Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Worms Crash Ohio Nuke Plant, MD Trains

stieglmant writes "For everyone who thought the 'blackout of 2003' was bad, how about this, according to an article at SecurityFocus, and another article at The Register, 'The Slammer worm penetrated a private computer network at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January and disabled a safety monitoring system for nearly five hours.'" Russell writes "Maryland MARC Train Service was shut down most of Wednesday morning due to what sounds like the MS-Blast worm or one of its variants. The local Baltimore news reports that the cause was a signal malfunction but CSX, whose communications system runs the tracks, has an article describing the shutdown as a result of 'a worm virus similar to those that have infected the systems of other major companies and agencies in recent days'. This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked. Wow, taken to the extreme, the exploitation of their systems could have caused a train collision and injury or death to hundreds of Maryland and Virginia commuters."

170 of 817 comments (clear)

  1. The network administrators... by aridhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...should be fired. Why was the safety monitoring system on a nuclear power plant exposed, even indirectly, to the internet?

    --
    I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    1. Re:The network administrators... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Better yet, why is it running Windows?

    2. Re:The network administrators... by chef_raekwon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      true, any admin that doesn't know about packet filter firewalls should be fired...
      --- but imagine when they catch the clown who spread/made the virus...he/she might be locked up for a while...

      --
      We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
    3. Re:The network administrators... by warpSpeed · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...should be fired.

      The MARC network admin should be tied to the tracks a la dudly doright (sp?). Hope that signal to switch the tracks gets though...damn... That'll learn ya for hooking an operational network to the 'net'.

      Same with the power plant. Your office is now located in side the containment building. Do you think they would pay more attention to the network security?

    4. Re:The network administrators... by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      true, any admin that doesn't know about packet filter firewalls should be fired...

      Sometimes that's not enough. At my university, the departmental firewall did just fine in blocking the virus, until somebody got their Windows laptop infected at home and brought it to work, behind the firewall. Once again proving that great network security can be easily defeated by poor physical security.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    5. Re:The network administrators... by TopShelf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fired??? Nah, just put him in charge of hand-polishing the fuel rods or something...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:The network administrators... by eyeball · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why was the safety monitoring system on a nuclear power plant exposed, even indirectly, to the internet?

      It doesn't even necessarily take an indirect connection to the internet. If a virus is on a laptop that was connected to a public (or any infected network) like at home, then connected to a completely autonomous network, it can then infect that network.

      --

      _______
      2B1ASK1
    7. Re:The network administrators... by Proaxiom · · Score: 4, Informative
      It sounds like the firewall wasn't the problem. More like it came in over a VPN from a contractor's unsecured network.

      Blaster got past a lot of firewalls that way.

    8. Re:The network administrators... by Jaguar777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't have to be exposed to the internet. All it takes is one employee with a laptop that is used at work and at home.

      --
      Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
    9. Re:The network administrators... by aridhol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That brings up a good question. Doesn't software need to be certified before it can be used in nuclear applications? In fact, isn't one of the (many) disclaimers on most software (including Windows) "don't use this in a nuclear facility"?

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    10. Re:The network administrators... by epiphani · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was under the impression that Microsoft didnt encourage the use of its products in applications such as these. We are talking about systems that cannot fail - if they do, people could die.

      I thought Microsoft had the sense to accually say 'this is not what our product is for - get something custom'. If I worked at Microsoft, the last place I'd want our 'it-does-everything' operationg system doing would be managing the safety systems at a nuclear plant.

      Does anyone know if Microsoft accually encourages this type of a deployment - if they dont, what moron decided to use it?

      --
      .
    11. Re:The network administrators... by aridhol · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Then why was the safety monitoring system exposed to the office network? In this case, the worm came in on a non-firewalled T-1 line from a contractor's network, and through there to the internet.

      I would have suspected that there would be multiple layers of protection in front of critical systems like that. Even more, I would expect that safety regulations require these layers of protection. Of course, that would hurt the bottom line, so we can't have that happening :(

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
    12. Re:The network administrators... by rnd() · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are absolutely right. It's a symptom of a heavily regulated industry (electricity, railroads) that they end up with a dumbass sysadmin.

      Full and total deregulation would have likely prevented this from happening.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    13. Re:The network administrators... by Trigun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget, had the administrator followed proper MS testing to see if his machines were patched, they still may or may not have been.
      There's plenty of blame to go around here boys. Make sure everyone gets some.

    14. Re:The network administrators... by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I would expect that the problem is not with the network administrators. The problem probably lies with the CIO, who has no idea about computers or firewalls. Trying to save money is what will really screw you.

      Network Administrator: We should get an outsourced firewall and a managed virus system. It will cost 45000 a year, but it will be worth it. We also need to start putting on patches on the servers.

      CIO: Too much money. Just buy something from Best Buy. As for the servers, we cannot pay you overtime to put patches on them. Besides, Microsoft is a big company. There shouldn't be any real problems.

      Network Administrator: But sir....

      CIO: Just do it. I've got an MBA. I know what I'm talking about. If there is a problem, we'll just blame you.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    15. Re:The network administrators... by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your question is answered in the following paragraph from the article,

      "[T]he distinct trend within the industry is to link the systems to access control center data necessary for business purposes," reads the report. "One utility interviewed considered the business value of access to the data within the control center worth the risk of open connections between the control center and the corporate network."

      IOW, they do it to save money. Time to be scared.

    16. Re:The network administrators... by Kombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      put it on a good old proven UNIX, solaris or something else that is used in the mission critical world.

      Yeah, 'cause Linux could never be compromised in such a way.

      If the network admins at gnu.org and this power plant had kept up to date with patches, then neither breach would have happened. EVERY OS has its vulnerabilities, and your network security is only as good as your Network Security Administrator. To blame the OS and prescribe a different one is an ignorant and short-sighted red-herring. The real problem is the attitude and the practices of the people in charge of the network.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    17. Re:The network administrators... by AgTiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why was it running Windows? Because a lot of SCADA software like what's available from GE Fanuc, Citect, and Tascomp, (just to name a few) are designed for Windows.

      The business needs of a company drive the decisions of what to purchase and implement, and many things are taken into account and weighed against each other.

      Security isn't the only concern, because even it is weighed against liklihood of risks happening, and Risk Management isn't perfect. Thankfully, given these incidents, the risk factors just got increased and lit up with a VERY bright spotlight.

      Network Administrators are given the responsibility to keep a variety of equipment, operating systems, and applications running and talking to each other appropriately, without necessarily being given all the authority they need to keep stuff like this from happening. Frankly, I pity them. Everyone remembers the bad incidents without realizing how much good they do, silently and behind the scenes.

    18. Re:The network administrators... by Mjlner · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sometimes that's not enough. At my university, the departmental firewall did just fine in blocking the virus, until somebody got their Windows laptop infected at home and brought it to work, behind the firewall. Once again proving that great network security can be easily defeated by poor physical security.

      Same thing happened at my university, but where talking about a nuclear power plant and the OP did say "exposed, even indirectly, to the internet". We're definitely talking about indirect exposure here! Why are there dirty laptops on the same LAN as the safety monitoring system.

      --
      Lemon curry???
    19. Re:The network administrators... by dark_panda · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somebody has already mentioned QNX, but here's a quote from their 'licensing agreement:

      B3.2. High Risk. Unless QSS has provided its express written consent for each Runtime Component in the Runtime Configuration, the Software may not be, and OEM will ensure that it is not, used in any application in which the failure of the Software could lead to death, personal injury or severe physical or property damage (collectively, ?High-Risk Applications?), including but not limited to the operation of nuclear facilities, mass transit systems, aircraft navigation or aircraft communication systems, air traffic control, weapon systems and direct life support machines. QSS expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty or condition of fitness for High-Risk Applications.

      So if you fork out the cash, you can get a license that says, "yes, you can use this software to run a nuclear power plant."

      A bold statement, but apparently it's well founded. I've heard nothing but good things about the reliability of QNX.

      J

    20. Re:The network administrators... by farnerup · · Score: 3, Informative

      I once did a laboration on an research reactor that was controlled by a computer running Windows. I think it was NT 3.5. Hopefully it isn't connected to the internet.

    21. Re:The network administrators... by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most importantly, why wasnt anything updated? Yet another example of a patch being out, and foolish/lazy sysadmins not updating their systems. It doesnt matter what OS is being used, there is no excuse for not updating your systems (especially on critical systems such as these). Upto date (i update daily) Virus scan and automatic updates kept my system clean, while everyone else i knew started falling prey.

    22. Re:The network administrators... by molo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, they do. Do a google search on "navy yorktown microsoft".

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    23. Re:The network administrators... by Epistax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you suggesting people are allowed to connect home computers to networks which run nuclear safety systems? Or are you saying they should be able to?

      I phrase my message this way because what you describe should not exist.

    24. Re:The network administrators... by borgboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naaah. You are thinking of the warning that comes with Java(tm)

      --
      meh.
    25. Re:The network administrators... by talon77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I didn't actually see anything in those articles that said it was MS systems that were running the safety at the nuclear plant. All I could see is that the bandwidth had dropped due to the slammer worm and that a display monitor was disabled due to multiple scan attempts. This tells me that there were MS systems that were affected on their network segment, but it never says that the safety systems themselves were MS systems.

    26. Re:The network administrators... by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think in the case of a nuclear reactor multiple firewalls would be recommended. One to protect the organization from the Internet, and at least another one to protect all safety/mission critical servers from internal infection. Behind that firewall NOTHING should be connected, certainly not laptops that leave the building.

    27. Re:The network administrators... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Funny


      Sometimes that's not enough. At my university, the departmental firewall did just fine in blocking the virus, until somebody got their Windows laptop infected at home and brought it to work, behind the firewall. Once again proving that great network security can be easily defeated by poor physical security.

      Hard on the outside, soft & crunchy in the middle? The safety monitoring computer for a power system should be accessible only by floppy disk through a terminal in a locked room with pressure sensitive floors, a sound monitor, body heat detectors *AND* laser trip wires on all the ventilation grates. (The floppy disk should be run through a demagnitizer before and after each use.)

      -a

    28. Re:The network administrators... by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I for one DON'T want them to install patches as they are released at a nuclear power plant. I'd like them to install patches on test machines, to be sure the 'fix' doesn't break something else. Installing patches without testing them first is just as senseless (if not more so) then not patching..

    29. Re:The network administrators... by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It doesnt matter what OS is being used, there is no excuse for not updating your systems...

      Well, yeah there is, although it's a little lame. If this is a "critical" system that has to be running all the time, they are probably loathe to update it until a scheduled maintenance downtime. They can't have automatic updates running on a critical system like this, as an update itself might crash the system.

      Why is this argument lame? Well, they should have (maybe they do) a backup system. They should have been able to switch to backup long enough to perform the upgrade and test it.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    30. Re:The network administrators... by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      WHY AREN'T THEY FIRED?

      Because "no-one ever got fired for going with Microsoft." Hehehehe.

    31. Re:The network administrators... by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IIRC the same basic statement is also in the Solairs liscense, or maybe it was IRIX. Maybe both? Not sure.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    32. Re:The network administrators... by jridley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Doesn't encourage" is a happy dream of MS's.
      They think they want 100% market penetration, but they also think they can get away without taking on the responsibility which that implies.

      They're "encouraging" everyone to use MS products excusively, everywhere. When it gets to the point where everything is Microsoft and nobody knows anything else (which is what Microsoft is shooting for) how are they going to deny responsibility for stuff like this?

      This might be compared to a concrete manufacturer coercing the market, becoming the sole supplier of concrete, but all along saying something like "you shouldn't use our product for pre-stressed bridge segments." Once they became the sole supplier for concrete, what the hell else are people who want to build bridges supposed to do?

      Can a supplier reasonably be excused for making crappy product which kills someone because they said to use some other product, even though they themselves were the ones who drove all the other products out of the marketplace?

    33. Re:The network administrators... by lambadomy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ridiculous. Those important systems shouldn't even be on the same network as the office, much less attached to a network that can see the internet. I'm not talking firewalls/seperate vlans/whatever either, I mean physically no kind of connection at all. If they have to be accessible from a vpn, you better have a damned good idea of who will be doing that accessing.

      When it comes to your average office network, sure, you can give the "oh they brought in an infected laptop" excuse, but this is quite a bit different.

    34. Re:The network administrators... by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      firewall did just fine in blocking the virus, until somebody got their Windows laptop infected at home and brought it to work, behind the firewall.

      I think this is the repeated Story of My Life in corporate IT the past couple of weeks.

      The variant in our case was that the laptop dialed||VPN'd in.

      There's going to be some serious rethinking about security policies because of this.

      [Yes, the patches for the vulnerability were out there several weeks before the exploit, but no one trusts MS patches to not break something else, not unless they've been thoroughly tested in the local corporate setup, hence the delay in proper patching, hence the epidemic.]

      Gotta re-evaluate several issues:

      • Can't trust users to be sanitary.
      • Can we afford dual laptops, one with sanitary protection?
      • Can trust exploits will keep coming.
      • Can trust MS to release patches, but of variable quality on variable schedule.
      • Can trust local testing and deployment will cost us bucks.
      Make a note to bring this list to the table next round of MS License negotiation, to the next budget request for IT, and to create heavy cluestick with which to whack users.
      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    35. Re:The network administrators... by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree the admin has some serious explaining to do. But have you ever worked as an administrator?

      The "typical" administration job is exactly what you'd expect -- you're understaffed, underpaid, your budget is abysmal, and you have a gaggle of retarded secretaries calling you up asking the *same questions* constantly because they're too lazy to use the help system!

      Most of your day is spent putting out fires. Fixing critical systems before all hell breaks loose, keeping your web/nfs/mail/compute servers running when they have a load average of *5*, fixing viruses, fixing shitty HP machines because your boss wouldn't listen to you and buy a cheaper machine made of quality parts.

      Luxuries like patching systems, and preemptive security measures are things there aren't time for.

      So my question would be ... is their IT department critically underfunded and that CAUSED the problem, or was someone just lazy?

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    36. Re:The network administrators... by Spunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      People get paid to polish rods? Don't I feel like a sucker for doing it for free.

    37. Re:The network administrators... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all microsoft is losing market share, not gaining. It will never get to the point where there is nothing else... although it may get to the point where there is no microsoft.

      And microsoft makes it clear in their EULA that they don't consider their software fit for any purpose (yes they actually say they don't guarantee it's suitable for ANY purpose).

    38. Re:The network administrators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I was under the impression that Microsoft didnt encourage the use of its products in applications such as these."

      I can't believe everyone is forgetting the next *nuclear* aircraft carrier, CVN-77, "will use Microsoft Windows 2000 to run its communications systems, aircraft and weapons launchers, and other ship electronics. "

      http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2000/0807/news-n av y-08-07-00.asp
      http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no27/dod/ 2868-1.html

    39. Re:The network administrators... by Suidae · · Score: 4, Funny

      Filling the room with concrete after unplugging the machine adds another reasonably secure layer.

    40. Re:The network administrators... by pmz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This tells me that there were MS systems that were affected on their network segment, but it never says that the safety systems themselves were MS systems.

      The systems shouldn't even have been allowed to mix even on a shared Ethernet. Microsoft belongs nowhere inside the perimeter of a nuclear facility. Period.

    41. Re:The network administrators... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 4, Funny
      Hard on the outside, soft & crunchy in the middle? The safety monitoring computer for a power system should be accessible only by floppy disk through a terminal in a locked room with pressure sensitive floors, a sound monitor, body heat detectors *AND* laser trip wires on all the ventilation grates. (The floppy disk should be run through a demagnitizer before and after each use.)

      I saw a documentary on that once. Apparently that's EXACTLY how the CIA headquarters mainframe at Langley is setup! OH wait, no, that was Mission Impossible. Forget it.

    42. Re:The network administrators... by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can we afford dual laptops, one with sanitary protection?

      For when the laptop has that not so fresh feeling?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    43. Re:The network administrators... by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because a fault-tolerant, real-time system is EXPENSIVE. Plus, they wanted clippy.
      "It looks like you are trying to prevent a meltdown!"

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    44. Re:The network administrators... by CaffeineFreak · · Score: 5, Informative

      At Dungeness B nuclear power station in the UK they still run the reactor control systems with BBC B computers. The reason is that the operating system and control code is so small (ca. 32KB) that the engineers have gone through it by hand and manually checked every possible scenario.

      A complete flow chart exists that details all errors that can occur in the code and what the solutions are. Try doing that with Microsoft Windows or Linux. Sometimes the simple solutions are the best.

    45. Re:The network administrators... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      How else are you suposed to use the monitoring server as a Quake lan party host?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    46. Re:The network administrators... by bdh · · Score: 5, Informative
      "Doesn't encourage" is a happy dream of MS's.

      I've worked with VITAL control systems - train brake systems, landing gear, flight recorders, etc., and those systems are in a completely different space than PCs (or Suns, or IBM, etc). You're more likely to find Vertix Ada than you are MS C++ or any Java implementation. The likes of Sun, IBM, and Microsoft never even bid on the control systems I worked on.

      Having said that, while the PC commercial vendor types like MS and Sun stay a far distance from control side (and rightly so), they definately bid on the monitor boxes. That SCADA may well be running a custom RTK, but the console that the operator back at base has in front of him could well be an XP system.

      I've never used MS-based front ends myself, but I've written interfaces to OS/2-based consoles that talked to my onboard stuff, and I can't see any reason why a Win2K or XP front end would be any more or less contentious than an OS/2 one.

      The problem is not the SCADA or braking system itself; it's the remote monitoring station. Often, those things are connected to the net to synch the atomic clocks, and sometimes for remote logging purposes. If *those* get compromised, the control systems may be affected, but they are not compromised. Which is to say, it's a major fscking PITA, but the brake system will still work on the train without remote intervention or monitoring; it's just not going to start again after it stops.

    47. Re:The network administrators... by Cyno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No firewall will save you from a manager with a laptop.

    48. Re:The network administrators... by zumajim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've often wondered why ANY military branch would continue to have a presence on the internet, with the exception of recruitment sites. Back in the days before public/commercial internet access, I was a network contractor for the Navy, working at Point Mugu naval air station. The installation of a "command LAN" was a top priority, but the mere mention of a link to the internet was greeted with open hostility. (Wasn't my suggestion, either, thank God.) Made 100% sense to me then, even more so now.

    49. Re:The network administrators... by rute20740 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The network administrators should still be fired. Why is a safety monitoring system sitting on any network where there are unknown machines. Internal networks should be segmented, where servers/sensitive data systems are kept on a separate network with an agressive policy in between. Anyone who is in charge of any network should know this.

    50. Re:The network administrators... by Abm0raz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They aren't running windows on the actual fail-safe machines. We have a reactor here on campus cause we're one of the few universities to teach Nuclear Engineering. I was an Industrial Engineer and we had to tour the plant and comment on the safety systems and re-design parts of it to make it more human friendly, especially in an emergancy situation.
      One of the things we learned is that the computer that actually controls the rods is run on DOS. They are required by the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Committee) to run a very specific program to manipulate and monitor the rods that is only to be run on Dos. The program is internet capable and supports dumb terminals. This is how they instructed us before we went into the control room (in a classroom elsewhere in the building).
      On some other notes, if the machines fail, the control rods fall automatically. They are held up buy the computer (well, by motors and/or electromagnets controlled by the computer). If they stop receiving signal form the computer, gravity naturally pulls the rods back down. They also have 2 additional COMPLETE systems ready to be plugged in at any moment if the primary system crashes. At this reactor, you can actually watch the reaction in the pool from above (contrary to the movies, the glow is an eerie blue, not yellow or green).

      -Ab

      --
      Nothing fails quite like prayer.
    51. Re:The network administrators... by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe the article stated that at least one of the systems was NOT directly connected to the internet.

      Most likely this scenario was the same as the one at TI here in Dallas a few weeks ago. Some nimrod from marketing or somewhere in the company brought their laptop home, got it infected, and brought it back to infect the network. Fact is, admins can't control absolutely everything in their networks.

      It's surprising to me that during this latest ballooning Microsoft crisis, Linux and Macintosh aren't getting more press. They can always step up and say "Ha Ha, this isn't happening to us."

    52. Re:The network administrators... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yes they actually say they don't guarantee it's suitable for ANY purpose

      And similar language exists in the GPL, and in fact, in pretty much every software licence I've ever read.

      It's very common practice. So what's your point?

    53. Re:The network administrators... by mystran · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is exactly why I believe that the typical scenario (internet <-> firewall <-> intranet) is pretty much useless for protecting against worms and such.

      Much better idea would be to connect everything to firewall directly, basicly replacing switches with something that can do packet filtering.

      Unfortunately, this.. well.. costs money.

      Another possibility is what MS considers doing, that is, running at least some kind of private, software based firewall on every workstation and server by default, unless there's a better firewall that the server is directly connected to.

      Instead of thinking "connection to Internet should go through a firewall" people to should think "connection to a network should go through a firewall".

      Some kind of central management for all these workstation-firewalls would be preferrable though.

      --
      Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
    54. Re:The network administrators... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The display system in question is one that takes a bunch of data from systems throughout the plant and displays them in a single loctaion. Its purpose is to provide the information needed by the operators in a single location, making it easier to assess palnt conditions. It is not the only way to get the data, nor is it a control system. Eevn with it out, the operators have enough information to safely run the plant (in fact, they've done that for years before the SPDS was developed - much of a nuclear plant control room is based on 60's tech and hardwired displays); and critical shutdown systems have redundant displays in case one of them fails. In a complex process plant such as a nuke, there are really only a dozen or so readings you need to safely shut it down - a boiling water reactor's operational state can be deduced with with just 3 - power, pressure, and level.

      What is the lessen - no matter how secure you think a computer system is, someone may just find a back door. And if your the person who can't understand why those damn fools that run you rnetwork won't let you plug your machine in, it may be because they can't be sure they just haven't put a big door in a previously secure wall.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    55. Re:The network administrators... by dachshund · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but the brake system will still work

      Unless, I assume, there's a problem with the braking system and nobody knows about it because the monitoring boxes are down. Isn't that precisely why the monitoring boxes exist in the first place?

  2. Taken to the extreme! by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 3, Funny

    This post could trigger a train of events, leading to NUCULEAR(sic) WAR, and the EXTERMINATION OF THE HUMAN RACE.

    Then again, it probably won't.

    --
    I live in a giant bucket.
  3. Wow. by AbbyNormal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Somebody needs to make a "Clean up virus" that turns the power back on and makes the trains go.

    This could be big.

    --
    Sig it.
  4. Thank God by WTFmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    they discovered that 30 square inch hole and the plant was shut down anyways...

  5. What kind of engineer?? by OffTheLip · · Score: 4, Funny

    CSX decided that train engineers and systems engineers are the same thing. Look how much money they saved...

    1. Re:What kind of engineer?? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well...

      class TrainEngineer extends Engineer{

      ...

      class SystemsEngineer extends Engineer implements Geek{


      Sorry about the Java ;)
  6. Software Disclaimer by jocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the fault here is with the moron that managed and accepted the software in the first place. One of the first disclaimers all software companies make is that they do not gauruntee that they are suitable for life threatening situations. Who accepted this software? Who speced it? Who supervised their work and ensured that they were competent people to manage this type of work?

    1. Re:Software Disclaimer by david614 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with this. Given the EULA claim that software is *not* certified for use in applications such as life-threatening situations, why did due-diligence not prevent this application from being approved. I also think, however, that this is not a network administrator problem. It is a legal counsel problem, and a CEO problem. How, after all, did a nuclear powerplant escape segregating its key security functions from a publically connected network. Have they never heard of air-gaps?! These are the same people who never want regulations telling them what to do. No, voluntarism is always to be preferred. How about penalties for dumb mistakes like this one. Fines and public ridicule have a wonderful way of concentrating stubborn minds. D

      --
      ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
    2. Re:Software Disclaimer by shotfeel · · Score: 4, Informative

      IIRC it specifically states in the MS EULA that the software is not to be used for running nuclear power plants among other things (life support systems, aviation systems...).

    3. Re:Software Disclaimer by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe that snippet is from the Java license which is tacked on to the end of the Microsoft license. It may not be there anymore; I haven't read the MS EULA in a while. It says don't use Java for mission-critical apps such as life support equipment in hospitals, nuclear power plants, air traffic control, and so on.

      Interstingly enough, back in the day I was running trouble tickets at mitre.org. One of their projects is a thing called CAASD, which will network together air traffic control systems from around the globe. One memorable call was to help some uber-geek who was too much of a coder to figure out how to use Eudora on his Mac... anyway, he was busily typing away, coding some part of this CAASD project...in Java.

  7. The Horror by ccZaphod · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is horrifying that critical systems such as Nuclear (or Nucular as W. says) power plant safety systems have been compromized by rampant known issues with Microsoft Security I believe that it is worse that such critical systems are not better administered. Heads should roll in the IT department. This is also an indicator of how this Nuclear power plant has treated Homeland Security in general. Having such systems exposed to the internet is just plain negligent.

  8. Blackout not that bad. by niko9 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pfft!

    Call me when that train is on a direct head on course with said power plant!

    Now that is bad! ;)

  9. It's only a matter of time... by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...before someone really is killed due to M$'s negligence. Sure, one could argue that they should have applied patches and that it isn't M$'s fault but tell that to the jury. When surviving relatives see the potential for a profitable liability suit they are going to go after the biggest pockets and that is M$.

    1. Re:It's only a matter of time... by Superfarstucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who's negligence is it really??? Microsoft's, or the person who used WINDOWS for something that would affect whether or not they breathe tomorrow morning? Only on slashdot do posts like this get modded up... Pure flamebait

    2. Re:It's only a matter of time... by CommandNotFound · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, one could argue that they should have applied patches and that it isn't M$'s fault but tell that to the jury. When surviving relatives see the potential for a profitable liability suit they are going to go after the biggest pockets and that is M$.

      Yes, and then software liability will be mandated by legislation and then everyone in the software industry will be trouble. Be careful what you wish for. If MS goes down for something like this, the whole software industry is in trouble. We don't make as much as doctors in this business, so we can't afford the malpractice/liability insurance.

      Again, the question should be asked why were mission-critical systems connected directly to any network, other than connections to other mission-critical boxes?

  10. What I don't get by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is why anybody still thinks that Windows is suitable for a production control environment. I can understand the pretty gui for someone's desktop, but (and I'm serious when I ask this) what kind of utter cretin would think to put Windows, or any Microsoft product, in a fucking nuclear power plant, completely un-fucking-protected from this sort of stuff?

    It doesn't make sense. Use a Unix/Linux machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd running, maybe), and keep the thing patched.

    Why is this rocket science? Why do people who are building nuke plants and rail lines not know any better?

    Sorry for going off on a rant, but damn it, somebody needs to say it.

    1. Re:What I don't get by GoofyBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Use a Unix/Linux machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd running, maybe), and keep the thing patched.

      How is this any different from;

      Use a Windows 2000 machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd or something similar running, maybe), and keep the thing patched.

      If there was a Linux/Unix worm running around, couldn't the exact same situation happen?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:What I don't get by random_rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the control system manufacturers would advocate real-time OS systems to control nuclear plants and the like. They take a bit more than an "apt-get" to update, but at least there's someone to sue, should they fall over (which they do, every now and then)

    3. Re:What I don't get by BigGar' · · Score: 4, Insightful

      is why the control computers for a nuke plant are even hooked up to the same network. I can understand the need for the systems to communicate, but for them to have a physical connection to the outside world, firewalled & patched or not, is just plain stupid.

      --


      Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
    4. Re:What I don't get by Auckerman · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Use a Windows 2000 machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd or something similar running, maybe), and keep the thing patched."

      It's not uncommon for industrial applications on Windows to require admistrator access to merely run. Any services you turn off, as a result, can be modified by the user or turned back on.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    5. Re:What I don't get by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't likely that the SCADA or management systems themselves are running on a windows box, but the front end will be. You do see a lot more of ModBus-over-Ethernet these days, which I understand can coexist with TCP/IP. Although this would be a bad design, I can picture how you would end up with a single ethernet backbone, and have multiple protocols and devices running on it.

      If the critical system is on the same physical network as workstations other than the head-end, that could be a problem. Technician plugs his infected laptop into the networ for diagnostics or downloading data, and the network traffic kills the ability for the SCADA nodes to interact.

      This is an easy mistake to make; all it takes is having multiple people need to share the same information, and a lack of money to provide dedicated physical layers for each function and proper gateways between the layers.

    6. Re:What I don't get by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats a problem with the application, not the OS. Suppose the industrial application on Linux require root to run?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    7. Re:What I don't get by Havokmon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Use a Windows 2000 machine, make sure it has only the access level needed from the outside (maybe sshd or something similar running, maybe), and keep the thing patched.
      If there was a Linux/Unix worm running around, couldn't the exact same situation happen?

      While I agree with you in principle, the problem I have with MS patches is that I have NO FSCKING CLUE what other areas of the OS are affected. At least if I see a patch for TFTP for Linux, I KNOW I don't need it.

      My God Man, just running MS Terminal Services requires the MS Client, even though I run a Netware network!

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    8. Re:What I don't get by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there was a Linux/Unix worm running around, couldn't the exact same situation happen?

      Yup. But I havn't heard of them. I've heard of a couple viri/worms/trojans with windows that have taken out significant parts of the internet. My Linux/Solaris machines still get hit daily with code red, a 2 year old exploit.

      If you were interviewing 2 people for a job, and one was a convicted violent self confessed felon, would you hire him over someone without a record?

    9. Re:What I don't get by BubbleNOP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Suppose that a new vulnerability is found and there is *no* patch yet by Microsoft. If you are running an open-source system, you can hire someone to write you a patch. With Windows you don't have that luxury. Also, some services in Windows (e.g. RPC) cannot be shut down. So if there is a new vulnerability in it and simultaneously in the closed-source firewall blocking the port, you are screwed.

    10. Re:What I don't get by El · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When the only experience you have is an MSCE, every application looks like an application for M$ software.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  11. No firewall? Probably not. by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked.

    Actually, I suspect that someone unwittingly plugged an infected laptop into the network inside of the firewall.

  12. Didn't "crash" the plant by abcxyz · · Score: 5, Informative

    That reactor had been down since February of 2002 due to a 6" hole in the reactor head.

    1. Re:Didn't "crash" the plant by bobthemuse · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wouldn't have "crashed" it anyways, as none of the control systems were affected. Just the conditions monitoring network, and they still had an analog backup. Not as efficient, but gets the job done.

      Makes you wonder how soon they're going to remove the analog systems in the name of 'efficiency'.

  13. more info by blamanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just submitted the same story, it will probably get rejected, so here's some more links:
    The Washington Post is reporting that the Slammer worm crashed the computerized display panel which monitors the most crucial safety indicators (coolant systems, core temperature sensors, and external radiation sensors) at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January. No serious problems occured, primarily because the plant has been offline for more than 1-1/2 years.
    Davis-Besse is run by FirstEnergy, which many people feel may bear much of the responsibility for last weeks power blackout.

    1. Re:more info by aridhol · · Score: 2, Funny
      I just submitted the same story, it will probably get rejected
      You're new here, right? It'll show up in the afternoon dupes.
      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  14. This is not looking good... by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Worms infect Internet taking control of nuclear power stations and public transport
    2. Japan announces 30 year program to build intelligent robots
    3. New Scientist reports self-healing robots a reality, can survive battle damage
    4. Arnold announces "I will go to Sacramento and I will clean house".

    All I can say is that I hope the next /. story is about someone inventing 2 million sunblock or we're all going to have a really bad day.

    John.

    1. Re:This is not looking good... by Enonu · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, interesting idea. If I'm wearing SPF 45 sunblock on my body, what kind of added protection do I have from radiation?

  15. Blackout? by deepvoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is a good chance that the worm also disabled systems normally used to switch power, or route around surges. Just a thought.

    --
    Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
  16. Someday hopefully reason will prevail... by motorsabbath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and people will stop using Windows in critical systems where failure can have catastrophic results. The only thing Windows does reliably is fail. Whoever decides to run a nuclear plant's safety monitoring system or a civil rail's monitoring and safety system on a Windows platform should be dragged into the street, shot, burned, pissed on, disemboweled and then hanged.

    People are morons.

    --
    The heat from below can burn your eyes out
  17. Speaking of the Blackout by dgenr8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny you should mention the Blackout. The timing DOES seem interesting. I wonder just what functions inside the electric utilities depend on Microsoft Windows. If it's good enough for the nuclear industry, would anyone be surprised if failure of a critical set of Windows systems were responsible for the Blackout?

  18. Laptops breach firewalls by GGardner · · Score: 2

    I've seen networks with effective firewalls still just down by worms. Laptops are a very effective way to breach firewalls -- if a laptop user connects at home, or on the road without a firewall, and gets the worm, it is trivial to bring that same computer into work, and start spreading it behind the firewall.

  19. David-Besse Plant Problems by SparafucileMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    There have already been numerous security and maintenance problems with the David-Besse Nuclear Plant...the plant has come much closer to melting down before this stupid event. See http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/nucf ront.html.

  20. Don't overreact by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow, taken to the extreme, the exploitation of their systems could have caused a train collision and injury or death to hundreds of Maryland and Virginia commuters.

    Thats why trains have human engineers and brakes. It's why people should use good judgement and observation. If you approach an intersection, and see that the traffic lights in all directions are green, use your head and stop, because something's wrong. Of course this is impossible, theres a mechanical failsafe that will make all lights blink red if that happened - making a 4 way stop, similar mechanical fallbacks are employed in the railroads. This is all besides the point.

    Techies tend to overestimate the role of technology in day to day life. MARC was shut down more because the clerks were having a hard time selling tickets, since they cant do simple math in their heads.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  21. Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft... by Synesthesiatic · · Score: 2, Funny

    but the 120 mile crater in Ohio speaks for itself.

  22. Railroad signalling affected? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Informative
    This is higly unprobable.

    Perhaps an accessory system was involved, but rail signalling involves quite proprietary and LOW-SPEED networking (on the order of 30 baud) on TOTALLY private wires.

    Rail signalling was gradually developped over the last 150 years, and the earliest remote-control and automatic operations were developped almost 100 years ago.

    From the onset, reduntancy and feedback was employed (for example, whenever a switch is automated, a separate sensor arm is attached to the switch points, as to monitor the exact switch position, as opposed as the switch motor actuating arm position), and the technology is extremely conservative (gravity-actuated relays with extremely big coils to pick-up the heavy armatures, contacts made out of special alloys that are guaranteed not to stick in case of arcing - why would they, they are overwhelmingly oversized for the current they carry- and the whole thing is mounted on heavy coil-springs to insure immunity to vibrations).

    For compatibility purposes, whenever solid-state components are used, they are absolutely electrically compatible (and opto-isolated) with the older electromechanical relays.

    And finally, everything runs on #8 gauge wire and the nominal voltage is 10 volts.

    Such an overdesigned system can withstand quite a lot of punishment. So the idea of a worm bringing down signalling is laughable at best.

    But if the suits insist on using a paperwork system that is vulnerable to worms, then, such lunacy can explain the outages...

  23. Fail Safe by FTL · · Score: 4, Interesting
    > Wow, taken to the extreme, the exploitation of their systems could have caused a train collision and injury or death to hundreds of Maryland and Virginia commuters.

    No. Taken to the extreme, this exploitation could cause the train system to stop. Which is what it did.

    Ever since the Victorian era, trains are designed to stop if there's a failure. That's what "fail safe" means, not that it is "safe from failure" but that "when it fails, it is safe".

    For a simple example, take a look at the _mechanical_ switching gear on the tracks behind my office. More modern electronic or computerised equipment is exactly the same in terms of how it reacts to failures.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  24. Sometimes firewalls aren't enough. by Trick · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the submission: "This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked."

    As most people who had to fight this worm already know, a firewall doesn't do you a whole lot of good if you have users with laptops who plug in at home, then bring in their infected PCs and plug them into your internal network.

    I'm not saying there aren't still ways to prevent the spread of worms, but an internal infection is in no way proof that there's no firewall. In many cases, it's just a clueless PHB who refuses to let the IT department lock down his laptop or install a personal firewall on it.

  25. paranoia time by ed.han · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in an environment like a nuclear power plant, why aren't there firewalls on all clients? i mean, network security in such an installation is about as important as it gets.

    it's possible the vulnerability arose through someone accessing internet e-mail. but wall street firms regularly blacklist internet e-mail sites. they do that b/c they're regulated to ensure that proprieties are kept and people aren't defrauded. a nuke though--we're talking more than just dollars and cents here.

    it may not be fully the fault of the admins.

    ed

  26. Security in Post 9-11 by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't care if you're running MS, Linux, or FreeBSD. That damn port should've been firewalled and the software should've been patched. What's scary is imagining what could've happened if someone intentionally tried to hack the power plant. Some terrorist cell could cause a nuclear meltdown without ever setting foot in the US.

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  27. That was a bad conclusion by dbarclay10 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    his indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked.

    That is a silly conclusion to come to. Presumably they're also implying the same about the power grid.

    I have first-hand experience with Ontario Hydro's IT nework (now Hydro One's IT network ;) and I gotta say - they have firewalls up the wazoo. And this is the problem. They rely on border security. However, on networks as large as the ones being discussed, border security doesn't cut it. There are too many entry vectors. People reading email, people browsing the web, and oh my god people with laptops - the pain the pain.

    So before you go thinking "they aren't even taking precautions that would have saved them! Fire them!" understand that it's *exactly* that attitude which caused the networks to go down in the first place - the common misconception the a firewall is a magic wand that will solve all their ills.

    Border security does NOT cut it when you run insecure software on the inside, boys and girls. And you can take that to the bank.

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
    1. Re:That was a bad conclusion by dbarclay10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A) Would be an improvement over the current situation.
      B) Would also be an improvement over the current situation (in my experience), but not as good as A).

      Come to think of it, A) would only be good if the vast majority of people worked from home. Not just "more". If you have 20,000 people going into offices, and 10,000 at home, you'll still get nailed.

      C) Why outsource? Why not, instead, hire *competent* people who are available over the course of the company's lifetime to deal with changing circumstances? Ontario Hydro has outsourced all its IT stuff to Inergi and New Horizon.

      Outsourcing is an evil part of the IT industry - people pay obscene sums of money for worthless junk (worse than what they'd get in-house, in my experience).

      D) Giving up is not an option :)

      I would, instead, propose a real solution:

      E) Hire competent people. Hire as many as you need. Hire competent managers. Hire as many as you need. LET THEM DO THEIR JOBS. Do not tell them that everybody needs to run Windows. Let them weigh the costs and the needs of the company, and make a decision. Live with that decision knowing that you hired good people and that this is really the best possible solution.

      (I know full well I'm dreaming. I don't expect companies to be competent at hiring competent people for at least another decade. Maybe not even then, maybe it'll be much longer. But I can hope. Christ, the stories I could tell ... it's truly systemic incompetence. Incompetence from the VPs responsible for IT to incompetence at the lowest-level grunt. Outside the IT department the incompetence is in the HR department for hiring these people in the first place.)

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
  28. Re:No firewall? Probably not. by Basehart · · Score: 2, Funny

    Most likely the laptop belonging to the guy who drops by every week to make sure the firewall is up and running.

  29. Re:Is it going to take deaths to make MS liable? by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd love to see what the Linux community would say if some intravenous drug pump running an embedded version of Linux had a bug that caused it to fail and kill a patient?

    They'd probably cry, 'But we already released a fix! They didn't install this patch, and this patch, and this patch, and then recompiled.'

    Don't blame the software companies for the "sh*t quality" of their software, as you say--blame the system administrator who didn't install the already-available fixes or patches. That by far is your guilty party right there.

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
  30. In other news.... by smartin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft announced today that they are in talks to use Homer Simpson as a spokes person.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  31. Bugtraq had a similar thread... by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Interesting

    here. Surprised this hasn't shown up on Slashdot yet.

  32. Exactly by kiwimate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the silliest quote from the article:

    CSXT has confronted increasingly sophisticated computer viruses, like ones that have penetrated some of the most secure sites in the country in recent days.

    Sorry, but they're obviously not "some of the most secure sites in the country". If they were, they wouldn't have been penetrated like this. How can I say this? Because my company didn't get penetrated.

    I'm afraid of sounding like a broken record here, because if anyone looks at my past posting history they'll see I've said exactly the same thing. However, the fact is we have mission-critical 24/7/365 servers running Windows (as well as Linux) that simply can not be vulnerable. So we secure them, and we protect them, and put in safeguards, and work together as a team if there is a particularly nasty threat out there...and we keep running. Funny, that.

    Sod it; plenty of other posters will argue the point about patching, firewalling, etc., and a myriad of rabid MS-bashers will refute and insult. Let my small voice add merely this to the fray -- it doesn't have to be this way, even if you use Windows. All that is required is people who know what they're doing.

    1. Re:Exactly by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the money to do it right.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    2. Re:Exactly by yoshi_mon · · Score: 4, Funny

      All that is required is people who know what they're doing.

      You expect far too much from humanity my friend.

      --

      Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
    3. Re:Exactly by loconet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      CSXT has confronted increasingly sophisticated computer viruses, like ones that have penetrated some of the most secure sites in the country in recent days.

      Wha the fuck ever. I've heard similar excuses all freaking week. "Viruses are getting smarter" , "Those hackers have no lives", etc etc. They miss the point that it's actually the OS's fault in the first place! The virus comes in through an exploitable service which runs by default. It's not like the virus tricked the user into executing it.

      It's like me leaving the door to my house open, some thief comes in , cleans out my house and then I say .. "Oh that bastard has no life". Well, it's also my fault for being stupid and leaving the door open in the first place.

      This ignorance won't stop until the media stops talking bullshit, tells the whole story and includes _all_ the parties at fault including MS, who well, basically sold me the house without doors!

      --
      [alk]
  33. Firewalls at Davis-Besse? Try radiation-walls! by Ovidius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why would you expect people who can't keep holes from forming in their reactor vessel to plug holes in their firewall?

    One of my my first thoughts after my lights went out (well, not really first) was "I wonder if that worm had anything to do with this." But at the time I doubted that they ran power plants on Windows so it seemed like a very idle thought -- until I found out that the problem started with FirstEnergy, that they owned Davis-Besse, and that they had already had problems because of Slammer! That got me really scared and mad at the people who are running our important systems.

  34. SSH tunnels on the local network? by mhesseltine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With Blaster, spyware, etc. that seems to be spreading, I've wondered about using SSH only on a machine. Everything has to tunnel through the SSH connection (web, email, X11, etc.) using SSH port forwarding. That way, every machine on the local network would only accept SSH traffic. Any worm that gets installed and runs would try infecting other machines behind the firewall, only to find that those machines won't listen to the worm. Would something like this work?

    P.S. Obviously, using this in a Windows environment would be difficult. Maybe this would be another good justification for migrating to a *nix platform.

    --
    Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
  35. Re:Hire competent IT people... by gregarican · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Actually I consider myself to be somewhat competent and lately I do think everything from Redmond does suck. It's one story after another. Not all of these anti-M$ stories are 100% the company's fault but in some way, shape or form, they show how inept a company that portrays itself as the only game in town is.

    What major release has Micro$loth put out there that's made everyone's lives better and easier in the last several years? I can't think of any. These published reports just show what a house of cards the Windoze platform is.

  36. Re:So many morons by talon77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are assuming the ports were not blocked. Which is crap, I've been to dozens of companies in the past week who are blocking all incoming ports and still got infected by this virus. These companies also had SAV corporate edition which was configured to update the definations via a FTP script, so they were actually getting their definations updated daily rather than the crappy live update which updates about once a week. Granted, they should have patched their systems when the RPC flaw was first exposed, but you shouldn't be so quick to point fingers.

  37. For train control, Fail Safe == Stop Working by shoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Train Control and Signalling systems are universally designed for Fail Safe == Stop Working. The low-level, safety critical systems are controlled with very low-tech Vital Relays which which will stop train movement and/or make all the signals present a Red Aspect in case of computer failure, and that's what they did.

    Train control has this luxury. Computer systems onboard airplanes do not... simply turning off jet engines in case of computer failure is not an appealing possibility.

    1. Re:For train control, Fail Safe == Stop Working by gregarican · · Score: 2, Informative
      No doubt! It's like, what will be the next installment of FUD Theater??

      Microsoft Software Causes Train Brakes to Fail. Amtrak Ruined!"

  38. Same thing in VA by bytehd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    when in worked as a contractor at Virginia Power in 1999, all the temps had internet access. So it was just a matter of time before viruses found their way into Source Safe. When I checked out a project, there goes my hard drive. Guess who checked in the infected file? You got it, a member of the HELP DESK SUPPORT TEAM. Three cheers for the idiots. Oh yah, if you are wondering, the plants reactors were made by Westinghouse in the early 70s, so no computer control there. There are so many layers of mgmt to go through to do anything close to throwing a switch. anyways, no firewalls at virginia power. lots of internal lans and servers accessible by anyone too..

  39. Re:You may all be laughing about windows by gregarican · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is a "rouge" patch available at the next Mary Kay party? Is that similar to wearing cucumbers over your eyes when you go to sleep at night? Maybe is it a "rogue" patch after all...

  40. Security is transitive by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not just connecting to your business partners, you're connecting to everyone they've ever connected to.

    The Register article says "It began by penetrating the unsecured network of an unnamed Davis-Besse contractor, then squirmed through a T1 line bridging that network and Davis-Besse's corporate network. The T1 line, investigators later found, was one of multiple ingresses into Davis-Besse's business network that completely bypassed the plant's firewall, which was programmed to block the port Slammer used to spread".

    I'd never let a client do that. From a business risk management point of view, you *might* allow a direct connection by a vendor, *if* you had a good contract requiring them to keep good security and be responsible for breaches, and *if* you had secured everything sensitive in your internal network. From a theoretical or technical point of view, you should never trust something you don't control.

    Monitoring systems are just as safety-critical as control systems. After all, the feedback loop is part of a control system. Imagine an intruder changing the readings to show that reactivity was decreasing, core temperature was dropping, and coolant pressure was so high that relief valves should be opened. You'd have a Three Mile Island rerun. That system should never, NEVER have been exposed even indirectly to the Internet.

    But then, Davis-Besse is the plant where someone thought the way to check for an air leak was to poke around with a lit candle near flammable insulation wrapping critical control cables (1975).

  41. Re:No firewall? Probably not. by slide-rule · · Score: 3, Informative

    In actual practice, that may be what happened. The critical control system network itself should be (have been) inaccessible from the desktop/laptop network (aside from known secure methods, a la ssh) with the appropriate firewalls on *that* network (at a gateway, and maybe on each host/node). I can only wonder if the submitter/commentator meant/implied this when they asked why such ports were not blocked.

  42. "Extreme" is the right word... by badasscat · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Wow, taken to the extreme, the exploitation of their systems could have caused a train collision and injury or death to hundreds of Maryland and Virginia commuters."

    I think that's a little far-fetched, and almost amounts to fear-mongering. At best, it displays ignorance of how modern rail systems work. When the signals fail, the trains simply stop - engineers don't look at a broken signal and say "well, gee, I hope there's nobody in front of me, full speed ahead!" In fact, on most modern equipment the braking is automatic when signals fail. I don't know exactly how modern the system is in Maryland, but at the very least there would be a regulation that all trains come to a halt in the event of signal failure. They certainly would not go speeding around without knowing if there's another train occupying the same block.

    Collisions can and do occur even when the signals are working properly - it takes time to stop a speeding train. But assuming positioning is all correct to begin with and everybody's following proper speed limits before the signals go out, there should be no problem stopping a train in time once the signals do fail.

  43. Welcome to the new Federally mandated Palladium by McFly777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Next thing you know, the Dept. of Homeland Sec. will issue a regulation requiring the use of Palladium or similar tech. on all computers. After all it is for our 'safety.'

    --

    McFly777
    - - -
    "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  44. No. Unacceptable. by mrseigen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First of all, this kind of service should never be connected to the public network, or even better, never to a non-dumb terminal.

    Secondly, Microsoft CLEARLY spells out that their software is never to be used in this kind of implementation. Most software manufacturers do -- Sun, Apple, and most Linux distros IIRC.

    Now, if this is a case of a critical service being overflowed from a remote location simply because it's connected to a public network, that's bad enough. To be running a consumer operating system on those critical services is simply unacceptable and probably worthy of execution. I don't care if the system was offline at the time -- this kind of thing should be definitely ringing warning bells. I hope whatever moron implemented this system gets fired.

    From reading the article the services that went down had analog backups, but it's still unacceptable. Don't connect critical services to the fucking Internet.

  45. Homer Simpson says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doh!

  46. Safe = not sexy. by salesgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reactor control systems and monitoring systems should be as simple as possible. Problem is analog meters human operators and knobs and rocker switches aren't sexy.

    --
    -- $G
  47. No sh*t by phorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mean seriously, how do they get away with this crap? Yes, I understand that campaign funding allows MS to sneak in their OS to the military, etc... but to actually put this nightmare in critical systems?

    What the hell does it take, MS-inducted Chernobyl to make them realize that such an OS HAS NO PLACE in a nuclear reactor? Or how about NT crashing a critical system in a battleship?

    Have we REALLY become so pampered that we need a bloody GUI for every frickin thing we do? I don't advocate running X in linux either, it's stupid.

    If there were ever a case for a specialized proprietary system, this would be it. Just do something that does the job, and does it well. No fancy GUI crap, no million-other-f***ing-functions that can cause it to break down. Linux is a bit better than windows because you can trim it to be very specific... so something linux-based could be OK (just not a whole RedHat install, or anything else).

    I mean hell, it's security monitoring. You could work this with a few text screens, some big red lights, sirens, maybe a nice voice that says "Red Alert" a-la-startrek or something.

    We don't need a windows installation, with a million doodads and AOL messenger stating "You've got Meltdown" for a nuclear reactor. We don't need a GUI. We need something that does the job (well), and is secure. Cut out the extra crap... and with MS there is more and more crap you can't cut out ('nix has source, you can trim all you like, but in-house is still better).

    Makes you wonder exactly how many systems like this you are trusting your life too. Wonder if we'll find out tomorrow that the power-outage was caused by a virus.

  48. Re:bad guys by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What the hell are you talking about? Who SHOULD we think of? Pol Pot? Itchy and Scratchy? Marilyn Monroe?


    Let me guess... It is the lazy administrator's fault. Well, when the patch is not easily installed most "windows administrators" -- like my mom who settles down in front of her machine to do the puzzle page each day -- just don't do it. When you don't know that the patch is out there, then how the fuck can you install it? Most computer users do not sit and watch bugtraq all fucking day. I don't read m$ EULAs because I don't use their products, but I am sure they indemnify themselves against their own poorly thoughtout piece of shit software.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  49. Navy/Marine net infected by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 2, Informative

    I offered this article about how the Navy/Marine network was brought down by the recent spat of worms the other day but was rejected.

    There are a number of other articles our there that give info on this and the reports of other nuke plants being affected on the fateful day last Thursday.

  50. Train vulnerability by josh+crawley · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is some more information on the vulnerability actually used to crash the train signalling network in Maryland.

  51. Halifax ATM machines by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I am amazed that the infection of the Halifax Bank ATM machines in the UK -- reported by someone here on Slashdot a few days ago -- did not reach the mainstream press in the UK.

    I find it hard to believe that one of the best known banks in the UK has ATM machines that are exposed to the Internet in some way and can get infected by worms. Any UK journalists reading this - I'm sure your readers would be interested to know how insecure the Halifax computer network is.

  52. Firewall has nothing to do with it! by Pup5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Exactly! The mobile user completely negates any port filtering firewall rules when he/she takes their laptop home and connects it directly to the Internet. These virus specifically waited until it was again connected to a network to reinitiate it's dirty work. One can argue that lack of client firewall software/hardware is then to blame, but this is a BIG hole whose solution requires conscious participation from end users. This scenario is the likely vector for most of the corporate intranet infections today.

    Cringely made this same mistake the first part of his weekly article http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030814. html. It's not always the "network" guys that are responsible for system patches and client firewall. Especially not in large companies.

  53. More Spin about patches by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    These were inexcusable mistakes: using Windows for mission critical equipment and connecting to the Internet, especially Windows.

    With MS systems it's not just a matter of loading a patch, quite often they break something especially third party apps, fail to fix the problem they claim to fix, or open a new vulnerability.

    If a model of car were found to be so defective -- bolts breaking, carbonmonixide in the passenger compartment, split drive shaft when you change gears, works with only one brand of gas, plays only approved radio stations, etc. -- no one would think to blame the user.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  54. Re:Safe == not sexy. by BenjyD · · Score: 4, Informative

    The infected systems were 'only' in the higher level of the control hierachy. Control systems in all plants like this (chemical, power etc) are built on multiple levels. You start at level 0, which is pretty much mechanical - safety valves, burst plates, simple thermostats. Those ensure that even if every control layer above that goes haywire and tries to make the plant blow up, you still remain safe.

    I discovered the usefulness of this after setting a digital pressure control on a pilot plant wrong - nitrogen vented everywhere (which makes an incredibly loud noise), my supervisor went mad, but nothing broke :)

  55. In other news: M$ protects itself Linux by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is a news bite I found thru Tom's Hardware . It talks about Microsoft using a Linux device to protect its domain. Rather interesting...

  56. who me by Bubba-T · · Score: 5, Funny

    I checked my Solaris, AIX and Linux machines and couldnt find any worms or virus. Where is everyone find these things?

  57. Re:No firewall? Probably not. by p0nderous · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep in mind that Blaster was the only one of these DCOM worms that only exploited the DCOM hole. The newer variants, esp. Nachi, also tried to exploit the even-older IIS WebDAV hole. If the infected boxes were on the Internet and serving Web pages, no amount of firewalling will help.

    Patch, patch, patch should be the mantra of every company that runs their business on MS software.

  58. no way, no how. by buzban · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow, taken to the extreme, the exploitation of their systems could have caused a train collision and injury or death to hundreds of Maryland and Virginia commuters."

    railroad signaling systems being what they are, I'm certain that this could not have caused a collision. Railroad signal systems run on proprietary, failsafe software. Getting trains to bump into each other, in most systems, takes a computer glitch in code, or a specific series of commands to the signal system, plus a human overriding signal indications in the field.
    in every signal system i've ever seen (quite a few across the country), the only thing that MS software/OS relates to is supervisory remote control and monitoring. The local signal logic (software or relay based) will not allow for unsafe train movements, even if accidentally commanded to do so, unless very specific conditions are met. Again, an Engineer passing a stop signal, for example, is usually one of the requirements.

  59. Microsoft renamed the MSBlaster worm by fluor2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    According to Windows Update, Microsoft renamed "the MS-Blaster worm" to "The Blaster worm".

    Now that is pretty lame behaviour from Microsoft, don't you think. And it really shows us why they really do not give us real input on what's going on while you boot that windows xp. They just renamed every error to "Windows is now starting up..."

  60. Freight trains are to fear the most by pease1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The idea of a MARC train with a few hundred people getting into an accident because CSX's dispatching center is down, is nothing compared to a freight train with hazardous material wrecking in a large city (since railroads grew up at the same time most large cities did... they run THROUGH the cities, not around them). Fire, gas, explosion, you name it, it could have happened.

    And it's not MARC's problem... they only run on CSX's tracks.

  61. Wow these guys don't look fit to run a... by mcSey921 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dairy Queen let alone a nuclear plant...

    Check out http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/nucf ront.html

  62. It doesn't even require that by fizbin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All it requires is that someone VPN in with their home machine. You don't need the delay of physically transporting the virus so long as you deliberately open holes in your firewall for people you "trust". (which may keep out script kiddies, but not worms)

    As it turns out, this was essentially what happened in this case (it got in through a contractor's T1 line; how the contractor's office was infected isn't known, but I'm willing to bet that the contractor has machines directly connected to the internet).

  63. Idiots by pmz · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Who are the retarded idiots that let Microsoft within five miles of nuclear safety equipment? Microsoft's software is not quality controlled to any standard suitable for risking human life, and they even admit that in their EULA (no warranty, no liability).

    1. Re:Idiots by hazem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And don't forget to apply those patches on a non-production system first to test their effects on your critical system.

    2. Re:Idiots by Brad+Mace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Screw patches. In a nuclear power plant, you simply do not connect a computer to an outside network even indirectly. Its ridiculous to even consider it an option. Then, if the computer's not broken, you don't fix it. CDR's are cheap; chernobyls are not.

  64. Time for a change. by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will probably get me flamed to no end but think about it..

    One life and death critical systems they should use proprietary hardware, OS and software.

    Not any version of Windows, not any version of Linux, not Intel, not AMD, but something totally alien. Something that is designed from the ground up to be DIFFERENT and CLOSED that can not communicate with the outside world and the system that the outside world run on.

    I'm talking about Air Traffic Control systems, Nuke plant controls, railroad traffic systems, hospitial systems, military systems, power systems, public utilities.

    I mean NEW CPU's and a NEW OS and NEW software that is so different and so tightly closed that nothing can communicate with it but other systems of the same design.

    With every other little dickweed with a Wally World emachine typing "1337" into google and downloading DIY virus labs, and these same little punks having access to the same networks that all the above mission critical systems communicate on, well, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

    And when some script kiddie crashes a 747 full of people from his Wally World emachine on his mommies AOL account, what then? Or the same kiddie opens the floodgates on a dam and kills 200,000 people. Or a million people. Or makes a nuke plant go Chernobyl?

    When burglars keep breaking into your safe every week and robbing you blind you would assume that it's time to get a better safe..

    Before the world went insane and computerized every friggin thing from toasters to pay toilets to the power grid, this sort of thing was IMPOSSIBLE. Time to fix it folks..

    Flame away..

  65. Homer Simpson promoted to IT manager? by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there a Springfield in Ohio?

    Simpson promoted
    August 10, 2003
    Springfield, Ohio

    Springfield's own Homer Simpson was promoted to IT manager of Springfield's nuclear power plant today. Simpson promised that his first act would be to remove Unix from all of the power plant's computers. "Whoever heard of Unix anyway? I run Windows at home as do most Springfield residents. If it's good enough for playing games, it's good enough to run our nuclear power plant!", Simpson declared.

  66. Web Myth: WinNT Stops Ship by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do a google search on "navy yorktown microsoft"

    Yes, and find a lot of crap written by people who repeat a web myth. Now as far as people who were on the ship at the time or who actually wrote the software involved we get a different story. WinNT was not at fault. The truth is that a server app corrupted it's data, a client app tried to use that bad data, and the client app failed to control equipment. Can happen with any OS. Add to this the fact that the ship was a test platform not an operational ship and they were trying to break things.

    "Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred."

    http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.h tml

    "McKelvey writes that the failure, "was not the result of any system software or design deficiency but rather a decision to allow the ship to manipulate the software to stimulate [sic] machinery casualties for training purposes and the 'tuning' of propulsion machinery operating parameters. In the usual shipboard installation, this capability is not allowed.""

    http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.37.html#subj1

    1. Re:Web Myth: WinNT Stops Ship by molo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question was whether MS use was encouraged in life-critical systems. I would consider a Navy ship's control system life-critical. The answer is yes, end of story.

      Wether it was MS's fault or the App's fault that the ship was dead in the water was not part of this discussion. In fact, everything I've read said that this was an unhandled floating point exception, which is of course the problem of an application not the OS.

      Enterprise/Mission-critical/Life-critical systems should not be doing floating point operations period. They introduce too many errors and inaccuracies. If you think you need floats, try adjusting your units.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    2. Re:Web Myth: WinNT Stops Ship by rifter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What a blanket statement. So it's impossible (or too difficult) to use floating point numbers correctly? You know this... how?

      IANAM(athematician), but....

      Using floats introduces innacuracy because there is rounding and because of the fundamental limit in accuracy of floats in terms of how many decimal places are represented on a computer. For some applications the number of possible significant digits is unacceptable because it is not accurate enough.

      It is fairly common to represent units as integers either by using smaller numbers or by representing a decimal number as integers in the program and using integer math to do all teh calculations. This way you do not lose digits or have unnecessary rounding.

      The funny thing is I remember reading about this technique being used in DOOM because for this critical application the innacuracy of floating point was unacceptable and the performance was unacceptably degraded by the floating point processors of the day. Now that we have multiGhz CPUs and more video ram than we know what to do with and deicated video processors I regularly hear about floating point performance being important which to me implies floats are being used in games now.

      However I would not be surprosed if programs written for NASA and such where they need billions of decimal places and being off at all means people die or are lost in space forever some pretty sophisticated techniques are required in programs. I think the poster was implying that the calculations for the engine of a Naval ship might need similar treatment. It is certain that the programmers designing the software handling calculations used for the armaments (trajectories of shells and navigation systems for the missiles, etc) would do well to excercise such care. After all, what is more mission critical? DOOM? or a ship with hundreds of people on it in enemy terrirtory?

  67. NEXT: Accidental Nuclear ICBM Missile Launch...? by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why in heavens name are critical systems running consumer-grade software...and worse, why are they connected to the public internet?

    And then there are VPNs...fine for offices, but not critical infrastructure - critical systems should be on totally separate, dedicated private networks, period!

    Among my biggest fears in regards to computer worms, etc somehow getting into a nuclear weapons system and causing nuclear missiles being launched - in particular nuclear based ICBMs which are less protected; Windows is used on some nuclear subs from what I've read - frightening!

  68. OK, I've worked in a Nuke and I'm angry. by twitter · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm not going to defend the use of Microsoft in this application, or any application anywhere. The people in charge of a similar system where I used to work loathed it. Microsoft on the desktop to talk to such a stupid system was unacceptable as well. While I worked there, I got, reported and was ignored about a worm. I and the people who adminisered the "business" network, knew that it was full of holes. Yet give the operators some credit, the plant was never put at risk and scrutiny like this can move them in the right direction, away from Microsoft.

    The worm I got and the reaction I got from the mail administrators was very disturbing. The thing exploded out of Outlook's preview window, spawened multiple porn browsers and did God knows what else. I turned the computer off hard. The IIS people at corporate cenrtal did not believe me, executed to completion the thing by remote control without realizing it, recomended that I simply not use the preview screen and said that they got stuff like that all the time and it was "a normal part of advertising." It made me sick. They thought I was worried about being shit canned for looking at porn and were oblivious to the implications of rooting a desktop that could remote into any other desktop in the company. STUPID FUCKING MICROSOFT CERTIFIED ASSES. Whew, I really was angry and I still am.

    My plant's server was also a pain. It was some goofey overpriced Dell "server" that collected information from plant systems and made it available. It failed often and required many late nights for the people in charge of it. There were many such system but the newest one had the most information. It also had the least abiltity to do real damage. For all it's faults, it was an improvement over what was there but was not required for the safe operation of the plant. It could have been done much better had Microsoft not had anything to do with it.

    The answer is not to dissconect the "business" network from the plant information systems, it's to fix the network in a fundamental way. First, the network needed to be split into an Engineering section and an Adnministrative section, with Engineers only having partial access to the Administrative network and Administration haveing NO access to plant data systems. Data systems already have NO access to control systems, and this is a good thing. These architectual changes are valid regardless of software used but Microsoft must be eliminated from all of it. From a pure business perspective, having your information available to sabotage is unacceptable and that's what Microsoft's poor security record yields. Free software is superior from a security, and functionality standpoint and is now equal in ease of use. If running Microsoft keeps engineers from viewing plant data, while giving competitors and sabatours full access to such data, the costs of Microsoft is obviouly too high. Seperating engineers from their data, as Security Focus's write up implies, would be a costly mistake. I have every confidence that power plant operators will make the right choice soon.

    Hell yes, I'm mad. I just about screemed this at the top of my lungs while I was there and was ignored. When the business comes, I'm more than happy to work for someone getting it done.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  69. Control systems have *always* been awful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The /. crowd has VASTLY inflated ideas about how secure, reliable, and well-designed the control and monitoring systems are at nuclear plants and other big, dangerous facilties. Insecure computer networks are just the latest version of the old story.

    To wit: At the Three Mile Island plant, the control room was a nightmare. Horrible human-factors engineering to save a few bucks. For example, a control knob might be on the opposite side of the room from the meter you'd need to watch to see if you were doing the right thing.

    In the most amusing example, the operator console in the center of the room had a forest of absolutely identical black levers crammed together, where it would be a Bad Thing if the wrong one were pulled. To tell them apart, the operators did a bit of machining and installed beer tap handles on them -- e.g., "Michelob" for the water feed pump, "Bud Light" for the steam generator, whatever. Yes, it was that bad. And TMI was not much of an exception.

    In another example, there was almost a catastrophic fire at the Browns Ferry plant because the official method of searching for air leaks in some electrical vaults was to hold a candle near the junction and see if the flame flickered. Too bad the insulation was flammable....

    Yeah, I think it's terrible too, but doing things the dangerous way to save a few bucks is nothing new.

  70. CSX uses InCharge "service assurance manager" by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here's what CSX (the railroad) says about the failure:
    • CSX Transportation's (CSXT) information technology systems experienced significant slowdowns early today after a computer virus infected the network. The cause was believed to be a worm virus similar to those that have infected the systems of other major companies and agencies in recent days.

      The infection resulted in a slowdown of major applications, including dispatching and signal systems. As a result, passenger and freight train traffic was halted immediately, including the morning commuter train service in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area. Contrary to initial reports, the signal system for train operations was not the source of the problem. Rather, the virus disrupted the CSXT telecommunications network upon which certain systems rely, including signal, dispatching and other operating systems.

    So what are they using to manage their network? They're using InCharge "Service Assurance Manager".

    • CSX will implement InCharge(TM) Service Assurance Manager and InCharge(TM) Availability Manager to ensure the reliability of its Next Generation Dispatch Network, the core IP-based infrastructure that controls the dispatch and timely operation of 1,700 trains and over 20,000 carloads per day. More than 2,000 routers back this complex CSX network, each with multiple points of connectivity and multiple layers of redundancy.
    InCharge IP Availability screenshots make it clear what platform it runs on.

    Any questions?

  71. new headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dumbasses at nuclear power plant allow systems to be brought down by a bug microsoft and the IT security industry warned people about weeks ago. Management unaccountable for making their lazy IT employees do their job.

  72. Safety-critical stuff, yes. Displays, no. by alispguru · · Score: 2, Informative

    The low-level "reflexes" of reactors - the systems that actually run things minute-to-minute - are certified out the wazoo, and have received scrutiny at a level similar to the software that flies the Shuttle or commercial airliners.

    As such, those systems are typically many years out of date relative to current hardware and software - if they were upgraded, they'd have to be recertified, and certification is so expensive that keeping thirty-year-old hardware running is cheaper. There are reactors in the US that are still controlled by PDP-8s (4K of 12-bit core memory, folks).

    As others in this thread have said, the system that got hosed at this reactor was a modern status display added well after the reactor was signed off on and running. If it crashes, the operators get harder-to-understand information from the simpler systems in the control room, but the basic safety systems are still in place.

    Homer Simpson to the contrary, the people who run nukes aren't completely stupid.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  73. Could Have Been Much Worse by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We were all lucky the blaster worm really wasn't destructive..

    Sure it was annoying, and a DDOS isn't good, but it COULD have been really malicious and MUCH worse...

    The ability to run arbitrary code on a server opens up your entire infrastructure. But the moron had machines reboot to announce they were infected.. what was he thinking?

    Or was this just a distraction from a much larer and sinister plan?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  74. But don't underreact. by NaugaHunter · · Score: 2, Informative

    For what it's worth, I remember an accident on the D.C. Metro in Bethesda when I was living there, sometime through 94 and 97. I couldn't find anything in my admitedly short search, but essentially it was on a shared part of the track during slightly wet weather. The Metro slammed into the read of a slower freight train, and the only death was the driver. An investigation showed that the train was being controlled remotely. He had radioed in they were travelling too fast, but couldn't stop it. I think he may have warned the travellers to move to rear cars, but he had no door into the cabin for security reasons.

    Sudden inspiration to use WashingtonPost.com and not Google

    Well, I did a search of WashingtonPost archives for 95-98. It was January 7th of 1996, the tracks were icy, and the control was by a central computer. It kept it at 75mph and when it did brake for the station it slid into a parked train. Other than later articles discussing various probes into whether the possibility of the problem was known and ignored, I can't give much more info. The full text in the archives is only available for a fee, but the relevant facts were in each's first two paragraphs.

    I guess my point is even the brakes didn't help, once the train was doing 75mph. Don't assume that human intervention will overcome computer error. a) They can make the errors a lot more quickly than humans can compensate. b) Sometimes we misread the errors.

    If interested, archive search. I used Metro, Train, accident, from Jan 96 - Mar 96. If you expand to later dates you will see the followups.

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  75. Try again, by fanatic · · Score: 4, Informative

    This indicates that the network that the train signaling stations are on is not protected by firewalls, at least to block ports 135 and 444 where the DCOM vulnerability is attacked.

    It means no such thing. It is perfectly possible to have machine (such as a laptop) infected on the outside, then brought in and connected to the inter LAN, where it starts infecting machines it can reach.

    And sicne when does port 444 have anything to do with it? Once exploited, the victim is running a command shell on port 4444.

    --
    "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  76. I feel so re-assured by edxwelch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank goodness there really was no danger! If the monitoring software had crashed while the plant was operational there could have been a serious breach in... wait a minute! Did you say "a 6-inch hole in the plant's reactor head"???

  77. Small systems by Jennifer+E.+Elaan · · Score: 4, Informative
    This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and it's not as bad as it sounds, either.

    8-bit processors still dominate the CPU market in terms of volume, and very nearly in terms of profitability. They are virtually never used as general-purpose computers anymore, but due to low cost of development, deployment and testing, they are ubiquitous in the control systems industry.

    Companies like Atmel and Microchip are constantly devising new and better 8-bit microcontroller chips for this market. A lot of them are available in hardened grades for just these uses. A modern one will often bundle the entire machine onto a single chip, with as much IO and analog interfacing as you could ask for.

    Reading the ENTIRE assembly dump of a 32K program is rather simple. A team of a dozen engineers can verify it in a matter of a couple months (I mean formal verification here, like you would do for a truly critical system, not just "give it a look over").

    While truly using a BBC micro is a little obsolescant, the ideals that caused them to do so are sound.

  78. Idiots by Dalcius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rules of IT:
    1) Do not place a vulnerable system on a critical network unless absolutely necessary.
    2) When configuring a computer/server, always assume that you are hooking up to a hostile, unfiltered network.

    If they'd applied these two rules to their network, routers, servers, etc., this likely wouldn't have happened. These are pretty basic ideas, folks. If you have a Windows box on the same network as a computer controlling nuclear saftey checks, you better have a damn good reason and you better check for patches weekly.

    --
    ~Dalcius
    Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
  79. Yet another misleading title... by FL180 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When will it end?

    "Microsoft Worms Crash Ohio Nuke Plant"

    Ummm...no, it clearly states in the body: disabled a safety monitoring system for nearly five hours.

  80. I'm going to lose a lot of karma for saying this.. by stonewolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    100% of the blame for all of this damage rests on Bill Gates.

    Bill Gates sets the standards for software development at Microsoft. Bill Gates decides what is, and is not, accpetable in the design, coding, and testing phases of Microsoft products. Over a year ago Bill Gates came up with the "trusted computing" fraud.

    Microsoft makes much of its income by selling bug fixes for software they shipped knowing it was no damn good. What do you think new release is? Mostly just bug fixs plus new window dressing used to add more bugs. Bill Gates has made his fortune by deliberately selling inferior software.

    If I owned a company that sold ladders that have the same failure rate as Windows does, it would have been sued into bankruptcy and I would most likely been put in jail the first time a ladder failure was linked to so much as a broken leg. Yet, Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world. Free to continue his crime spree.

    The magnitude of the fraud that has been perpetrated by Bill Gates & company is so huge as to constitute a crime against humanity. He has done more damage than all the terrorists who ever attacked the US. It is beyond treason. He should be tried for his crimes. If one person has died as a result of known bugs in Windows then he, and the entire management chain below him should be hung.

    The latest attacks on world infratructure facilitated by Windows must be the last. It is time to prosecute the man whose greed and disregard for humanity enabled all of this damage. The accumulated wealth of Bill Gates and Microsoft should be used to compensate the victims of his crimes.

    Stonewolf

  81. Why?? by Izago909 · · Score: 2

    Why in the world are critical systems like nuclear saftey systems and railway saftey systems running Microsoft software? That's like playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the revolver. I can't wait until the next MS worm makes airplanes start dropping out of the sky.

    Anyone see Terminator 3? I bet that worm spread using an MS exploit. That was really Microsoft's central offce they blew up in T2.

  82. Safety Switches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm an engineer at a safety switch company. We make Temperature and Pressure switches. Yes, the same ones that are used in nuclear power plants. Basically, as a purely mechanical switch, the entire computer systems can shut down and all our switches will do is turn off whatever is on. Or turn on whatever is off. ie: backup systems whatever. These systems are usually not computer controlled, only computer monitored. In essence you've lost all your remote ears to your nuclear power plant. The systems still works, all you need to do is walk around the plant to monitor it instead of sitting your lazy ass browsing eBay.

  83. Posting without reading by L00zer · · Score: 3, Informative
    Did "michael" who posted this news story even read the article he linked to? Did anyone who posted in response to read them?

    I think not. In his post he says that
    according to an article at SecurityFocus, and another article at The Register, 'The Slammer worm penetrated a private computer network at Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January

    That's the SLAMMER SQL WORM in JANUARY

    Not the MSBlaster worm that's been going around for the last week or so. Blocking ports 135 or 139 or 445 would not affect the Slammer worm since it uses the 1433 MS SQL port.
    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Posting without reading by L00zer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok. I'm slapping myself upside the head right now. I realize that stieglmant wrote the first part and didn't mention any ports. Russell wrote the second part where ports 135 and 444 are mentioned which are correct since CSX did get hit by the MSBlaster worm.

      That still doesn't forgive the numerous posters here who spoke of the nuclear facility in relation to the Blaster worm not the Slammer worm.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  84. Microsoft's WMD by picardsb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah - the end of the world is near enough. Just give more control of the nuke systems over to windows systems, and behold soon there will be no more windows to worry about. MS Windows:' This world has caused a fatal error. Everything will be terminated'. Press 'OK'.

  85. I can't believe this by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got to be kidding me.
    This can't be true! Please tell me it isn't.
    Who the hell uses MS Windows to monitor a _nuclear__power__ plant_?

    I would've never thought I'd be so happy to live in germany. At least our nuclear plants have their own, customized real time operating systems watching over what's going on.
    Jebus Crickey, I'd suggest you'd get yourself a new set of plants right along with that new powergrid that's due.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  86. title through a dyslexia filter: by AndyChrist · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Microsoft Worms Crash MD Trains into Ohio Nuke Plant"