. Re:There's no hope. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, Microsoft has been the leader in encouraging viruses. Primarily through not practicing prevention...No memory protection, no disk protection, adding insecure features even after viruses had shown the error of their ways.

      An MS security officer either should know of such problems...or is blissfully unaware.

    10. Re:There's no hope. by Danse · · Score: 2

      10 years ago, viruses were passed around on floppy disks. Microsoft didn't help much then, and they aren't helping much now. They should forget about Palladium and concentrate on getting rid of the Windows "features" that help make it so easy for viruses to spread. But since that's not as profitable to them, they won't do it. They'll keep proclaiming that we're all doomed unless we hobble the consumers' computers so that they can't do anything significant without permission from Microsoft.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    11. Re:There's no hope. by nr · · Score: 1

      Actualy what keeps them live is the bugs, they get their revenue from selling updates, they always has from the very beginning of DOS. So its understandable that they do not care much about bugs (including security bugs and improving the OS concerning security) and fixing them. They put more focus and energy into adding new features to the OS so they can sell new versions of the OS easier.

  2. Pacemaker... by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

    Who has a pacemaker with an IP address??? What a dorkus.

    1. Re:Pacemaker... by paradesign · · Score: 2
      does it run linux? or a MS product. i cannot see a BSOD being very good for business.

      imagine the EULA on that one...

      --
      I want 2D games back.
    2. Re:Pacemaker... by batteryman · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, it will not effect our products here at STJ.

    3. Re:Pacemaker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your cell phone has an IP address. Hes saying that computer tech is getting better and better that eventually your pacemakers toasters electric shavers etc etc will have internet monitoring on them. Imagine in a hospital that people with pacemakers that have wireless net connections (for monitoring). if that persons heart rate changes because they are dieing and the pace maker can't keep up then a nurse would know because of the monitoring. but since they have ips they could be vulnerable to an internet attack (unless the ips were completly internal (pun intended) I mean eventually your fridge will have an IP your Toaster will have one Your blender.. anything that could be put on your houses internal network (remember those 'Houses of Tomorrow'?) could be messed around with. especially if it has an external connection.

    4. Re:Pacemaker... by $ynergy · · Score: 1

      My Grandfather does! It pings whenever he needs and extra hop!

    5. Re:Pacemaker... by br0therben · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, I thought he said PEACEMAKER...
      So how long 'till I can don my leather chaps, shave my head into a mohawk, and scour the earth looking for ammo and fertile women? How long damn you!!!! HOW LONG?????

    6. Re:Pacemaker... by bluGill · · Score: 2

      I would hope if I ever need a pacemaker, that it would have an IP address. I want my doctor to download all the information in the pacemaker every day, and do some analysis on it. Or at least if there is any hint of future trouble I want my doctor notified quickly. If there needs to be an adjustment, then the doctor should make it remotely when possible.

      Note however that this needs to be an excellent ip implimentation. It needs to keep the primary function working no matter what. It must not be a problem if someone tries to DOS my pacemaker. There must be NO remote security holes. (OpenBSD has done a good job there, but even they are not good enough, after all this is my life at risk!)

    7. Re:Pacemaker... by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who engineers anything as critical as the controls to a pacemaker or a traffic light to be remotely configurable or writable is just asking for trouble.

      Just because something has an IP adress and can be remotely monitored, does not mean that it needs to have ANY remote access to any functionality that could cause a problem.

      Yes, we can (and will) design things stupidly enough so that this will be a problem, but that's more our fault than anything else. Like leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition at 3 AM downtown. It's just not smart.

      Now the more serious issue here, though, is that an uninformed government employee is scaremongering for power. Nothing new. But with the stock market doing as it is (buy at 6000, I say) this kind of talk is doing direct harm to the country.

      This guy needs to shut the hell up.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    8. Re:Pacemaker... by liquidsin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sweet merciful crap! If anyone ever gets one, for the love of god, do NOT post that IP to slashdot! Talk about a Denial of Service...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    9. Re:Pacemaker... by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      Leather chaps?

      I hope you have some ammo as you start out on your quest or you are gonna be in for a surprise!

    10. Re:Pacemaker... by Monkey+Angst · · Score: 1
      "What's wrong, dad?"

      "ACK! heart.... slash... dotted...."

      --
      stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
    11. Re:Pacemaker... by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

      ... or, you could always double the heartrate and have granddad run around like the last sketch in a Benny Hill episode.

    12. Re:Pacemaker... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps instead it should play fur elise really loud from inside your chest.

    13. Re:Pacemaker... by kinaole · · Score: 0

      I used to test them - no public ip, but they definitely talked; your doc would only worry if you had 100% packet loss.

    14. Re:Pacemaker... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      surely you'd want a unit in your home that you connect to the internet and then connect to that.
      This kind of buffer is essential. WAN acess to LAN devices isn't always so desirable.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    15. Re:Pacemaker... by DrSkwid · · Score: 2

      How are you going to connect to it remotely at all if it has no incoming signal capability?

      anything that has incoming can be flooded to death whether it wants to respond or not

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    16. Re:Pacemaker... by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Not nessicarly. When I run a marathon with a pacemaker, a doctor will be required to monitoring my heart in real time. Worst case he might pull me out, but at the very least he should be making real time adjustments. (Note, currently those with a pacemaker cannot do such exercise, which is why I picked it, at least the first few attempts should be monitored in real time)

      I can come up with other examples, but I think it is clear, real time monitoring of someone with health problems is a good idea. However the point that it must degrade gracefully in abuse situations is critical. The mafia better not have a chance to kill me remotely. (or at least they better know that while they can, it is instantly traceable to them, so they won't dare)

      Implmentation details are left as an exercise. I am however well aware that they are not trivial.

    17. Re:Pacemaker... by grytpype · · Score: 2

      And you could upload a MIDI file of that "Yakitty Sax" song to the pacemaker so Gramps will have some musical accompaniment as he runs around the house...

      --

      - Have a picture

    18. Re:Pacemaker... by pr0f3550r · · Score: 0

      Hey, I can see the apparent danger of putting a pacemaker on a 2.4GHz network and other microwave networks....but it isn't from 3li73 h4ck3r5.

    19. Re:Pacemaker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes he does need to shut up.

      Engineers are liable for damages created by faulty design. If you design a bridge and it falls down, it is your fault. If you design a pacemaker and it suddenly melts into battery acid, it is your fault. And that means you can be sued or imprisoned if it is bad enough.

      Making a pacemaker or traffic light that was so easily suceptible to a virus or whatever he is complaining about would definitely fall into this category. No professional engineer should create something like this - to quote one of my better professors: "A lazy engineer is a good engineer"

      What does that mean? It means an engineer shouldn't make something that wastes his time and resources. And remote control of a pacemaker is certainly a waste.

      To another reply to this parent: packet flooding only denies the connection. It WOULD be useful to monitor a pacemaker without opening up someone's chest, but it would be far more effecient to use a short ranged radio pulse to send this signal. (Like E-Z pass in the northeast USA) And unless you have jamming equipment you aren't going to stop the signal from going around. It could contain a small amount of vital information that is only sent on request, because battery life is important. So yes, this would be somewhat useful but having a connection over the internet is both ridiculous and poor design.

    20. Re:Pacemaker... by Psion · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah! It does this by turning your heart on and off really fast, just like the way sound was produced on the old TRS-80s?

    21. Re:Pacemaker... by arm · · Score: 1

      actually, while in some cases it would be beneficial or at least academically interesting to do real time monitoring, the basic premise of what you said needs some adjustment.

      There is nothing in particular stopping a patient with a pacemaker from doing ANY form of exercise. (Well, as long as said exercise doesn't take place in a large magnetic field :-) These patients are capable of living fully 'normal' lives. Pacemakers are considerably more than a simple metronome and have been for some time. They are capable of adjusting cardiac output based on exercise (sensed by an accelerometer in the simplest case. There are many other ways to accomplish physiologic pacing responses)

      to prove my point, here is a great article about one particular marathon runner with a pacemaker

      http://www.pacemakerclub.com/member_evette.htm

      take care.

    22. Re:Pacemaker... by Skevin · · Score: 2

      Who has a pacemaker with an IP address???
      Heh heh, perhaps the people who want this clothing line to actually be more functional?

      Solomon

      --
      "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    23. Re:Pacemaker... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
      I submitted a story "You got a heart attack!" to Slashdot about a pacemaker with phone messaging to send an alert message to the doctor and a fax (from a central office) of the cardiogram. Can Internet and webheart sites be far off? ("I'm browsing the site, pop that bag in Joe's office and let's see what happens!" "Wow!")(Hmm, if it was two-way, the doctor could defib remotely.)

      Let's see, URL News story

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    24. Re:Pacemaker... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      They Slashdotted Kenny! The bastards!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  3. It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by C.U.T.M. · · Score: 0, Troll

    What do you expect?

    1. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, as the article points out, what's interesting is the change of tone. While he was a Microsoftie, he was downplaying the impact of viruses & worms.

      Now that he's in the government, these things are apparently more important.

      The change of perspective and its timing is....interesting.

    2. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, as the article points out, what's interesting is the change of tone. While he was a Microsoftie, he was downplaying the impact of viruses & worms.

      Now that he's in the government, these things are apparently more important.


      Hmm. I wouldn't be too certain there isn't a Microsoft agenda behind this ('Once you work for [ the CIA | Microsoft ], you always work for [ the CIA | Microsoft ]').

      With our elected leaders deep within Hollywood's pockets, and the confluence of Microsoft's Palladium agenda to extend and encode their software monopoly into the hardware itself with the media cartels' Digital Rights Management agenda, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric I would expect from someone pusing either, or both, of those agendas.

      The Digital Sky is falling, but not because of any foreign terrorists or script kiddiez. It is falling because several powerful cartels, a software monopolist, and our government are joining forces to eradicate the free wheeling internet as we know it in order to replace it with a medium they can better control, something that will resemble Just Another Media Outlet far more than it will the internet as we know it today.

      If this steamroller isn't stopped it will be the end of Free Software, the end of the peer-to-peer nature that is inherent in the design of today's internet, and the end to free exchange of information via digital media. In short, it will be the end of freedom as we have come to know it.

      And you know what. By the time anyone notices, much less cares, it will be far too late. We are the most affected here on /., and even we cannot be bothered to get off our asses and become politically involved. How can we expect those whose livlihoods are less directly affected to cast aside their apathy and conditioned reluctance to get actively involved when we can't be bothered to do it ourselves?

      The change of perspective and its timing is....interesting.

      You said it! Interesting ... and profoundly depressing.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    3. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. But what I think you are missing is some of the other potential conflicts of interest that still might remain with George Schmidt. Does he own Microsoft stock? With this new FUD tone and Microsoft's new focus on security, is he trying to drum up new business for the company thus boosting their stock price/performance?

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
      of perspective and its timing is....interesting. +1 Interesting

      Excellent use of the Jedi Mind trick!

    5. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by crm114 · · Score: 0

      What scares me is the thought of critical hardware being controlled by microsoft os's... now THERE'S a worry.... Sir, your life support system seems to be locked up... just a minute while I reboot it...

    6. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by lovebyte · · Score: 2

      Perfectely correct. But maybe as a Microsoft security guy, he knows about many security issues with MS software and he sees them (that is MS software) spread around into areas where there should not be.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    7. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by R-66Y · · Score: 0

      Don't you consider it slightly unfair that you're writing off the entire government as being paid off? ..or that every single person at Microsoft is a monopolist and will stop at nothing to own the world? And somehow you equate this all to being the end of free software?

      I know, just as much as anyone else on Slashdot (though probably a bit less), that there are some pretty bad things happening in the way of tech these days, specifically inside the confines of Washington D.C. But taking up the radical agenda of standing on a soapbox yelling "Microsoft and the government are killing free software in a joint effort to rule the world" (or other similar demonic goal) seems like the wrong sort of thing to be doing.

      You said yourself that Slashdot users can't be bothered to participate in government. I haven't quite decided whether I think you yourself participate, but I would certainly think that if you believe that Microsoft and the government are linked, you'd be doing what you can to stop it.

      My ultimate point is that maybe your efforts (and the efforts of everyone else against this) would be better spent rallying voters, forming an interest group, or etc. Maybe there will be a day when people will say that the government is being paid off by a Linux Advocacy Group rather than Enron or Standard Oil, ad nauseum.

      Later,
      Patrick

    8. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      Luckily, america is not the world.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    9. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      Luckily, america is not the world.

      Yes, and the day I emigrate from the US is growing ever closer. I've given this serious thought and consideration, and the question remains: where can one go and remain free?

      Canada seemed like a nice choice. Buying property and living there as an American is straightforward, the people are nice, the culture, pleasant, and I could afford to keep my airplane and maintain my lifestyle. But, alas, they just had a precident-setting ruling that outlaws the existence of a 3rd Party technology simply because it annoys a product's manufacturer. Goodbye Linux on the X Box, which means in a couple of years, Goodbye Linux on any Palladium hardware.

      Europe? The European patent office is eager to follow America's lead and start issuing software patents (in fact, I believe they may have already begun doing so). Europe is considering an EU-wide law that is even worse than America's DMCA.

      Central America? The US tends to invade any of those countries that tick off [insert favorite large enterprise here, MS certainly being a possibility], and with the government's current state of belligerance I don't hold out much hope of that changing. Were it a government of the people one could expect better behavior, particularly with the rather popular feeling that out cold-war imperialism was flat-out wrong. But alas, as we all know, our government is one of and for the corporations, and the opinion of little folk like us isn't worth a whole lot anymore (if it ever was).

      Africa? That is all pretty hit and miss ... assuming you can get conectivity to the net at all.

      India? That is perhaps the best option to date ... assuming the country isn't destroyed in a nuclear conflict with Pakistan. India is probably the most appealing possibility out there (and having visited that country once, I can say I rather liked it there).

      But ... most of the internet traffic is currently passing through the United States these days ... until that problem is solved, the Long Arm of Uncle Sam, Aunt Hollywood, and Little Billy Gates will reach everywhere, making it difficult for anyone to persue freedom, inside the United States or anywhere else.

      So, there may well be nowhere to run, and perhaps this battle isn't as irrelevant to those who are outside of the United States as they might like to think.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    10. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    11. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by norhythmsoldier · · Score: 1

      In short, it will be the end of freedom as we have come to know it.

      This is extreme even for Slashdot. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

      Which is more inaccurate: the fourteen year old uber-hacker who can hack into your filing cabinet from a pay-phone and steal your identity, or the OmniVox/UniCorp-meets-the-X-Files shadowy conspiracy linking every Fortune 500 CEO and PR rep with every elected or appointed official in every civilized country. The sky is not falling, but neither does it conceal MS satellites reading over your shoulder. There is no organized movement among government and business to eliminate all freedom and destroy humankind, and there is no silver bullet that geeks can invent that will magically cause all existing injustices and threats to freedom to disappear. The price of freedom is constant vigilance against those who abuse it. The only way to stop corporations from owning the political process is by making a majority of people want otherwise, and know that they want otherwise.


      Words are situated midway between though and action, where they sometimes substitute for both.

    12. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by pmz · · Score: 2

      ...it will be the end of freedom as we have come to know it.

      I think it is more accurate to think it will be the end of the convenient freedom we have become used to. If the Internet disappears, we can still send hand-written letters, subscribe to newsletters, stand on a soapbox in front of the courthouse, read the paper books of our choice, etc. The First Amendment will remain intact, but there will be fewer media in which we can exercise it.

      The logical conclusion to DRM and Palladium is that the technological golden age we seem to be in will diminish, the U.S.'s dominance in computing technology will vanish, and the only real growth industries in the U.S. will be the old stand-bys, such as retail stores, services, and some manufacturing. It will be like living in the pre-computer era again, when sophisticated mechanical and traditional electronic devices were booming. In a way, it is sort of romantic (whether the reality of it is desirable is another matter, however).

    13. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      This is probably a troll, but if so it is a reasonably clever one, so I'll bite.

      This is extreme even for Slashdot. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

      Nonsense. I have accurately described the logical consiquence of any one of the aformentioned efforts (Palladium, DRM, The "Disney" Hollings Bill, etc) reaching fruition. If it sounds extreme, perhaps you should be directing those thoughts at those who are promoting these efforts: it is their goals which are extreme, not my shedding some light on them. You don't even need to take my word for it: read today's New York Times.

      You set up a strawman which I will not bother to knock down, except to point out that I mentioned a confluence of events, not a conspiracy as such. In other words, interests happen to coincide, to their benefit and our great detriment. As for an "organized movement:" if you believe for one moment that the entertainment cartels are not organized in their efforts to lobby and shove DRM down our unwilling throats you are a fool. If you believe Microsoft's lobbying for Palladium is not organized either, then you are oblivious to even the most obvious, front-page (technical) news items we've been seeing here and elsewhere for weeks. Finally, if you believe a marriage of convinience between a software monopolist interested in locking in his monopoly and an outdated cartel interested in banning or neutering technology that threatens its business model and stranglehold on its respective industry to be farfetched, then I would humbly submit that you are profoundly naive. Particularly when the means and technical methodology to do the first is equivelent to the solution proposed to accomplish the second.

      Taking away the digital freedom we have come to know and value, in other words, our freedom of expression as we have come to know it, does not equate some grand scheme to destroy mankind (as you would like to so misleadingly represent my thoughts on the subject), it merely indicates that some powerful interests have found that they stand to benefit from doing so, and feel no compunction whatsoever in acting on those interests to our detriment.

      The fact that these forces are operating form such banal motives does not decrease the abhorrance of the act they are trying to commit, nor will it alleviate the detriment it will cause to the rest of us in the very least.

      It is, in short, you who ought to be ashamed, not I.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    14. Re:It's an ex Microsoft security chief... by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      And what about when the OS's 'crash-recovery' kicks in and keeps booting the system up to an already-halted state?

      "Just a few more minutes, sir, I need to boot life support into safe mode... yes, I KNOW you can't breathe, but Tech Support have me on hold..."

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  4. Must be a joke. by noselasd · · Score: 1

    His visions might be true, but he seems to forget the fact that traffic lights, pacemakers and the like are _not_ going to be controlled over internet in any near future.
    And if so, I guess Microsoft will try their best to make an OS to do so,large consumer market here, havoc will then arise anyway.

    1. Re:Must be a joke. by mikvo · · Score: 5, Informative
      I hate to spoil the party, but traffic lights are already controlled via TCP/IP networks. And although these may not, technically, be "public" networks, they can still be hacked into. Have you ever taken a look at how advanced some of the ITS (Intelligent Traffic Systems) are these days? I happen to work at a state agency on their ITS system, and I can assure you that we are already on the edge of that very thing.

    2. Re:Must be a joke. by brlewis · · Score: 2

      The consequences of bad data being sent by such a network presumably are limited. I would be extremely surprised if the controller for an individual light could be changed to any old color at any moment.

    3. Re:Must be a joke. by mikvo · · Score: 1
      Once upon a time, I would have been surprised, too. But even if that were the case, imagine a light that just randomly changes? Some drivers would be better at handling that than others. Or suppose the light patterns just change enough to cause massive traffic jams, with traffic backed up for long stretches along major roads and arterials?

      And even if right now the traffic lights aren't directly connected to the Internet, the computers that control them are. Is there really much of a difference? And worse yet, much of the control systems are old 'X' applications that could easily be controlled remotely. It doesn't take much to connect the dots.

    4. Re:Must be a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's just tell the world. While you are at it, could you post the IP of these computers on slashdot, so that we can all get to hacking the traffic system.

    5. Re:Must be a joke. by Thatman311 · · Score: 1

      Gee Mikvo that was smart. Publishing how everything is hooked up and what sort of protocol they use to communicate with each other in a public forum. I mean...if someone really wanted to "phreak" into that network they should have to do the research.

      --
      Silly Rabbit...Sig's are for kids.
    6. Re:Must be a joke. by mikvo · · Score: 1

      If telling you there are X systems involved in controlling traffic systems is going to tip the scales, then I think we would be in a lot more trouble that we really are.

    7. Re:Must be a joke. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      His visions might be true, but he seems to forget the fact that traffic lights, pacemakers and the like are _not_ going to be controlled over internet in any near future.

      Can someone please explain how traffic lights really work? I remember reading about how they are built so it's physically impossible for current to run through multiple "green" lines.

      Generally we are run through much FUD about traffic lights, but I can't say I've ever heard of a case where all the lights were green and cars were crashing into each other. Any cases, anyone?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    8. Re:Must be a joke. by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      I've seen it when traffic lights go dead mid-city, and the amazing thing is that no one gets mashed. Cars still behave and the like cause people stop being compliant and start being courteous. It's a lovely thing.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re:Must be a joke. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      I've seen it when traffic lights go dead mid-city, and the amazing thing is that no one gets mashed. Cars still behave and the like cause people stop being compliant and start being courteous. It's a lovely thing.

      Yes, but dead lights are _obviously_ defective, and most of us know better than to blow through the intersection. If you see a green light, you think you're OK. If everyone sees green, they all think they're OK. Has _that_ ever happened?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  5. Wait a minute... by graphicartist82 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I knew it was going to happen, just not this soon..
    Is this the kind of FUD we're going to come to expect from security focus now that they sold out^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H are under the symantec "corporate umbrella"?

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by devnull17 · · Score: 1

      Um, considering they refer to it as "demented prediction" in the second paragraph of the article, I don't think they're taking it very seriously, either. The fact that someone with a fair amount of political power is able to make such absurd claims without fear of being run out of office is far more disturbing.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Me neither, and it was a pretty good and well informed information site too. I guess it's time to start looking at alternatives just in case the trend continues - any suggestions?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:Wait a minute... by mgibbs · · Score: 2, Informative
      I knew it was going to happen, just not this soon..
      Is this the kind of FUD we're going to come to expect from security focus now that they sold out^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H are under the symantec "corporate umbrella"?

      Actually, the article is by George Smith of SecurityFocus criticizing Howard Schmidt formerly of Microsoft fame. (The write-up incorrectly combines these names.) Read the article before you post next time...

      --Matt

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by mborland · · Score: 1
      Is this the kind of FUD we're going to come to expect from security focus now that they sold out

      George Smith's article isn't FUD...Schimidt's comments are. But I agree, it will only be a matter of time...

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should try reading the article before blasting Security Focus for spreading FUD. The whole point of the article is that Schmidt is the one who's FUDding, and you shouldn't believe him. That hardly sounds like the message that Symantec would be trying to spread if they were manipulating editorial standards for corporate reasons.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      Or you could read the article and see that it is lambasting the Chicken Little scenario this guy is spouting.
      A couple weeks ago, they blasted Richard Clarke, the White House Cyber-Security Czar, for saying things like "A digital Pearl Harbor happens every day."

    7. Re:Wait a minute... by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      A couple weeks ago, they blasted Richard Clarke, the White House Cyber-Security Czar...

      Offtopic, but what is a republic of free citizens doing with a Czar in its midst?

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    8. Re:Wait a minute... by alizard · · Score: 2
      Is this the kind of FUD we're going to come to expect from security focus now that they sold out^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H are under the symantec "corporate umbrella"?

      The article makes fun out of the ex-Micro$loth's predictions.

    9. Re:Wait a minute... by Skip+Head · · Score: 1

      We seem to have a lot of czars now-a-days. Maybe we aren't so free.

      We even have a Drug Czar.

      I really wanted that job - until I found out it was about *stopping* drug use.

      --
      Most evil is done by good people, and not by accident, but deliberately; motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.
  6. Suree.. by carpwall · · Score: 1

    Lemme guess, he's running a consulting group that can "advise" companies on how they can protect themselves.

  7. Don't panic by af_robot · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think he just first time watched "Hackers"

    1. Re:Don't panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he just first time watched "Hackers"

      good use of the english language

    2. Re:Don't panic by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

      Hmmmmmm?
      When 700 years old you are, see how good you talk.

      -Yoda, Master of Fortran, Basic, and Assembly

      --
      With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
    3. Re:Don't panic by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      That, and maybe he has fantasies about creating Terminators in the future to send back to our time to stop those who want to connect traffic lights to the internet.

    4. Re:Don't panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?

      It's trivial; you just repeat clear and loud: "Howard Schmidt is full of shit!"

    5. Re:Don't panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right because in English*, you never capitalize, sentence fragments are considered sentences, and punctuation is unheard of.

      *Unless you're talking about the spin of a cue ball, it's capitalized, asshole.

  8. But.. by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet

    Why would these things be controlled via the internet? We already segregate certain high security systems from the internet to avoid even the chance of them being "hacked". I don't think a pacemaker would -EVER- be hooked up to the internet -- not only is there no point, but it's just extra risk for something to go wrong.

    On the note about how to stop the rhetoric, it's simple. We need people who are educated in technology to report to the government with the TRUTH, not these fictional facts being spread to merely cause a slight fear which will (in all likely hood) raise the sales in the technology industry to "buy more secure products".

    1. Re:But.. by Maeryk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would these things be controlled via the internet? We already segregate certain high security systems from the internet to avoid even the chance of them being "hacked". I don't think a pacemaker would -EVER- be hooked up to the internet -- not only is there no point, but it's just extra risk for something to go wrong.

      Because idiot sheeples want bigger faster better. They want their refrigerator to be able to print out a list of groceries it needs on their computer. They want to be able to put a recipe into their laptop, and using wireless, have it pre-program the stove and microwave, and have the refrigerator and pantry tell them what they need to buy to make it happen. Because clever marketing has convinced people that "can you hear me now? good" means you SHOULD be hauling a freakin digital phone with a billion free any time minutes a month around the grand canyon or your favorite cavern and annoying me.

      Because people will BUY it if they think it is glitzy and new and makes them all hep and stuff. Maybe not many people, but people *will* buy. Look at cars! They now have more freakin features than anyone ever needed, but boy do they want them!

      Figure out what people would have said about PDA's and cell phones thirty years ago had someone suggested they would exist. "Thats ridiculous..why would anyone EVER want that? I have my phone in the house, and I have my day-timer! Why carry around something that needs batteries?"

      Granted.. Im as guilty as the next guy.. I gave my son a laptop to learn on when he turned six.. because I wanted him to have the edge as he grows up and be experienced and not afraid of computers.. but I think I may have done him a grave disservice, introducing electronics-as-necessity to him that young in life. (How many 9 year olds do you know who, on the phone with their friends, say "Hang on.. I'll shut down the laptop and be right over?"

      Things will get hooked to the internet and to each other that never should be.. in the name of "convenience" and "cause its neat".

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    2. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a related note, let's assume we all connect all of our appliances to the internet. How long do you think it will be until someone passes a law mandating that our appliances be used to spy on us? The FBI is already trying to detect terrorist eating patterns - what tool is better positioned for doing this than our own fridges and toasters?

      "FBI, OPEN UP! We know you toasted a piece of white bread yesterday, you stinking terrorist!"

    3. Re:But.. by haa...jesus+christ · · Score: 1

      I don't think a pacemaker would -EVER- be hooked up to the internet

      You're of course assuming that no one has figured out how to run Apache on a pacemaker. Would bring a whole new meaning to slashdotting...

    4. Re:But.. by khendron · · Score: 2

      Pacemakers are already controlled by computer. It allows doctors to make tweaks to the operating parameters of the pacemaker without requiring invasive surgery.

      So, given the (currently slow) trend towards telemedicine, it is only a matter of time before a person an consult a doctor online, and that doctor can ask the patient to plug in his pacemaker so that it can be updated remotely.

      Is this a good idea? Hell yes, it might save lives. But there is much infrastructure work to do to make it safe. The Internet as it exists today is not have the required reliability, let alone security.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    5. Re:But.. by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      Of course you'd want your pacemaker connected to the internet! Not sure it's still working? Ping it. Want to reboot it too? Ping it with even larger packets.

      The best thing is: you can do this from anywhere as long as you have a connection to the net. You don't even need to have your body - hey wait a minute, yes it is totally stupid. Who the hell comes up with this stuff?

    6. Re:But.. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      I know of a team developing a prodcut to do remote pacemaker reading over IP work right now. It's not a loose free-for-all where anybody can plug their implant into a USB slot and use AOL to transfer event data, but it is using a standard PPP internet connection to a regular data center. More and more of this kind of thing will be developed.

    7. Re:But.. by lionchild · · Score: 2

      I don't think a pacemaker would -EVER- be hooked up to the internet -- not only is there no point, but it's just extra risk for something to go wrong.

      Actually, some devices like the pacemaker, have short-range radio transmitters in them. They're high-tech enough now that they collect data on the patient, and can then be transmitted via wireless to a modual on the belt that records things. Some pacemakers are sophisticated enough to be able to deterimine if you're going into v-fib and enact a form of de-fibulation.

      It's only a short step away for the pacemaker to then relay to the interface modual on your belt that you just had a heart attack, then it tells your cell phone to call for an ambulance, and gives your GPS location. It's technology that we're near to implimenting. It's part of us getting our older Americans the freedom to stay at home instead of being placed in a home so they can be watched over in case they should have a heart attack, or some other condition come on them. Think of it as an automated "panic" button that summons help.

      --
      Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    8. Re:But.. by Darkwalker · · Score: 1

      I can see it now - An variable length invisible fence controlled via the internet. Just give someone's pacemaker an extra jolt whenever they're not home on time.

      Women, are you concerned about your man? Do you think he might be off filandering with the secretary? Now you have an option! From Pace Industries, the Fidelity-Maker!

      Actually, that could have good uses if we could hook up the people spreading the retoric.

      "The internet will control everything! Traffic lights!" *bzzzz!!* "Err, Pacemakers?" *bzzzz!!* "OK, I'm lying!"

    9. Re:But.. by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      So instead of dying from a heart attack, you die from a Denial Of Service Attack? Gives new meaning to the Ping O' Death

    10. Re:But.. by iabervon · · Score: 2

      Those are all different, though: your fridge could have sensors which detect all the things in it by RF tags to tell you what it needs, but the computer problem still wouldn't affect the cooling system, which doesn't have any reason to be connected.

      Traffic lights and pacemakers don't need anything except clocks and sensors. You wouldn't want to make a larger-scale system, because that would be too hard to program-- it would be very difficult to avoid messing up the system even without attackers.

    11. Re:But.. by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

      but I think I may have done him a grave disservice, introducing electronics-as-necessity to him that young in life. (How many 9 year olds do you know who, on the phone with their friends, say "Hang on.. I'll shut down the laptop and be right over?"

      No, actually, you have done him a service. It's better that he's used to it than become a technophobe. Honestly though, I'm impressed that he'll say "Let me shut down my laptop, I'll be right over," instead of "Let me boot up Quake III. Head over to the server at 192.168.25.65. I'll be there in a minute."

      Human interaction has gone down the thresher. One of my closest friends does almost nothing other than work and play EverQuest. I rarely see him anymore. I'll ask him "Mark, I tried to get ahold of you? Where you been this weekend?" and he'll say "Oh, I was around, but I was playing EQ all weekend." He actually does mean ~12+ hours/day.

      *sigh* Where have we gone, and what have we become.

    12. Re:But.. by aggressivepedestrian · · Score: 1
      Why would these things be controlled via the internet?
      Because idiot sheeples want bigger faster better. They want their refrigerator to be able to print out a list of groceries it needs on their computer. They want to be able to put a recipe into their laptop, and using wireless, have it pre-program the stove and microwave, and have the refrigerator and pantry tell them what they need to buy to make it happen.

      I'm not so sure about that. The garbage heap of faild dotcoms contains lots of companies that spent lots of money building websites and web apps that it turned out nobody wanted.

      Examples? How about Palm's website that let you sync your Pilot with their online PIM. They couldn't make money, so they quit providing that service.

      How about all those websites that, for a fee, would let you store your docs on their websites so you could access them from anywhere you had internet access?

      I think most people look at things like refrigerators that automatically order groceries as being completely unnecessary, and the amount of money they're willing to spend on such "features" certainly won't cover their cost.

    13. Re:But.. by Maeryk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are all different, though: your fridge could have sensors which detect all the things in it by RF tags to tell you what it needs, but the computer problem still wouldn't affect the cooling system, which doesn't have any reason to be connected.

      Actually, I remember reading a writeup somewhere.. (might even have been here) but I have no clue where to start searching or under what.. about fridges that, using bluetooth, could self-diagnose and call the service guy FOR you. Say if the compressor started running hot, or if the temperature started fluctuating wildly.

      Again.. I dont necessarily think it would catch on big at first, but you *know* how corporations have a habit of ramming stuff down your throat simply because they make it the only thing available. (Buy a carbeurated car.. go ahead.. they are easier for you to work on, and have far fewer sensors in them.. but can you get one? THere are next to none produced).

      I dont want a cell phone that gets web pages, gets email, plays games, sings songs, or allows me to control my television. I want a cell phone that lasts more than two hours on a damn battery. Funny, I cant find one that doesnt do all the useless crap anymore, but I *SURE* cant find one that lives up to even its manufacturers claims on power consumption.

      What scares me is they start putting this stuff in, whether we like it or not. And who is to say your fridge doesnt broadcast a signal to roving trucks with service people in them? That may sound a bit on the edge, but its possible. And anywhere that type of thing is a "convenience" it could also be abused.

      Bigger and Faster is not *always* better. Give me a simpler time.. when if the power went out, people didnt lose their minds.. they simply lit candles and played cards for an hour or two. Or when people kept buckets of water around during storms so they could flush toilets. That I could understand. Technology is *SO* freakin ingrained into our lives these days that without electricity, the world grinds to a freaking halt rather suddenly. And it shouldnt have to. People did fine without it for 2000 or more years.

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    14. Re:But.. by Andrewkov · · Score: 1
      How many 9 year olds do you know who, on the phone with their friends, say "Hang on.. I'll shut down the laptop and be right over?"

      Sounds like another Slashdotter in the making!

    15. Re:But.. by xbrownx · · Score: 1

      Actually, I remember reading a writeup somewhere.. (might even have been here) but I have no clue where to start searching or under what.. about fridges that, using bluetooth, could self-diagnose and call the service guy FOR you. Say if the compressor started running hot, or if the temperature started fluctuating wildly.


      hmm then maybe it's a good think after all that Bluetooth is tanking!

    16. Re:But.. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Figure out what people would have said about ... cell phones thirty years ago had someone suggested they would exist. "Thats ridiculous..why would anyone EVER want that? I have my phone in the house... Why carry around something that needs batteries?"

      I said that when mobile phones first came out, and I still say that now, and I've never owned one. I seem to be becoming more and more isolated on that count, though...

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    17. Re:But.. by drnek · · Score: 1

      I can see pacemakers being connected to some sort of global network in the future. That way Doctors will be able to get real time information on the status of their patients, be able to adjust the programming of the pacemakers as needed. Also, the pacemakers would be able to call the EMT's if there is a problem.

      There are some dangers (to privacy and health), but there could be some benefits if it is done correctly
      .

    18. Re:But.. by micahjd · · Score: 2
      Does this mean he's assuming that traffic lights, pacemakers, and appliances might one day run Microsoft Outlook too?

      --
      -- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
    19. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of this can be done with a seperate in home lan that doesnt need to be connected to the outside world. Plus motors, power supplies, and other critical parts dont need to be controlled by a computer even if a computer is present! Its a matter of proper engineering and adequate thought being given to the design process. Also if consumers were more educated none of this would be a problem. We should spend more on education than we do on bull shit security.

    20. Re:But.. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      I dont want a cell phone that gets web pages, gets email, plays games, sings songs, or allows me to control my television. I want a cell phone that lasts more than two hours on a damn battery. Funny, I cant find one that doesnt do all the useless crap anymore, but I *SURE* cant find one that lives up to even its manufacturers claims on power consumption.

      Ericsson T68. I get about 6 hours of talk time on it. I was on the phone last night for over an hour and my battery meter is still full. It also tells you how much battery life to expect. From what I can tell, it is mostly accurate. At full charge it reports 6h33m. GSM/GPRS phone, color screen (which you can switch to black and white and increase battery life further)

      Full WAP support, Bluetooth, and a full PIM. I don't need my CLIE anymore. The best part? It's pretty damn small, can fit in my pants pocket comfortably.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    21. Re:But.. by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      How about all those websites that, for a fee, would let you store your docs on their websites so you could access them from anywhere you had internet access?

      Yes, because lord knows that FTP'ing into my account, or setting up a password-protected directory on my webpage is too hard. This service doesn't really add anything for most people, since most of these services are readily available from any ISP worth a damn.

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    22. Re:But.. by olman · · Score: 2

      I don't think a pacemaker would -EVER- be hooked up to the internet -- not only is there no point, but it's just extra risk for something to go wrong.

      I think it wouldn't be that bad idea, if done right. You could remotely check how the patients are doing and the box could call 911 when something goes pop. No point of having it work over public internet if it uses gsm data which is probably the most ubiquitous wireless network for the time being. In fact, I do believe there are similar systems for (wealthy) pensioners as it is. They don't use .net either.

    23. Re:But.. by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      Bluetooth tanking? I think it's about to take off. The Ericsson T68 has it as well as PDA's, printers and other devices. I remember when people said the same thing about USB and then, Apple brought out the iMac with NO legacy stuff. BOOM....USB took off. Now, Apple has brought out iSync which will sync your computer with your PDA (Palm only....grumble), your cell phone and other devices using SyncML. Bluetooth will now explode. Bluetooth isn't for networking. It's for Personal LANs. It could be used to connect your printer that's in a better place across the room, or it could be used to keep your headset connected with your cellphone. It has the chance to make wires for things such as PDA's and Cellphones (well except for power) non existant. No, I don't think it's tanking....I think it's ready for take off. And YOU KNOW Microsoft can't stand for Apple to be on top in something. My prediction, Activesync will become SyncML compatible and it will work with phones now and not only syncing over Bluetooth, but 802.11b as well (why can't I do this now??).

      --

      Gorkman

    24. Re:But.. by brutusbuck · · Score: 1

      Ok. So there's 10,000 traffic lights in your city. Each one is controlled by a plc on it's pole. If the city wants to modify the traffic pattern, someone travels to each site to program each plc individually.

      Someone gets the idea to interconnect all the plcs onto a network so that they can be reprogrammed from a central location. There, now all the traffic lights in your city are on the internet.

    25. Re:But.. by brutusbuck · · Score: 1

      Pacemakers run software, and (if not yet) could certainly be upgradable.

      Imagine the future...

      You wouldn't want to crack a guy to upgrade his pacemaker software, so you make it a low powered wireless device. For new software, doctors download the software and upgrade it via a special encryted transmitter in their office.

      Even further in the future...

      Pacemaker software upgrades are routine. Why do I need to go to the doctor's office to upgrade my pacemaker software? I download it at home and upgrade via my home transmitter. Maybe the upgrades are even automatic...whatever.

      The point is that technology exists to make all sorts of devices accessible through the internet. It doesn't take much thought to come up with 1 plausible reason to actually do it.

    26. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There, now all the traffic lights in your city are on the internet

      They oughtn't to be. Something as critical as traffic lights should be on a physically separate network, with no link to the outside world. It would be insane to put them on the Internet.

    27. Re:But.. by kwashiorkor · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that anyone needing roaming file access is probably part of an organization that has the savvy to provide an in-house service. Or, at least lap-tops, which produces a similar result.

      Average desk-jockeys simply don't need the service, and mom'n'pop casual users get confused by anything more complicated than photo-sharing sites. .COM fucktards were everywhere. The sky already fell.

      --
      -- kwashiorkor --
      Leaps in Logic
      should not be confused with
      Jumping to Conclusions.
    28. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't everything?

    29. Re:But.. by kwashiorkor · · Score: 2

      I know nothing about pacemakers. Do the medical computers that monitor them use wireless transmissions to communicate?

      If yes, I see the potential for some sort of strong-arm wardriving in retirement communities. ;-)

      "Yes Mrs. Johnson, if you don't send us your retirment savings, you may be liable for a serious accident. Wha... what's that? You think your heart just skipped a beat?"

      C'mon... laugh damnit!

      --
      -- kwashiorkor --
      Leaps in Logic
      should not be confused with
      Jumping to Conclusions.
    30. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maeryk,

      Technology of our making is as ingrained in our society as technology of evolution's making. Would you argue that our bodies are too complex -- so many things to go wrong; diseases, cancers, etc? Technology has evolved in order to support an evergrowing population. There are over six billion people on this earth, and take away the technology, most of them will perish. And it follows that technology has to keep evolving because populations will keep growing (sex is just too damn pleasureful). Yes, even when the phone was invented, people asked what's the point. Any new technology will be met with criticizm. However, give it time to show itself, to adapt, and you will see its usefulness. We are still at the very early stage of internet development. It's like when cars had big clunky engines with no gearboxes and no brakes. But it will improve.

      Carburated vs. fuel injected? I seem to remember that carburated cars were a major pain to start in the winter, had horrible gas mileage, oh, and try rebuilding that carb yourself; good luck. Sensors add complexity, but when technology is mature enough and there is enough benefit, that complexity is quite justified. In fact, today's cars are much more reliable than those of just a couple of decades ago.

      Smart fridges? There is another point to remember -- consumers still control direction of technology. Case in point: onStar communications network. Many luxury cars now have the system built-in, and they offer a free year of service. However, after the first year is up, virtually noone keeps the service. It's like having a cell phone that you can't use except in very rare conditions but you have to pay for every month. All these useless features in cell phones; they are giving people a taste of what's possible, letting them decided what they do and do not want. It's still cheaper to build a voice-only phone, but manufacturers are betting that people will find some of the fringe features useful enough to justify a higher price. Only time will tell.

      Cheer up, man!
      -pm

    31. Re:But.. by guttentag · · Score: 2
      Why would these things be controlled via the internet? We already segregate certain high security systems from the internet to avoid even the chance of them being "hacked".
      Because pretty soon we're going to start hearing "the only way to secure your appliances/traffic lights/power grids/etc. is to install Windows Secure Edition." Manufacturers will preinstall Windows SE on consumer devices because this will give them an excuse to scare customers into buying new products from themm every few years. Government officials who have accepted campaign money from Microsoft will encourage the maintainers of infrastructure systems to switch -- "no one uses ada these days anyway, wouldn't you feel safer with C#?" Banks... well, let's just say there are already ATMs and cash registers running Windows. Congress

      All these things will "need" to be connected to the Internet "for regular security updates."

    32. Re:But.. by karnal · · Score: 2

      You know what I would actually like?

      Rather than have the fridge call up the repairman, have the fridge TELL ME what's wrong. Granted, knowledge in the wrong hands can make the life of the repairman hell (But it's telling me that the compressor's bad!!! etc) but for people like myself, it's worth it.

      Take cars, for example. I like working on cars. I like seeing what makes them tick, and fixing them when they inevitably break. Now, the older cars don't give you any information -- you just have to have an ear for it. But, the newer cars have computers and more sensors than ever.

      But it still won't tell me what's wrong. All I get is an idiot light -- check engine soon.

      All I want is for it to tell ME what it sees, and not with the help of a 500$ scan tool, thank you very much :)

      --
      Karnal
    33. Re:But.. by iabervon · · Score: 2

      If the city wants to modify the traffic pattern, they'd better not do it by changing 10,000 traffic light programs at the same time. What the city actually wants to do is identify trouble spots and change the traffic lights there or near there.

      Traffic lights are programmable because they're all different. There is no sensible bulk update possible. If you're tweaking each set individually, you might as well send some guy over to change it.

    34. Re:But.. by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

      I gave my son a laptop to learn on when he turned six.. because I wanted him to have the edge as he grows up and be experienced and not afraid of computers..

      I don't think I touched a computer until I was 18 (well, it was card punch really), and I'm hardly afraid and inexperienced. I think getting kids started on computers early is way overrated. If the kid is smart and technically inclined, he'll figure it out pretty quickly. How hard really is any given application? Unless you mean "figuring out how to keep a Windows box running" in which case the earlier the better.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    35. Re:But.. by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      But it still won't tell me what's wrong. All I get is an idiot light -- check engine soon.

      YMMV, but the last several "electronic" cars I have had have been able to tell you this. Its a hack, but there is usually a diagnostic output plug somewhere that if you jump pin X with pin Y wiht say, a paperclip, the "check engine" light will blink patterns at you which indicate the exact failure, or at least which system to start looking in.

      Not nearly as easy as a SUN machine, but how many of us have 30K to buy a diagnostic tool for the car?

      Ahh.. for the days when I could hear the engine running rough and tweak the Holly 4 bbl under the hood to tune it. Now I have to take it to a mechanic and pay 300 bucks to have a nozzle replaced. *sigh*

      maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    36. Re:But.. by kwan3217 · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous. How complicated can a pacemaker be? It's a clock connected to a heart-zapper-thingie. It doesn't need to be a turing-complete device capable of running arbitrary programs.

      Just because it's electronic, doesn't mean its a computer.

      --
      Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power
    37. Re:But.. by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      Technology of our making is as ingrained in our society as technology of evolution's making. Would you argue that our bodies are too complex -- so many things to go wrong; diseases, cancers, etc? Technology has evolved in order to support an evergrowing population. There are over six billion people on this earth, and take away the technology, most of them will perish. And it follows that technology has to keep evolving because populations will keep growing (sex is just too damn pleasureful). Yes, even when the phone was invented, people asked what's the point. Any new technology will be met with criticizm. However, give it time to show itself, to adapt, and you will see its usefulness. We are still at the very early stage of internet development. It's like when cars had big clunky engines with no gearboxes and no brakes. But it will improve.

      True. But I think there is one important modifier to this. I dont think Henry Ford started building cars to get rich. Nor do I think Edison invented things to get rich. Now, however, the allmighty dollar drives everything. From innovation to law to property rights. *THAT* is what I am scared of. That Companies feel the need to force things upon us to keep their relevance in the marketplace, rather than produce things that we come to buy because we need them.

      The difference being a free market society where it is driven by what people buy by choice, vs a more corporate controlled society where people buy out of necessity because its the only thing possible.

      Maeryk

      Who *CAN* rebuild and tune a Holley four barrel carb.. and has, numerous times. *grin*

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    38. Re:But.. by Tim+Doran · · Score: 2

      A clock connected to a heart-zapper thingie? Maybe in the 50's, and the lucky recipients had the lifestyle to prove it.

      Modern pacemakers are pretty sophisticated. They adjust to the body's needs, fire only when needed at the rate required and collect data on their own performance for periodic checkups.

      The concept of a software update is probably a non-starter. The pacemaker I got in 1981 (at 10 years old) was sophisticated enough to allow me a totally normal life... modern ones are even better. Why would you risk the performance of such an effective device by attempting upgrades to (apparently flawless) software?

      Frankly, even if a flaw were discovered and an upgrade required, the surgery required to replace the thing is so minor (outpatient, local anasthetic) that software updates are likely not worth the development effort.

    39. Re:But.. by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      You can get tools that let you see the diag codes from your car for around 200 I think. They work reliably on cars made after '91 I think. Search around and I think you can find it, there's some sort of protocol that is standerized.

    40. Re:But.. by felicity · · Score: 1
      I've been having these pains ...

      $ ping -c 5 pacemaker
      PING 10.20.30.40 (10.20.30.40) from 10.20.30.1 : 56(84) bytes of data.

      --- 10.20.30.40 ping statistics ---
      5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 0 errors, 100% packet loss

      Uh-oh, I better call the hospital!

    41. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was an article on /. some time ago about technology being developed to remotely monitor medical devices such as pacemakers. I wish I could find the link ...

    42. Re:But.. by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      YMMV, but the last several "electronic" cars I have had have been able to tell you this. Its a hack, but there is usually a diagnostic output plug somewhere that if you jump pin X with pin Y wiht say, a paperclip, the "check engine" light will blink patterns at you which indicate the exact failure, or at least which system to start looking in.

      Haven't bought a car recently, have you? It's called OBD-II, and you need a scanner. Been that way since '97 on everything but very low production vehicles (like exotic vehicles).

      Not nearly as easy as a SUN machine, but how many of us have 30K to buy a diagnostic tool for the car?

      Either you're sorely misinformed, or you have the attitude I've seen so often where you just must buy a Sub-Zero commercial fridge for $2000 when the $800 Kenmore does the same thing. OBD-II scanners have been availabe on the consumer market for years at sub $300 prices. And the best part about OBD-II is that one scanner works for every make and model.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    43. Re:But.. by undecidable · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Traffic lights and pacemakers don't need anything except clocks and sensors. You wouldn't want to make a larger-scale system, because that would be too hard to program-- it would be very difficult to avoid messing up the system even without attackers.
      Actually, I can easily imagine the desire to design a larger-scale system for a city's traffic lights. I agree that such an algorithm is not simple to design, but that doesn't mean that it's beyond our collective capabilities.

      And my guess is that it would be in most cases several orders of magnitude less expensive for a city to optimize their traffic lights to yeild the optimal flow than simply build more streets or widen existing ones.

      As a simple example: consider one smart light that can sense when a greater flow of traffic is crossing east/west than north/south. To compensate, it extends the east/west green time. But now, the traffic lights in the surrounding intersections are not going to be green at the "right" time. For traffic flow purposes, it is advantageous to keep cars from stopping. Thus, the surrounding lights should know about a light's timing to help keep the flow of traffic moving as much as possible.

      An interesting question might be, how well can you do if only the surrounding lights know about eachother's timing? This is starting to sound like the standard network flow algorithms.

      --
      "The only rights you have are the rights you are willing to fight for."
    44. Re:But.. by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      Haha, but now you can go to jail for life for using evil hacking tools (like 'ping') to kill people :-P

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
    45. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most modern pacemakers use a combination of ROM and static RAM. There are many (many, many) parameters that can (and in some cases must) be modified in order to suit the pacemaker to an individual's needs. The key is that pacemakers no longer just pace, they also monitor and record events and ECG so that a physician can gain a much better understanding of how the patient and device are working. Along with these new capabilities, comes quite a bit of overhead and the need to move a lot of data off the device to make room for more. An Internet device (or better worded, an Internet Protocol device) can allow for easier and more convenient standard retrieval of data over a network be it public or private. There are currently one or two companies which support device networking via a third network interface device which allows for a (more) secure connection between the network and the implantable device. See:

      http://www.medtronic.com/newsroom/news_20020318b .h tml

      In terms of updating the software, that is a bit further of a step into dangerous territory, but there are valid reasons and with appropriate caution, the risks could be deemed acceptable. Note: The device would still NOT be dependent on the network for operation. Current design processes allow for no exceptions to patient safety, and a DOS would definately qualify as such. Instead, the device would operate independently and reuire a graceful fail-over in case of any type of network malfunction.
      Reasons for wanting a remote "software update" would be to tweak parameters if the patient is symptomatic at a remote (inaccessible location), to efficiently install a new piece of code which could safely increase the longevity of the device without requiring all hospitals in the world to be overloaded with patients needing a "tune up", etc.

    46. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the way traffic patterns were managed, because they had to be. Imagine a system designed to maximize traffic flow by constantly adjusting all the lights in real time.

      Then the cities could start selling V.I.P plates, which turn all lights green, etc. . .

    47. Re:But.. by will_die · · Score: 1

      Pacemakers are all ready being hooked up to the internet, and the use will probably increase. What is happening is that alot of medical implanted devices are being setup so that the user can use a special device hooked up to thier computer that can monitor them and thier devices and then report back to the doctors. Quick and easy way to make sure that everything is working, and could also report usage, and monitor for other health related items. Also there has been some talk about go the next step and allowing the doctors to change the way device is working to improve the support to the user(patient).

    48. Re:But.. by iabervon · · Score: 2

      Optimizing light cycles could definitely help traffic flow. Of course, there are plenty of cities that are trying to make traffic go more slowly in places or have other desireable properties than just moving cars.

      It's probably not a good idea, though, to have the system change in response to conditions, because people get used to the behavior of the traffic lights on their commutes, and so it's advantagous to have the lights be consistent.

      I also think that you'd need a huge amount of sensors to do anything sensible with timings. Are only a few cars going through the intersection because, while there are a lot of cars coming that way, they don't have time in the cycle to all go through? Is it because they're stuck behind someone trying to turn left? Is it because they're trying to go into a street which is backed up into the intersection during that part of the light cycle? Is it because everyone is stuck at the previous intersection?

      Optimizing traffic light cycles can help a lot of problems significantly, but I don't think there's really any substitute for having people actually go to the intersection and see what happens.

    49. Re:But.. by micahjd · · Score: 2
      In unix everything is a file, in windows everything is a web browser...

      --
      -- 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2
  9. Engineers to lose their sanity in 2004 by SirSlud · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Engineers around the globe will lose their sanity in exactly 2004 and will start engineering/programming their systems according to the guidelines of great cyberpunk novelists.

    (Actually, given that marketing is really just the construction of fantasy-realities, I suppose marketing driven tech companies that engage in Real-Time-Sales-Driven-Development (tm) arn't too far off from that scenario. So, perhaps I shouldn't laugh.)

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
    1. Re:Engineers to lose their sanity in 2004 by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      In 2004? Read William Gibson and take a good look around the world today =)

  10. Huh? by superdan2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is this news? This is the same party line as the Luddites have, only this guy has some history and a government position. So what? The Luddites have been proclaiming the end of the world because of technology for over a century. Has it happened? No. Will it happen? Maybe. Can we do anything about it if it does? No; so who the fuck cares?

    --
    blog |
    1. Re:Huh? by mwa · · Score: 2

      It's news because it's coming from the mouth of an appointed U.S. policymaker. It doesn't matter to me if some corporate or private nitwit wants to blather incoherently. It does matter to me when that blathering is put forth as official government policy.

    2. Re:Huh? by xbrownx · · Score: 1

      What policies does this guy actually make?

      C'mon, it's a spokesperson/lobbiest-figurehead position...

    3. Re:Huh? by jgalun · · Score: 1

      How in God's name is this insightful?

      Will [the end of the world because of technology] happen? Maybe. Can we do anything about it if it does? No; so who the fuck cares?

      The question is not whether we can do anything about the end of the world after it happens, the question is whether we can prevent the end of the world before it happens. That is, believe it or not, what this ex-Microsoft guy is now trying to do. You might not agree that the end of the world is coming if we don't work to prevent it, but it's foolish to say "Who cares if the end of the world is coming, once it happens we won't be able to do anything about it anyway."

    4. Re:Huh? by mwa · · Score: 2
      C'mon, it's a spokesperson/lobbiest-figurehead position

      Exactly.

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furrfu. Learn something about the Luddites, wouldya?

      They weren't against technology. They were against being _oppressed_ by technology. There's a crucial difference, and if you're concerned about skript kiddies hax0ring your (or your spouses', parents, siblings, whatnot) pacemaker, then you're halfway to being a Luddite.

      The lesson to learn from the Luddites is not "don't resist technology", but "don't let the oppressors buy off the government and declare resistance to being oppressed a capital crime".

      Funny how history repeats, eh?

  11. what?!? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Funny
    "Former Microsoft security chief George Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. "

    My brain just imploded.

    1. Re:what?!? by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      Do not panic. Your brain has been rebooted and fitted with a new Palladium biochip. Please do not attempt to view or listen to any unauthorised copyright material, otherwise it may implode again.

    2. Re:what?!? by Winged+Cat · · Score: 1

      "Congratulations, gentlemen. You're everything we've come to expect from years of government service."

      "Microsoft Government. How do you want to be misrepresented today?"

    3. Re:what?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yea, Microsoft donated tons of resources to both candidates in the election. Well, membership has its perks.

    4. Re:what?!? by discogravy · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Former Microsoft security chief George Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. "

      My brain just imploded.

      I was pretty surprised to hear that MS had a security chief once too.

  12. It may be over the top, but... by coj · · Score: 1
    Knowing how cavalier many companies still are about ignoring good security practices, I wonder if it might be better for them to be paranoid than blissfully ignorant.

    -Ed

    1. Re:It may be over the top, but... by Zordak · · Score: 2
      Knowing how cavalier many companies still are about ignoring good security practices, I wonder if it might be better for them to be paranoid than blissfully ignorant.
      If they implement security as well as Microsoft has done with their "Trustworthy Computing" (tm) initiative (or whatever they called that BS), it won't amount to a hill of beans of difference.
      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  13. Seek shelter for the long haul by harveyswik · · Score: 1

    Let's see, find a nice controled environment that provides adequite protection and possibly a few computers and books to entertain us? Hrm, that's not quite right; I do that every day.

  14. But AUTOMAN taught me otherwise . . . by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't you remember that old television series Automan?

    Between shows like that, in which a computer program given life could control any electrical device, and all the poorly done "hax0r" characters on film and television, why would you expect people NOT to believe things like this?

    1. Re:But AUTOMAN taught me otherwise . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another example of reality being dictated to us by fantasy? (Silly chrome and whizz-bang fantasy at that.)

      Just like the 'net will become a "consensual hallucination" in 20-30 years because someone thought that it was a cool idea in 1984 and hasn't let go of it.

      Good grief.

      [ PS. I don't remember automan at all. Somehow, I think I should be happy about that. ]

    2. Re:But AUTOMAN taught me otherwise . . . by SimplyCosmic · · Score: 2

      As for remembering the show, it was brought to you by the same guy responsible for Battlestar Galactica, so that should tell you of it's cultural importance. ;)

    3. Re:But AUTOMAN taught me otherwise . . . by On+Lawn · · Score: 1


      Hah, I still think back fondly on the scene where automan's lamborghini made a 90degree turn (like it always does.)

      The army jeep in pursuit, with their lives *and* careers on the line watch in awe as the car defies physics.

      One officer turns to the other, seemingly forgetting the reason for the pursuit, or is just getting bored with it, turns to the other and says "If he can do it we can do it".

      He procedes to incapacitate his vehicle, breaking the ordered chase as he slams into a bilboard on the other side of the road.

      Thats just cool. Looking back it was like a proto-Simpsons gag.

  15. Very simple fix... by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 0


    http://www.suse.com

    Virii? Worms? What worms!?! Aprart from the ones that Tux eats for lunch... and the crap that most of this country (U.S.) eats from Micro$oft and their propoganda.

  16. To me it is obvious. by red_gnom · · Score: 1

    He wants to retire by 2005.
    It is his last straight run to the band.

  17. Pacemakers? by bafreer · · Score: 0
    Ok, maybe traffic lights will be controlled from the internet... maybe.

    But PACEMAKERS?

    what advantage could a pacemaker possibly gain from being online? I can see it now, Windows PM has a fatal security flaw allowing scriptkiddies to send any geriatric into atrial frib.

    In all seriousness, I think its a great idea to be able to control you heartbeat remotly, from a thousand miles away! ;-)

    Marge, they have the internet on computers now

    1. Re:Pacemakers? by shaldannon · · Score: 2
      I'd guess it would be 802.11 wireless, ya know? kinda tough to walk around the house with a cat5 hangin out your stomach...

      I guess I can see where someone might think monitoring a pacemaker would be a good idea, but the way I figure, if I needed one I wouldn't want people to be able to monitor it...can you imagine?:
      • wife: Bob's pacemaker is on the fritz!

      • son: let's up the life insurance policy real quick and not report it
      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    2. Re:Pacemakers? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Low frequency telemetry. Usually electromagnetic, with the carrier under 100 KHz.

      Yeah, I know you were just trying to be funny....

    3. Re:Pacemakers? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 1

      Yeah ok. I have no objections to implanting a small microwave in my chest. That'll be nice come winter.

    4. Re:Pacemakers? by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking it would be AUI

  18. Oh great... by CoolVibe · · Score: 2
    So now you guys in the US have someone in the government that is fighting windmills.

    We have some guys just like that in our gov/police in .nl as well though. According to them, us hackers are 'staatsgevaarlijke anarchisten'. Usually these people aren't taken seriously by people that _do_ know what they are dealing with. And hopefully for you USians that gov chapter has some people with a clue that can set the facts straight.

    1. Re: Oh great... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > So now you guys in the US have someone in the government that is fighting windmills.

      Remember, this guy is now part of an Administration that follows a policy of using the threat of foreign terrorism to terrorize the public into accepting legislation, policy changes, and major reorganization of government agencies. The key for reading this guy, just as for the rest of them, is to look beyond the FUD and see what his agenda is.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O.K, I get the Anarchist part, but you'll have to translate "staatsgevaarlijke" for me...

    3. Re:Oh great... by shaldannon · · Score: 2

      So now you guys in the US have someone in the government that is fighting windmills.

      Scarcely news here in the US I'm afraid. Then again...I imagine politicians and their lackeys everywhere occaisionally tilt at windmills, so we're not likely alone in that category. I do wish people would consider the effect on their careers and reputations before going off the deep end spouting apocalyptic FUD.

      I don't think we should be rosy about everything, but I do think some sanity should be present before carrying reports of doom far and wide.

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    4. Re: Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please. What a complete load of bullshit.

      this guy is now part of an Administration that follows a policy of using the threat of foreign terrorism to terrorize the public into accepting legislation, policy changes, and major reorganization of government agencies.

      This reorganization has been due now for 50 years. I think you're just pissed that it's not some liberal doing it, and it is a conservative who actually questions the use of a government agency. Governments change -- the current American federal system was built during the early Cold War, and is hardly relavent in today's fighting styles.

      If you're frightened like some little girl about if the changes are legal, that's really not up for you to decide directly anyway. Mail your Congresspeople, wait for a case to hit the courts.

      The key for reading this guy, just as for the rest of them, is to look beyond the FUD and see what his agenda is.

      Obviously it's all to take you out, since you're such a threat to the governemnt. You know too much! Run! Watch out for the black helicopters!

      Really though. What is the agenda, since you've obviously figured it out? And do you really think a liberal in office would have done much different?

    5. Re:Oh great... by Pope · · Score: 1
      So now you guys in the US have someone in the government that is fighting windmills.

      Even old New York
      Was once New Amsterdam
      Why'd they change it? I can't say
      I guess folks like it better that waaay!
      :)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re: Oh great... by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      OK, now I'm confused. Is someone a liberal just because they question their government, and that government is considered conservative? Are all true conservatives then people who blindly accepts what their conservative government tells them?

    7. Re: Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me try!

      insert("post about how evil republican administration has a hidden agenda of enslaving America");

      do i get mod points too? even if my post reads like some paranoid delusion?

    8. Re: Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, now I'm confused.
      About a great many things.
      Is someone a liberal just because they question their government, and that government is considered conservative?
      No, but when they present no logical reason for it, that's a sign of a liberal. People who make decisions based on feelings and emotions and never logic.
      all true conservatives then people who blindly accepts what their conservative government tells them?
      This doesn't follow from the first statement. A true conservative always questions government, but has real reasons for it. Not just rants about terrorizing citizens, and presenting no proof what-so-ever.
      Nice try.

    9. Re: Oh great... by TWR · · Score: 2
      A liberal is someone who thinks that all Republicans are inherently evil.

      A conservative is someone who thinks that all Democrats are inherently evil.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    10. Re: Oh great... by Winged+Cat · · Score: 2

      What about someone who thinks that all Republicans and Democrats are inherently evil?

    11. Re: Oh great... by TWR · · Score: 2
      I think they're called "Libertarians"

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    12. Re: Oh great... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      > If you're frightened like some little girl about if the changes are legal, that's really not up for you to decide directly anyway.

      Wipe the foam off your lip and re-read my post. I didn't comment on the legality or even the desirability of the changes; I merely suggested that people look behind the rhetoric of terror and see why public officials say these things.

      And in case you haven't noticed, the Administration is having a bit of trouble selling some of their agenda to the public.

      > And do you really think a liberal in office would have done much different?

      Did I say, hint, suggest, or imply that I thought any such thing?

      Truth to tell, I think that Bush has been the puppet of political necessity since 9/11 (and on the stock market issue, too), so that if we had Gore instead of Bush we would have been seeing the same moves and hearing the same bullshit that we've been seening/hearding from Bush. Probably the only big difference would be an absense of the "Get Iraq!" talk (which, BTW, appears to be driven primarily by W's daddy's cronies rather than by W himself).

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re: Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true conservative only questions the government if there's not a Republican in charge. As long as the good ol' Republicans are running the show, we can be sure that the rich will keep getting richer, the environment will continue to get fucked over so that a bunch of old guys can buy new yachts, civil rights will continue to be revoked so that only the rich can live a decent life and stay out of jail, and we'll make sure the rest of the rabble get their asses kicked if they try to do anything about it.

    14. Re:Oh great... by CoolVibe · · Score: 2

      Literally translated, 'staatsgevaarlijk' means: "A danger to the state". I think that says it all really.

  19. why so quick to dismiss? by tps12 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can we not accept the remote possibility that there is a grain of truth in these doomesday prophecies? Is it not possible that the technology we surround ourselves with, protect ourselves and our families and our businesses with, might be vulnerable to attack?

    Do I think it's likely? No. But bugs happen. Human error happens. Even the OpenBSD guys have root exploits on occaision. As unlikely as these predictions are, it is the government's job to be prepared to deal with these possibilities. If that means harsher penalties for hackers, the monitoring of electronic transmissions, and the regulation of strong encryption, than so be it. It's the price we pay for living in a free and prosperous society.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:why so quick to dismiss? by Verteiron · · Score: 1
      I was with you up until...
      If that means ... the monitoring of electronic transmissions, and the regulation of strong encryption, than so be it. It's the price we pay for living in a free and prosperous society.
      I really hope this was intended as sarcasm. The monitoring of electronic transmissions and regulation of strong encryption would not allow a "free" society to exist. At least, not for very long.
      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:why so quick to dismiss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly precautions need to be taken. Just like with Y2K. But running in circles and bemoaning our impending doom does nothing but cause unneeded anxiety.

  20. Consider the associations... by hotarugari · · Score: 1

    Former "Microsoft" security chief George Schmidt. One should consider what such a man has to gain before listening to such drivel. Wielding a broken stick doesn't carry much of a threat to those who know.

  21. Brilliant! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zero-day viruses? Is that anything like all the zero-day warez copies of the Microsoft software that I've downloaded? Now those were secure... most of them are cracked within a day. And now he's in charge of computer security for the goddamn government? Wow, I feel safer already.

  22. He must be well respected.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow - the Chief of Security at Microsoft. He must command a lot of authority in the security world.

  23. I say by Treeluvinhippy · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Howard Schmidt = Chicken Little

    --
    >
  24. I didn't know all IP = Internet by stuyman · · Score: 5, Informative

    While it seems that the phrase "snake oil salesmen" has passed out of the vernacular in favor of "really good excuse to sell product," Schmidt is really nothing more than a fearmonger. While I could imagine a worm moving through the internet fairly quickly, I can't imagine it doing too much serious harm. I mean, nothing could be much more serious that code red or Melissa or something. The net is fairly heterogeneous, so if a big chunk of end-user windows machines become infected, who gives a crap? Worst thing is a slight dip in sales at Amazon or buy.com, and McAfee, Symantec, etc get some new sales. Even a windows machine can be armored against these things if you try. Also, spreading instantly isn't even feasible. It takes time for a machine to find connected hosts, transmit and process things, etc.

    What worries me most is this absurd prediction that traffic lights and the power grid etc will become part of the internet. There are no good reasons for traffic lights to be on the public internet, and lots of good reasons for them not to be. However, there are lots of good reasons to control such things by computer, and the best way to take advantage of this is by using economies of scale through the use of commodity hardware. In other words, over TCP/IP. So, the traffic light network assigns all lights an IP address. This isn't the same as being on the internet. And despite all the fearmongering it's unlikely to happen.

    Remember, these people have been predicting critical infrastructure death for 10 years, and their theoretical net-wide worm actually hit 14 years ago! Be fearless, build firewalls, and update your software, and ignore this moron (though if you can use it to convince your boss you need a new dual 1.5ghz machine with a giant plasma display, go for it...)

    --
    Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
    A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
    1. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree for the most part with the content with this post except with the concept that it "Also, spreading instantly isn't even feasible. It takes time for a machine to find connected hosts, transmit and process things, etc." - as bandwidth increases this becomes less and less the case, granted the code size for your average virus or worm is likely to increase as well (perhaps) but will it be to the same exponant as bandwidth?
      -DrkNexus

    2. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by mborland · · Score: 5, Insightful
      While I could imagine a worm moving through the internet fairly quickly, I can't imagine it doing too much serious harm. I mean, nothing could be much more serious that code red or Melissa or something.

      I think I agree with your general points, but actually the worms could have been a lot worse. Had Code Red, for example, performed destructive actions on the target servers, it would have been an absolute disaster, and everyone would have remembered The Day Code Red Hit. As it was, most people disabled the exploited feature or applied hotfixes, and were back on their feet again.

      Imagine if it had just deleted the boot.ini, and/or perhaps several megabytes of critical files (critical enough to fail on reboot but not to halt current operation)? It would continue to scan, and if the admin rebooted (that is the first line of defense, after all!) they would be hosed. Perhaps it would actually be worse to delete the 'non-standard' files, like user files...destroying web sites and forcing admins to go to back ups (Windows admins do keep backups, don't they?). Imagine 300,000 boxes being hosed within a short period!

      Be fearless, build firewalls, and update your software, and ignore this moron

      Amen!

    3. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      Actually the faster a virus spreads the weaker of a virus it must be. If a virus is very deadly it will kill off its host too fast to get good spreading. If a virus spreads fast, it must not be damaging its host too severly.

      So his fundamental idea of a fast spreading deadly virus is contradictory.

    4. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by whopis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So his fundamental idea of a fast spreading deadly virus is contradictory.

      It is possible to have a very fast spreading deadly virus. It just can not kill the host quickly, but this does not mean that it isn't deadly. A virus could be programmed to have a period of time during which it infects other systems, then kills the host it is on. Granted, this will have some limiting effect on the infection rate, but if tuned correctly this will be negligible.

      It is really a matter of tuning the time it spends infecting other hosts to the time it takes for it to spread through the entire population.

    5. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by ppanon · · Score: 1
      So his fundamental idea of a fast spreading deadly virus is contradictory.
      That's with naturally occurring organic viruses. In those cases the death of the host is due to the virus killing the cells in its attempt to reproduce. The faster the virus tries to reproduce, the less time it has to be transmitted to a new host.

      However in a computer virus, the infection mechanism can be completely disconnected from a kill payload. You can have a virus that slowly infects for a month and then delivers the above-mentioned kill payload. Or which only has a 95% probability of delivering the kill payload (so that you get "carrier" systems to re-infect the system that only have their backups restored without patches applied)

      So virus is a mental model or metaphor and if you don't understand where the parallels break down, you could be in for a rude surprise.
      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    6. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by WNight · · Score: 2

      So laughs the man who doesn't realize that an average computer has 5+ flashable BIOSes, most of which are required to boot properly and require a factory replacement to fix.

      Also, voltages for nearly everything are controllable by software. Wonder how that new CPU would like double the rated voltage.

      Just buy a new box, fix the holes, and continue? Well, as long as you aren't depending on that HD which had its BIOS flashed just before the system wiped all the directory info, the first 1k of every file, and then started a low-level format. (This happening while flashing the BIOSes of the rest of the devices, prior to upping the voltage dangerously.)

      Not to mention viruses (worms really) not being stopped by firewalls. EMail and web access are almost always allowed and those are the two biggest holes. And because everyone has a firewall blocking windows networking, once you're inside the firewall it's usually easy to access the rest of the machines.

    7. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, what happened with Code Red was nothing compared to what could have happened, and judging by the number of remaining infected hosts, could still happen. Why is it computer professionals, or at least the ones I've worked with, refuse to take security seriously until something very bad happens? All the time, I see cs people using telnet and ftp all over corporate networks, just assuming that the firewall is some mystical barrier that will protect them from everything. I see software developers writing code that passes user names and passwords around in plaintext, that takes inputs to build sql statements without checking them, that enforces security by marking checkboxes as "disabled" in web forms, that misusing symmetric key encryption to the point of making it useless, that compile passwords into binaries. The list goes on and on and on.

      So yeah, how hard is it to imagine something with Code Red or better infection rates, multiple vectors, that's capable of collecting passwords and mimicking certain network traffic to fubar data.

      .

    8. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      I think I agree with your general points, but actually the worms could have been a lot worse. Had Code Red, for example, performed destructive actions on the target servers, it would have been an absolute disaster, and everyone would have remembered The Day Code Red Hit.

      And people would have restored their backups, and life would have gone on. People who don't do backups would have been caught with their pants down, and we would know in the future not to do business with them. The world certainly would not have ended. In fact, if code red had done actual damage, it could have been the best thing to have ever happened in terms of improving the general security of windows boxes.

      There are a very small number of times that something large like this can hit before people realize that they have to pay attention to security, and do backups.

    9. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, organic viruses can work in a similar fashion. For example, HIV can lay dormant for years before causing serious damage to its host.

    10. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I am waiting for someone to finally create a destructive program with on of thoses outlook scripts that gets widly spread. So far we have been really luckly that one has not, but wait until buinesses gets hit with one of thoses. Really good day not to be working in an IT department.

  25. Y2K by RobPiano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of the reason Y2K happened nearly hitchless was due to the fact that so much hype was involved. By declaring "the sky is falling" they are preventing a problem through means of hype. However, this man is a microsoft ex-employee and I'll be quick to point out that most viruses and worms are not "computer" viruses specifically but *windows* viruses. By making a fuss he is trying to protect his "alma mater" as it were.

    It looks like some big goverment, "I pat your back, you pat mine" business.

    Rob

    1. Re:Y2K by gini_ · · Score: 1

      And this guy being ex-employee of MS could it be that he is just puffing Palladium, The Slayer of all worms and viruses, to the masses?

      Clever FUD indeed.

    2. Re:Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > this man is a microsoft ex-employee and I'll be
      > quick to point out that most viruses and worms
      > are not "computer" viruses specifically but
      > *windows* viruses. By making a fuss he is trying
      > to protect his "alma mater" as it were

      I'm sure that Palladium will protect us. :-/

    3. Re:Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to burst your bubble... but BULLSHIT.

      Y2K wasn't bad because it want bad to begin with.. he Russians and Chinese didnt do crap and they didn't implode, riot in the streets, the sun go black, etcc.. all the other lies spread about Y2K.

      Y2K was a non-event from day one. it was just media overhype that made many piss their pants over NOTHING.

    4. Re:Y2K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was because the Russians had already sold their computers for vodka and the Chinese never stepped up to anything beyond abacuses (abaci? abacube-doo-be-doo?).

  26. Pacemakers? by rnturn · · Score: 2

    Um, do these use an RJ45 or a BNC connector?

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  27. flacks by rodentia · · Score: 2

    This is no different than the DoD explaining the need for $2bn bombers or Justice requiring key escrow.

    Anyone believes the gub'mint any more trustworthy than any other institution deserves to get it in the Darwin.

    --
    illegitimii non ingravare
    1. Re:flacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who talks as if the US government is one entity deserves to be bitched slapped.

    2. Re:flacks by rodentia · · Score: 2

      I have this pie, would you like a slice?

      I have twelve eggs but if you call it a dozen I'll kick your ass.

      --
      illegitimii non ingravare
  28. Pacemakers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is ridiculous. Any of these systems is just as vulnerable to power outages as to these fictitious "internet outages". Nobody plugs their pacemaker into the wall, why would we then make these critical systems dependant on the internet? Just for fun?

  29. a larger (conspiracy theory) plan by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Wasn't it only recently that the US Gov't wanted to help us "secure" our computers?

    Perhaps they need to spread more FUD generated from 'reputable' sources like the government so people and corporations get scared enough to WANT government help.

    The most conspiracy-engaging part of myself is saying that this is only the first step in a plan to 'prove' to us that 100% of USA civilian computer systems cannot be totally secure against attack from international adversaries and thus must not be in the hands of civilians.

    Computers are incredibly powerful tools and today's machines are beyond what the scientists of 20 years ago dreamed of in the future's uber-super-computers. They can be used as powerful weapons in terms of using 'unbreakable' encryption, launching major DDOS and similar attacks, compromising systems and installing backdoors and more. They are tools for facilitating truly free speech and covertly exporting most any kind of information. Everyone with one could be seen as a threat to a government that wants ultimate control and thus this could be just the initial phase of a long-range multi-decade plan to keep all computers in the USA under physical control of the government.

    Of course, this is just a far-fetched conspiracy theory. You are welcome to accuse me of throwing FUD because that's what this probably is.

    1. Re: a larger (conspiracy theory) plan by whovian · · Score: 2

      We cannot be certain that the government could protect computer systems better than the public could.

      (dig) Considering Microsoft's track record on security, I believe it is THEY -- not the public -- who are the ones needing govt help.

      The thought that the US govt would control all computers sounds too much like what China sounds like: no electronically exchanged free speech/thought.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    2. Re:a larger (conspiracy theory) plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet has been proven to spread liberty and freedom, and to topple excessively centralized and dictatorial governments. Of late, the US government has started on the path towards such. They can see the writing on the wall.

  30. Not bloody Likely by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

    The one thing the internet has that prevents massive worm penetration is heterogenality. When nimbda came out it was windows boxes. This did not effect apache/*nix boxen. Suppose a virus were to come out next week that was exploited the recent apache bug (which requires a differnt exploit on each of the four operatings systems it was exploited for) this is not going to touch windows boxes. This is just an example but it applies acoss many other fields. He also seems to have little faith in the current measures which are in place. The barriers that are placed by firewalls, NAT /w virtual addresses, VPNs and a good security adminstrator can go a long way to protecting you aganist unknown threats which are lurking out there. None of these are perfect or guarntee security but theorizing that the internet is one virus away from a total meltdown is absurd.

    --
    If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    1. Re:Not bloody Likely by rnturn · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ``When nimbda came out it was windows boxes. This did not effect apache/*nix boxen.''

      While Apache servers didn't get rooted by Nimbda, or by its cousin Code Red, they were still affected. Of course, it was more of a DOS attack since the Apache daemons were attempting to respond to the bogus requests but it was an attack nonetheless. I've seen the load shoot through the roof on Apache servers the had been targeted by nimbda/code-red infected system. I should note that this was a strange case where someone fired up an NT system (for testing) that they were unaware had become infected and both systems were inside a firewall. Makes a good case for having another layer of firewalls (and, perhaps, an IDS) inside the LAN just to protect your servers from goofy situations like this.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    2. Re:Not bloody Likely by Mattygfunk · · Score: 2

      Where does Nimbda keep coming from? IIRC it was Nimda, the reverse of Admin.

    3. Re:Not bloody Likely by MrByte420 · · Score: 1

      Your right - I never said I could spell. :)

      --
      If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
    4. Re:Not bloody Likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point:
      Monocultures in agriculture are generally seen as vulnerable and that is one of the reasons. One sick = all sick.

    5. Re:Not bloody Likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huhuhuhu. ....shoot....load....

    6. Re:Not bloody Likely by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      The one thing the internet has that prevents massive worm penetration is heterogenality (sic) . When nimbda (sic) came out it was windows boxes. This did not effect (sic) apache/*nix boxen (sic) .

      However, Code Red did "affect Cisco 600 series DSL routers by inadvertently triggering a previously published vulnerability" (my emphasis). And, if I remember correctly, I think it also affected some HP print servers, too.

      Operating systems are complex. Routers use operating systems, as do dedicated print servers, and many other electronic devices. Even if a device or operating system is not specifically targeted, it can still be inadvertently hit when connected to a world-wide Internet.

      By the way...any statistics on how many smug Windows-loathing administrators aren't up to date with the patches for their routers, print servers, managed switches, firewalls, etc.?

  31. I blame bad science fiction by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And while there's some tongue in cheek in this, I really think that 90% of the reason why FUD like this is out there is because of what people see on TV/Movies.

    Law and order depicts "worm" that "takes control of your computer just be recieving an email!". Hackers: teenagers in bad oufits can crack into any system in the world (including being able to hack into a system by using phone lines taped together). Speed 2: leech loving man takes over a boat from his room with "fiber optic converter" (actually a data com port switch, I believe). The Net (another Sandra Bullock film) has a woman who's whole identity can be erased (especially when the FBI, Pentagon, and everybody else use the same anti-hacking software, which incredibly is used by evil hacker types).

    In movies, anything (microwave, blender, vacuum, whatever) can be controlled by evil computer programs. Don't ever put your computer in charge of your house, or else it will develop artificial intelligence, and try to kill you by making electric cords whip around your neck (I never figured out how that worked).

    Joe Public has no idea of how technology works - to him, it's indistinguishable from magic, so why couldn't it work? So when a man stands up and tells people a virus can circle the world 0 seconds, those who pray to the gods of technology in the hopes that their television doesn't turn off must believe.

    We don't believe in monsters or demons, so we invent them in the form of hackers and superintelligent teenagers with a vengeance. We don't believe in gods, so we invent them in a government that knows all, sees all (when it's own FBI is 10 years behind the technology curve).

    Good god, but I hate human ignorance.

    1. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      And in some ways, you have to thank science fiction. For example, I use to stay up all night worrying about an invasion from another planet, but then I saw Independence Day.

      Now I know all we need is a powerbook with a wireless network card to simply hack into the Alien's host computer, upload a virus and then sit back and watch as they ships fall from the sky.

    2. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      (including being able to hack into a system by using phone lines taped together).
      Yes... YEs they can.. it is blindly easy. you simply get 2 modems, break into any office phone room and find 2 POTS lines. place the modems on the pots lines set one to AA and connect them together with a null modem cable. simple as pie. Hell you can make it even more fun by placing several of these around town.. you can then link your re-directors and cause tons of hell for the feds trying to track you down. they show the brainless public handsets taped together (Wrong by the way, you have to tape them mouthpiece to earpiece with a foam donut to get that to work for 300bps... yes it does work) looks better and get's the point across instead of some funny looking box with blinkey lights.

      BTW, before you home-cracker-detectives cry about me releasing a secert... any cracker worth anything but that of a poser knows everything I just said.

      Yes, in my distant past I was overly curious... but that was really really long ago.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice point about the magic.

      people dont understand that things can be designed to do certain things. we have a network of water pipes in our cities and cholera doesnt spread through them in zero seconds...

      did anyone actually read that article...i admit i only skimmed it and thus didnt get the whole context but it seemed evry silly...

    4. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Law and order depicts "worm" that "takes control of your computer just be recieving an email!"

      That doesn't irritate me nearly as much as the frequent references to "chat room posts." They really need to hire a geek to vet their scripts or something. Hell, I'd do it for free if they just let me punch their marketing director every time he came out with a Columbiney, "Did video games drive this child to kill?" kind of promo.

      "Ripped from the headlines: Did this TV show drive a geek to kill?"

    5. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor, foolish man...

      "Human Ignorance" is a blessed, wonderful thing. It's the reason why us programmers can get better jobs than the masses. If they could program, they'd hardly need US, now would they?

      Face it. Stupidity is your friend!

      Besides, admit it: haven't you had bad days suddenly brightened when one of the suits did something amazingly stupid? Doesn't it give you a warm feeling?

      Without stupidity there is no happiness for the intelligent.

    6. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You like to do things the hard way, don't you?

      Alternatives:

      1. Every apartment building in the US has a big central switchboard in the basement, with all the phone lines running through it. Tap a few, run them outside, and run a line from there to a concealed location nearby. Wardial to your heart's content!

      2. Every apartment building (and almost every house) in the US has a high-speed cable coming in. Well... Where cable is served, that is. Anyway, just shell out a hundred bucks for a cablemodem and a wi-fi access point, and try to tap in. Hide the cablemodem and AP up in the basement rafters, and you're in business.

      3. Warchalk around a major city and use the wi-fi networks that are just about everywhere these days.

      Most important, use a laptop which contains no registered software, and which you've bought used. That way there's no connection to you -- even if someone tumbles to the MAC address or something, you're still not connected to it.

      How about that? :)

    7. Re:I blame bad science fiction by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but if Microsoft gets their way, Palladium's digital rights management will prevent you from messing with the alien intellectual property...

    8. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      I remember TV a movie where there was this serial killer that was electricuted, but his mind turned into an evil computer virus.

      That evil computer virus of course started hounding a woman and her daughter.

      But the woman was too crafty for the virus, she duct taped all the electric outlets so the virus was unable to jump out and get her.

      who writes this stuff i dont know.

      but here is another example from a much more famous movie. Jeff Goldblum in Independance day, sees theres a captured alien craft. The humans know nothing about alien technology and dont even know how to step inside the craft.

      But jeff sneezes and has an idea "i will give it a computer virus". So he proceeds to open his apple notebook and "gives" the alien spacecraft a virus. I wonder whether the aliens used usb ports or the "airport".

    9. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, here's a quick lesson for you.. If you want to be a cracker then you must be OVERLY PARANOID Hell When I was doing it, 300 Bps modems were dirt cheap as 1200's came out.. I wouldnt use any of my nodes more than once in a week from my dial-in location unless that node was a node dialer. (Yes I would do 2 node hops sometimes more if I thought I was being tracked or watched) The best thing I came up with was putting those modems on a simple lamp timer and placing the dial-in modem on a businesses fax line. at 7pm, kick in and take over their line for X hours. by the time I ended my techno-lifestyle I had the modem points put together in telephone equipment boxes that would drop 110volts into the modems power connection if anyone opened the box.

      if you dont do it in a way that is as paranoid as what I described, you dont get to retire as an Uber-Haxor who was never caught or even discovered(who I was). Oh yeah, finally.. if you are doing the crack-life... DONT TELL ANYONE! the most stupid thing in the world is to tell anyone what you are.. after the fact... and espically after 7 years have passed... it's ok then, but dont be specific..

    10. Re:I blame bad science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They parodied the very stupidity you protest on The Simpsons (where else?). I believe it was a halloween special, where the Y2K bug causes the total collapse of civilization, and even causes the planet earth to explode.

      Amusingly enough, I do remember (a) Krusty's PACEMAKER killing him, and (b) the TRAFFIC LIGHTS in Springfield were wildly firing laser beams.

      So maybe this Microsoft wonk just got his ideas from TV......+

    11. Re:I blame bad science fiction by TWR · · Score: 3, Funny
      But jeff sneezes and has an idea "i will give it a computer virus". So he proceeds to open his apple notebook and "gives" the alien spacecraft a virus. I wonder whether the aliens used usb ports or the "airport".

      Actually, it was a PowerBook 5300, which didn't have Airport or USB. However, they did catch on fire, so just throwing it at the alien spacecraft might have caused it to explode ;-)

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

  32. Y2K, A OK! by grip · · Score: 1

    I liked this story better when it was called "Y2K".

    Grip

    --
    Failure is not an option. It comes automatically enabled in every Microsoft product.
    1. Re:Y2K, A OK! by ThereIsNoSporkNeo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at least it had a clever catch phrase. Zero-day virus just doesn't have the same -zing- to it.

      Maybe they should hire an ad agency to come up with a clever jingle for it or something.

      Zero-day virus will hit today
      All computer systems will go away
      You'd better go stock up on stuff
      Or the coming months are going to be tough.

      *Bows*

      --
      With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
  33. FUD by shaldannon · · Score: 1

    I guess I could argue against things point by point but this is pure and simple FUD. To quote a line from The Ten Commandments, "Let him rave on that men may know him mad."

    --


    What is your Slash Rating?
  34. Oh dear... by kevcol · · Score: 1

    I hope it doesn't fail like when the Internet completely collapsed back in '96.

  35. What Type of Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What type of idiot would control traffic lights, pace makers, power grids via the Internet. This is simply poor security design. There is absolutely no reason why a system that controls any of these or host of other system should be connected on the Internet, if they want them to be on a network, they should be on compartmentalized networks. We don't put information that effects national security on the internet, why should we do that with core infrastructure?

  36. Why argue? by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 2

    Sure, *we* know the sky isn't falling, but the average AOLer who leaves their computer on all day without any type of security or firewall installed could use a wake-up call. If the hype causes people to decide to implement better security and patch their operating systems, why fight it?

  37. Someone should stand up in the audience by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

    of one of his travelling sideshows and proclaim, "It's not all that bad George, not /everyone/ uses your Microsoft products"

    Actually, it's not suprising, from the usual myopic brainwashed Msft employee mentality of "we are the computer industry", for such a person to think all computers are hopelessly screwed beyond hope.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  38. news cast 2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "in other news today, another round of multiple pileups around the city due to bluescreened traffic lights and some seniors also dropped dead due to a remote root exploit in their pacemakers"

  39. Gary North, is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, this sounds like the exact same kind of Y2K hystrionics that Gary "False Prophet" North was spreading thick across the heartland of the USA.

    Gary and his ilk predicted the same things...total collapse, failing pacemakers and toasters, Osmond family reunions...all caused by the horrible, terrible Y2K bug. We all know how that panned out.

    But he said "zero day virus"! Is that like "zero day warez"? k-R@d, d00d.

    1. Re:Gary North, is that you? by Zephy · · Score: 1

      I dunno.. i think billions of dollars worth of public money would be well spent to prevent an osmond family re-union.

  40. Slashdot Fortune for this page by MrHat · · Score: 1

    The new Slashdot fortune generator. Now with story-relevance AI:

    Woolsey-Swanson Rule: People would rather live with a problem they cannot solve rather than accept a solution they cannot understand.

  41. Me thinks... by fiftyLou · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    from the dict-cullion dept.

    I'm guessing Michael actually read this article.

  42. Never another red light... by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

    Hell, if traffic lights are going to be internet connected, it's time to get a nice laptop with a gprs (or 3g by the time this theoretically happens)phone and never stop again.

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Never another red light... by Tablizer · · Score: 2


      Many of these civic systems don't work anyhow in my town. Nobody would know the difference if they were hacked.

      Turn on water, rat flows out, 'nother day in paradise.

  43. Pacemakers by mclearn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For everyone screaming how bad it would be for a pacemaker to be on the 'net: get a freaking clue people! Ever hear of transmit-only? This would absolutely be a Good Thing(tm). If the pacemaker had some problems, then it could easily alert either someone -- whether it be the user to preemptively protect them, or to automatically call 911 on behalf of the user.

    1. Re:Pacemakers by grazzy · · Score: 1

      even soo, if everyone has one, and trusts it, what happens when mr malicous hacker ddoses the 911-number.. ?

    2. Re:Pacemakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. That could happen even now.
      Moron.

    3. Re:Pacemakers by Woodmeister · · Score: 1
      Ever hear of transmit-only?

      Sure, for radios and such. Problem with xmit-only devices on the internet is the handshaking that normally takes place over TCP/IP connections. I'm probably missing something here, but even a simple transmit-data-only device may need to receive some data to create a connection. The amount and what type of data that can be received can be highly limited but it was always my understanding that there is no such thing as a "PURE" xmit-only internet device.

      Anybody who can enlighten me a little further?

      --

      Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
      -Possum Lodge Motto
    4. Re:Pacemakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      udp. Connectionless, just send out the packets with not idea if they are received

    5. Re:Pacemakers by Nonesuch · · Score: 2
      udp. Connectionless, just send out the packets with not idea if they are received
      Even with UDP, you need some idea of your IP and the IP of your default gateway. DHCP would work, but that involves receive.

      I suppose you could use UDP multicast...

    6. Re:Pacemakers by mclearn · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it has already happened...

  44. The sky is falling... by Cyclone66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and only Palladium can hold it up.. I think this is where he's going with it.

  45. Why? by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seriously, I don't see advantages to putting the toaster, blender or most household applicances in the home network? Those appliances are single use, load just before using.

    I don't need the blender to start up at 5pm, so I can have a mixed drink or something when I get home, because it will have spoiled during the day. And I really don't want my bread sitting in the toaster all night, it invites pests.

    Besides, with the extra money spent on these connected appliances, I could hire a maid.

    $600 laser toaster with jellyjet printer, anyone?

    1. Re:Why? by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      You could program it to print your daily schedule in jelly on your toast. What a marvelous idea! Where's that investment banker? I want to go public. I'll be rich rich rich!

      Seriously though, I still can't fathom this insane inertia toward putting everything on the internet. This is all just another stupid hoola hoop craze. Like CB radio. Does anybody remember CB radio? Could somebody who does this for a living tell me what the advantage is to putting a bunch of non-networked machines and already networked machines on one, public, network? It seems to me this is just asking for trouble. Put all your eggs in one basket and then run around screaming the sky is falling and about to break the eggs! (What a mataphor!)

      Short of a good excuse to set up a police state ruled by Emperor George, there's no point that I can see. Not that that's going to happen now. The way the market's acting, George would be lucky to get elected dogcatcher on the cryonics ticket....

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:Why? by cyclist1200 · · Score: 1

      $600 laser toaster with jellyjet printer, anyone?

      No thanks, I'm not a fan of monochrome jelly. I'm waiting on the $1400 6-color jellyjet printer, so I can print out my vacation photos on my morning toast.

    3. Re:Why? by perljon · · Score: 0

      MMMMMM.... PRON TOAST!

      --
      This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
    4. Re:Why? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      When you look at refrigerators that can be networked, that are available today, it's so useless, that just the thought expended on going and buying that type of fridge makes it not worth it.

      However, once networking technology is completely seamless and dirt dirt cheap, it will likely just be built in.

      So when I hear these stories about refrigerators being restocked automatically by sensing when you run out of milk or something, I think it's really dumb. I'm not gonna go out and get something like that. But when it's good enough it will just be built in.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the most important feature of all, the ability for your MSN toaster to disconnect from the internet and dial 911.

  46. Zero-day??? We knew all about that! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    So the "number two" guy in security has finally realized that a good portion his "l33t 0-day warez" have virii in them?

    Maybe he should be a good citizen and stay away from the piracy.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  47. Stupid by zebs · · Score: 1

    If you put life critical systems like pacemakers on the internet then you really are asking for trouble. (The only reason I can think of why you would even want to is so that they can be monitored 24/7).

    Even putting more mundane things like (eg) traffice lights on the 'net is questionable... the temptation to hack them would be to great for some people. (Mind you... a little button in my car to change the lightd to green would be cool)

  48. Routers for pacemakers? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2

    Does Netgear or Cisco make a router for pacemakers yet?

    1. Re:Routers for pacemakers? by Crash+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Well, it does bring a more literal meaning to the word, "ping", doesn't it?

  49. What's really funny by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

    Is this guy used to be M$'s security chief...Add that to Microsoft's security history, and one wonders what the heck happened to concerns about National Security.

    --
    What's this Submit thingy do?
  50. Shill by eyepeepackets · · Score: 2

    From Dictionary.com:

    shill
    n.
    One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.

    v. shilled, shilling, shills
    v. intr.
    To act as a shill.

    v. tr.
    To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
    To lure (a person) into a swindle.

    v : act as a shill

    The question is, who's he shilling, the clueless gubers in our government or the public in general or the clueless gubers in our corporations or all the above?

    As for who he's shilling for, well, that seems rather obvious.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  51. I mean "Howard" by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    "It's not all that bad Howard...

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  52. hympth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    pacemakers,
    Talk about taking viruses to heart
  53. How do you fight the rhetoric? by nadador · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The truth helps. Just keep speaking the truth, and tell your friends, people on the bus, folks at work.

    There are a couple of important points to consider.

    * Systems related to national security shouldn't be on the internet in the first place. Sure, that's what its was designed for, to be a comm network that would survive a nuclear strike and still route packets. Of course, plenty of government networks are already physically disconnected. Not firewalled, just not connected. So no Slashdot reading on your power grid terminal. Until we actually start building secure software, cause we don't now, some systems absolutely have to stay disconnected, or connected only through separate, encrypted, physically secure networks.

    * Instead of feeping creaturism, maybe its time to actually start worrying about security, ala OpenBSD. Could it be that people would put up with substandard office software and not-so-intuitive file browsers if we guarenteed them that the financial data on their computers would be safe? Would you pay extra for your internet-connected pacemaker (which will probably send data to your doctor) if you knew that somebody couldn't hack it and turn it off? Would your Mom put up with having to learn a confusing operating system if it meant that her Quicken data wouldn't get stolen? I bet mine would.

    * And maybe, just maybe, we, as software engineers should stop living up to the low expectations of the marketdroids and the PHBs (oooh look, shiny GUI) and start demanding more of ourselves. The reason that propoganda like this punk is spewing travels so fast is that the computer-using public has been conditioned to expect so little (Oh, another reboot? No big deal. Server's down? Eh, kick it, I'll go get a cup of coffee.)

    So, I'd tell people to stop whining, stop freaking out, and stop bowing to the government-media complex's instinct to make everything a damn crisis. Instead of worrying, do something. If you're a software dude, start thinking about robustness and security instead of pretty. If you're a (l)user, start learning how to secure your stuff, and start demanding that they companies you buy from do the same.

    --

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, its too dark to read.
    1. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by BgJonson79 · · Score: 2

      Although I agree with your points, I'm not sure the average sem-computer-literate person would. After all, what's the use of secure quicken if they can't figure out how to use it? Or get to it? My parents know just enough about computers to do email, the web, and a little word processing. But when something changes on the desktop, they get really confused and call me to fix it. Hell, my mom thought that when you shut the car off, the pseudo-tape that connects portable CD players into the cassette deck would automagically turn off the CD player, too.

      --

      There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    2. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by slank · · Score: 1

      The truth helps. Just keep speaking the truth, and tell your friends, people on the bus, folks at work.

      "Um, Mr. Bus Driver sir, there's a madman at the back of the bus who won't quit talking about how 'The zero-day virus' is a government conspiracy to make us give up our rights. He sounds like one of those 'hackers' you always hear about...you know like on that movie, 'Hackers'?"

    3. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by zoftie · · Score: 1

      Damnit! Society is not ready for computers! People are dumb and gonna screw this one up too, in process of trying to control it ... with absence of time and/or intelligence to understand it. Computers ... and misunderstanding issues with them, is not as dangerous as genetic engeneering, that many commercial interests, who don't have full grip on science of genome, already trying to convince people that particular ways of doing and implementing genoscience is good... .. my head hurts, I will stop writing now ...

    4. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, my friends are CEOs, CFOs, etc. Basically, they aren't the people lobbying Congress and making the big decisions in the business world. This will just be a convenient excuse for government and business to work together to put consumers right where they want them. We won't be allowed to have computers that aren't hobbled somehow to prevent us from taking out the electric grid or crashing the vice president's pacemaker.

    5. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Hell, my mom thought that when you shut the car off, the pseudo-tape that connects portable CD players into the cassette deck would automagically turn off the CD player, too.

      It does, except with certain brands of the cassete adapter that you plug into the 8-Track player. The 8-Track to cassette to CD linkup fails somewhere in the middle but we haven't figured it out yet. Your mother really needs to trade that '73 Cordoba in, even if she *does* like the color of the trim.

      Will get back to you when we do.

    6. Re:How do you fight the rhetoric? by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      Hell, my mom thought that when you shut the car off, the pseudo-tape that connects portable CD players into the cassette deck would automagically turn off the CD player, too.

      Umm, turning off the car WOULD stop the CD player, unless it was running on batteries (most CD players would be powered with the cigarette lighter). Of course, it wouldn't do it via the tape device.

      Maybe you meant when she turned the car stereo off?

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  54. Maximum Overdrive by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

    In movies, anything (microwave, blender, vacuum, whatever) can be controlled by evil computer programs.

    One of the worst examples of this was Maximum Overdrive by Stephen King.
    When the sode machine started spitting out cans of soda, I had to turn it off. Just too painful to watch.
    Good soundtrack, though.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
    1. Re:Maximum Overdrive by benwb · · Score: 2

      I always interpreted Maximum overdrive as more of a ghost story, so that part never really bothered me. I mean Stephen King does fantasy, not science fiction.

  55. Gary North's gotta be in this somewhere... by taustin · · Score: 1

    Sounds just like him.

  56. Winn Shwartau by trianglecat · · Score: 1

    Winn Shwartau is the guru of this stuff. He wrote two books on the subject: "Information Warfare" and "Cybershock" touting very much the same stuff.

    Planes knocked out of the sky by HERF guns, the stock exchange being brought down. Your toaster being hacked, etc.

    A bit of truth, a bit of science fiction and a bit of sensationalism. Both make for fun reading if taken with a grain of salt.

  57. It's so true! by scribblej · · Score: 1

    I mean, I for one remember when telephones were invented, and then we had to connect every other netowkr to the telephone network, because obviously everything's got to be wired to phones, right? All my appliances, my dog, my house, the traffic lights, ...

    Oh wait. That didn't happen. Neither will this. What a dumbass.

  58. Systems Engineering 101 by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 1

    Look, journalists, just because something can be remotely controlled does not mean that it can be remotely controlled to such an extent that catastrophic damage can be done.

    As an example, take the remote operation of water treatment plants. Sure, you can remotely control the amount of chlorine that is added to the water - the utility companies do this all the time.

    But just because the amount can be remotely controlled does not mean that ANY amount of chlorine can be added to the water. The maximum amount is physically restricted to be within safe limits, so even the worlds most 31337 H@X0R won't be able to poison us all.

    Traffic lights. Yes, you can remotely control traffic lights. No, you CAN NOT remotely control traffic lights to go green in all directions.

    On behalf of systems engineers everywhere.
    Boss, Pointy Haired.

  59. Whoa, deja-vu.... by mblase · · Score: 2

    How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?

    Three words: Y2K.

    1. Re:Whoa, deja-vu.... by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Three words: Y2K.

      I really don't see how learning COBOL in an attempt to cash in on the cluelessness of PHBs will benefit us here. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    2. Re:Whoa, deja-vu.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      learning COBOL?

      Dear lord, no one should have to learn COBOL. I shudder at my memories.....

  60. Unbelieveable lies.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet, declares Schmidt. The power grid could fail catastrophically by 2005!"

    Is he really that stupid? If so it explains alot about microsoft and their inability to secure anything past the security level of a wet paper bag.

    Only the absloute stupidest engineer on the planet will put the control systems for power plants, water filtration planet, or anything that is a critical process or service. and the bit about pacemakers is pure un-adulterated bald faced lies.

    people like this fear-monger make me violently sick.. and the fact that he has anything to do now with the Government makes me doubly ill.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  61. Buy Microsoft by DaytonCIM · · Score: 1

    "In simplest terms, Schmidt is a computer security celebrity junketeer, a highly specialized occupation somewhat obscured by an official biography bulging with professional-strength acronyms."

    Smells like our President has yet another vocal "Chicken Little" out preaching fire and brimstone. That or someone is preaching up a storm to ensure his lecture dollars keep rolling in.

  62. It's sad to count on FUD to rally the population.. by tcc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When all your sheeps are going in every direction, what to you do to put them all tightly together? FEAR (dog, barking and looking menacing, drives the sheep back with the gang)

    When all of the population starts to see all your little practices and schemes, criticize your every move, and notice you are not representing them but you're representing the whole mighty $ and corporatism, what could be more "welcomed" than a terrorist attack?

    ALl the "sheeps" lose focus, are scared, and WANT help, seeing this, after, the gov uses this tactic to lever just about every single agenda he can. And then they preach how free they are, when their objective is to become the second China.

    Of course I might be pessimistic and reading too much slashdot that mostly show the negative content when it comes to your rights online, but I've yet to see any form of government that is still 100% there for the VOTERS and not for the companies or mighty $. at some point the $ will fail, look at how much US is in debts, look at how much debts the average american has, look at how many bankruptcy/year, at some point, unfortunately, this system will all crash because it relies on continual expansion.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
  63. Hahahahaha.... by BigBadBri · · Score: 1

    had to look up 'cullion' - guessed it might be related to 'couillon', though since the author saw fit to use the French for bellringers in the same sentence, why not leave 'bollock' in French, rather than dragging up such an obscure English word? I reckon the whole article was written for a bet - $10 if you use the word 'cullion'...

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  64. power grid could fail catastrophically by 2005 by rattler14 · · Score: 1

    Yet somehow i'll still be able to get daily e-mails about how to make my penis bigger.

    --
    my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
  65. Reminds me of the Y2K debacle by Aliks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well back in the good old days (around 96) we all got together and agreed that there would be a few software glitches when the clock chimed midnight.
    Word spread slowly at first but by 98 most of the people who needed to know had done their homework and started work.

    The band wagon started to roll when the IT industry realised that there was serious money to be made. Services to analyse your systems, reasons to upgrade NOW to the next version, a ton of bodies to poke around in every line of code you were running. New hardware by the lorry load.

    By early 99 there was a secondary industry looking at everything from embedded code, to legal and insurance issues, and massive pressure on the late-adopters to fall in line and spend some money. Around this time there were people forecasting planes falling out of the sky, power outages causing knockon effects and taking down the entire grid. Meltdown of the banking industry etc etc

    I was involved with some people working in the middle east on Y2K and for the most part govt and companies did just about nothing. Very little was spent, and only the the things that actually broke got fixed. Admittedly they had less IT infrastructure to worry about, but their scepticism about apocalyptic warnings from the West was perfectly justified by events.

    I think we are seeing the same pattern with Security issues. There is undoubtedly a problem, people certainly need to spend money on it, for sure CEOs don't really understand the issues and last but not least the problem is not as big as people make out. I guess this is why a few public spirited types are trying to spread some panic in boardrooms.

    Question is whether this is a bad thing or not. I'd love it if everyone invested wisely and promptly, but right now its in my personal interest for them to just invest in security services full stop. (or at least to pay me to implement more security)

    If everyone goes too far in securing IT who really suffers?

  66. Argue by using physical laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use the right hand rule of current generation...
    all you need to generate current is a magnetic field, a conductor and motion between the two.

    No IP address needed.

  67. Slashdot FUD by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    You might think about doing a little bit of research before shooting your mouths off.

    First of all, his name is Howard Schmidt, not George.

    Secondly, while he did work for the Borg for a while, he was never assimilated. He was not very happy there.

    Third, there is a real proposal on the table to give IP addresses to pacemakers. Considering the current level of security in networks, this should scare you. It certainly scares Howard.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    1. Re:Slashdot FUD by Zephy · · Score: 1

      And how'd you connect to these pacemakers? 802.11b? I don't know about you but i'd really not want to be carrying a wireless network station in my chest, the other option, an ethernet port in your arm? There is no need for that technology, a pacemaker is meant to keep you alive, not serve your webpages.

  68. I remember... by gers0667 · · Score: 1

    I remeber very similiar rantings to this. It was called Y2K and look what happened... nothing!

  69. USB: Universal Sanguine Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USB: Universal Sanguine Bus

  70. The Importance of Hardware and Software Diversity. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is mostly all garbage because there is still to much hardware and software diversity. Sure this could POSSIBLY HAPPEN if everything was running off Windows on an x86 chip. But still now that is not the case There are still differnt breads of processors SPARC, MIPS, GX, ARM, Aplha, etc... And there are differnt Operating Systems that run each Processor. So making a killer worm that will distroy all Computers is near impossible because there is to much diversity. and I for one would want to keep it that way, actually I want to get more diversity. More different ways of solving the same problems is a good method each set may have bugs and holes but each one will be a different set of bugs and holes. Just as long as we dont follows MS idea of using a x86 chips and XP for every thing eltronic we should be OK.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  71. Jeez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS's FUD brainwashing tactics must be incredible even when they leave the company their people are incapable of anything but FUD.

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Pacemakers controlled via the internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get real...

  74. He should know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I mean, he worked at MS, right? He of all people should know that the most commonly deployed OS is swiss cheese!

  75. Morlocks by linzeal · · Score: 1
    We eat the luddites!

    yum, yum, yum.

  76. Forget crackers (at least human ones), read by dpilot · · Score: 2

    "Press Enter" by John Varley
    or
    "The Adolescence of P One" by
    for tales of AI gone bad. There are others...

    Human: "Is there a God?"
    zzzaaaappppp - lightning strike fuses the power switch on.
    Computer: "Now there is."

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:Forget crackers (at least human ones), read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ..."The Adolescence of P One" by

      That was written by Thomas J. Ryan. Yes, I'll grant you the story seems terribly implausible today. But, I also feel obliged to point out that the story is Copyright 1977. Let's assume it took about a year to write, edit, and publish. That puts its writing BEFORE the time that the TRS-80 was introduced! So, I'll grant the author some artistic freedom.

      FWIW, my copy (dated 1985) has this on the back cover:

      "This is the best novel about artificial intelligence that I have ever read. When I finished it, I felt that I, like Gregory, could sit down and 'hack out' an artificial intelligence program. And so I did." - Lloyd Johnson, co-creator -- with Fred Saberhagen -- of the computer games "Berserker Raids" and "Wizard War".

      And, I must confess that the idea of being able to do something like that was quite a motivation in my own career in computers. Not that I ever did it, but it opened my eyes to possibilities that I'd never even contemplated before.

  77. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have any idea why IPv6 allows for so many hosts? They have been planning on connecting anything with a power cord to the net since the sixties. Oh, and windows machines getting infected is no big deal? How about Code Red, Nimda, etc. All those virii had no impact on net traffic huh?

  78. Traffic Lights Suck Already by Isamu+Noguchi · · Score: 1

    When traffic lights lose power, they default to flashing yellow in one direction and red in the other. This is a terrible design: if this happens during peak traffic, the cars with the flashing yellow never yield, and so the cars with the flashing red gradually creep out and make risky jumps into traffic. Accidents abound. It's worse than having a 4-way stop in a high-traffic area. The rule of fail-safey is to fail to the more restrictive condition, NOT the more permissive condition.

  79. The Million-Dollar Button by Trebonius · · Score: 1

    There's a really simple method of keeping important devices/servers/etc from being hacked. Isolate them from the Net. Countless software companies have been kicked in the corporate junk because they hooked their source safe/backup system/whatever to the Internet. I know it's hard. People like to be connected and have everything on one big network... But show some control. Pacemakers on the Internet is rediculous. Stop lights might be nice to remotely administrate, but is it worth getting them haxored?

    How are we going to feel when that question becomes a reality: Would you, for a million bucks, press a button that kills some person you've never met?
    You too could be a contestant on The Million Dollar Button! (With your host... )

  80. The man is right! by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way we are going now, with OS monoculture and lack of physical separation of vital/non-vital systems, this isn't that far-fetched.

    Basically, once a sufficient number of vital systems are internet-connected, running the same software & OS, you've got yourself a big, fat potential vulnerability.

    This cannot be fought with anything but a painstaking effort to secure the infrastructure that is vulnerable, and keep the secure infrastructre secure. This does not only apply to the US. If such an attack was launched on Europe or South-East Asia, it would also have a devastating effect. We all need to protect ourselves.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:The man is right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think OS monoculture is a problem now, wait until the whole world is running off a single Kernal source tree.

  81. Heh by Pyrosz · · Score: 1

    Little Sam! Plug Grampa back in, your game of Quake can wait until we are home!

    --

    An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
  82. Former security cheif? by harvalen · · Score: 1

    Was he the one who was responsible for the 9x series?? ;)

  83. DO they actually think anyone by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    would be stupid enough to allow a PACEMAKER ?!?! to be controlled by the internet ? What a total ASSHAT this guy is. The saddest part is there is nothing we can do about it either...Anyone from NZ around ? hows the political climate there ? been thinking of emigrating from the US and I've been trying to track down places that have a shot at staying less than facist.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:DO they actually think anyone by Razzious · · Score: 2

      Read about that product. Its NOT a controller, but rather a monitor. Basically it sends update data to their system so they know when it was interupted, etc.

      --
      Razzious Domini
      I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
  84. How to argue with this? Simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric[?]

    Oh, it's fairly straight forward:

    Which fool thought it was a Good Idea to put the [insert your favorite vital system here] controls on the commodity Internet where just anyone with a freakin' dial-up might be able to access it?

  85. By 2020 Fire Breathing Dragons will burn the earth by gelfling · · Score: 2

    But we will kill the alpha male, they will all starve, fail to breed and die out.

  86. If it can it will?!? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    This type of rhetoric is born out of the principle that if it can theoretically happen, it eventually will. But the "proof" that it can happen is not conclusive, even if the principle were axiomatic. This guy must really be jaded by Y2K. >

  87. I think this vision isn't necessarily untrue...... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2

    ..... if left to the devices of Microsoft and companies who focus on the bottom line, instead of secure, stable, atomic software. They would absolutely LOVE to have Windows embedded in some form in our public works infrastructure -- not only would it a recurring source of revenue (thanks to their new licensing model), but it's a massive new (and, as of right now, thankfully unexploited) market, as well.

    Before software is deemed safe to run the more "modern" aspects of our lives, I think we need to hold people / companies accountable for the work that they do (or don't do). Somehow I think that MS would be less enthusiastic about peddling its wares if they were held criminally and financially liable for the consequences associated with any of the bugs in their various OS'es.

  88. Internet Pacemakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Currently Monitor only, but you can be sure this will be r/w one day. Many patients are in very remote areas. When you are having heart trouble an X hour drive to the clinic is -inconvenient- .

    http://www.medtronic.com/newsroom/media_kit_Care Li nk.html

  89. Ulterior motives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hmmm, an ex, M$ official spreading FUD over security, amid attempts to legitimize the need for Palladim services.

    Do you think there might be an ulterior motive here?

    Transparent, predictable and completely without any value to the general populace.

  90. But not that part! by Inoshiro · · Score: 2

    "The Net (another Sandra Bullock film) has a woman who's whole identity can be erased (especially when the FBI, Pentagon, and everybody else use the same anti-hacking software, which incredibly is used by evil hacker types)."

    See, that's the best part of the movie. The fact that a monoculture lends itself to insecurity. Look at farms of IIS servers. Are they secure? Why not? Would we be better off with every HTTPD having equal market share? 100% Apache?

    Don't knock the only reasonably accurate part of the movie!

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:But not that part! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And GNU leads to a Monoculture.

  91. Microsoft FUD by terrymr · · Score: 2

    So who's idea was it to appoint a "Fudmaster General" to the government ?

    1. Re:Microsoft FUD by geekoid · · Score: 2

      gwb, who else.
      what a surprise.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  92. No worries by Scooter · · Score: 1

    I'm sure even non-techy business types have screamed at the TV or Cinema screen in a hacker movie to "pull the damm power cord out you dolt" - Ie you can only stop someone's pacemaker via the Internet if you connected the pacemaker to the Internet. Ergo, if you ever have the misfortune to require a pacemaker - do not connect it to the Internet.

  93. Argh! I was Fooled! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2
    I sadly must admit to having been duped a year or so ago. More of that stupid television nonsense. I should know better!

    It was the second hour of a two part documentary on hackers, and it was VERY well produced with lots of subtle manipulations all of which seemed friendly and wise. The finished product aired detailed several true items, amplified them, mixed them in with some twisted until almost false items, dropped in serious faced legislators with hysterical, doom & gloom viewpoints, mentioned the FBI and CIA many times, fuzzed out people's faces, --And then spin doctored the whole concoction into a whirlwind of fear.

    Their points were:

    1. There is basically NO security which can stop the truly determined hacker.

    2. YOUR vital information, money, identity, etc. is valuable to the evil hacker and can easily be comprimised.

    3. Airplanes can be dropped out of the sky, hospitals shut down mid-operation, train systems messed with and whole economies crashed, blah, blah, blah. . .

    4. There are not enough laws and legal recourses to deal with this disaster which could at any moment strike.

    5. Even the American military has a special division charged with the task of swooping in to keep the country from self-destructing should an evil hacker decide to end the world via the internet. -It's THAT serious! Fear! Fear! Fear! (Yawn)

    Anyway, because I forgot for a short while that I was WATCHING TELEVISION that I was also being MANIPULATED. Stupid, stupid, stupid. (I stopped watching the evil tube months ago. I'm not sure how I lived back then! Even without two hours or more of crap nonsense per day, there still aren't enough hours between sun-up and sun-fall to get in all the living I want. --Oh, and try watching something after six months of abstaintion; even the 'good' shows suddenly look remarkably brain-dead!)

    Anyway, all the government has to do, when enough of this incorrect, (but remarkably easy to sell), belief structure has been installed, is deliberately screw with some major utility or whatever, and then drop in the paratroopers. And people won't put up a fuss, cuz you know, hackers, right?

    Essentially, the whole fear-farm works like this:

    1. Show vital services and just how bad things would be should they be crashed. This causes anxiety and fear.

    2. Deliberately misguide people into believing that ---insert scapegoat here--- can easily cause the above mentioned disasters.

    3. Show how the legal systems are woefully underprepared for dealing with this kind of threat.

    4. Leave the audience dangling and ripe for the picking. --You only have to get enough senators to watch your 'informative' crap, and bingo! Job done.

    It's all a shell game, and the winner takes ALL.

    -Fantastic Lad

  94. Re:I didn't know all IP = Internet dumbass by stuyman · · Score: 1

    Impact? Yes, certainly. Was it a total disaster in any way other than the the horde of media stories? Not really... Big sites that have measurable impacts on the economy etc have backups, 24/7 staff, etc. Net traffic swamping things is a PITA, but it's not exactly a disaster, and for those worms which had a measurable impact people quickly came up with ways to cut down on that. I'm not saying it doesn't require attention, just that there's no way anything on the net could do damage on the scale schmidt claims.

    As far as IPv6, once you're adding more addresses anyway it becomes much cheaper to just add more than you'll ever need than it would be to have to switch over twice or three times or more. ISTR some sort of plan w/ IPv6 where everyone basically gets their own private netblock and non-routable things happen.

    Besides, if you wanted to network every traffic light in California you'd need IPv6 because IPv4 doesn't have enough space. That still doesn't mean that the IPv6 traffic network and the IPv6 internet would be linked.

    --
    Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
    A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
  95. Give up. by supabeast! · · Score: 2

    "How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?"

    You can't. Most people are idiots, and in the United States, where people are indoctrinated by religious and educational establishments to have unquestioning faith in authority.

    Just look at the decades of effort it took for anyone other than white males to be treated as human beings. Homosexuals still don't have the same civil rights as heterosexuals. Do you really think that the computer nerds of America have any real hope of countering the computer-realted bullshit spewed from the mouths of the government,AntiVirus companies, Microsoft, and cable news "experts?"

    Your best bet is to do what I did. Realize that getting geeks to do more than write letters is next to impossible, trying to lead them to stand up for their rights, or even for intelligent thought, is hopeless. Your best bet is to just take a different strategy: Get a job working for these assholes, and enjoy the ludicrous salaries sleazy government guys are passing down to the people who build the infrastructure that keeps them in office (At least until some other politician turns the tables.).

    1. Re:Give up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuals still don't have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

      And don't even get a thread started about people who put sugar on their tomato slices. You would not BELIEVE the discrimination they suffer from for their lifestyle choices.

    2. Re:Give up. by TWR · · Score: 2
      Most people are idiots, and in the United States, where people are indoctrinated by religious and educational establishments to have unquestioning faith in authority.

      As opposed to the rest of the world, where no one pays any attention to the words of priests, teachers, or other authority figures, right?

      People are people, world-wide.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    3. Re:Give up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, idiot. A person's sex-life with consenting adults should not cause them to lose access to the same civil rights as everyone else. The only people that believe it should are fundamentalists that think everyone should be just like them or end up in jail.

  96. Pacemakers sans internet control? by Tune · · Score: 2

    Wow. Can you imagine a pacemaker without internet access? Seems outragously boring... almost like riding on a bus with Sandra Bullock, but without a bomb. Get Real!

    Who would ever trust his life to a device that's not internet connected?

  97. They've been in bed together for a while by drew_kime · · Score: 3, Informative
    From a March 2000 press release:
    The Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) has been invited and has agreed to serve as a member of a newly created public-private initiative, the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security.
    ...

    An initial, formative meeting of the Partnership was held in December 1999 in New York City. The meeting was hosted by [list of names] and Howard Schmidt, Chief Security Officer, Microsoft.
    This has been in the works for over two years. Schmidt was involved from the beginning in defining the scope and purpose of the position he now holds. Microsoft has been involved in the process throughout the time they were responsible for the most disruptive, expensive virus/worm attacks in history.
    --
    Nope, no sig
  98. Re:useless features in cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    What?! Who /doesn't/ use the Medicial Kit and Waterproof seats when they drive their SUV?

  99. Did anyone read the article by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    the guy who wrote it spends the whole time making fun of the dude, atleast the way I read it...

  100. Only if M$ controls the net... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He must be making all the predictions on an assumption that Microsoft will controll the internet and everything connected to it. If pacemakers, stop lights, and power plants were all running on M$ software, it would be a sad world indeed. LA would need a reboot every few weeks, and my grandpa would not only have to worry about a heart attack, he would also have to worry about his pace maker BSODing.

  101. I too blamed bad disaster movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until 9/11

  102. Lighten up! by thulldud · · Score: 1
    This guy has got a real business going here. It looks like a growth industry, and we know how unusual that is these days.

    From the article:

    The sizzle is the main ingredient of a message that is repeated so often it can only be taken seriously as publicly-funded performance art.
    You see! This is the IT answer to the WWF!
  103. Oh ok... by parad0x01 · · Score: 1

    Former Microsoft security chief George Schmidt now works for the government

    Well phew! As long as he is a former Microsoft employee, or else I'd think he was an inside guy pushing DRM...
    I can't wait for the E! True Silicon Valley Story when we see all the agreements made between the DOJ and Microsoft.

    --

    This .sig has been censored for your protection
  104. Solutions competent network architects. by pauldy · · Score: 1

    The solution is not to panic but start hiring competent network architects. People who understand the risks are able to look at the situation and understand the consequences of their implementations, also look at possible unintended consequences and formulate solutions appropriately. No more sales driven network installs with under qualified installers that don't know an ip stack from a stack of pancakes. Of course any of these glam hackers out there know the only way to peddle your skills is to keep everyone scared tell them nothing can be totally secure knowing they will interpret it as my network will never be secure and as such we shouldn't be connected to the internet at all. The only difference between them and this guy is he is to stupid to even make it believable to the technical community.

  105. TLA. by Noryungi · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is what I have to say to Mr Schmidt:

    Y2K

    The end of the world was predicted. Nothing happened. Why? Because good people worked their asses off and prevented the Y2K "damage".

    Hint: want to avoid 90% of all problems on the Internet? Follow this three step program:

    1. Avoid ALL M$ products like the plague.
    2. Whatever system you use, keep it up-to-date, apply the patches and the security upgrade religiously.
    3. Whatever system you use, lock down all un-necessary services and ports.
    4. Whatever you do, don't put everything on the Internet! Pacemakers, energy grid and air-traffic systems don't have anything to do on the Internet. period.

    And no, I won't buy Palladium just because it's the One True Technology That Will Save Our Sorry Asses From Evil Hackers! ;)

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:TLA. by GypC · · Score: 2

      I mostly agree with you, but I thought you should see this.

    2. Re:TLA. by Noryungi · · Score: 2


      He he he he he he ... LOL =)

      OK, I'll have to admit, this one is excellent!

      Thanks for the laugh. ;)

      --
      The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    3. Re:TLA. by FurryFeet · · Score: 2



      Our FOUR weapons are...

  106. Paladium... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    What can I say more? Guy isn't stupid or drunk, he just wants Palladium (or how its spelled)

    "sign all communications with activesomthing so this won't happen"

    One word... Timing...

  107. Perspective by Mir322 · · Score: 1

    " How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?" " Isn't this a matter of corporate leaders with Government positions spreading FUD to corporate leaders, with an eye to their future financial well being when they retire from public service ?

    --
    "There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness."- Friedrich Nietzsche
  108. Laugh by broody · · Score: 1

    How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?

    Take the BOFH approach. Begin with laughter, complete with big rolling belly chuckles. Smile knowingly and very slowly explain your 'arguments' in simple words a nine year old could understand. Nine times of out of ten, the tone alone will change the minds of the technicaly challenged.

    For those who persist, inform them you will be willing to flash the bios on their kitchen appliances for a large consulting fee. After all they wouldn't want those horrid hackers setting their house on fire with their own toaster or shutting off their AC in the middle of a heat wave. For the truly clueless, tell them their digital cameras, computer microphones, and web cams are spying on them but it is much harder to remove the 'infestation' after it occurs. While removing the 'infestation', install X10 devices and toy with them. Charge one final fee, take the X10 gear home, laugh at them again. Repeat as needed.

    --
    ~~ What's stopping you?
  109. required Clarke quote. by The_Shadows · · Score: 2

    "When a distinguished but elderly (+30) scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

    "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    -Arthur C. Clarke's three laws.

  110. The digital fridge by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    This is one thing that has always got me with the digital fridge. Sure it can work out when something I have bought has run out, but how would it know what I want to order, unless I always eat the same food day in day out. Heck, when I go to the super-market I pick my items depending on how I feel, so how does the fridge know what I want?

    Yeah I am probably being ignorent, but as they say 'ignorence is bliss' ;)

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:The digital fridge by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      This is one thing that has always got me with the digital fridge.

      The fridge itself is amazing. Now you can preserve foods for long times, and keep bacteria at bay, whereas before you couldn't. It was life-changing. My problem with the digital fridge is that it's just so much feature hype. The idea that my fridge will tell me it's failing (or summon a repairman)--how useful is it really? Once every 10 or so years? Wow! Now I'm tingling with excitement. Like the headlight-wipers I see on some cars. Very Cool!

      Heck, when I go to the super-market I pick my items depending on how I feel

      Don't shop hungry!

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  111. Why are these on the internet? by squison · · Score: 1
    "Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet"
    why in the hell would these things be put on the internet? If they're being controlled via a network, they should be on their own.. not on a public one like the Internet. I just don't see the point.
  112. Con Guy by The+Asmodeus · · Score: 1

    LOL.. Ok, I got about to the part where it said "Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt" and pretty much wrote this guy off. I mean, how could ANYONE who has done such a rotten job be taken seriously?

  113. What FUD by codeguy007 · · Score: 1

    This is complete and other FUD. Any Engineer who designs a pacemaker that can be stopped over the internet needs to be drawn and quartered. They aren't that dumb. It's just Microsoft propaganda machine working up for its push to Palladium, pure and simple. I am getting tired of these baseless fearmongering statements.

    I am sick and tired of this. Especially since war of the worlds radio play proved that the general us populance is dumb enough to believe such malarky.

  114. Y2K... by stankulp · · Score: 1

    ...all over again.

    There must be lots of money in manufacturing hysteria.

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
  115. Keep up guys by cassidyc · · Score: 0, Troll

    Slashdot, News for Nerds, that dont read it on The Register first.

    Come on peeps, keep up!!

  116. Still working for Microsoft by praedor · · Score: 2

    He is merely acting on the inside for Microsoft, trying to push Palladium. Since he works for the government (and Microsoft), he can be seen as "legitimate" and help push companies to continue the Microsoft way, "upgrade" to the coming DRM-friendly, supposedly secure, next big M$ operating system. With people like this in the guv'mnt, it will slow or stall any attempts to open up guv'mnt computing the correct way for citizens and continue to help M$ maintain its illegal monopoly.

    His part of the guv'mnt works to help M$ while the DOJ attempts to punish M$ (hobbled/crippled by M$/Big Business-loving Bush) for illegal activities past and current.

    He is to be ignored. This catastrophism is an ongoing thing and is mere hyperbole. The digital sky is NOT falling and it will not unless we DO adopt a Palladium monoculture with DRM for everyone. The sky that would fall would be competition, GPL, more civil rights, etc, all in favor of Big Business and Big Business alone.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  117. You overly deride people by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh really? "Sheeple" want fridges that print out grocerly lists? Fuuny, I don't remember any of the "Sheeple" I've talked to wanting those things. Where did I hear about stuff like that... oh yeah, it was here on /.!! Seems like either Microsoft or people here would want stuff like that, but people who are happy watching a 20" TV with mono sound are unlikely to want such things.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You overly deride people by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      Oh really? "Sheeple" want fridges that print out grocerly lists? Fuuny, I don't remember any of the "Sheeple" I've talked to wanting those things. Where did I hear about stuff like that... oh yeah, it was here on /.!! Seems like either Microsoft or people here would want stuff like that, but people who are happy watching a 20" TV with mono sound are unlikely to want such things.


      You are right. But people who are happy watching their 20 inch TV in mono sound are also not the people that companies are trying to sell to. They probably have a hand me down washing machine and dryer, and an old yellow fridge that freezes half the stuff in it and melts the other half. and that is FINE! But when they buy, they are going for bottom of the line, cheapest they can find, *OR* old reliable pretty-good-quality built like a tank thats going to last forever. Neither of those are the people who drive the markets that add bells and whistles and connect things to the net. /. denizens might. "Oh! Theres a new Digimon out there! Lets hack it to run Linux!". (fun, but useless). Sure.. some people are really into this stuff, but a lot of people arent.

      What they are preying on in the article is the people who watch Hackers, and BELIEVE it. (Or swordfish, which I saw last night, Finally.) They actually think this stuff exists. They actually want this stuff. And whether it is imaginary or real is irrelevant, because if they believe it exists, then they believe when told by the "media" that it can be hacked. And they are afraid of it.

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    2. Re:You overly deride people by bluGill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest technical revolutions are not in things that people think they need, they are when one (or a few) smart people come up with things people need and build it. People didn't need a machine that talks until Edison invented one, and now everyone has some decendant of his record player. (Probably the only orginial invention of Edison!)

      I agree that my kitchen doesn't need to print my grocery list. However my kitchen should keep track of what I have in it. When I see a sale on juice, it should inform me that I bought a lot of juice at the last sale, and half of it is still left. Then two isles over it should remind me that I'm low on flour as I pass by.

      I have no problem making a list of things I need, but I often pass the store and want to combine trips (saves gas and time) as long as I'm nearby, even though I don't have a list.

      How my kitchen can inform me of all this when I'm at the store is a different question. Wireless is getting someplace though, and will probably be avaiable long before my kitchen can sense what I have in it.

    3. Re:You overly deride people by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say that such features provide marginal usefulness to most people.

      Whatever happened to memory? Or even making a list? I think a lot of people going grocery shopping know exactly what they are out to get, they have a list. They don't need the fridge guessing how much juice is left and misinforming them thinking some kids science project is a bottle of OJ. Just hang around a grocery store sometime and see how most people really shop.

      I personally think that a lot of computer people think such things we be a good idea because of how we think and operate - I tend to agree with you that wireless conectivity back to my kitchen might be somewhat handy for ME as I shop randomly and without intent until I arrive at the store. But I also recognize that probably 1% of the population (if that) would find any value in such features, and if it costs more than $.10 cents manufactures will not build it in and consumers would not buy it if they did. Frankly, I think that the only people who would find any use in such a thing are almost all capable of building something themselves to do just what they want!

      That said, I totally agree with your first point that real innovations come from people building stuff that other people actually can use and see a need for - like the microwave oven, or breadmaker (though the jury might still be out on that one).

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:You overly deride people by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      They probably have a hand me down washing machine and dryer, and an old yellow fridge that freezes half the stuff in it and melts the other half.

      This is a troll. But the color you are thinking of is "harvest gold". It goes along with avacado and brown, the only three colors that were availabe in the 70s.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    5. Re:You overly deride people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever happened to memory? Or even making a list?

      speaking of which : I used to know every one of my friends phone numbers. I almost never had to "wrack my brain" to recall any one of their numbers. I knew them all by heart. Instantly.

      Now I can't remember a single one of them.. They are all in my cell phone.

  118. Holy Cow! by rscrawford · · Score: 1

    Forget Baron Harkonnen and his nasty heart-plugs. Just fit everyone with a pacemaker running Windows LifeSaver 2010, and watch Bill Gates rule the world with his iron fist...

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
  119. Wow... by tius · · Score: 1

    there really is a crack problem in the states!

  120. M$ Payroll by Eversor · · Score: 1

    Take a step back and look at the big picture. This guys is obviously still on M$'s payroll, and is lining up for a big security pitch to the gov't in a nutshell,.. Palladium. What better way to sell it to EVERYONE, than to have someone inside the gov't filling it up with FUD. And there u go, M$'s ace in the hole.

  121. Tired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, I get tired of people who are management politicians, who don't know squat about the real workings of anything except the lecture circuit, and whose real credentials are the ability to speak in sentences and form sentences into blocks that resemble paragraphs, getting big bucks for mouthing off. Nuts.

  122. Since you ask ... by magicianuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... not directly on a public network in most cases, but inside a firewall or whatever.

    A connected house has advantages ... I get busy, I put the kettle on, in the old days it had a whistle to let me know it was boiling, nowadays it just shuts off and when I remember and come back it has cooled down again (tea must have freshly boiling water, really!) By having a home network, I can be watching TV or debugging an opensource app and a window will pop up to say "kettle boiling" or "your toast is burning" or "your back door just opened and here's a picture of the man in the black hood entering your den". I want to be able to program my VCR/PVR from my mobile phone/PDA on the drive home ... I want to be able to switch on the heating 30 minutes before I get home no matter how late I work ... I want to be able to go to bed and think "did I switch off the stove?" and be able to check it without going downstairs .. ... so there's no advantage in putting your toaster directly on the public internet, but having many devices accessible through some sort of firewall I would buy ... and why the toaster? Well, if you're going to have it monitor for burnt toast and send an alert, might as well use a standard (tcp/ip) over wifi or whatever rather than another proprietary protocol (like Sony always loved, I have several bits of old Sony hifi, all with "control" sockets and all incompatible)

    1. Re:Since you ask ... by Joe+U · · Score: 2, Funny

      The PVR and security systems are already electronic devices, they would benifit from communications and should be secured properly.

      The heating idea is not bad, ever think X-10?

      As for the other items, the $.05 whistle on the kettle works well, add a bell to the toaster, and the smoke detector can answer all your other questions.

    2. Re:Since you ask ... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      And then you go out and spend umpteen thousand dollars for a septuple bypass because you don't get enough exercise.

      Really? A firewall to protect your toaster from being cracked? No offense but, have you lost your blinking mind? ;o) And of course the purists will tell you you need a separate machine for the firewall because a software one on the same toaster is just not secure enough. Now that would be progress.

      Hey, realistically, nobody's going to buy this.

      As for programming your VCR on the way home, most folks can't talk on their cellphones without driving like drunken Parkinson's patients. You're gonna start punching VCR buttons while you're driving down the Antelope Freeway? Not in my universe.

      Personally, I get enough annoyances in one day without some silly computer telling me the refrigerator light just went out. Take a break. Rest your eyes. Sit down at the kitchen table. Wait for the water to boil. The world won't stop rotating if you don't spend every last second debugging that program. Think of how many medical bills you'll avoid. And think about the greedy medical doctors who will have to worry about missing their Mercedes payments. Now that would be progress. :o)

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:Since you ask ... by lepton+noodle · · Score: 1

      It is usually discouraged to use X-10 for loads like heaters and motors because the standard protocol doesn't acknowledge sent commands. If a command didn't make it through, the sender is unaware of this and could leave the controlled device operating in an unsafe way. Even worse, if a glitch turns on a module, your heater or motor could fire up for no apparent reason.

  123. He should know... by PRickard · · Score: 2

    "Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. According to this article on Security Focus, he has been touring the country, proclaiming the dangers of "zero-day viruses" and "affinity worms" that will create the kind of havoc that nothing else short of a nuclear exchange could cause.

    Mr. Schmidt would known exactly what's possible since his former employer is responsible for 97% of it. All those kinds of things would be spread over Microsoft products, particularly Outlook, Exchange, IIS, and Windows.

    "Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet, declares Schmidt.

    Isn't Microsoft trying to get Embedded NT or Windows CE for Retarded Agencies put into these kinds of devices? They already put a battleship in a vulnerable position several years ago with NT, now they want to destroy the rest of society with it. I don't know if Schmidt is being sarcastic or just brutally honest, but he's got to know Microsoft is the problem here. If he doesn't, he's not mentally capable of having any job, much less one with such a high profile.

    --

    == Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====

  124. Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay so maybe we will tie appliances, traffic lights and (I dont know what the crap for) pacemakers to the internet, but I doubt that if the "Digital Sky" fell that these devices would cease to operate. What kind of moron designs a pacemaker that stops your heart when the network goes down? come on! I can see real problems occuring with traffic lights, however Im sure that they would have default statements as well, when no network is present do this "RED,GREEN,RED,GREEN", I dont know why people get so excited about this dooms day hype.

    1. Re:Whatever by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      why tie a pacemaker? So it can be tracked somewhere by a computer tied into the cell phone network that keeps a list on all the pacemakers out there and flags someone when it begins to falter. (Hope the batteries last longer!)

      That way Medic-Alert can be rushed into action and allow someone to save the poor sap who has the failing ticker-shocker before he gets so disoriented that he cannot save himself.

      This has the potential to save THOUSANDS of lives! Really!

      (compare to irradiated beef.. Do I want to eat meat that has been exposed to radiation? Especially after the "people" who test it said its fine after a relatively short test period, the same people who said hormone replacement therapy was fine^H^H^H^H^H a bad idea?)

      No.. but sell it as if it will "save lives" and people will jump on it. How many people die every year from bad beef? How many people WILL die in 20 years when they find out its worse for you to eat it than it is to risk getting Salmonella or E-coli? Answer: It doesnt matter. Someone somewhere is making money on the tech, so it must be good.

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
    2. Re:Whatever by thomas.galvin · · Score: 1

      Im sure that they would have default statements as well, when no network is present do this "RED,GREEN,RED,GREEN", I dont know why people get so excited about this dooms day hype.

      Or just sit there and wait for the friendly cop with a stop sign...like when the power goes out.

  125. Zero-Day Virus - Concept and Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To those who are getting their kicks by using their technical expertise to inacurately call a zero-day virus the joke of the year, my advice is that old cliche, "Look before you leap."

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6069

    I'm not saying it would be simple, but there's no reason why one couldn't create a worm with multiple exploits for cross-platform execution. Sure, there's only been one cross-platform worm today, and that was a concept created by Symantec, but that doesn't stop Joe-nerd-with-large-wasp-in-pants from creating something similar.

  126. Re:Zero-day??? We knew all about that! by Storm+Damage · · Score: 1

    Well what probably happened was he eavesdropped on some super-l33t high-school kids talking about 0-day warez, and pronouncing it the heavily l33t accented way: WAR-ehz. But he misunderstood them and thought they said 0-day Wormz.

    "I'm gonna download me some killa 0-day wormz!"

  127. The world is flat... by mikvo · · Score: 1
    If we read through history, we will find a lot of things that people thought couldn't be done. Many discoveries, inventions, etc. proved that much of what we thought we couldn't do, we really could. What is most frightening to me now is not that we are talking about things that "can't" be done. This is about things that we think "wouldn't" be done. Are we really so confident in ourselves to believe that just because controlling traffic lights and pacemakers from the Internet seems like a bad idea, that we really won't? I find it very believable that we could see that happening in the not too distant future.

    Here we have a prominent government official providing a vision of a believable future. And I am willing to bet that he has access to a lot of information that tells him the things he is talking about are very possible, even plausible. Perhaps we should stop for a minute and listen. Then, we can begin asking informed questions:

    - How do we prevent this?
    - If we can't prevent this, how to we protected ourselves?

    etc., etc....

    Raging against the government, and against Microsoft, and any connections they may nor may not have, will not change anything. We, as developers and software engineers, need to be educated enough, and prepared enough to deal with just such issues as Howard is describing.

    1. Re:The world is flat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wholeheartedly agree.

      It's mildly suprising how few posters have never studied any plans for IPv6. For those who haven't, why do you think IPv6 uses 2^128 size addresses? There are always going to be people out their that want to connect everything, regardless of the potential misuses. History has proved these people will go attempt to push forward no matter what problems arise.
      I say this in reply to those who mock connecting pacemakers to a network. The argument could be to monitor the individual, and attempt to predict various heart problems and alert someone before the individual has a checkup at the doctors. There _will_ be people pushing these sorts of uses.

  128. you're kidding by zejackal · · Score: 1

    Only a former microsoft security executive would suggest hooking someones pacemaker up to the internet.... Asinine!

  129. And in other news... by da007 · · Score: 1

    Howard Schmidt promised that none of this pandemonium would take place if we would all start using Microsoft products.

  130. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    Forget fighting it. Start playing along and sell "security products." The guys at Symantec, Mcafee, etc. figured this out long ago. You can either mutter about how they exploit the ignorant, or start wiping your ass with hundred dollar bills.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  131. Yes, there's a Windows-based pacemaker controller by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    The PaceArt 2000 is a desktop Windows-based system for doctors which interfaces with pacemakers over a short-range RF link.

    See their download page.

  132. Don't forget the second half of this by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

    The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

    What is the second half of this? The SOLUTION!

    Palladium, internet filtering, access controls, NET Guard, TIPS...

    Do you think it is a coincidence this chicken little was the Microsoft security chief and now works for the government? Would Bill really hire someone that stupid? He is doing his job in a much larger strategy.

  133. geeezesus krist by MrIcee · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt now works for the government as the vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board. (Emphasis mine)

    Anyone else see where this is going? The FORMER HEAD of MICROSOFT SECURITY (and quite frankly, microsoft and security should *snicker* never *snicker* be used in the same sentence together).

    Obviously... Microsoft is very very happy now. They got the x-head of their security to be high up in government PROTECTION. Now this chicken little is running around squawking. Ya, I can see the next *initiative*... Paladium anyone? Government sanctioned because some LOSER who couldn't design a SECURE HOUSE LOCK is squawking.

    For as many times as we accidently bomb some afgani wedding, can't we accidently bomb redmond? Please? Purty Please? With sugar on top?

  134. you are old when... by oogoody · · Score: 1

    you are more afraid of the downside than
    excited about the upside.

    This doesn't mean stick your head in the
    sand, but jeesh...

  135. Why the pacemaker is on the internet... by endoboy · · Score: 1

    "externally programmable" pacemakers are already commonly available... They use a (very short range) wireless link to permit changes to system parameters.

    It is highly unlikely that the pacemaker itself would ever be on the net, but THE PROGRAMMING DEVICE might very well be.

    If somebody hacks the programming device, and grandpa comes in for a tune-up.... BSOD

  136. Cellphones & "intelligent devices" by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I've had a cell for over 7 years. I saw the use, especially in my situation, being a student constantly on the move and no possibility to get a phone on his student room. I used it a lot back then (calling parents and stuff like that).

    I still have a cellphone now. I work, I'm back home and I don't move much. Actually, I could just throw it away and nobody would notice it because I don't call on it and I don't get called on it. The only thing I use it for, from time to time is to check my email when on the road.
    My point is: a cellphone is useful in some circumstances, but in others it is utterly useless.

    Fridges that call servicing, or order food by themselves are a big no-no in my eyes. A nice little paper on the fridge door does very well as grocery list. You take the last egg, write "eggs" on the list. Takes 3 seconds.
    The servicing doesn't sound well to me either: imagine the compressor runs a bit hot but it would last another 5 years. It calls service anyway, the guy repairs it and you get a nice little bill of 500Euro...which you could have avoided easily.
    Bah, technology is nice....but you don't have to overtechnologize everything.

    1. Re:Cellphones & "intelligent devices" by kubrick · · Score: 2

      I'm waiting for the entire idea of mobile services to mature before I buy in. For me, the service provided isn't worth the cost -- but if I could do many more things while on the go then it might be.

      The cowboy nature of the industry, complete with dodgy pricing schemes, hasn't made me feel like taking up something I don't really feel a need for yet anyway :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  137. Manipulating the public 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    --Hermann Goering, Hitler's #2 man, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials

    The quote may be apocraphyl, but it's an old old tactic. If you look for the motive for Bush's actions, it's clearly creating fear, not peace and security.

  138. Info from Bill ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't one of the Wiliams Gate's projects programming the trafic lights?

  139. putting shit on the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why would any critical system be placed on the internet. Do the people monitoring our power supply need to check their email on the same machine that controls the power grid? I think not. Its just a case of poor network management when critical systems are given access to public networks. In Russia they put the national gas network on the net and hackers did get control of the entire pipeline system. So shit like this is possible, but only idiots would allow it to happen. As a Russian I freely admit that the people in charge over here are idiots, but you Americans should know better. Why the hell would a pace maker need a internet connection? Does your heart get email too? What does it do with the spam? I doubt anything could be worse then a nuclear or biological attack. Even if the power goes out you can still stay alive. Which is more than can be said following a nuclear strike by one of our SS-20's.

  140. let me guess by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    the only way to prevent all of this is to use palladium. haha

  141. From the horses mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's no wonder this guy has such a negative outlook on hacking, he worked for a company that intentionally promotes OS software with known security issues. If I worked security for MS, I would have a negative outlook as well. I windows running in both the airport and the hospital last week. His company set this all up as part of their struggle to rule the world.

  142. Dear God! It's Already Happening in the USA! by biggles2k · · Score: 1

    Alleged "zero-day viruses and affinity worms" will sunder business records, as reported in Network World Fusion and credited to a Schmidt speech at an Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) conference. Brokerage house trading records will be scrambled, corporate networks rendered molten, CEOs humiliated.

    There will be a disaster! Investor panic! A slump in the DOW!

    Oh, wait...

    Just replace "zero-day viruses and affinity worms" with "zero earnings and an affinity to cook the books" and that paragraph pretty much sums up Wall Street right now.

  143. Sounds like Y2k by Ubergrendle · · Score: 2

    Sounds like Y2k. Now THAT was a serious threat, but by the time the event came there had been enough publicity that every company did their due-dilligence. If Win95 was running traffic lights, pacemakers, etc there would be enough homogenity and flaky code to make me a bit nervous, but otherwise...i have a perpetual motion engine to sell you.

    --
    John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  144. Worse than you thought... by budalite · · Score: 1

    Perhaps some of you guys missed the "secondary" intent of the speeches by Schmidt. There is a game played by all government executives and it is called "EmpireBuilding". (I work for uncle samuel, too.) The speech is also intended to help the boy get more gov't funding, more gov't people, more funding, more office space, more funding, more stuff, etc. You see, the amount a manager is paid (including bonuses) is directly related to how many people work for him, how many people work for them, how big his budget is, etc. Literally. So, essentially Mr. Schmidt and all Govt. managers/executives have two jobs -- the job they have been assigned and the care and feeding of their empire. Accordingly, there is no incentive to reduce government. Reducing office staff/funding quite literally reduces ones own pay. Didn't take Mr. Schmidt long to learn how we work, did it? Funny how much governments and unions have in common, huh?

    MySon'sFather

    Your Pet Peeve is your worst personality trait.

  145. Windows (TM) Viruses by 80N · · Score: 1
    Actually it isn't just, any old windows viruses, it's Windows (TM) viruses.

    80N

  146. This is easy... by ZoneGray · · Score: 2

    Former Microsoft security chief Howard Schmidt

    Just explain that it's not going to fail, because this guy is no longer engineering it.

  147. sweet by austad · · Score: 2

    "Traffic lights, pacemakers, appliances -- all subject to outages and interruptions because in the future they're controlled via Internet, declares Schmidt.

    Pacemakers? What a dumbass. Although, it would be kinda cool to have cron job which turned grandpa on and off.

    --
    Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
  148. Re:[some do...sort of] Pacemaker... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, he's not a dorkus on that account. Medtronic has pacemakers that come with a device the patient can place near their pacemaker to allow a doctor to obtain vital data over the internet. This can save someone from having to make a trip into the doctor. The pacemaker isn't connected to the internet all the time, only when they place the connection unit close to their chest.

  149. Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone who engineers anything as critical as the controls to a pacemaker or a traffic light to be remotely configurable or writable is just asking for trouble.

    Unfortunately, remote adjustment of medical implants (including pacemakers and drug-delivery systems) is sometimes life-critical, often greatly health-enhancing. So many of the devices are remote-accessable. Some of them (such as implanted defibrilators) also log info about the patient (i.e. when / how many times he had to be de-fibbed) and can be interrogated remotely.

    But "remotely" means "via a nearby inductive loop (or the like) on a special-purpose device", not an internet link. (The interrogation device, of course, will have a computer in it and might be networked - but that's a separate issue.)

    But don't you think the people who design the device and its software don't KNOW that? Medical device hardware and software is built by engineers working to a standard above that of telephony, which is in turn far beyond mil spec. (Yes you can get screwups. But they really do put in the effort. The management knows that killing a couple patients will kill the company, and they have the money to pay for good work rather than cutting corners.)

    anything that has incoming can be flooded to death whether it wants to respond or not

    Not true. Anything with an incoming link can have the link itself DOSed and taken down for the duration of the interference. Any radio can be jammed, too. But a communication module can be designed so that it doesn't exhaust resources needed by the rest of the system, and so that it will recover from the exhaustion of its own resources as soon as the attack ends.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by goid · · Score: 1

      But don't you think the people who design the device and its software don't KNOW
      that?

      I'm sure the people who designed Therac 25 knew that as well, but they still screwed up and killed patients.

      I think there is some scaremongeroing going on here, sure, but I also think that our next 100 years or so is going to see a lot of problems.

      We only need to look for a few minutes at most any place using technology to see people embracing mediocrity with little care. With each passing year, I worry more and more about the medical community too. The things I see in hospitals is especially worrysome.

      I know it's cliche, but this is what happens when your primary focus is money. That's why the love of money is called the root of all evil. As long as profit happens, the mediocrity will continue, because the people making the money don't care about anything but making the money.

      We need to change our mindset, so that profit is secondary to good engineering, even if it means living a little less like we want. As our technology becomes an ever increasing dependency, not doing so is going to have fatal consequences.

      Of course, this is hardly new or rocket science. The best scientists and writers have been talking about this and warning us about it for decades now. We just tend to not listen until something bad happens.

      --
      "Star Wars Moral Number 17: Teddy bears are dangerous in herds."
    2. Re:Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by Lozzer · · Score: 1

      I think there is some scaremongeroing going on here, sure, but I also think that our next 100 years or so is going to see a lot of problems.

      A simple extrapolation from the last seven thousand years would indicate that, without worrying about the mechanism too much.

      --
      Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
    3. Re:Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure the people who designed Therac 25 knew that as well, but they still screwed up and killed patients.

      An example of "Yes you can get screwups." - which will be the Tacoma Narrows Bridge / Three Mile Island of medical automation for the next century (or until a bigger screwup happens). It's also an example of the belt, suspenders, and wasteband button all snapping at once.

      But how many medical automation products are in use? And how many of them are killing people through software bugs? I think you'll find that, in general, medical automation is already designed, implemented, and tested to a MUCH higher standard than, say, your latest commercial desktop OS.

      We only need to look for a few minutes at most any place using technology to see people embracing mediocrity with little care. With each passing year, I worry more and more about the medical community too. The things I see in hospitals is especially worrysome.

      Let's not go generalizing between consumer marketplace software and that designed for automating medical equipment, or between

      I know it's cliche, but this is what happens when your primary focus is money. That's why the love of money is called the root of all evil. As long as profit happens, the mediocrity will continue, because the people making the money don't care about anything but making the money.

      No. The problems you allude to are not inherent in money. They are what happens when short-sighted administrators focus solely on near-term profit (and are psychopathic enough to ignore non-money risks of human injury). Map human consequences into monitary terms by such mechanisms as liability suits and even a psychopath can grasp that cutting corners and killing people is a bad bet. And it's the job of the upper-level management (starting with the board) to insure that the lower-level managment (starting with the president, CEO, COO) aren't simultaneously short-sighted and psychopathic enough to take bad chances and kill the company.

      Short-sighted crooks we will always have with us, and sometimes they work their ways into positions of trust. But encoding consequences into money terms can bite them big-time. Arthur Anderson LLP's board didn't institute such policies. Arthur Anderson LLP is as good as DEAD. An administrator at Worldcom got into a debt bind and cooked the books to save his own butt. Worldcom is bankrupt and he was the first one kicked out the door. And so on.

      There's nothing magic - evil OR good - about money. It's just a convenient means for quantifying human effort and values, aspirations and miseries. It is "crystalized labor". It is a way to split barter into two halves, so a plumber doesn't have to find a farmer with a stopped-up sink whenever he wants groceries.

      When you concentrate enough value and power in one place to do great good, you concentrate enough to do great evil. It's the people who then handle it who decide whether it does good or evil. And its the institutions around it that create good consequences for those who do good and bad for those who do evil. If the institutions work well enough, even most evil people may chose to do good - and the ones who chose to do evil will get squashed as a result.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      Oops. Blew the edit.

      Let's not go generalizing between consumer marketplace software and that designed for automating medical equipment, or between ... ... HMO or low-budget retirement home administrators and the people who build the FDA-approved equipment they use.

      [Money] is a way to split barter into two halves, so a plumber doesn't have to find a farmer with a stopped-up sink whenever he wants groceries.

      And without money a crook can just as easily steal the groceries, or kidnap the plumber and make him fix his sink.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    5. Re:Some pacemakers ARE remotely accessable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And without money a crook can just as easily steal the groceries, or kidnap the plumber and make him fix his sink.

      Umm - yeah .. the effort in kidnapping a plumber and forcing him to fix your sink is _exactly_ the same as lifting someone's wallet as they walk by... sure..

      Of course - this is off topic, but money is more than just barter split in two.
      There's that whole Gold Standard and economic value of governments and speculative value in the free market stuff that complicates things when you start talking money.
      It may not be the root of all evil , but there's something weird going on with it :)

  150. Never Try to... by Hollinger · · Score: 2

    Never try to match wits with an idiot; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

    Just thought I'd pass that along.

  151. Okay, so what is an 'affinity worm'? by actiondan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even a google search couldn't help me.

    Does the rest of the world know something that I should?

    1. Re:Okay, so what is an 'affinity worm'? by Frater+219 · · Score: 2

      Presumably, affinity worm is Mr. Schmidt's coined phrase for Microsoft email worms such as Klez, which use the victim's address book as a list of targets. That is to say, they spread from Windows host to Windows host on the basis of the users' affinities.

      A comparison of Klez to Code Red and Nimda suggests that while such a worm does not spread as quickly to vulnerable Windows systems, it is capable of staying resident in the Windows population at a higher level for quite a long time. My workplace currently sees a handful of Code Red and Nimda attacks every day -- but our mail exchanger rejects a couple hundred Klez per day.

    2. Re:Okay, so what is an 'affinity worm'? by Ristretto · · Score: 2

      And what's all the fuss about "Zero Day" viruses? As far as I can tell via Google, "Zero Day" was 1/1/2000. So what's a "Zero Day virus"?

    3. Re:Okay, so what is an 'affinity worm'? by Frater+219 · · Score: 2
      And what's all the fuss about "Zero Day" viruses? As far as I can tell via Google, "Zero Day" was 1/1/2000. So what's a "Zero Day virus"?

      Well, ten years ago when I hung out with warez d00dz, "zero-day warez" meant bootleg software that had been cracked (the copy prevention routines removed) and released to BBSes by a cracker group on the same day it was released commercially. Surpassing that were "negative-day warez", where the software had been leaked from the manufacturer during mastering, and the cracked version was out before the "real" one. The sysop of one BBS I frequented had internal builds of a Microsoft product called "Chicago" in 1993; that product became what you may know as Windows 95.

      In any event, the same terminology can apply to attacks. A "zero-day worm" is a worm written to exploit a vulnerability on the same day that the vulnerability is released (i.e. made public). In fact, this is not a very useful expression, for two reasons:

      1. First, it implies that such a worm would be worse, or indeed more notable in any way, than a worm using an older vulnerability. Given that the most potent worms we have seen -- Code Red, Nimda, and Klez -- have used attacks that were known and patched for months at the time of the worms' release, this is an unfounded implication.
      2. Second, it implies that the publishing of the vulnerability is necessary for the writing of a worm, or leads naturally to the writing of a worm -- and therefore that publishing is a bad thing. In fact, most published vulnerabilities are never widely exploited, and worms are written for only a tiny fraction. Moreover, a truly aggressive worm-writer would go out and discover new, unpublished holes, and write worms for those.

      The worms we have seen recently have actually been a net benefit to security. They have shown us what is possible with old vulnerabilities on unpatched Microsoft systems, and their payloads have been, all in all, relatively mild. Sure, Code Red II spread a backdoor, and Sircam sent your files around -- but consider the damage if they had instead altered figures in spreadsheets or databases, or just gone writing random numbers to random sectors of your disk, like some of the old DOS viruses did. DoS floods go away; data corruption can take years to discover.

      So it isn't the zero-day worms I'm worried about. It's the negative-day worms with real payloads. After all, unlike that from some vendors, the software I use has an established reputation for zero-day patches ....

  152. One word by dryopterix · · Score: 0

    FUDzilla

  153. Hmmm.... by EEEthan · · Score: 2

    Well, on Saturday, when there was an explosion at the Con Ed plant in Manhattan, the street lights didn't work...but nothing bad happened other than a few stores closing. Hell, traffic was a little backed up, but if they'd had some traffic officers there, that could have been avoided. And to tell the truth, it didn't look so bad.

    I really can't stand the tech-attack FUD that the Bush administration is spewing out. If someone fucks up the global bank records, I could see that being a problem (although the economy is more or less in shambles already) but c'mon, what else is going to happen? Al-Qaeda spam ? Someone will hijack my ebay account ?

    C'mon, really. I'll believe it when someone gets past my home firewall and somehow manages to strangle me with an ethernet cable by sending the right packets through it.

  154. I EXPECTED information. I got content-free flame. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    It's an ex Microsoft security chief... What do you expect?

    What I expected (from the reporter's story) was a description of the alleged security threats he was talking about and possibly an insight into some microsoft vulnerabilities that we haven't yet seen exploited in the wild.

    What I got was a content-free hatchet piece that was so busy ridiculing the ex-Microsoftie and his alleged threats that it didn't bother to actually REPORT them.

    We know how fast something like the Morris worm can spread. I'd like to know if Schmidt was describing, for instance, a similarly fast-spreading beast that could infest Microsoftware.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  155. Seeing from an MS security officer's perspective by Kakurenbo+Shogun · · Score: 1
    Exactly, you have to consider what a Microsoft security man knows about computers:
    1. Every computer on earth runs Microsoft software
    2. All (read "Microsoft") software can be compromised in the blink of an eye
    3. Crackers are advancing their evil techniques in leaps and bounds, while nice programmers will never improve their security practices--they simply don't have that ability
    4. Microsoft's control is extending into all areas of life
    5. Therefore, all areas of life will soon be wide open to blink-of-an-eye disruption by crackers
    6. Microsoft has already demonstrated in court the ability to reach back in time and change the past, so Microsoft software must be able to propogate viruses et al backward through time
    So what would YOU do after you'd hacked into a pacemaker?
    • The obvious but boring response: DOS
    • Getting more interesting--site defacement: make it send morse code messages promoting your world view. As long as it didn't crash ("kill") the host, it would spread subliminal messages throughout society
    I can just imagine the EULA on pacemaker software: "Microsoft reserves the right to remotely disable this software if we determine that it is being used without a license."
    --
    Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
  156. behold the mighty clue stick by locutus2k · · Score: 0

    It's fairly simple to argue with people like that... Remove the clue stick from it's gilded holder, and wack him over and over with it...

  157. What is your major malfunction? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Why all the hate against technology and people who use/enjoy it? And who died and made you the ultimate authority on what should and should not be hooked to the internet?

    I friggin love my PDA. I had paper organizers for years and I would always leave them somewhere or not have them with me when I needed to write something down. With my PDA that doesn't happen. What is your major malfunction? In another post you want people to actually be satisifed with simpler times and to not go crazy when the electricity goes out. Did you suffer a nervous breakdown recently because of your IT job or something??

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:What is your major malfunction? by Maeryk · · Score: 2

      Why all the hate against technology and people who use/enjoy it? And who died and made you the ultimate authority on what should and should not be hooked to the internet?

      I dont hate technology, and I dont hate the people who use/enjoy it. I hate being viewed by big business as a bottomless pit of money for the newest fangled crap that I dont need. I buy what I need, and otherwise ignore a lot of it, but there are people out there who dont do that. Those people are the ones spurring on this mad race to integrate everything.

      I friggin love my PDA. I had paper organizers for years and I would always leave them somewhere or not have them with me when I needed to write something down. With my PDA that doesn't happen. What is your major malfunction? In another post you want people to actually be satisifed with simpler times and to not go crazy when the electricity goes out. Did you suffer a nervous breakdown recently because of your IT job or something??

      Good for you. I occasionally use my Mako for something other than playing games. Rarely, though. I find I keep stuff in my head better. If I stuff it in an organizer, I have yet *another* thing to carry around, and I have to remember to read it, charge it, update it, etc. If I have it in my head, I only have to worry about forgetting IT.. not six other things tied to it.

      To each their own.. Im not saying that technology is bad.. Im saying that it sometimes gets used in utterly useless ways.

      Maeryk

      --
      Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
  158. hell, if my cellphone's barely on the 'net... by kisrael · · Score: 2

    if my cellphone is barely on the 'net, why should my fridge be?

    Yes, I know the USA is behind in creative additional uses of portable networked devices, but even then, the only really compelling apps, the only ones people pay for, are the ones that facilitate communication between people. Almost every other wireless app will be niche status for the foreseeable future.

    this article says it well--what do people shell out for at Internet Cafes when they're on vacation? It's not online shopping or browsing...it's good ol' e-mail. The near future of cellphones is voice communications (duh), e-mail, and maybe sending pictures. It's not the chance to browse some tiny version of the web or order stocks.

    So, I think the rather slow progress of handheld wireless networking has implications for networking beyond the PC. The technology for controlling your house appliances online has existed for a long time; still a minor niche. People don't want their fridge fiddling with their recipes...a much more promising technology there is putting standard barcodes on premade foods that your microwave can scan and know how long to cook, kind of a VCRPlus for food prep... anyway, we're a long way off from having all of society's hardware on the regular 'Net, though obviously cyberattacks have the potential to be more damaging as we rely on the 'Net more and more for information services.

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    1. Re:hell, if my cellphone's barely on the 'net... by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Your refrigerator, air conditioning, heat, etc. will be on the net (some network, not necessarily the Internet) so that power management can be directed by the Utilities. They can time motor startups, etc. to smooth out peak demands and such.

  159. to goatse and beyond! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laugh it up, trollboy!
    Thanks to you and your ilk, the future's going to have a very interesting view on the religions of the early cyber-era. We've all seen how perceptive the archeological community can be.

  160. Holy sh*t!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US vice chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is a former MS employee??!? No wonder there is coming so much IT security bullsh*t from the US govt recently :-(((

    Let me guess what he will be doing next:

    1.) The US govt will only use closed source software from now on (except MS Shared Source, which can still be used until end 2002).

    2.) Any development, sale and use of open source software in the US will be forbidden. All remaining open source and free software developers will be deported to Cuba (well, they're darn communists anyway, aren't they?)

    3.) Security vulnerabilities must not be announced earlier than 3 months after detection.

    4.) Security vulnerabilites must not be announced at all. Every computer in the US will be equipped with "MS BigBro AutoUpdate XXP .NET" which will take care of automatic bugfixing. No, it won't fail as it was engineered and tested by MS security experts.

    5.) Foreign countries still using open source software will be disconnected from the US backbone. Dialing in from outside the US is forbidden. Can't risk it.

    6.) Disobedient countries will be bombed. (Quoting George W.: "It worked for Afghan terrorists, why shouldn't it work for European theorists too?"). The "Axe of Evil" is smoothly extended to a "Globe of Evil minus Us, Israel and Worldwide Microsoft Branch Offices".

    7.) Umm.. IT separation just isn't sufficient anymore. Physical separation is more secure, right? So.. former employees of the unfortunately collapsed Enron, WorldCom, AT&T, IBM, HP and SUN will build a Great Wall around the US for the govt. Visitors from foreign countries will be welcomed on every second sunday.

    8.) Sh*t, the enemy might be *inside* us already. All US citizens and visitors must have implanted a GPS chip for proper identification and localization by the FBI (well, at least better than having the postman to spy you..).

    9.) Internet will be shut down completely as it showed to be hardly controllable. As computers aren't useful anymore, they will be used as heating equipment if possible.

    10.) Living citizens are way too dangerous for America. Thus let's k ___^____^____^__________.....

  161. Yes But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, every engineer should be responsible for every part of anything that he designs.

    But, isn't the "software industry" working to break down this responsibility?

    When I read Microsoft's press releases about their attempts to get Windows into embedded uses, I read between the lines to get the impression that Microsoft wishes to change this doctrine to, "Engineers should be responsible for their designs, EXCEPT FOR SOFTWARE!!!".

    Windows is a closed black box that the engineer is supposed to know nothing about! Furthermore, nobody should face any liability whatsoever for a defective product, as long as it carries the logo, "Windows".

  162. Well... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2

    Another valid question is why the hell you would want all of your traffic lights and everything hooked up to the internet. There ARE networks separate from the internet. Why are we working to combine them all? So we can sell more buzzwords?

  163. It's a veiled sales pitch... by TeachingMachines · · Score: 1

    ... for Palladium. If this guy can get everyone worked up about the dangers of the Internet, maybe he can get them to adopt "very agreeable" legislation for modified hardware configurations that are GPL incompatible (i.e., Palladium). Good ol' Micros~t, they know how to work the system.

    --

    The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
  164. Brave New World... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, but you don't know what he has planned for us!

  165. No, No, Think Low Tech by virg_mattes · · Score: 2

    Not crackers as in computers, crackers as in safe, so that when all of the bank computers failed he could send them to get the gold from the vaults and porn from the safe deposit boxes. With that, who'd need electricity?

    Virg

  166. Not that big a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problems won't be that bad. Provided they use a SECURE OS.

  167. Some Ideas by Fascist+Christ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    • Pacemaker stopped? Don't worry! The hospital is automatically contacted and an ambulance is on the way. All thanks to the Internet and GPS. (Meanwhile, we get to keep track of where you are so that we can enhance the marketing power of our company and our "affiliates.")

    • Car stolen? Have no fear! We caught the thief on video and identified him before he even had a chance to start the car, which he won't be able to do anyway since his facial structure doesn't match yours. (Furthermore, if anyone other than you is to drive your car, you will have to register them as additional drivers, therby increasing registration fees and insurance costs. Oh yeah, did we mention the EULA you signed at the dealership? Each additional driver will cost you another $20k)

    • Wish you didn't have to make dinner everynight? Your prayers are answered! Our new, government patented refrigerovefreezewavestoventry will do it all for you! It stores and manages all your food, including monitoring expiration dates and printing out shopping lists. Choose predefined or custom recipes at the push of a button and your job is done! New recipes are downloded off the internet. Shopping lists can be submitted to a delivery service at the push of a button. (All recipes entered into the system become the property of the Acme Corporation. Your eating habits will be recorded for marketing and health insurance purposes.)

    --
    TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
  168. Traffic lights *can* be controlled from the web by throx · · Score: 3, Informative

    They don't have to be on the net. I used to work for a government department that controlled traffic lights. From my workstation I could change the state of almost any traffic light in the state. From my workstation I could also browse the internet.

    Consider then a virus that allowed someone to put a back door into my workstation. They would then have the ability to sniff passwords and ultimately give them control over the traffic lights.

    A similar thing could be said for any device which can be controlled from a machine which is either connected to the net, or can be accessed by other machines ultimately connected to an untrusted network.

    While the chance is slim that any of this could happen, don't discount the possibility just through your ignorance of how these systems could be attacked. Sure the traffic lights aren't directly connected to the net, but that's not the point.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

    1. Re:Traffic lights *can* be controlled from the web by will_die · · Score: 1

      Back in my days of being a trouble maker(80s) I lived in a large city that had thier traffic light system hookedup to a dail-in modem, complete with a simple password. You could read the status of the lights if you provided the address, and while you could not directly affect lights you could cause them to go and restart thier sequence for that intersection before they should.

    2. Re:Traffic lights *can* be controlled from the web by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      About your .sig:

      B8 00 4C CD 21 is x86 asm for:

      MOV AX, 4c00h
      INT 21h

      What's so scary about that? It's just returning control to DOS.

  169. Representational invariants. by karlm · · Score: 2
    Traffic lights and pacemakes getting cracked shouldn't be a problem if they're designed with hardware enforcemet of representaional invariants.

    A pacemaker should never have a pulse rate outside of 40 bpm to 120 bpm. Sure, it'd be inconvenient if your pulse went down to 40 bpm, but you wouldn't die... maybe you'd pass out. Sure, some athletes have resting heart rates of 30, but if you need a pacemaker, a pulse of 40 to 120 is completely functional. If the CPU tells the hardware to beat outside that range, the hardware should put out a pulse rate of 72 bpm - the average resting heart rate for an adult male, slightly slow for the average female but it's easier on the heart.

    Stoplights should have a finite state machine in hardware. One of the inputs sould be a hardware timer that goes low after a state transition and goes high 3 seconds later. The CPU can control some of the inputs to the FSM, but there are no unsafe states and no unsafe transitions. (i.e. "red, green, red, green" can only go to "red, yellow, red, yellow", "r,g,r,y", or "r,y,r,g"). This way, the CPU has no "words in its languge" to describe a transition to the state "green, green, green, green" or from "red, green, red, green" to "green, red, green, red" without going through 3 seconds of "red, yellow, red, yellow" (i.e. if the timer input is low, all of the state transitions for that state return to itself). This way, it's imposible for the light to be in an unsafe state or make an unsafe state transition.

    You have the hardware check representational invariants (40 <= heart_rate <= 120) and go into a safe fallback state if the rep. invar. is violated (heart_rate = 72). Otherwise, if the states are simple enough, you have a finite state machine containing only safe states and safe transitions. (If the FSM is too complicated, it's easy to screw it up, so you should have a rep. invar. check to back you up.) If you use one of these techniques, a terrorist can at best inconvinience you, even if s/he replaces ALL of the web-connected CPU's software. A small FPGA or CPLD to do this enforcement costs less than a couple of bucks and the programming is pretty streight forward for simple invarients like those used in stoplights and pacemakers.

    There may be reasons to give net connectivity to stoplights. (I can definately imagine giving them 802.11 with IPSEC so that ambulances can change the lights ahead of them witout having to have the 911 dispatch center do it for them.) As long as you have proper hardware enforcement, these things aren't a problem. If the terrorist has the time and acess to pull out the FPGA and re-burn it with some unsafe states, s/he might as well clip the wires to the lightbulbs and cross-wire the lights. On a similar note, if a terrorist has the ability to take the FPGA out of the pacemaker and reprogram it and put it back in the person without killing them. (Maybe for blackmail purposes.) Why not implant a remote drug O.D. injector or a remote triggered half kilo of semtex in the abdomen?

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
    1. Re:Representational invariants. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Somebody who actually thinks there's an FPGA in a pacemaker.

      Wow.

    2. Re:Representational invariants. by karlm · · Score: 2
      I thought you could get FPGAs with MTBFs as good as those for any of the other components. Maybe I'm wrong. The whole thing is in a Farraday cage, so unless you're talking about enough power to cook ther person's internal organs before EM would be a problem.

      Then again, I'm not an EE or CS person.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  170. Wait a Minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft would lobby against any attempt to implement your conspiracy theory.

    Remember, they want to see each consumer own, not one, but dozens of computers.

    How much money would there be in computers if only a few highly secure government agencies and a few government approved corporations could own one?

    I get it, one great big central government computer for everybody!!!

    1. Re:Wait a Minute by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "How much money would there be in computers if only a few highly secure government agencies and a few government approved corporations could own one?"

      A good point. At this point MSFT would be making its money in the USA by consulting and selling to businesses with gov't approved security. Aside from that, they would be selling to home users in South America, Europe, Africa and Asia.

  171. Re:Yes, there's a Windows-based pacemaker controll by mstyne · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or do those 'doctors' look like Jerry Springer and Bruce Lee? And does pacemaker software really make doctors *that* happy?

    --
    mstyne: real name, no gimmicks
  172. Why all the worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as they equip my pacemaker with a palladium chip, I'll be care-free and happy as a lark.

  173. Internet Pacemaker by moody834 · · Score: 1

    Well, one can certainly see the benefits of having a pacemaker hooked up to the Internet. For those with such heartbeat regulators, it's important to stay calm, nothing too exciting. With your pacemaker hooked up to the Internet, you could set your browser to limit the amount of Pr0n you see in any given period of time.

    Probably a lot of you could benefit from having such an Internet-enable pacemaker installed.

    --
    /* * We did not get what we need .. we cannot sleep ..
  174. I guess we don't have to worry... by Mulletproof · · Score: 2

    ...About the Earth expiring in 2050!! Yadda, yadda, yadda. All these studies see to have one thing in common: They seem to assume the Earth (or the net in this case) is a static enviornament in which nothing changes, from technology to resources. Every worm and virus to this day has acted to strengthen the structure of the internet. Sure, they've caused problems, but they've cause anti-virus software developers to adapt. Sure, somebody can develope something nasty, but if it can be made by a man, it can be analyzed and circumvented by a man. And that's what backups are for anyway. Any admin worth his salt and any absolutely critical system has backups and redundancies. It may hurt, but it will hardely be the collapse of civilization the artical seems to advocate.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  175. good for the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news for the tech industry. Just who do you think will be applying all those service packs and patches, one by one, point and click? Why MCSEs of course. By the thousands. This means us serious unix techs will have no problems finding work.

  176. Reprogrammable Pacemakers by good-n-nappy · · Score: 1

    Pacemakers have been reprogrammable via audio tones for years. They've been talking about it on comp.risks for quite some time too. Here is a 1994 post that mentions it.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of fiber.
  177. Two Ways to a Smarter Refrigerator by virg_mattes · · Score: 2

    There are two ways the digital fridge can work, outside of failure monitoring. First, you tell the fridge what's in it, and it tells you when you run out of it (an extension of this is that you tell it when you bought your milk or eggs, and based on the date it tells you when you should consider throwing it away). The other way is that you tell it when you want to buy stuff and it tells you what to get. The most common method of this is that you tell the fridge when you put stuff in it, then you tell it what you're making, and based on the recipe, it advises you as to what ingredients you're missing.

    In short, it knows what you want because you tell it.

    Virg

  178. Pacemaker downloads for the dangerously idle by Conspir8or · · Score: 1
    Even further in the future...

    Pacemaker software upgrades are routine. Why do I need to go to the doctor's office to upgrade my pacemaker software? I download it at home and upgrade via my home transmitter. Maybe the upgrades are even automatic...whatever.
    Still further ...

    Lonely, octogenerian former Slashdotter orders a trio of nubile escorts, then yells out, "Tank, I need a hundred-and-eighty beats per minute ... and Kama Sutra Level Ten!"

    Conspir8or
  179. Not too silly by fraservirtualnet · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a prediction of doom. This may not be a bad thing, I'm sure that Schmidtt is aware how silly it sounds but I am equally sure that it's a cautionary tale. After all, if you want someone not to do something you don't say "it may be a bit foolish, if some nasty people do some things that they probably won't." you say "If you connect everything to a public network all hell will break loose, people will die." Bear in mind that it's not a too far stretch of the imagination that someone will think: Hmm, if I attach a pacemaker to a datalogger I could get infomation out of it using a personal area network. from this thought it's not far to go to end up with the computer the connects to the pacemaker connecting to a private IP network, which in turn is connected, somewhere, to the internet.

  180. Not "Hackers", "Takedown!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Checkout the archive of the CNN Entertainment review.

  181. But... by ellem · · Score: 2

    what if he's right?

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  182. This could be made possible by alizard · · Score: 2
    If all of these devices were controlled by embedded Windows, it isn't hard to imagine them being virus contaminated, h4xx0red and r00ted.

    The solution to that is simply make it illegal to use Microsoft products in any life-critical situation.

    While this doesn't make stupid software design for traffic lights, SCADA systems, etc. impossible, such law would prevent stupid design from being unavoidable and inevitable.

  183. Oh great, Now instead of Chicken Little... by m0ng00se · · Score: 1

    ...we have Chicken Schmidt.

    wotta maroon.

    --


    Is madness a syptom of genius or vice-versa?
  184. Notes from the CyberSecurity Townhall in Atlanta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cyber Security Townhall 6/18/02

    Howard Schmidt - Deputy Director of the Critical Infrastructure Protection Board
    Sam Nunn - Chairman and CEO - Nuclear Threat Initiative/Partner - King&Spalding
    Harris Miller - President -ITAA
    Fran Dramis - CIO/E-Commerce Officer BellSouth
    Tom Noonan - CEO Internet Security Systems (ISS)

    Background

    Howard Schmidt - Only 15% of the Critical Infrastructure in this country is controlled by government agencies. The rest is privately controlled. There is no way the national government can secure the privately controlled parts. The overall security must be coordinated with all relevant companies and governmental organizations though.

    Sam Nunn - The legal and political aspects of this are very problematic. Constitutional law, separation of jurisdictions between different agencies, etc will force more of the burden onto the private sector.

    Harris Miller - This will have to be driven by the market. If not, the government will begin legislating guidelines and it will become unmanageable and overly bureaucratic. Industry groups are beginning to work together to create common guidelines. Three to four years ago there were fewer than 10 corporations involved with Infosec, last year more than 200 sent representatives to the committee meeting.

    Fran Dramis - BellSouth has three concerns with cyber security: 1) they are a large corporation and target, 2) they are a large ISP and target), 2 they are part of the critical infrastructure and target. Fran reports security audit results to the Audit subcommittee of the BLS Board.

    Tom Noonan - There are three types of internet users: 1) those who don't know they are a target, 2) those who think the other companies are targets, and 3) those who know they are a target. The industry must increase the awareness of the mid and small companies to level 3. The threat isn't teenagers with cracking tools. There are very sophisticated computer scientist from other countries with governmental backing who are taking the lead. The teenaged hacker is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Questions/Comments/etc

    There were many questions relating to home PC's on broadband pipes (DSL, Cable Modems) as platforms for attacks. There are more broadband connections to homes now than there were PC's 10-15 years ago.

    Specific issues regarding ISP to ISP coordination of addressing security problems. Who and how to contact responsible parties. ISP responsibilities for customer security. Expect to see Peering agreements broken and potential legal actions between ISP's for failure to address security issues.

    Obligatory Microsoft bashing: default installs, etc. Expect to see Microsoft in major legal situation because of security holes soon.

    Corporate espionage is on the rise, even 'friendly' countries have admitted or been caught using their security services to spy on American corporations for competitive purposes. Very few companies protect themselves against this.

    Insurance liabilities issues - companies that purchase insurance for potential internet break-in's receive a discount if they use one of the recognized services (ISS, Counterpane, etc) to test their security. Lots of issues around the liability problems. Expect a major lawsuit in the next 12-24 months to test software development company's liability (also potential lawsuit against an ISP). Also expect liability issues to be ignored until someone looses a major suit (similar to HR issues where few companies paid attention until a multi-million verdict was upheld on appeal then the floodgates opened).

    Some discussion around the fact that the first Internet worm (Morris Worm 1988) and Nimda and Code Red exploited the same fundamental coding error - buffer overrun. The general consensus is that programming tools have made it easier to program but not easier to write solid code. Some investment in research grant monies and graduate students is underway. There were a total of 8 PhD's in Computer Security granted last year in the US and few went to US Citizens. Need to find a way to improve that. General quality of programming has deteriorated in the past few years but the complexity and potential for abuse of poor code has increased exponentially.

    The number of attacks during the last few years has increased to the point that there were more than 16,000 malicious payloads distributed in April of this year alone and downloaded to millions of machines around the world. More attacks are coming from Asia, fewer attacks are tracked to their source and the rate of a strong virus' distribution is increasing. The Michelangelo virus took three years to hit one million machines, Nimda took 8 hours to hit millions of machines in every country in the world.

    Opportunities

    Security has reached the Board of Director level in most large companies. Strategy, threat assessment, security audits and reviews are now being requested by the Audit subcommittees of most Boards.

    Testing security is a growing business. War gaming and threat assessment.

    Education of Businesses, especially small businesses is still required. The Boards get the picture but middle managers don't yet. Once it becomes a business issue it should be a part of all business plans.

    Low-end (less than $1,000/month) services is an open market niche. No one serves it well (partially because the managers/owners of most small businesses don't get it yet).

    Local governments, Fulton County being the example provided by their CIO, have no clue yet. This could be a huge growth opportunity. Once the risk to the government infrastructure is publicized there could be lots of opportunities. It will require some education of the public so that it becomes and election/budget issue and will probably require a massive failure before anyone starts spending money but once it happens there will be a rush. Predictions are that Security will be similar to Y2K, once the leadership 'gets it', they will really get scared.

    ISP to ISP coordination. CERT hasn't stepped up to this role and probably can't. Look for new industry groups to get into this as a business.

    There will be a backlash against poor programming practices. Could be an impetus for programmer certification, changes in licensing practices, Professional certifications, etc. More training at the undergraduate and community college levels. More industry training available for little or no cost.

    Expect Companies to begin requiring security audits as part of P&A, Design, Construction, and testing for type 3 and 4 projects.

    Expect to see corporations in general begin to reduce their liability by using contractual terms with software vendors to increase the robustness and quality of their security mechanisms.

  185. Aaaaargh!! by _Knots · · Score: 1

    IDIOTS. IDIOTS. Yes, the interconnected world of the Internet is nice. No, it's not the uber-controller, and it never should be made such, no matter how much a fad Thin-Clients and ASPs and so on are these days. (Got that, Microsoft?)

    Pacemakers!? My word... what does a Pacemaker need an IP address for!? The powergrid? Uh... you can have a seperate network with firewalls to the internet for controlling the powergrid, if you must have internet control.. or better yet, *don't* have internet control of the power grid.

    People jump on things because it's "The Cool Thing" to do, nevermind if it's right or even useful. I miss the days where people designed code to be modular, seprable, robust, etc... now we've got "IT NEEDS MORE FEATURES!" (INMF) craze persisting from the .BOMB 'economy' (which didn't have to bomb if sheeple hadn't gone spaztic and crazy when it was "the thing," and doesn't have to make the current tech sector a mine-field: some companies are doing quite well (given the economy) and being punished because they're IT-related, it seems). Anyway, the INMF craze has dictated that everything must be internet-capable, reguardless of necessity (What are my kitchen appliances going to tell each other? "Nice chrome"?!).

    And, as a result, we get shit like this. Where poor security (largely on Microsoft's part - hello 95+% of desktop computers, all running one OS with poor security. Though don't get me wrong, everybody plays a part in security, so it's not *all* Microsoft's fault) has led people to believe and therefore repeat from very high places that the world is coming to an end. It isn't, and if people had much sense, there'd be no real problem. Systems that require computers to control them should either be isolated or have failsafe computers that are isolated from the network (failsafe should be trivial - touch the switch and it's there. And it's not like shutting down and rebooting, it should be a near-instantaneous changeover with no side-effects since the failsafe should be running [surprise] a safe, uncompromised program). And if devices don't need net access, DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. Or do, but make sure they can't be abused. There's not exactly a lot of CPU power in my oven, and I like it that way - if you want it to have an NTP-synchronized clock, cool, just make sure it's *only* capable of NTP, and at that, only with an NTP-server I have to set up on my LAN (make it point-and-drool or a standalone box if you must, but I think ntpd's easy enough).

    Anyway, sorry, I should be working.
    --Knots

    --
    Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
  186. Why build the net into pacemakers? by knodi · · Score: 1

    So I can read slashdot with my chest!

    --
    Austin is more fun than Dallas.
  187. Re:It's sad to count on FUD to rally the populatio by Dexx · · Score: 1

    "some point, unfortunately, this system will all crash"

    You have read/seen the financial news for the last couple of days, right?

    --
    Feel the fear and do it anyway.
  188. DOH!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was supposed to read: "my friends aren't CEOs, CFOs, etc."

  189. oh cripes by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2

    This sounds like we may get a little bit of Darwinism out of this - everybody who is smart enough to realize how ridiculous this is will come out on top, and probably make a tidy sum off the fools who believe that the sky actually is falling. I think I should become a consultant for the PHB's in their all-windows shops, and charge $100,000 to tell them they can get a more secure, stable system by switching over too... well you know what I'm going to say, this is slashdot!

    Seriously, if people are going to make ridiculous claims like this, and management starts to believe it, why can't we hire ourselves out to make sure the company's print servers can't make all the traffic lights in a five mile radius turn green all at once? Sure it's unethical, but I gotta eat too!

    --
    I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
  190. Pokemon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen the recent Pokemon commercial... they zoom in on a person in a crowd and ask: Is this person a hacker?
    then they zoom on another, then another... again asking the same question.
    Toward the end they point out that evil hackers can take over the world or some such thing and that you have to stop them with your Pokemon skills.

  191. K.I.S.S by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

    Keep It Simple Stupid

    yeesh.

  192. What's up with national ID cards? by Xouba · · Score: 1

    Ok, this may be naive, so bear with me if I'm being too dumb :-)

    What's up with a national ID card? We've had such a thing for YEARS here in Spain. Are we in danger? :-)

    I'm asking only because I don't really understand what's up with all the national ID thing. What is it going to be like there?

    1. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by acceleriter · · Score: 1
      I don't have a long historical essay to provide, and without living here, it's hard to describe. But here's a summary--we aren't legally required to carry or produce identification here (assuming we aren't operating a motor vehicle or, recently, riding in an airplane). Being asked to do so conjures up images of fascist states in which citizens were asked "Your papers!" (add "Mach Schnell!" for appropriate theatrical effect.

      My geopolitical knowledge is weak, but wasn't Spain itself a fascist state under Franco?

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

    2. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by IXI · · Score: 1

      > What's up with a national ID card? We've had such a thing for YEARS here in Spain.

      And as we all know it completely eradicated terrorism there.

      --
      He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
    3. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National ID cards are only useful if you can validate and track them. That's all they're really good for, and thet can be most useful in that respect. Unfortunately the infrastructure behind them persists over time. Generally, citizen tracking systems are most easily built when the goverment is "good", trusted, and demonstatates restraint.

      But, from time to time, "bad" people end up in postions that can exploit the system. Sometimes even "good" government simply enacts "evil" law that is enabled only through a comprehensive citizen tracking and reporting system.

      In "good times" National Id systems are of marginal advantage. Yes, they can help track a child raping pervert across the country. Sounds good eh? Well, such a system could have been used to immediately and forthwith destroy every Jew in Nazi Germany - day 1. So, "Goodness" is relative.

      "They wouldn't do that" is a defense that has NEVER, not ONCE, stood the test of history.

      In the end, National IDs and the tracking systems they represent reduce the citizen to that of an I/O device on some government controlled computer.

    4. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by Xouba · · Score: 1

      >My geopolitical knowledge is weak, but wasn't Spain itself a fascist state under Franco?

      Yes, it was. But I don't know if the national ID thing was previous to that :-m

    5. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by Xouba · · Score: 1

      >And as we all know it completely eradicated terrorism there.

      Uh? What's got a national ID to do with terrorism?

    6. Re:What's up with national ID cards? by IXI · · Score: 1

      > Uh? What's got a national ID to do with terrorism?

      Ask George Warlord Bush

      --
      He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
  193. Re:Yes, there's a Windows-based pacemaker controll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: reimbursement.

  194. Microsoft 'experts' ? by davep_ub · · Score: 1

    Why would the government hire as a top expert someone who was a top executive from a huge company which just lied its ass off in front of the entire world in court?

    Wait! Let me try to guess first!

  195. What is This Guy Smoking? by BlackGriffen · · Score: 2

    What kind of farking idiot would hook his pacemaker up to the internet? It sounds to me like the guy in charge of securing the computing infrastructure of the U.S. knows jack $hit about security. IIRC, the government has always known that the best way to secure a system is to have a "wall of air" (read: don't make it accessible remotely). Even if they do hook these systems up to the internet, as long as they don't run M$ products (Outlook, IE, etc.) on them, and they used a little common effing sense in their security measures, they should be fine.

    It sounds to me like this still M$ crony is trying to use his position to push Palladium.

    BlackGriffen

  196. Re:The Importance of Hardware and Software Diversi by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    Just as long as we don't follow the idea of using the same kernal, C compiler, and toolchain for everything electronic we should be OK.

  197. why having your pacemeaker on internet? by guile*fr · · Score: 1

    whats the point? warn instantly in case of failure?
    those things are already pretty reliable.
    i wouldnt want a e-pacemaker

    1. Re:why having your pacemeaker on internet? by Arislan · · Score: 1

      My step father has a pace maker that via induction pads hooks to a modem. His doctor calls him and says call me at the office. He calls doc gets a phone number and auth code and hooks his modem up.
      It uploads all his blood pressure and ekg data stored in the pacemaker for the last month. The doc can review the data and make any needed adjustments. The pacemaker doesnt have internet capabilities the modem box does. Also the pacemaker can be put into a sleep mode by the patient. Its actually required to be in sleep mode to talk to the modem. Also if the software in the pacemaker gets corrupted or fails theres a imbedded rom that has a default program that will keep any patient safe until the software can be reloaded. I dont know who makes this pacemaker but its pretty cool. My step father has had it about 3 years now and has never had a problem. He is a tech geek too and thinks the device is pretty cool himself. He is also glad he doesnt have to drive to the VA hospital ala 50 mile commute once or twice a month just to have his pacemaker checked and to give his data to the doc.
      YAY technology! Actually being put to good use for once.... =) Keep on tickin....

  198. Propaganda and agenda by Fixer · · Score: 2
    Does it get any more obvious that the people ostensibly hired to protect us are out for nothing more than lining their own pockets? C'mon, this kind of crap is sooo 1996.

    How do you argue with rhetoric? You don't. You laugh at it, you demonstrate it's fallacies, and you look at who appointed this asshole (and people like 'em) to where they are at, for THEY are the ones with something to gain.

    --
    "Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
  199. The Future by undecidable · · Score: 0, Offtopic


    Unless you really love shopping like my girlfriend, wouldn't you rather spend your time and energy doing something else?

    When I think about things like this, I think about how nice it would be to have a servant that knew exactly what I like, shopped around for the best price, stocked my frig, and even prepaired my food for me.

    I cannot afford a servant, but you have to wonder how well technology will some day be able to provide these kind of services at a reasonible price.

    You could imagine a service which analyzes you and your needs, analyzes the contents of your frig, and analyzes the current or forcasted prices of the items it predicts you will need. Such a service could potentially make purchasing decisions better than you can, and all automatically without you ever thinking about it. And you could imagine that these items are then delivered right to your frig all at a low price: much lower than the cost of a servant, and perhaps even lower than if you had shopped for them yourself.

    You could imagine that the service is highly customizable and learns more about you the more you use it. For example, maybe you don't care about different kinds of pasta so much, so it gets a cheaper kind. But it learns that you really care about beer, so it only gets certain kinds. You could even imagine that it uses the information that it knows about you and networks with other services and discovers products that you have a high probability of really liking.

    You could imagine this service using your schedule data to help make decisions. "Hello, I see you are watching the football game this weekend. Will the guys be coming over as well? I have permissions to read their personal food preferences. Would you like me to prepair for a party?"

    I recognize that many people may react to this scenario with dislike, and that such a service would never do as good a job as they could do themselves.

    But don't forget that assembly coders had this same exact attitude about Fortran compilers. Today, I really doubt that many developers could write assembly as well as a good compiler. And even if they could, for most projects, it's a major waste of time and energy.

    Just a thought.

    --
    "The only rights you have are the rights you are willing to fight for."
    1. Re:The Future by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I look on that scenario with distaste (I'm thinking I could grow used to computers monitoring me to a greater extent than the kinds of monitoring we see today like credit card use).

      But I still can't see people accepting the whole package - I guess at the heart of things I'm not sure I would trust a human to do all (or most) of the things you had listed properly, and if a human is not really capable of making me really happy on that score then why would I want any kind of machine intelligence that I'm probably paying by the month for?

      I don't love shopping either, which is why I avoid planning, go about once every 1 and 1/2 months, and eat out a lot. I'll note that some of what you wanted is desireable - like someone cooking meals for you. But that's just the role that packaged meals take, many of them very tasty (though sometimes greasy!).

      And like packaged foods, I think much of the automation you yearn for is provided to you in some form that will expand - you already get services that bring you milk/cheese/bread on a regular schedule. For other items, rather than a house agent program that monitors things and reccomends purchases for you I see the grocery store taking on that role by monitoring what you buy and sending targeted coupons (not too targeted though so as not to freak you out!). Sure it's somewhat less accurate but so close that almost no-one would be willing to pay extra for an agent that requires attention and or fees.

      I think there are probably valid uses for home agents. I'm just not sure this is an area where anything will take root. So far the best uses for home agents I can think of myself are temperature/lights/security/pet care.

      In fact if I wanted to make money the system that would do it for sure is easy to sell wireless cams to place about the house with software that recognized a pet and switched a remote picture frame (probably at work) to have a constant view. Just one of many ideas that is probably as impractical for adoption as anything in the kitchen!

      Regardless of what predictions are right or wrong, it will be interesting to see what realy gets produced for the mass market, and what subset of that catches on.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  200. Bah, humbug! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
    Microsoft's former security chief suddenly realizes what he's done, and claims that the sky is falling.

    All I can say is: "I hope it falls on his head".

    (Oh, that's good to get off of my chest!)

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  201. Bad examples by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Figure out what people would have said about PDA's and cell phones thirty years ago had someone suggested they would exist. "Thats ridiculous..why would anyone EVER want that? I have my phone in the house, and I have my day-timer! Why carry around something that needs batteries?"

    While I'm the first person to acknowledge that marketing pushes a lot of products on people that they don't really want or need, both of your examples here fail.

    Day-timers are great for people that have 50 contacts and 5 items on their todo list. My mom used to carry around one of the 5x8 ones that was quite full. It didn't even fit in her purse, so it was very inconvenient. I kept demonstrating my PDA to her, that it was indeed easier to use than the laptop she used at the office, etc. Finally she lost her day-timer and freaked out. There was no way she was going to recall all the appointments she had made over the coming weeks and months. Luckily, she had only left it at an associate's office who called her the next day. She immediately switched to a PDA and within a month was able to use it far more efficiently than the day-timer. If she loses that, it's all on her laptop at work.

    As for cell phones, I'm quite happy with mine. As long as you don't go nuts and start thinking that just cause it's ringing you have to answer it, you'll be okay. I turn it off when I don't want to be interrupted, and I put it on vibrate when I carry it so no one else is ever bothered by it. Two recent examples of being useful. Saturday we were driving to a friend's party an hour away. The driver had written the directions incorrectly, so I called my friend on the highway to get the right junction. Then Sunday a friend called while I was shopping to see if I wanted to head to another friend's house for the day -- he was just leaving home and could pick me up on the way. That's convenience and new opportunities that I'm glad to have.

    That one idea for a new gadget (internet-enabled pacemakers) sounds like a bad idea doesn't mean they all are. If you could work out the security issues completely, network-enabled traffic signals could be very useful. Imagine an ambulance leaves the station in an emergency. The system operator could have the traffic signals along its path go red in both directions and ring they're own sirens, giving advanced notice to cars and pedestrians to clear the street.

    As for worrying about giving your son a laptop, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I had legos as a kid (no home computers), so I said, "Hang on. I'll put away my toys and be right over." And I don't feel I'm somehow scarred by it. :) Computers are tools, like toys, books, and guns. The key is to educate your children in their proper use before you let them use them. Some tools may have bigger consequences in misuse than others, and that should be discussed as well.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  202. WHO Did He Used To Work For?? by Vortran · · Score: 2

    Let's see... security is a shambles, the world is coming to an end. Every access point is a blazing security hole. Who will protect us? Who will make us safe? How will we get that warm fuzzy feeling back? Why, of course! By using Microsoft products!! (right.)

    You say the power grid is vulnerable? My, my.
    Let me show you something:

    "This is your power plant...
    This is your power plant on Windows."

    Vortran out

    --
    Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
  203. RobPiano Hits Nail on Head. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Part of the reason Y2K happened nearly hitchless was due to the fact that so much hype was involved. By declaring "the sky is falling" they are preventing a problem through means of hype.

    Bull. Hype and the labor of countless millions of IT folks turned into dumpster fillers did not solve y2k for us. It's more like y2k was a fraud. Funny how all my old equipment still works with no effort on my part at all. Systems not designed to be fail safe are flawed.

    Never the less, it's a good thing you brought up y2k as it's the easiest way to fight the FUD:

    Y2K and war are now perpetual. Right!

    You will only suffer continuous computer failure if you use M$.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:RobPiano Hits Nail on Head. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 1

      My mother was worried that her TV and VCR would stop working due to Y2K.

      I tried to explain that it was incredibly unlikely someone added in a way to stop the TV's functionality, should it ever discover it had been transported back to the 1900s.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
  204. Heck yes by nicestepauthor · · Score: 1

    I read a story awhile back where somebody claimed that a malicious programmer shut off the landing lights at an airport using the Internet. Nobody questioned that this had actually happened, or why the hell lights at an airport could be shut off over the Internet at all.

    I can see a possible scenario for the Pacemaker though. You need a Pacemaker and two kinds are available. One is not connected to the Internet but is available only to the very wealthy. The other is connected at all times and can be shut down remotely if you don't keep up with the subscription payments for the software.

    1. Re:Heck yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember reading somewhere that small airstrips have their lights controlled by keying the mic button on a particular CB channel a certain number of times, so if a pilot was landing and the lights weren't on, he could do it himself.

      Granted, using the internet for such purposes seems rediculous, as you generally find only radios in small aircraft, and not internet connections.

  205. All Part of the .PLAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh now I see the real .PLAN
    1) Microsoft develops .NET "secure platform"
    2) ex Microsoft, now federal employee propagates "sky is falling" story to raise security awareness
    3) congress outlaws "unsecure platforms"
    4) Microsoft now gets control over which platforms are used in government and corporations

  206. What a great job he must of done! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    This guy was too lame to be Microsoft's security chief? Woooow!

    I wonder when he left?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  207. D�j� vu... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    Sounds just like the year 2000 hysteria...

  208. again, only with information by OpenMind(tm) · · Score: 2

    That article was a little bit too much opinion, not enough information. This one's a little better:


    President's Advisor Predicts Cyber-Catastrophes Unless Security Improves

    Just to ease the suspense, he still comes across as a bit of a loony, but at least there is enough meat in the article to properly discuss.

  209. Pacemakers on the Net? by cranos · · Score: 1

    Brings new meaning to BSOD

  210. another Y2K scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The power grid could fail catastrophically by 2005!" How do you argue with this kind of rhetoric, especially when it's being spread directly by government officials to corporate leaders?"

    They are gov and corp leaders - so there's little hope... but I'd start by reminding them what a big NON-event Y2K was.

  211. Make lemonade by deblau · · Score: 2
    When the world hands you lemons, make lemonade.

    Premises:

    1. The general public are not idiots, just normal people, and normal people don't understand technology.
    2. Normally, people are afraid of things they don't understand, and are willing to believe just about anything to assuage that fear.
    3. Normal people are willing to trust authority figures, even if you aren't.
    Conclusion:
    • You stand a great chance of spreading anti-BS FUD by proclaiming yourself the Grand Poobah of Internet Security, and ranting to anyone who will listen about how the evil hackers are already working for / in cahoots with the government to destroy your lives and steal your Wonder Bread.
    I betcha most of the people reading /. could make a pretty believable case based on this argument (and probably have a good time, too).
    --
    This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
  212. It's disturbing. If we don't learn from history... by Exoman · · Score: 1

    we're doomed to repeat it.

    I saw a documentary recently which detailed just such an occurrence.

    It seems that this dufus-looking Earth-Guy with a deep voice (Commander Goldblum) uploaded just such a virus from some primitive GUI-based system into one of our motherships, causing it to broadcast said virus to the other ships in our attack party. In short order, the whole attack party went down in a ball of flames, setting the whole conquering of Earth back many periflecs (several Earth-months)!!!
    It was worse than the time the ensigns scrubbed down all the base toilets with disintatrives, causing the whole plumbing system to dissolve at once! (But I digress.)

    Having an insecure root mac-emulator running over wifi wasn't a great idea, in retrospect, but who would've guessed at the time?

    Don't take such threats lightly. Even horribly primitive societies can take you down hard when you don't do the basics. 'Nuff said.

  213. A virus or worm cutting off power? Yeah, right! by Eminor · · Score: 1

    I work for a large power company up here in Canada (we probably generate power for a few of you Americans Hehe). There are no networked computers controlling transmission and distribution. There is no way that a virus or a worm is going to cut off power to consumers. At least that's the way it works up here. I imagine it would be a similar situation down in the states.

  214. The Sky is Falling by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    Hey, if anyone would know that the skying is falling from the internet it certainly would be the Ex-Head of MS Security right?

  215. The Sky is Falling by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    See Howard Schmidt warned us this would happen, now WebTV, a microsoft product, is dialing 911.

    Prophet, Dumb Luck, or experienced with MS products we will never know!
  216. Yes, Look out the Window(s) by mtec · · Score: 1

    The sky is falling!

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  217. Consequences by crucini · · Score: 2

    I'm not disagreeing with your larger point, but I notice a certain tendency among geeks to possibly misunderstand business events. Bankruptcy is not necessarily bad news for the executives and officers of a company. In fact, they may have planned the bankruptcy as a chance to sell off some assets cheap to friends or to other companies they control. I'm pretty sure that whoever actually cooked the books at Worldcom benefited substantially from the fraud and doesn't care at all if the company is bankrupt.
    Likewise, separation from a company is not necessarily bad news for executives/officers/partners. There are frequently huge golden parachute payments. You point to the "death" of Arthur Andersen as if it's some cautionary tale to accountants - I doubt it. I think the partners made lots of money by selling diluted auditing, and always knew it couldn't last. They will move on to new accounting firms and continue their careers. Trying to translate misconduct into dollar terms doesn't work too well because the dollars belong to "the corporation" and the people making the decisions have no problem with "the corporation" losing money if they make money.

  218. Digital Fridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My damn digital fridge keeps ordering Pizza Delivery cause it knows I can't cook.

    Then it gets all huffy when I don't clean out last years lettuce and DOS's my cellphone when I'm trying to read my mileage stats from my shoes.

    I should never have upgraded the AI software to "Peevish Wife" version 3.01

  219. ok then, FUDmeister by binford2k · · Score: 1

    all right, when I got to this sentence I pretty much knew what the story would be:

    Cats and dogs fornicate in the street as the sky turns black as sackcloth.

  220. "We Didn't Expect People to do Bad Things" by AShocka · · Score: 1

    This is the man who, when head of security for MS, gave us the above quote in August 2001 when viruses such as Melissa virus were targeting MS products. If your chief security officer makes such a statement, doesn't it set you wondering about their credibility working in the field of security at all, and the attitude of the company or government that employes them?

  221. Whaddaya mean, reality? by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    it completely eradicated terrorism there

    And what does reality have to do with this? (-:

    For an example from science, it's been obvious for the better part of a century that the universe is galactocentric - and becoming more obvious with each new, more precise set of measurements - but despite being obvious and a clear winner in `trial by Occam's Razor', that's the one proposal you won't see proposed in Nature or Science as an explanation for the data since it is the one proposal which most offends the religious convictions of many of the scientific Powers That be (and to be specific: including but not limited to the editors of Nature and Science).

    If evidence in such a clear, unambiguous realm can be blind-eyed so completely, what hope has evidence from fuzzier fields like politics and psychology?

    Time to memorise a 2048-bit key so that you can encrypt your hard drive.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  222. Put simply by leonbrooks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is this:

    Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

    -- Daniel Webster

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  223. Asteroid Collision by 2019, who cares ! were dead by geekster_2000 · · Score: 0

    according to BBC report tonight !!!

    another potential saving grace.

    Flying Saucer Engine headed for Mars ! and beyond
    The inventor of the Flying Saucer propellantless propulsion is asking people not to be afraid if they happen to see his Flying Saucer going across the skies in the next years.

    He say his IFO " Identified Friendly Object" should not be the target of the military or others.

    inventor of 3D Volume Holographic Storage.

    http://colossalstorage.net

    wouldn't it be funny if he did have the
    technology to save the earth and nobody came ??

  224. We don't need no stinkin' Backups! by billstewart · · Score: 2
    Backups? Sure, you'd know not to do future business with people who don't keep backups, but in far too many cases, that'd be because they'd be Dead, Out Of Business, Pining for the Fjords, and Ex-Customers. Far too many companies have far too many systems that aren't adequately backed up, and while I'd like to see them all Get The Clue, I'm really opposed to any policy of crashing cars into motorcycle riders as a method of educating them about helmets and safety, and this is pretty much the same thing. There are a lot of companies that have auditors or business requirements that force them to back up everything that needs backing up, and many other companies practice due diligence about things like backups, offsite backups, secondary data centers that are geographically separated so one earthquake or flood doesn't wipe them both out, using at least some internet providers who aren't in Chapter 11, use UPSs for their DHCP and DNS servers, not keeping their Accounts Receivable databases on their external web servers, etc. But there are a lot of companies that do some things right, create real value for their customers, and generally deserve to be in business who aren't doing everything right yet, and I'm glad lots of them didn't get shot in the head by the last few gifts from Microsoft.

    By the way, Apache's had serious security flaws, and so has Sendmail, there are probably at least three other seriously dangerous bugs in widely-deployed Linux applications that could be exploited if the Bad Guys find them first. Any decent Warhol Worm will make sure it's got a good Apache bug to exploit as well as the easier Microsoft targets.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  225. Wait, I thought... by mbogosian · · Score: 1

    ...online pacemakers and viral ubiquity was the whole strategy behind Hailstorm. Since MS abaondoned it, we should be safe, right?

  226. Of course he's FearMongering by billstewart · · Score: 2
    He *does* work for the FearMonger's Shop, er, Feds' Critical Infrastructure Protection Board after all. But the main article, while a fun rant, didn't really say very much, it just ranted about Schmidt fearmongering.

    Some of the studies of fast-spreading worms demonstrate that, if there are simultaneous exploitable bugs in widespread versions of Apache and Microsoft webservers, a Bad Guy could take over and 0wn most of them faster than a credible response could be deployed, and if the Bad Guy wanted to be destructive, lots of those servers could be wiped (your basic Warhol Worm followed by a "Thhhattt's Alll, FFfffolkssss!!!"). Sites that aren't running decently secure environments (serious backups, separation between webservers and critical databases, good firewalls, etc.) would be toast. More fun if you can combine it with an attack on Microsoft Outlook Mail as well. There's far more potential for destruction if the attacker also targets important applications, but at some point it's a tradeoff between successful faster destruction and deeper destruction.

    Of course, just because there are things that are worth being afraid of, that doesn't mean that we should immediately let the Feds tell us what to do and start trusting them to take care of us, or even give them whopping big budgets and unlimited powers to "inspect" our computer systems, which are some of the major purposes of government Fearmongering.

    By the way, while it is owned by Fearmongers, the NIPC.GOV website really does have some good tools and material there - I found it very helpful when dealing with a Staecheldracht DDOS cracker on my lab machines last year.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  227. Ahem. by Sj0 · · Score: 2

    Do you know what I'd do to an engineer who presented the plans for a pacepaker which is controlled over the internet?

    I'd fire the bitch, then I'd inject some air into his veins to see how *he* likes heart attacks.

    Maybe that's why I'm not in management?

    --
    It's been a long time.
  228. Not surprised... by wallsaroundme · · Score: 1

    I can only expect this type of behavior of MS before Palladium.Create an insecure internet hysteria, offer a solution (Palladium), and avoid mainstream controversy over what MS will really be doing.

  229. which future is he talking about? by hany · · Score: 1
    Is he talking about "The Future" which can be described as "Bill Gates' vision 'MS Windows running in everything' comming true"?

    If so, then governments (and everyone) worldwide should take him seriously and avoid Microsoft products at all cost!

    After all, that guy worked for Microsoft at high security related position so he should know!

    --
    hany
  230. your sig by AoT · · Score: 1

    'How to make a sig in 1 second '
    how long did it REALLY take you?
    quit all this fibbing

  231. Hyperbole not rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    It's hyperbole or plain ol' scare-
    mongering, not 'rhetoric'.

  232. Counter info by peterp0 · · Score: 1

    I don't mean to sound glib, but the best retort for Howie is to kindly answer him(perhaps give a nodd of, "Oh, o.k. Howie, now put your helmet on and go collect some soda cans") by putting out as much real info to the counter as possible. Some white papers distributed to appropriate politicals would be a start. The fact is, this guy is so ignorant in his statements that it is hard to believe he was the head of anything that had to do with technology. Of course, perhaps his predictions would be true if the entire world ran on micros*ft, but that is a different story all together. The scary part is that there may be people in power who are actually listening to this guy. If that is the case then we are all doomed.

  233. Talk about the hype by nanojath · · Score: 2
    Brokerage house trading records will be scrambled, corporate networks rendered molten, CEOs humiliated.

    Yeah, like CEOs need hackers to humilate them these days...

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries