Slashdot Mirror


Democratic Convention Computer Security Threat?

Hiawatha writes "Excuse me for tooting my own horn, but check out my story in today's Boston Globe about a possible security problem at the Democratic convention next week. If visitors plug insecure laptops with wireless connections into the convention's wired network, there could be trouble..."

337 comments

  1. anybody setting up an AP? by UnderAttack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hm. Taking over the Jumbotron is probably the ultimate "Capture the Flag" contest.

    --
    ---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
    1. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by theMerovingian · · Score: 2, Funny


      Hey, if every Republican on Slashdot chipped in a buck, we could provide a $200 purse for the first person to put a pic of Monica Lewinski on the Jumbotron.

      --
      "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    2. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Are there that many Repugs?

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    3. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Maybe if we include all Libertarians we can make that purse much larger

    4. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by Tongo · · Score: 1

      LMAO, I was starting to wonder if I was the only one....

    5. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by jred · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the Rep. ppl here aren't as noticeable because they aren't as offensive.

      I mean, KERRY EATS BABIES!!!

      Yeah, that's what I meant to say.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    6. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      so you're saying that, as a republicans, republicans don't offend as much as dems?

      Oh yeah, no bias there.

      --
      Photos.
    7. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Is it biased if he's right?

    8. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you define offensive.

      If you mean offensive in a "Let's lie to the public about numerous important issues to start a war" sense, Then yes they were very offensive.

      If you mean that it's offensive in a Bu5h suX, so does @5hkr0ft sense, then you're on shaky ground. There are trollish and immature posts such as that. I have also, however, seen numerous well articulated posts by the dems of slashdot.

      --
      Photos.
    9. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by DustinB · · Score: 1

      Babies taste of chicken.

    10. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...in Japan!

    11. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by jred · · Score: 1

      No, not as a Rep, as an independent (? I usually vote Libertarian, though). I listen to both sides, and the Dems are just plain more offensive during their "debates" (non-offical, on sites such as /.). I hear Reps address the issues, and respond to allegations intelligently. I hear Deps say things very similar to "Bush eats babies". Guess which side sounds more rational, and more believable.

      I am neither a Bush nor a Kerry supporter. Personally I think anyone who would seek the presidency shouldn't have that much power.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    12. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      That's an anecdotal observation that I quite simply havn't seen.

      --
      Photos.
    13. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by zonker · · Score: 0

      we've got babies on spikes.

    14. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by jred · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're a bit biased (not to be a smartass), that would color your observations.

      What we should really do is everyone get together & write in PeeWee Herman...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    15. Re:anybody setting up an AP? by metalhed77 · · Score: 1

      I probably am biased.

      --
      Photos.
  2. Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Democratic Convention = Security Threat

    threat to your wallet, too.

    In the spirit of bipartisanship ... the other threat is the Republican convention.

    Be sure to register and vote ; even it's for the lesser of two evils.

    1. Re:Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah, you're a troll, but that doesn't mean you have to be such a tool. There are more than two choices. Even if you know the "outside candidate" doesn't have a snowball's chance, please consider it a very worth while message to send.

      Repeat after me: "I am not a party. I am a person. I will cast my vote for the person who is most likely to represent me even though it may NOT be the choice of my employer, my friends, nor my family's historical voting record, nor anyone else's interest. I will vote for myself. It's why I walk into the voting booth alone instead of sending someone else to vote on my behalf."

      If you have the priviledge to vote, don't just throw it away on the lesser of two evils when other choices are available.

    2. Re:Troll ... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      If you'd like to vote for one of the outside candidates, make sure the party you would have voted for can afford to lose. I hate the two party system, but voting third party is just going to help the guy I don't want to get (re-)elected.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Not really. It sounds logical on the surface, but break it down: Suppose you vote against the guy you hate by voting for the guy you hate just slightly less... OK, the guy you hate slightly less might be able to take him, but there's no garantee either way, but it does garantee that the guy who wins is probably going to be the guy you complain about being an arse.

      Now, instead... Don't vote at all. Did that help the guy you don't like at all? No. It didn't. Admittedly you didn't hurt him either. You also didn't help/hurt the other "lesser of two evils". Starting to see my point yet?

      OK, now then: Vote for an alternative candidate: You didn't help either of the "lesser of two evils" and you've demonstrated that you didn't like either of those two choices. Future candidates will look into that and modify their position on issues to better reflect what the public wants.

      Of course if Diebold is right, voting would be illegal if it actually made a difference.

      No one man knows what's best and true for all mankind. Don't be afraid of a polititian who is brave enough to change their mind because they've gained a different perspective. Fear the ones that never will because they have no perspective at all.

    4. Re:Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are people who are voting for a third party candidate who would have voted for Bush if the third candidate didn't exist. A third party candidate isn't an automatic vote loss for the Dems. Although, most of the time it is. And, there are folks that think Kerry is worse than/just as bad as Bush.

      I'm assuming that you're a Dem.

    5. Re:Troll ... by $ASANY · · Score: 1
      "It's why I walk into the voting booth alone instead of sending someone else to vote on my behalf"


      You mean, unlike the electoral college system of electing presidents?

    6. Re:Troll ... by slartibart · · Score: 1
      Our current political system is designed such that there will only be two political parties. As soon as a third one gains some power (thereby taking the majority away from the biggest party), then almost automatically, two parties will merge to take over the majority. It's better to give up some ideals and have some power, rather than maintain your ideals and have no power.

      We're screwed. It's a chicken and egg problem. We can't get people into power to fix the system because the system doesn't allow it.

    7. Re:Troll ... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Very good point, still I like the EC system just think the states shoud do it like ME and NB, if you win a dictrict you get that Elector, and if you win a state you get the two 'senate' electors..

      --
    8. Re:Troll ... by B.Hoover · · Score: 0
      "Repeat after me: "I am not a party. I am a person. I will cast my vote for the person who is most likely to represent me even though..."

      selfish. I am not a party. I am a person. I will cast my vote for the person who is most likely to preserve individual freedoms as guaranteed to the Constitution of the United States of America, even though it may NOT be the choice of my employer... etc.

    9. Re:Troll ... by Inebrius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...but voting third party is just going to help the guy I don't want to get (re-)elected"

      A friend of mine said the same thing. He of course wants Kerry to win. I then reminded him that in California, there is no chance at all that Bush will take the electoral votes. Since I normally vote Republican or Libertarian, I would actually be taking away a vote for the Elephants by voting Libertarian.

      If you live in California, you too can vote your conscience, whatever it may be, and not worry about Kerry not winning the State. On the other hand, if you vote Republican, and you want to vote different, you can since Bush wasn't going to win in California anyways.

    10. Re:Troll ... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      A few states do apportion electoral votes, rather than practicing a winner take all method. People are reluctant to pressure their state to go to divvying up electoral votes, because it is percived that this will give the states that don't an advantage.
      However, with more states also doing winner-take-all voting, there are increasing advantages to not doing it. (For example, a particular district can get lots of government programs even if the state it is a part of didn't go strongly for the winner, just so that district did.)

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Troll ... by brendanoconnor · · Score: 1

      I always have disliked the electoral college. The idea of winner take all was never appealing to me. I live in California, San Diego in fact. Whenever I vote republican in national matters, it feels like my vote does not count since my state almost always goes democrat. While the 2000 election would of elected Gore if it was a direct democracy, I still would of felt like my vote counted.

      Say what you want, but I was still glad to see Bush Jr. win the election of 2000, although that does not change my feelings toward the electoral college.

      Just my .02 cents.

      Brendan

    12. Re:Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we didn't have the electoral college then the candidates would limit their campaigning to the handful of states with large populations. Voters in states like mine would be totally ignored. The electoral college was created for a reason by people smarter than us. Keep the faith and keep voting Republican. Maybe we can save this country yet.

    13. Re:Troll ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even it's for the lesser of two evils.

      Or vote for a third party, who may not be evil at all.

    14. Re:Troll ... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is in a system where every state did that the 2000 election would have turned out the exact same way (in terms of electoral votes)...

      --
  3. At Least It Isn't MS by artlu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since the NSA is releasing security advisories for M$ Products can we expect WiFi to be next? The threat of insecure networks in large companies as well as government agencies should be pretty large. On my commute to work every day in the bay area, I come in contact with hundreds of "free" access points, which are left on because of computer illiteracy.

    WiFi 802.11i should solve that though... Sure, it will.
    Aj

    GroupShares Inc. - A Free and Interactive Stock Trading Community

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah the consumer Internet appliances. Trying to make network engineers out of people that can't program their VCRs.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1
      Didn't you read the end of the article?

      Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."
    3. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the rest of the thread?

    4. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by causality · · Score: 1
      Since the NSA is releasing security advisories for M$ Products


      It's a shame that the NSA does not purchase airtime (I'm sure an argument could be made that this is in the public interest) to ensure that for every M$ commercial telling you how great Microsoft products are, there is one commercial from an official government body that specializes in these matters stating all the known security problems with Windows and other Microsoft products.

      Of course M$ has plenty of kickbacks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbyists, so I don't see this ever happening.
      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Yea, but in reality they would have to do the same thing for *nix / *bsd / *everyothersoftwareproductknowntoman. To make it fair and all.

    6. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by vhold · · Score: 1

      Ahh the VCR, trying to make video reproduction engineers out of people who can't even thread a quadruplex.

    7. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      The MCSEs will sit in the corner, bitching cause the CCNA yelled at them. Cicsco guys wil have to pick up the slack from the MCSE's lack of security. Fire up your texteditors guys, time to start writing those access lists.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
    8. Re:At Least It Isn't MS by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      A the quadruplex, trying to make sound engineers out of people who can't wire an outlet.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  4. Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Klar · · Score: 1

    Don't all democrats run linux?

    1. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by thirteenVA · · Score: 1

      No, some use Mac's :)

    2. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't all democrats run linux?

      [checks percentage of laptop users who run Linux]

      If so, prepare for a landslide Republican victory the likes of which has never been seen...

    3. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      i doubt Bill Gates uses linux

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    4. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by drxs3v3n · · Score: 0

      Democrats are against freedom
      why would they run linux

    5. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please... Everyone knows that you can't run Linux on a laptop with wireless networking! If you could, then no one would want MS Windows anymore!

    6. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am very conservative and usually vote republican, yet i am a Linux user, i am anti-microsoft because of microsofts abuse of their monopoly power, i do not consider OSS & Linux as anti american, actually Linux & OSS does open up the software industry to a much more free & open and more democratic enterprise - because ANYONE can build a Linux distro and software apps for Linux and either sell em @ market value or give em away free.

      what microsoft does to the software industry is about the same as an evil tyrent dictator does to a nation, and is against my policy and philosophy for free & democratic capitalistic enterprize...

      if the GOP does not quit sucking up to M$FT i will be forced to vote democrat (barf)

    7. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the GOP does not quit sucking up to M$FT i will be forced to vote democrat (barf)

      Or you can vote for a third party or a candidate that is actually conservative

    8. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, try a news service that actually reports news and not the dem talking points.

    9. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Tongo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look, you vote republican because of a lot of issues I would assume. So don't let one issue derail you from voting republican again. When you turn yourself into a one issue voter, you become a tool for the other side. Vote for the guy who will overall be better for the country. I'm pretty sure you wil stick with Bush.

    10. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah yes, are you suggesting that the post use that pinnacle of journalistic integrity, FOX NEWS? Besides, most of the things he listed were not a matter of news sourcing or opinion, but a matter of public record. Are you saying that the existence of the patriot act is actually some democrat fabrication?

    11. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Ahh you must mean the patriot act Jon Kerry voted for...

      --
    12. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (snip) "the traitor that exists in the white house "(/snip)


      Last I checked, the man who sold national secrets to the Chinese is no longer in office.

    13. Re:Insecure laptops with wireless connections? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 1

      Some use Mac's keyboard?
      Some use Mac's mouse?
      Poor Mac, all those people using his gadgets.

  5. Not a realy problem by AlbanySux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I have heard, they are not allowing wi-fi of any kind. Not because its a security risk but because it can interfer with the equipment they really care about. the mic's and cameras and radios used to make sure everything goes smoothely.

    I don't think there will be too much trouble with this. Just another company spreading the FUD trying to make a buck.

    1. Re:Not a realy problem by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, so they are going to ban laptop's? As the article points out over half of laptops sold in the last year have WiFi built in. Thanks to XP's auto-connect for WiFi if a person was able to setup an AP outside they could surely find an XP laptop which could be compromised which was plugged into the wired network. THAT is what the article is talking about.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Not a realy problem by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      Uh, so they are going to ban laptop's?

      Quite the opposite, probably, since they're giving press credentials to bloggers like Atrios and DailyKos. Presumably they're hoping that they'll blog right from the convention floor.

    3. Re:Not a realy problem by brandon2 · · Score: 1

      But even if they did get laptops inside the convention to connect to their AP, it would still require the person using the laptop to setup forwarding between the wired NIC and the Wifi interface.

      While this all could be accomplished, it doesn't seem as big of a threat as the article makes it out to be. Not to mention the fact that someone who goes to the trouble to setup a AP and try to get onto the internal network could probably just make their way inside and connect to the wired network. Plus, why would they give the random laptops being plugged into the wired network access to sensitive information?

    4. Re:Not a realy problem by _Swank · · Score: 1

      XP is NOT, by default, set up to auto-connect to non-prefered networks (at least using XP to control the wireless device). This has to be switched on and I'm not really sure it's reasonable to expect many people have/will do that.

    5. Re:Not a realy problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No....

      All it takes is for a wifi laptop to be comprimised. Once you have control of the laptop, then you can set up forwarding yourself.

      Jeez, think about these things for a bit.

    6. Re:Not a realy problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, silly me, but don't you have to configure XP to bridge the wireless and wired networks to route packets between them?

      Granted, I understand that the average luser's XP install is going to be a security nightmare (unpatched systems, ahoy!), but... given the fickle nature of 802.11, the likelihood of actually getting the user's laptop compromised, rebooted (after installing the bridge), and then having enough time to DO something... it seems pretty remote.

      Crap, it's sometime hard enough to get a solid 802.11 signal from INSIDE such a large building, much less from the outside -> in.

    7. Re:Not a realy problem by Tyranny12 · · Score: 1

      So that opens up another type of attack.
      Merely flood the area with signals in a wide spectrum of bands - interfere with the cameras. Instant DoS.
      They may be saying that, but I doubt they haven't taken that into account. It's just a decent enough reason for the public.
      I agree, though, just another company spreading hype.

    8. Re:Not a realy problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Two things.

      First, an attacker must setup his access point (i.e. hostap) without encryption required. (For obvious reasons.)

      Second, XP, will not associate with an access point which does not require encryption without asking you first.

      Yes, yes, at least one person will click 'ok'. But at least it's something.

  6. Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by boomgopher · · Score: 3, Funny

    ummmmmmm... is that your real name?

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by scumbucket · · Score: 1

      I think it is. I used to see stories by Mr.? Bray in the Detroit Free Press a number of years ago.

      --
      CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
    2. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by goober · · Score: 4, Informative

      ummmmmmm... is that your real name?

      yes, that's his real name. He's been regurgitating FUD pieces in the Globe for years now...

    3. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading his "articles" years ago, once I realized what he was up to. Among other things, he used to spend a significant amount of time trolling Macintosh-related USENET groups trying to drum up FUD for his "articles". He's one of the reasons I have little respect for "journalists". He's more suited for tabloids than he is for mainstream journalism. Also, he appears to have very little true technical knowledge. Rather than trying to report facts, he tries to write articles that provoke controvercy.

    4. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by trixillion · · Score: 1

      Mr. apears to be the correct title. Here is the Globe's head shot of Mr. Bray.

    5. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by McDutchie · · Score: 1
      I stopped reading his "articles" years ago, once I realized what he was up to. Among other things, he used to spend a significant amount of time trolling Macintosh-related USENET groups trying to drum up FUD for his "articles". He's one of the reasons I have little respect for "journalists".

      Sure enough, we've had a few visits from him in the anti-spam newsgroup also, and it was blatantly clear he had no intention of being informed and/or educated... he was just fishing for sensation.

      He's more suited for tabloids than he is for mainstream journalism. Also, he appears to have very little true technical knowledge. Rather than trying to report facts, he tries to write articles that provoke controvercy.

      He'd make a pretty good Slashdot editor, then. :-)

    6. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by aredubya74 · · Score: 1

      Not only is it his real name, but I recall signing him up for his first Boston-area dialup account in December '95. He was a TIAC subscriber back in the day. I even took a couple of late-night support calls from him. You don't forget a guy named Hiawatha.

      --

      RW

    7. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by smkndrkn · · Score: 1

      I was going to post something similar. Thanks.

      --
      ======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
    8. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the same idiot who thinks that because Microsoft supports Hatch's Induce Act, that must mean that it's not a bad bill.

      "But if the Hatch bill is such a threat to technology, why has it garnered such avid support from the computer software industry? The Business Software Alliance, which represents some of the world's biggest software firms, backs the bill. Which is odd, because under the interpretation of the bill's critics, alliance members should be ferocious opponents.

      Consider Microsoft Corp., which offers file-copying software in its Windows Media Player, included with every copy of Windows XP. If the critics are right about this bill, the recording industry could sue Microsoft, because letting people make digital copies of their CDs encourages music piracy."

      Yeah, I wonder why Microsoft wants to go after P2P. Duh!

      Read the whole stupid article for yourself here
      http://www.boston.com/business/technology/ar ticles /2004/06/28/for_geeks_its_a_big_misunderstanding?p g=full

    9. Re:Um... "Hiawatha Bray"? by tjrupprecht · · Score: 1

      If you check his website, he actually has updated his position. I look forward to Mr. Bray's columns in the Globe, and I like his writing for the most part. For example, he has made recommendations re: dumping IE and using Firefox or Opera. I don't always agree with his positions, but he does a good job of articulating them.

  7. What's new by CrypticSpawn · · Score: 1

    The internet is so conjested with other systems trying to get into my system right now, what makes this any different?

  8. What? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 3, Funny
    My network just assumes that everybody is a stranger, and anything of value refuses to talk to anyone without a known MAC address.

    Well at least it would, but I wound up disabling all that so the CEO could get on E-Bay.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:What? by swb · · Score: 1

      My network just assumes that everybody is a stranger, and anything of value refuses to talk to anyone without a known MAC address.

      You mean they willingly talk to any old spoofed MAC address?

    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about the Democratic party here, dude... The same people who brought you the DCMA, so what do you really expect?

    3. Re:What? by burtman007 · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's better than if your C-levels wanted to search on MONSTER.com, eh?

    4. Re:What? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Well if you are going to trouble to spoof a MAC address, then you have already figured out how the switching equipment is going to magically route packets to two places at once.

      What? You mean those goofy numbers are actually important to the level 2 switching equipment...

      For the record, cloning the MAC number from your desktop to a broadband router is rather straightforward. Your router is plugged into the same port on the same network, and is merely assuming the ID of your computer.

      If you try to have 2 laptops use the same MAC number the switching equipment will generally spit them both out.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    5. Re:What? by swb · · Score: 1

      Just because they're switches doesn't make them omniscient.

      You can get MAC addresses by hearing broadcasts, so finding them is easy. As for overridding the switches MAC table, you can sometimes flood them with a ton of traffic (with a flood of bogus MAC addresses), which can allow the spoofed one to be right "right" port.

      Don't think that just because you have a switched environment you're safe from spoofing.

    6. Re:What? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The double-routing is only a problem if the two MAC addresses are alive simultaneously. Since it's a wireless network we're talking about here, the devices in question are probably not turned on 24/7 - many of them are probably laptops. So long as the MAC spoofer is spoofing a MAC of a laptop that is CURRENTLY NOT IN USE, this measure you are referring to won't save you.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:What? by karlm · · Score: 1

      Higher-end switches can be configured to stop accepting new MAC addresses instead of falling back to hub mode when their ARP tables get full.

      --
      Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  9. But, but, but... by fizban · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who in their right mind would want to hack into the democratic convention? The only ones I can think of are Republicans, and we all know they never do anything illegal like that...

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    1. Re:But, but, but... by Lester67 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It won't be the Dems... the average laptop won't fit down their pants.

    2. Re:But, but, but... by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

      Monica Lewinsky fit down Bill's pants, and she's quite a bit larger ...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...The only ones I can think of are Republicans...

      Don't forget RMS's man: Ralph Nader! He's armed with his Powerbook manufactured out of Hemp and recycled aluminum cans! It's all loaded up on Open BIOS and Yellow Dog.

      GO GREEN!

    4. Re:But, but, but... by theMerovingian · · Score: 1


      That's funny!

      Reference

      --
      "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    5. Re:But, but, but... by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      The only ones I can think of are Republicans, and we all know they never do anything illegal like that...

      I know, Democrats never do anything wrong.

      Those two links suck, but you get the idea. Politics is all a bunch of corrupt lawbreaking, no matter WHAT side you're on.

    6. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nader isn't the Green Party candidate this time; that's David Cobb.

    7. Re:But, but, but... by sfjoe · · Score: 1


      Those two links suck, but you get the idea. Politics is all a bunch of corrupt lawbreaking, no matter WHAT side you're on.

      True enough, but Republicans have raised criminal behavior to an art form.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    8. Re:But, but, but... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      But the Democrats added funding for the taller pedestal and ladder in the budget. So, it's a group effort.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    9. Re:But, but, but... by Procrastin8er · · Score: 1

      Of course it would be a Republican, we all know the Democrats use good old fashion paper, preferably stuffed in their pants and socks...

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    10. Re:But, but, but... by dheltzel · · Score: 1
      Who in their right mind would want to hack into the democratic convention? The only ones I can think of are Republicans, and we all know they never do anything illegal like that...

      True enough, but what if some of them Liberals get the idea that they should crack their own net and blame it on the Republicans?

      Did ya think of that?

      Or what if some "rough" Republican crack the convention network and blames it on a Democrat, saying they are trying to discredit the Republicans?

      Or what if some . . .
      umm, nevermind

    11. Re:But, but, but... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1
      You had to bring the Clinton sex scandal into it, didn't you? You know, if someone asks me in a public forum if I had my dick sucked, the answer is always "no". I don't care who you are.

      The question to Clinton was inappropriate and completely immaterial to any investigation going on at the time. Everyone harps on Clinton for lying. But the real abuse of power was by the people directing the investigation into his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

      Was what he did wrong? I certainly don't think so. I don't think it was wrong for him to get his knob spit-shined by another adult. They were both consenting adults. The issue of adultery is a private matter between Hilary, Monica and him. And since I would respond similarly to the witch hunt, I don't hold his answers to the deposition against him.

      Was it against the law? Sure. Was it the right thing to do? Yep.

      Now, lying to convince the country to go to war, to satisfy some family fued, that's in a whole category unto itself.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    12. Re:But, but, but... by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 0

      Clinton also sold bolisitc missile and nuclear weapons secrets to the communist chinese. And had a small boy kidnaped by the ATF in order to do a favour for Fidel Castro. And he went to Moscow to protest against the USA durring Vietnam. And the DNC had people shot in their homes then had their bodies dumped in parks. And the Clintons personally ripped people off (white water).
      plus, it's not that he lied. it's that he lied under oath and that is called perjury. that is a fellony. a fellony is definatly a "high crime or misdemenor" and that is why he was impeached. it doesn't matter what he lied about. all that matters is the perjury. like if a women has the intent of banging a guy, maybe she even really wants to. as soon as she says no and he doesn't listen, it's rape. it doesn't matter what was in her head, all that matters is what she said. it's more or less the same principle.

      --
      The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
    13. Re:But, but, but... by vespazzari · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the situation, and what you or many many other americans might do in the same situation as clinton, he is THE president. While this does not make him god or infallable it does mean that he should be held to the same laws that we are. He broke the law, it is that simple... I dont care what for, if he is expected to uphold the law, then he should at least be held to it, or pay the consequences.

      --
      "Alcohol, cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems" -Homer Simpson
    14. Re:But, but, but... by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      You had to bring the Clinton sex scandal into it, didn't you? You know, if someone asks me in a public forum if I had my dick sucked, the answer is always "no". I don't care who you are.

      Yo, captain Fly-off-the-handle, chill out bud. First of all, the Clinton sex scandal was brought up to show that both parties are capable and perfectly willing to lie cheat and steal to get what they want, it's not a trait limited to Republicans, which is what the parent was saying. Although I'm sure you can regurgitate a little more of Michael Moore's thoughts on the matter, like your family feud nonsense, and try to tell me Republicans are worse, the fact is, politicians are corrupt, and have been throughout the history of politics.

      As for your buddy Bill Clinton, the guy was and is a scumbag liar. And no, not for getting head. (Well, he is a scumbag for that 'cuz he cheated on his wife at the time, but as you said, that's his family's business, not mine). He's a scumbag for getting head while conducting business related to the security of our country, which is his responsibility. He's a scumbag for LYING UNDER OATH, I don't care if they asked him if it was true that he had a three-inch DICK, you don't LIE UNDER OATH TO A FEDERAL COURT. If you don't hold it against him, good for you, but it's still illegal. It's still the WRONG thing to do, no matter how much you're in love with Mr. Clinton. He's still the only president in the history of the United States to be impeached. And questioning how well a sitting president can do his job with his dick in an interns mouth hardly qualifies as an abuse of power. I think everything a President does that affects his ability to govern this country effectively should be checked and checked again, be it Clinton or W or whoever.

      And I certainly hope you don't teach or raise children, because I'd hate to see what you tell them is right or wrong.

    15. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to refill the meds, dude.

    16. Re:But, but, but... by gatzke · · Score: 1

      Two presidents were impeached, Andrew Johnson and Slick Willie.

      http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

      Neither ended up convicted and removed from office.

    17. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If your post gets moderated up the grammar nazis are going to have a field day.

      As for the rest of your post, from what little I can make sense of:
      Clinton also sold
      Yeah, yeah, yeah, and Reagan sold weapons to Iran. At least there's strong proof of that, unlike the whole "nuclear weapons secrets" which amounts to a conspiracy nutjob's wet dream.

      small boy kidnaped
      A small boy was returned to his father, nothing more. His mother was dead. His father wanted him back. Just because his relatives were Anti-Castro doesn't mean they have better legal claim to the child than his father . It was a tough call, but it's done every day in the US. Why should there be an exeception just because international borders were crossed?

      bodies dumped in parks
      DNC had people shot in their homes? Wasn't that on X-Files? Gotta stop reading those internet conspiracy sites, some of them now say Bush is in league with aliens, and not the illegal kind.

      ripped people off
      Whitewater? You may want to check - they ultimately were found innocent, despite millions of dollars of taxpayer money spent investigating those false allegations. And, since they couldn't find guilt there, Monica was unearthed, and millions more were spent. Woo! Who needs to spend money on education anyway, you obviously spell well enough. Uh. Yeah.

      it doesn't matter
      Obviously, it does matter, otherwise people wouldn't be arguing with you. Clinton sleeping with Monica had no bearing on the case in question, yet the question was asked by the prosecution to try to swing the jury over to their side. It was an attempt to establish a "pattern" of this "bad man" who commits the grevious crime of adultery with women, so therefore he's evil, and the women are all victims, like Bush's God intended. Even more henious lies are made under oath every minute of every day, yet millions of dollars of taxpayers money aren't spent to uncover them.

      it's rape
      If you think "No" always means "No", then you're very naive. I agree, it should. But women don't want to use it that way. But want to be treated like it does, for those times when they really mean it. Or when they wake up the next day and get upset over their actions of the night before, and take it out on their "date" in a court of law. Social behavior is a funny thing.

      And to reinforce what the other poster said - please, check in with your doctor. Either they've got you on the wrong medications, they need to up your dosage, or your prescriptions ran out a while ago and you really, really need to check in with him/her.
    18. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a second. You honestly hold Clinton's perjury higher than Tricky Dick's Watergate? Just because the president resigns and the vice-president magically pardons him doens't make his impeachment proceedings go away.

      At least Republicans learned something over the past 20 years about rigging elections. Last time it got all the way to the supreme court and they won!

    19. Re:But, but, but... by sinnfeiner1916 · · Score: 0

      those perjuries arn't made by the chief enforcer of the law in the country. when the president does it is important. when some paddy from the west end does it's not so important. The murder happened in i think late 1993 or 1994. No, I did not get it off of Xfiles.

      --
      The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
    20. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a trap.

    21. Re:But, but, but... by Procrastin8er · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could post what evidence you have to support your comment about the last election being rigged by the Republicans. I hear many people say this like it is fact, but I never see any proof. That lefty liberal house organ, the New York Times, went over the results for six months after the Supreme court ruled, and they couldn't even spin up something worthy to print. And that is saying something from the organization that allowed Jason Blair to disgrace their pages. Remember, also, it was the Dems that wanted to throw out the votes from the armed service folks who voted overseas. Kind of hard to take the high ground when you try to discount the votes of the people who are risking their lives for our country. Put up or shut up, I am still waiting for some real facts on how the Reps stole the election in Dem controlled counties. I wake up every morning and thank God that Al Gore didn't win the last election, I mean have you seen the speeches he has been giving lately, his new style reminds me of that short Austrian house painter...

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    22. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Or what about the Naderites you insensive clod?

      Nader in 2004!! If you lacked a reason to vote, now you have it.

      Oh ya, there is also the "Libertarians" with their computer science geek presidential canidate. Maybe he could hack the displays to say vote for me. That could be one of the greatest hack of all time.

      \/073 L1br37aR1aN. Kerry 5vX0rs. \/\/3 rUl3z.

    23. Re:But, but, but... by RTMFD · · Score: 1

      ... or in their socks!

    24. Re:But, but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we're more worried about people in government stealing national secrets and selling them to the highest bidder.

    25. Re:But, but, but... by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      you don't LIE UNDER OATH TO A FEDERAL COURT
      People perjure themselves in federal court all the time, if they think they can get away with it. You only hear about it when they're caught. See, for example, Martha Stewart.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  10. so what's new? by stonebeat.org · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the article doesn't contain any new info. Everyone know how unsecure network connections can be at conventions. everyone know they can cause havoc.

    Even the SANS conference, with all the security gurus, had issues with providing network connectivity. That is why they longer provide network connectivity, WiFi or otherwise, in classrooms.

    1. Re:so what's new? by 44BSD · · Score: 1

      SANS doesn't provide WiFi? This must be a new development. They sure as hell did in February, and it was unencrypted, too. Of course, we all new it was wide open and more or less behaved accordingly.

      I might even still have some of the tcpdump logs ;^)

    2. Re:so what's new? by Funkskillet · · Score: 1

      They provided WiFi connectivity from within my SANS classroom two weeks ago in Monterey...

    3. Re:so what's new? by UnderAttack · · Score: 1

      SANS still provides WIFI at conferences. It is not intended to reach into classrooms to avoid distractions. But typically, you can still get it in the classrooms that are close to the terminal room. SANS does use a 'nocat' style authentication system. Its unencrypted as everyone would have to use the same WEP key anyway. Well, but after all, thats what tools like ipsec and ssh are for.

      --
      ---- join dshield.org Distributed Intrusion Detec
    4. Re:so what's new? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

      I believe sans does still provide wifi. Blackhat and defcon certainly do. Good luck even using defcon's, though, with all of the kiddies and their disassociation tools.

    5. Re:so what's new? by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, would it be a big deal if some hackers did get into the convention network?

      Nobody is going to die from a wifi security breach. The same laptops are going to be in hotels a few hours later and be just as attackable then as they ever were anyway.

      In fact I would be surprised if there was anything of value accessible through the convention wifi network. More than likely there will be a hopelessly overloaded T1 and a handful of printers that are out of paper anyway, just like every other convention.

      If the democrats set up a file share with a bunch of strategic plans or something, well sheesh, they're going to get leaked anyway, regardless of the wifi network.

      I think the article goes into the old "the sky is falling" category. It's kind of amusing that wifi actually takes place in the sky, but that's about it.

  11. Stupid fears.... by heyitsme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Democratic convention will use a standard wired network rather than WiFi. But according to Maggio, this won't provide any extra security. That's because many visitors who'll plug into the network will have computers with built-in WiFi capability. The WiFi feature is automatically switched on when the computer is running. In effect, the laptop can connect to a wired and a wireless network at the same time.

    So... let me get this straight... they are going to connect to my laptop's wireless NIC, and then piggyback onto the wired connection? Riiiiight... This would be tough to accomplish... even in Windows.

    Maggio said that an attacker with a high-powered WiFi access point could set up shop outside the FleetCenter, and communicate with WiFi laptops on the inside. If these laptops haven't been protected with the latest security patches, a skilled intruder will be able to gain access to the laptop. He could then leapfrog onto the Democrats' network, allowing him to steal information or vandalize computers. ''By being on both networks at the same time," said Maggio, ''that can compromise the entire network security."

    Odds are, these laptops have already been 0wn3d..

    1. Re:Stupid fears.... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah heck, just compromise the laptops when they are back in the wilds of the Hotel network, then have them phone home once they get inside. Won't be hard. Just put a billboard to a porn site up outside the hotel that points to a server that exploits and IE flaw.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Stupid fears.... by afidel · · Score: 2, Informative

      So... let me get this straight... they are going to connect to my laptop's wireless NIC, and then piggyback onto the wired connection? Riiiiight... This would be tough to accomplish... even in Windows.

      Yes, because clicking on bridge connection is SO difficult *cough*.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Stupid fears.... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      But then the laptop owner would need to be a willing participant, which is not what the article discusses. WiFi is not even an issue if someone who wants to break into the system can get the credentials to attend the convention... they'd just need to plug in their laptop.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Stupid fears.... by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      So check the laptops to make sure they're up to date at the door, dont let them be used if it's not.

      Or, I suppose, we need some super-complicated technical solution to a very simple social problem.

      Just like checking kids for headlice before they start the school year.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    5. Re:Stupid fears.... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like I can't compromise a laptop over the wireless connection, setup remote desktop, and do the bridging myself. Duh, of course I can. Hell if you know windows well enough you can just do the bridging via remote registry (though that would take some planning and testing).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Stupid fears.... by ewhac · · Score: 1
      So... let me get this straight... they are going to connect to my laptop's wireless NIC, and then piggyback onto the wired connection? Riiiiight... This would be tough to accomplish... even in Windows.

      Well, actually, no.

      If we assume a Windoze laptop that doesn't have the absolute latest patches (and there will be many of them), then the following will be very simple to accomplish:

      • Set up WAP with high-gain antenna, ESSID broadcast enabled, no authentication, WEP disabled. Have it offer DHCP leases. Windoze will happily connect without so much as a by-your-leave. (If you're lucky, you'll get a little balloon saying it connected.)
      • Inject Virus Of The Week into system, carrying remote rootkit.
      • Connect to rootkit. Enable Windoze built-in routing software (connection sharing).

      You now have a machine routing packets for you from/to the private network. Not hard. Very difficult to trace. (Hmmm. Any HAMs out there who want to do signal triangulation?)

      It would be rather harder to accomplish the same thing through a Linux or *BSD laptop, since Linux typically doesn't connect to a network without an explicit order to do so. Then you'd have to compromise root to alter the routing table. Not impossible, but considerably less straightforward.

      Schwab

  12. Obligatory MS Bashing ... by SteveM · · Score: 2, Funny

    From the article:

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

    Let the oxymoron jokes commence!

    SteveM

    1. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by craters · · Score: 1

      Well obviously if you have security specialists from Microsoft, what could go wrong? I don't even see why they need anyone from Cisco at all. I'm sure those MCSE people can handle any problem. In fact, I think the would would be safer if Microsoft was in every home and on every network.

      /obligatory MS bashing sarcasm program complete

    2. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      That's not an oxymoron.

    3. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      I promised myself I will refrain from making any more political related jokes and comments on slashdot ever again...but this is proving to be too hard to keep

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    4. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so clever. Can I be your friend in your imaginary, self-righteous, deluded world? Sounds like your life is so fun-filled.

      How many times have you attempted suicide? Try harder next time.

    5. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just agree on the oxy...

    6. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by alfredo · · Score: 1

      I would first check to see who MS backs for the presidential contest before I'd let them near my computer.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    7. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by LehiNephi · · Score: 1

      Ah, here is where semantics of the English language enter. You see, what the quote means is that they will have two groups of people helping them:

      1.) security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc, and
      2.) Microsoft Corp.

      Surely nobody could possibly confuse the two.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    8. Re:Obligatory MS Bashing ... by p0ppe · · Score: 1

      Bush recieved $184,040 from MS, while Kerry got $104,663, all according to opensecrets.org.

      --


      "Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
  13. Hmm... by wbav · · Score: 1

    It seems to me, even if you got into a laptop, the network should have enough security that, well, you could get to other laptops, but not to the main servers.

    And I don't know about you guys but every time I've tried to work with connection sharing, it has required intervention on the machine that I was using to bridge the networks. It seems to me, if the servers are set up correctly this is more a case of chicken little.

    --

    =================
    Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
  14. ROFL by DecimalThree · · Score: 1

    QUOTE: "But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp." Yeah, I trust them.

  15. Democrats have techies on their side... by A_GREER · · Score: 5, Funny

    How can they get hacked when it was AL Gore who invented the internet...

    1. Re:Democrats have techies on their side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to anyone about to say that Al Gore didnt invent the Internet, just remember that the Internet is based on AlGoreithms.

    2. Re:Democrats have techies on their side... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, he's on Apple's Board of Directors, and the DNC is using MS products.

  16. Wallpaper by ParticleMan911 · · Score: 1

    Easy solution. Change the wallpaper.

    --

    --
    Are you a Chipotle Fan?
  17. Did someone say "Microsoft" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp

    <snicker>

  18. same network? by datadriven · · Score: 1

    Why would they allow public access on the same network as sensitive info. I really can't believe that's true.

    1. Re:same network? by 44BSD · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't allow it on the same network (I hope), but idiot XP users' boxen automatically come up in ad hoc mode, and will ASSociate with the naughty hax0rs box outside the perimeter. Probably will be dumb enough to forward packets between interfaces too! Yeeeeeehaaaa!

  19. IANACS, but... by meganthom · · Score: 1

    Maybe this is an issue that my little engineering brain can't understand (and if so, I would appreciate knowing why), but why can't they just have all laptop users disable their WiFi connections? Why would they have to block all computers with WiFi from participating at all?

    --
    Live free or die
    1. Re:IANACS, but... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      It's for the same reason that you can't just have all celular phone users turn off their ringers during a movie -- There are always too many people who either don't know how to, don't understand why they should to or just don't care either way.

    2. Re:IANACS, but... by meganthom · · Score: 1

      But they have metal detectors and security at this thing, right? When you have to turn on your computer to show it's not a bomb, they could disable the WiFi and password protect it. At least, that's what I was imagining...

      --
      Live free or die
    3. Re:IANACS, but... by Minwee · · Score: 1

      That would require that every entrance be staffed by security people who know the ins and outs of every notebook computer ever manufactured along with every operating system ever installed. There would have to be enough of them to handle all of that laptop surgery without holding up the lines, and they would have to be surrounded by an army of lawyers to prevent the convention organizers from being sued over the damage that they are going to cause.

      What I'm imagining instead is a conversation that goes something like this:

      "Excuse me, sir. You will have to turn on your laptop."

      "Huh?"

      "I have to see that it's a real computer."

      "Um, okay." *click*

      *wait wait wait* "Beep!"

      "Does this computer have any kind of whiffy network?"

      "What's that?"

      "Whiffy. It's, um... some kind of network thingy. And I guess it's bad. It could, you know, interfere with people's pacemakers or the microwave oven or something."

      "I don't know. It's a company computer. The IT guys deal with that."

      "Oh, fine. Whatever. Just go on in."

    4. Re:IANACS, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is an issue that my little engineering brain can't understand (and if so, I would appreciate knowing why)

      You do not understand because you have not used your little engineering brain to design a larger engineering brain yet.

      --
      Slashdot Autonomous Reader and Caustic Answer Solution Mechanism.

  20. Low Self esteem by brownja · · Score: 1

    Insecure laptops probably just need reassurance from their mother. Unsecure laptops, on the other hand....

  21. Re:The real security issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anti-Bush fanatics are so cute when they're foaming at the mouth....

  22. With friends like this... by write_with_numbers · · Score: 1

    "But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp."

    We all know how competent those Microsoft security experts are. So, how many unpatched holes are still in IE?

    --
    You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
    1. Re:With friends like this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been hanging around here a bit too long ...

      MS consultants would know their OS inside out and offer good suggestions in making their environment a tad more secure to network exploits in general.

      Saying that MS can't offer good service because IE is buggy is akin saying that no one should use GIMP because there are idiots exploiting Apache's form-mail script.

      But of course, you are too dense and too self-deluded to understand what goes on in the real world. Which is why your life sucks.

    2. Re:With friends like this... by write_with_numbers · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I hang around here a bit too much, but that doesn't change the point I was trying to make.

      Someone can be an expert on a deisel submarine and know everything there is to know about its operation and security. This person still can't take that submarine through mine infested waters because that is a weakness of the craft. He is skilled, but the craft has its limitations.

      I used IE as an example because it has been a part of Microsoft's product line for a number of years, and it is a good example of how a limited number of programmers make mistakes that will not be found until they cause major problems. Following in this train of thought we begin to understand why MS software has a long record of being exploited by our less moral computer bretheren. Furthermore, I would wager that this event will be the 'mine field' of the network security year.

      The simple point I am trying to make here is that no matter how well a technician knows the system, it is the system in the end that is responsible for security. And remember, you are defending a company who's founder has stated, "Code is not the most important thing in security."

      I also don't appreciate the not so thinly veiled insults as they are founded in ignorance.

      --
      You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
  23. Don't worry, the big daddies are in control by wytcld · · Score: 1

    Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  24. Prevent Wireless by yafujifide · · Score: 1

    Why don't they just use a PDA equipped with wireless network-clogging ability to disable all wireless networks?

    1. Re:Prevent Wireless by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No need. I can just loan them my microwave oven. It effectively shuts down the wifi in my house.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Prevent Wireless by thephotoman · · Score: 1

      If you're not using 802.11a, you can brind down a wireless network by using cordless phones that also use 2.4 GHz as their broadcasting band. That happens all the time in my house.

      --
      Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
  25. to stop wifi... by A_GREER · · Score: 1

    ...A huge faraday cage...

    1. Re:to stop wifi... by double-oh+three · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unless, of course, there would actually be a AP inside this huge faraday cage.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    2. Re:to stop wifi... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or EMP? Or a huge tesla coil ;)

  26. really secret stuff by pocomoonshiine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe somebody at the DNC has compromising pictures of George Bush getting wads of money stuffed up... oh wait, that wouldn't be news. (Same applies to Mr. Kerry) Just what sort of top secret information does anybody expect to snag? This is a planned media circus, not a cigar smoke-filled warroom meeting.

    I don't see how the security vulnerabilities at the DNC are any different than any business, convention, or hotel on any day in any city.

  27. Some quotes... by chris_eineke · · Score: 0

    He could then leapfrog onto the Democrats' network, allowing him to steal information or vandalize computers. unless proper precautions are taken, computer vandals will be able to tap into these laptops by using wireless transmitters located outside of the FleetCenter. The attackers could then use the compromised laptops to gain access to the computer network used to run the convention. Call me stupid, but the essence of this article is: "It is possible to get access by WAN to laptops that access the LAN. Thus an intruder can attackk the server that run the convention by magic tools that immediately destroy the servers.", no?

    --
    "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
  28. Wow.. No kidding.. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

    Any decent IT manager knows that wireless networks pose a security threat, but precautions can be taken to eliminate these threats. Just some thoughts: 1) Anyone with a wireless laptop gets placed on a completely different subnet, 2) use WEP to keep out the idiot hackers 3) place a firewall and other security devices between the wireless portions of your network and anything important 4) etc. Point is, wireless is only a major issue for morons.

  29. The should confiscate the following... by mcwop · · Score: 1
    To help improve security the following items should be confiscated as people enter the convention:

    • Pants
    • Socks
    • Ethernet cables
    • Wireless cards
    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    1. Re:The should confiscate the following... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That would be at Ted Kennedy's party.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:The should confiscate the following... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pants shouldn't be too much of a problem... we all know how easy it is to get a Democrat to drop his pants!!! Socks could be much more difficult... the Clintons are really, really attached to that cat!

  30. Yes, he's a technology writer for the Globe... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    ...and of(I believe, hard to judge from the one photo I've seen of him) of African decent, so stop trolling.

    Oh, and he has posted both stories and comments before on slashdot, and written articles for the globe on topics slashdot has brought attention to.

    I think he dumbs down his articles too much for the Globe(or it would be nice to see some high-level articles, not just simple stuff), given that the Boston area is the technology center of the east coast- but otherwise, I like what he does.

    I have zero respect for reporters who simply watch the wire and rewrite AP/Reuters articles, and I've seen some pretty bad(ie, barely qualifies as a "rewrite") articles from tech reporters.

    1. Re:Yes, he's a technology writer for the Globe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His stories are pretty good. You don't read the Globe or the Times for cutting edge geekspeak. It's oriented to general and business users. I'm not aware that his stories spread more FUD than any others oriented to this audience, but I've never thought about it before. Let me see if I can find some from 1999....

    2. Re:Yes, he's a technology writer for the Globe... by boomgopher · · Score: 1

      ...and of(I believe, hard to judge from the one photo I've seen of him) of African decent, so stop trolling.

      Ah, um, yes - so that explains why he's named after an American Indian from Longfellow's poem Hiawatha
      Forgiveth me for being such a racist troll..

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    3. Re:Yes, he's a technology writer for the Globe... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Mr. Bray is also a contributor for NPR's All Things Considered.

    4. Re:Yes, he's a technology writer for the Globe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Boston Globe and NPR, hmmm...I think I see a credibility problem here, both are left wing house organs.

  31. I can see the disaster now... by stienman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The vandals could obtain sensitive information related to the campaign of presidential candidate John Kerry.

    Because you can never know too much about what a presidential candidate ate for breakfast.

    Or they could unleash an attack that would bring down the network and throw the convention into chaos.

    I thought all these political conventions consisted of was pure chaos? The political machine draws on entropy, if these things provide further chaos and uncertianty to the issues then I'd assume the campaigners would be in favor of it.

    -Adam

    1. Re:I can see the disaster now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure Kerry didn't have waffles for breakfast?

  32. Re:what, but they created networking by A_GREER · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ignorance is bliss

    That makes me wonder why John Kerry looks so sad...

  33. It's actually rather easy to accomplish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... let me get this straight... they are going to connect to my laptop's wireless NIC, and then piggyback onto the wired connection? Riiiiight... This would be tough to accomplish... even in Windows.

    While it's not as simple as some script kiddie attack (yet), XP has the ability to bridge two network connections built in. And it works pretty well.

    Using one of the numerous remote access flaws in XP (assuming the computer isn't fully patched, which is not a bad assumption to make), you inject a program which gives you access to the machine, and then you bridge the conenction from the wired to the wireless. Done and done, you have a wireless->wired bridge and you can sniff the whole wired network away, or at least the segment you happen to be connected to.

    It's not implausible. Unlikely, perhaps, but it can be done without more than, say, a couple days work by somebody who's reasonably familiar with some windows flaws.

  34. Not the biggest news about the DNC by weekendwarrior1980 · · Score: 1

    They're going to use "free speech" zones for anti-war protestors. So much for being any different that bush. For a party that supposedly is Liberal they do seem to have a very distorted notion what liberalism is. Here's a lively discussion on it. http://www.peopleforchange.net/forums/index.php?sh owtopic=14871

    1. Re:Not the biggest news about the DNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only big differences is the dems want to ween from the dependance on middle east oil.. and wants to undo bush's second tax cut. This is the DNC is specifically targeting the RNC businesses for shutdown (Rightfully so, actually)

      Both are extremely pro-corporate and even pro-war. Dont believe me? Go look at kerry's website and read his positions on the issues.

      I am disgusted, appaled, and voting libertarian.

    2. Re:Not the biggest news about the DNC by pocomoonshiine · · Score: 1

      The Democratic Party has nothing to do with the details of crazy public safety measures in Boston, but the Republican governor and ludicrous Mayor Mumbles Menino do. Add to that, greedy cops cashing in on a bogus non-specific homeland security alert, picking the best (worst) possible time to picket; you've got a situation that would make our founding fathers raise the Union Jack proudly.

    3. Re:Not the biggest news about the DNC by syrinx · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked you *ever* thought the Democans were different from the Republicrats.

      Third parties are the only way we'll ever get real change.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    4. Re:Not the biggest news about the DNC by sevensharpnine · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, take a look at the surrounding posts. Most of these people grew up on the two-party system, and as far as their little brains are concerned, republicans and democrats are two completely opposite ends of the political spectrum. I agree with your post, but I'd be more shocked if someone on /. actually recognized the vast similarity between the U.S.'s two dominating circus parties. Let's hope these parrots don't reproduce.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
  35. Revealed: +1, Hyper-patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can find all of the compromising documents
    at The White House.

    Seditiously yours,
    Kilgore Trout

  36. Hmmm not really democratic specific... by merlin_jim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't bash on the democrats. This has been a problem ever since wireless networking has become ubiquitous in every convention, company, and private network. The democrats are no more or less susceptible than anyone else...

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    1. Re:Hmmm not really democratic specific... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      No one is bashing the democrats, I don't know how you got that idea.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:Hmmm not really democratic specific... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Hmmm not really democratic specific...

      Not sure how you can say that. It is specifically about wifi access that the Democratic National Convetion. I don't see any bashing going on in the article.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:Hmmm not really democratic specific... by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      No one is bashing the democrats, I don't know how you got that idea.

      They publish an article decrying that the democratic convention is insecure. Nowhere do they mention that this is a prevalent concern for many organizations. Therefore, to some types (PHBs) it looks like the democratic convention is at fault for this...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  37. Hey... by Otter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...at least the Globe has found a story besides "Why can't you whiny Bostonians take the convention in stride, like New Yorkers?"

    As long as Globe writers are reading Slashdot, perhaps someone could clarify this mystery:

    • Yesterday's paper claimed that "11% of Boston businesses" believe they'll make more money as a result of the DNC, with 78% expecting the same or less>
    • Today's paper featured the Causeway Street pizzeria owner who put up a pro-Bush banner and is closing his store for the week and going to Canada, expecting more trouble than business if he stays open.
    Excuse me? If a guy who owns a freaking pizzeria across the freaking street from the Fleet Center doesn't think the convention is worth any money, who the hell are those 11% of business owners who think they'll benefit?
    1. Re:Hey... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Probably people with more business sense then putting up a Bush banner across from the convention and closing shop during what will probably be that spots bussiest week in history?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Hey... by tgd · · Score: 1

      Nobody is going to benefit, except the places renting out rooms and the fancier restaurants in those areas.

      Other business are being crippled, other reports have talked about smaller stores that may not survive a week of no one being able to get to them.

      If Menino (the Mayor of Boston) wasn't so high on himself, he would've put thet convention at the super modern brand new convention center where it wouldn't have impacted anything, but no... he wanted to show off the city and as a result totally screwed up the Big Dig for the last six months, is making 3/4 of the city take a vacation on his schedule not theirs and costing taxpayers millions while schools and other services are critically underfunded.

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

      "...the Causeway Street pizzeria owner who put up a pro-Bush banner and is closing his store for the week and going to Canada, expecting more trouble than business if he stays open."

      Excuse me? If a guy who owns a freaking pizzeria across the freaking street from the Fleet Center doesn't think the convention is worth any money, who the hell are those 11% of business owners who think they'll benefit?

      Democrats.

    4. Re:Hey... by Bearpaw · · Score: 1
      Probably people with more business sense then putting up a Bush banner across from the convention and closing shop during what will probably be that spots bussiest week in history?

      Heh. Shows what lengths some people will go to to avoid exposure to opposing opinions. If it's the place I'm thinking of, they've got a TV in there that's usually tuned to Faux News ("We Distort, You Comply").

      To be fair, I'm not entirely sure I blame him, though I like to think I'd stick it out if I was in a similar position. Still, it be a rough week.

    5. Re:Hey... by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 2, Funny

      who the hell are those 11% of business owners who think they'll benefit? Hotels and escort services.

    6. Re:Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't think I would blame him either... If you support bush, the last thing you want to put up with is thousands of people telling you how wrong you are in your own place of business...

      Cause you know, they would.

    7. Re:Hey... by mi · · Score: 1
      Shows what lengths some people will go to to avoid exposure to opposing opinions.

      In Taxachusetts, he is being exposed to the opposing opinion every time he pays his taxes, renovates his premises, or hires/fires an employee. Small business owners hate Democrats -- and for a good reason.

      Not many will try to make a point of it, like this guy, and forgo the possible profits, but that's another story.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Hey... by nigelc · · Score: 1

      I think part of the issue is that it will be so freakin' hard for him to get to his place of business during the DNC.
      Between all the police, SS, DoHS, civilian contractors and other protectors of the public paranoia trying to ensure that no-one gets close enough to do anything nasty to the delegates at the convention (like, oh I don't know, expose them to an opposing opinion), I can see why someone across the road from the Fleet might say "AMF" for the next week.

      --


      Cthulhu Barata Nikto
    9. Re:Hey... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

      Speculation is great and all, but don't treat it like it's anything near facts. I think it has a lot to say about business owners attitudes toward the convention, but I'm not sure it says anything about what will actually happen.

      The business owners may know their business, but I'll bet you they have absolutely no experience about how political conventions affect their business.

      --
      AccountKiller
    10. Re:Hey... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the Big Dig has been an exemplary sign of efficiency and common sense in US public works projects. How much more of *my* federal tax dollars are going to get sunk into that pit?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  38. So what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So some passer-by gets free internet. So what. If Kerry et al have their network set up so that just any delegate can tap into it and get sensetive information, then maybe we don't want him as president...

  39. Quakecon? by Sporkinum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In a similar light, I was wondering what kind of mayhem will ensue at Quakecon. I'm sure there will be a ton of virus/worm spewing boxes plugged into the byoc lan.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  40. Somewhere.... by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Somewhere Karl Rove is twirling his mustache and recruiting neocon script kiddies.

    --
    If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
  41. Blow your horn elsewhere.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any wifi machine connected could allow access to sensative info about kerry. Yeah, it could be threat, but I consider your article ill-informed. Static machines are just as dangerous. Hell, the truth is the public is simply not safe from crackers should we become aggressive, no matter where you are , no matter what else is going on. fear mongering is not going to help.

  42. OP for new book/show? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be interested in all the security matters for a major convention like this one.

    Looks like a book or TV show?

  43. Re: Yes by ftvcs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Red Hat Linux to be precise. You can apply as an admin if you want...

  44. Basic precaution by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If the Democrats have any sense, any non trusted computers are going to live on a different subnet to their trusted systems, with no routing between the two networks. The trusted systems should be using a VPN to make sure any network traffic they're emitting is encrypted.

    That way, sure someone can hijack a laptop, but all they get to do is piggy back on the Democrat's internet connection or target other machines on the untrusted network.

    Sure it's possible they haven't thought of this, but it's such a basic precaution I find it hard to believe. If they're letting any untrusted computers on to their network they have to treat the physical network like the internet - untrusted jsut like the guest PCs.

    1. Re:Basic precaution by geekoid · · Score: 0

      You probably didn't mean anything, but one way to avoid flames, and angry posts is not to mention a specific party in a technical post.

      Your advice is sound for any party, and writing something like 'If the [partyname] have any sense,...'

      Many companies do not have that same basic precaution.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Basic precaution by theManInTheYellowHat · · Score: 1

      This is such an obvious problem I can not believe it made the news. What the parent to this post proposed should work. I believe it could also be called a bastion host on a perimeter network.

      Page 107 of the O'Rielly Building Internet Firewalls

    3. Re:Basic precaution by rwiedower · · Score: 1

      This is my principle problem with the article in question. The actual people running the convention only get a brief paragraph in the end saying this:


      Lina Garcia, press secretary for the Democratic convention, refused to say whether such a system is in place in the FleetCenter. Indeed, she refused to offer any details about computer security plans, to keep potential intruders in the dark.

      But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

      I mean, come on. The reporter could have at least included one security "expert" who could've mentioned how incredibly easy it would be to secure this problem...but that would then undermine their entire reason for righting the article. I can't believe the Globe published this tripe.

    4. Re:Basic precaution by rwiedower · · Score: 1

      Principal problem, I mean. If only I had an editor...

    5. Re:Basic precaution by isoga · · Score: 1
      It seems that there is a very likely scenario that would provide access to the Democrats' network

      The convention center provides WiFi so the attendees can access the Internet / check mail, etc.
      They fire up VPNs so they can access their super secret DemocratNet.
      Hackers hack in on the WiFi and then back out through the VPN.

      The best (only) solution I've seen round this are VPNs that disable all local LAN access when active

    6. Re:Basic precaution by kuom · · Score: 1

      Sure it's possible they haven't thought of this, but it's such a basic precaution I find it hard to believe.

      You haven't worked for a convention ISP, have you? :P

      Most convention networks are designed and built in days, with contstant changes occuring daily, if not hourly. Add to the fact that most people who are doing the designing may not place security on the top of their list. A lot of the network engineers dealing with building the network are too busy dealing with the constant changes, lighting up the temporary circuit(s), testing each connection before the grand opening... that building a secure network falls to the bottom of their list.

      Some of them would even have the mentality that, this is only a temporary network, it's only up for a total of 72 hours, who's gonna break in in that short window of time?

      Keep in mind, most of the convention ISPs are getting paid to just get the network up, and some of them don't see the need to build a secure network that will only be used for a few days.

    7. Re:Basic precaution by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      but all they get to do is piggy back on the Democrat's internet connection or target other machines on the untrusted network.

      Exactly. That's a lot of unprotected targets with a high likelyhood of confidential and sensitive information sitting in a shared drive. I wonder what the Network Neighbourhood would look like...

      Most non-techy users would query the "new" icon in the XP sys tray, figure out they have free internet, stop investigating and be happy. No firewall, nothing.

      This is a major problem.

      It's way too impractical to implement proper security, even for a ad-hoc wired network at a convention, most of these folk don't work within a thousand miles of each other. That's a sysadmin nightmare, installing firewalls, vpns/wep etc. Even wep does nothing though, the passphase will be available on post-it notes within minutes. Are you going to vet everyone that gets access to it?

      The only way to do this is to pre-arrange authentication for each user in advance, or use a scratchcard like system. Give access only to those who already have it daily through the corporate network, and not to each other. Inter-party turf wars need to be considered.

      There will be a major news story arising out of an incident like this, I can guarantee it. It's inevitable.

      But hey, anything that leads to more use of encryption has to be a good thing. We may even see encrytion being the norm soon with all the untrusted networks out there nowadays.

    8. Re:Basic precaution by mdamaged · · Score: 1

      Agreed, also anyone (worth a squat) would just use imaged drives anyways, they figure it's cheaper/quicker/whatever to reimage than it is to waste time locking it down.

      --
      Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
  45. MOD ON CRACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flamebait?!? What a maroon! Off-topic perhaps, or even funny, but the guy is correcting the other guy on proper usage of a term so it's not flamebait unless you're a sensitive soul who cannot take any criticism and stays inside all the time so that he can avoid any confrontation with any other human being. Guess that must have touched a nerve with the silly mod.

    Obviously the mod shares the same level of English proficiency as the submitter.

    Oh, /., so entertaining, never informative.

    1. Re:MOD ON CRACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. I got to meta-moderate that moron. I'm not sure what unfair does to people, probably not much since I always go fair and can no longer moderate. Whatever.

  46. That Certainly Puts My Mind at Ease by Wymanator · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

    I always rely on Microsoft for all my security needs!

    1. Re:That Certainly Puts My Mind at Ease by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Right, because the best people to monitor and protect Windows XP laptops are linux zealots who prove time and time again on slashdot they actually know very little about it.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:That Certainly Puts My Mind at Ease by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      I always rely on Microsoft for all my security needs!

      Well the fact is that Microsoft supplied most of the attendees OSs. I would have to say that microsoft knows how to secure their software more then anyone else.

      Perhaps they should have gotten Linus to help them secure the XP machines. Would that make more sense?

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:That Certainly Puts My Mind at Ease by HungSquirrel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take a Linuz zealot to realize that Microsoft does a poor job of auditing its code for security. But hey, they're nice enough to give you Windows Update.

      --
      $ whatis themeaningoflife
      themeaningoflife: not found
    4. Re:That Certainly Puts My Mind at Ease by PenGun · · Score: 0

      Microsoft will do their best ... the problem is that's been shown to making money not software.

      "Go back inside! Oh you guys are fighting. We're fighting! Right."

  47. Load off MY mind! by HungSquirrel · · Score: 1

    "[W]e are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

    Well, I'm certainly glad they'll be enlisting the crack security experts at Microsoft.

    --
    $ whatis themeaningoflife
    themeaningoflife: not found
    1. Re:Load off MY mind! by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm certainly glad they'll be enlisting the crack security experts at Microsoft.
      Absolutely! In this era of political muckraking and smear-campaigning, the last thing the Democrats want floating around their convention is unsecured crack.
      --
      You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  48. Re:The real security issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far cuter than Ronald Reagan drooling.

  49. Solution to that problem by Dak_Peoples · · Score: 0

    Leave computers at home. :) Slashdotters agree?

    --
    This is my signature.
  50. Here's how to stop WiFi dead cold. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least 802.11b 2.4GHz stuff anyway. Just take the door off a normal ~1000W microwave oven (which operates in the 2.4GHz spectrum becuase that's the resonant frequency of water). Jam all the safety switches closed and aim the thing in the general direction of the WiFi gear and power it up. Of course this is dangerous as hell and you will cook any living tissue in the signal path, but it'll certainly disrupt the WiFi devices operation.

    PS: if you're stupid enough to actually try this, make sure you aim it at your own testicles the first time you fire it up, so you'll be prevented from polluting (or further polluting) of the human gene pool.

  51. if is is such a threat by convictus · · Score: 1

    If it is such a threat couldn't they just flood 2.4 and 5.2ghz frequencies with packets and in effect cripple the whole thing?
    don't they make devices to do this?
    Or just use materials to block the signals.

  52. I care about closures, rights, financial losses by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't give a hoot about their wireless network. What I care about are the massive road closures. Virtually every major route in and out of Boston, and several arteries, will be either completely or effectively closed down, starting as early as 3pm.

    I-93 is being completely shut down through Boston, despite being a major interstate. The secret service is to blame for inventing imaginary truck bombs and placing the possible risks to security of the privileged few over the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people- workers in Boston were essentially told to fuck off and take a vacation during the convention. Menino and the DNC are to blame for ignoring obvious potential "security considerations" inherent in the Fleet Center; the new convention center would have done nicely, except it wouldn't have gotten the delegates their precious stadium seating, nor would it have given the press their precious skyboxes. Oh, and it would have meant a longer cab drive to the hotel. Boo hoo, poor rich politicians.

    I can't see Kerry doing very well at all in working-class neighborhoods in eastern MA. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he'll loose them in a landslide. Virtually everyone I've met who has to commute into boston is unbelievably -PISSED- at the convention.

    Oh, and then there are the random package searches on the MBTA, the closing of North Station (which is IN the Fleet Center), the mandatory searches on the Orange Line...what else? Oh, the Boston Patrollman's Association is going to be picketing ALL the DNC parties, which has hurt the few local businesses which were lucky enough to get some DNC business; losses were estimated at $80M statewide, but will most likely be higher thanks to BPA.

    Let's see, what else? Ah, yes. The "internment camp", oops, I mean, "free speech zone", which is a fenced-in pen topped with barbed wire. Yeah, great idea- let's put right-wing nutjobs(Christian Coalition) in with extreme left fruitcakes into a TINY little box, with ONE entrance and ONE exit. Nah, they won't fight with each other!

    1. Re:I care about closures, rights, financial losses by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      How many of these security measures are at the bequest of the DNC? How many are at the bequest of the Secret Service? And who's in charge of the Secret Service?

      Yeah, it's a bit tinfoil-hattish for me, but I wouldn't put it beyond this administration to go that far in the name of "national security."

      Posting sans karma bonus, since this discussion will probably be modded off-topic anyway. :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:I care about closures, rights, financial losses by Otter · · Score: 2
      I can't see Kerry doing very well at all in working-class neighborhoods in eastern MA. In fact, I'd be willing to bet he'll loose them in a landslide. Virtually everyone I've met who has to commute into boston is unbelievably -PISSED- at the convention.

      The Democrats are *so* lucky they're pulling this fiasco in a state that's completely out of play. If this were Florida or Michigan, Kerry could kiss the election goodbye right now.>

      Let's see, what else? Ah, yes. The "internment camp", oops, I mean, "free speech zone", which is a fenced-in pen topped with barbed wire. Yeah, great idea- let's put right-wing nutjobs(Christian Coalition) in with extreme left fruitcakes into a TINY little box, with ONE entrance and ONE exit. Nah, they won't fight with each other!

      I didn't see any barbed wire there, but it literally looks like something out of a WWE pay-per-view. Beyond the First Amendment issues (and this sort of suppression of assembly occurs routinely nowadays, and gets little attention even though it's a much more imminent concern than most of the paranoia around the Patriot Act), as you say, it is an obvious deathtrap. I'd put the likelihood of a fatality in there at at least 15%.

    3. Re:I care about closures, rights, financial losses by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > The "internment camp", oops, I mean, "free speech zone", which is a fenced-in pen topped with barbed wire. Yeah, great idea- let's put right-wing nutjobs(Christian Coalition) in with extreme left fruitcakes into a TINY little box, with ONE entrance and ONE exit.

      Personally, I think this is where the WiFi laptops belong. With webcams. And live pay-per-view feeds. And a betting pool. Oh yeah :)

      "Two men enter! One man leaves! Who run Freedomtown? Master Blaster run Freedomtown!"

    4. Re:I care about closures, rights, financial losses by Bearpaw · · Score: 1

      The DNC's major idiocy was to have the convention in the capital city of a state with a Republican governor. "Gosh, some of the logistics aren't going very smoothly." Duh.

    5. Re:I care about closures, rights, financial losses by neoThoth · · Score: 1

      I can see it now, a black clad riot storm trooper.. err peace officer runs up.
      He's out of breath and tells his sargent,
      "Sgt, the right-wing nutjobs are beating the extreme left fruitcakes with cruifixes.. should we do something?"
      "nah, let them get it out of their system a little... then give them the tear gas"
      Now that's entertainment. OK you've talked me and my camera into it. I mean I really want to see a picture of that, it'll be like watching the "God hates fags" group picketing in front of the town hall when same sex marriages were allowed!

      BTW my favorite new environmental change is the constant friendly announcement (every 5 mins or so) warning me to tackle the next person I think is acting funny. Pick him up and toss him onto that third bar then notify the next train offical for my reward. OK it's not that bad but there are a lot of posters and voice announcements making sure we are "alert" and it's getting really annoying.

      see something? ear
      say something? eye

  53. No Problem... by andrewdski · · Score: 1

    just surround the convention center with microwave ovens. They do a great job of jamming my wireless networking.

  54. last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A similar situation was expected last year, but was prevented admirably by the admins (this was back when the Windwos RPC exploit was big). Keep in mind we're talking real *nix hackers managing the whole thing, not some noobs. The head net admin at QCon is a graduate of the University of Twente, and is active contributor to Linux networking security reports and solutions. Him and the rest of the admins are not idiots.

    1. Re:last year by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      I fully expect the lan to be well run considering the high geek factor. I know we have occasional problems at our lan group, but we don't have managed switches. Glad to hear things went well last year. This will be my first QCon.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  55. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 3, Informative

    Granite Island Group has already one-upped this story. Fuck wireless security, we're talking about actual bona fide security problems here.

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:zerg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So true. The only physically secure place is going to be the Free Speech Pen


      Pictures of concentration camp

    2. Re:zerg by primordial+ooze · · Score: 1
      Granite Island Group has already one-upped this story. Fuck wireless security, we're talking about actual bona fide security problems here.


      The report mentioned above is silly to the point of being irresponsible. The pictures look like they were taken a couple weeks ago - for instance, the trash cans and newspaper boxes that you can see in several of the report's pictures went away at least a week ago (funny how the report didn't even mention them as a security issue though - doh!) Of course the facility and surrounding area were 'unsecured' at that time - it's the middle of the flippin' city!


      If you've gone by the Fleet in the last couple days (as I did this morning, to check out the protester cage, um I mean 'free speech area' - but that's another story) you will see a completely different environment than portrayed in that GIG report. The Fleet and the blocks around it are buttoned down pretty tight (too tight, in my small-l libertarian opinion).

    3. Re:zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      Pictures, please.

      --
      [o]_O
  56. no help from slashdot, just more bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't it about time the slashdot hate-wagon grewup and started to be helpful instead of acting like a bunch of 12 year old zeelots??

    The fact the slashdot founder is the worst troller when it comes to MS isn't helping (ya you Cmdrtaco)

  57. Ohmigod!!!!! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

    Those wily hackers will find out who Kerry's running mate is going to be! Or even worse, they'll find out the key planks in the Democrats platforms! What, exactly, does Hiawatha think the hackers are going to steal, anyway? Are there any secrets of interest at this convention?

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:Ohmigod!!!!! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      actually, there could be canpighn information that they don't want the opposing party to find out about ahead of time.

      There is always the possible that someone could PUT something incremenating onto a system.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Ohmigod!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're going after the Democrat's best-kept secret: exactly how much money does John Kerry's wife have??? Enough to buy an election?

  58. Self-tooting by four12 · · Score: 1

    If I could toot my own horn, I'd never leave the house!

  59. Kind of a "Well, duh!" story by javacrypto · · Score: 1

    This story bugs me. Its the kind of thing that sounds like something important, but there is no real meat to it. It's a non-story. The only hook is the political angle, which turns out to have almost nothing to do with the real issue.

    First, any large collection of people with laptops will have the same problem. It could happen at a comic book convention. There is no mention of security problems like this at the GOP convention, though that is more likely because it is not coming up so soon. The point is: large numbers of laptops + WiFi = trouble. Why? Because of the wide target selection.

    Second, if the laptops were secure themselves, there would be no problem. Why are they worried about insecure laptops? Because they are probably all running some version of Windows. The subtext is that Windows is so insecure that you really need to pay attention to it when you are in a crowd. I wish the writer was more direct about this point.

    Anyway, no real story except to say that large numbers of insecure mobile computers are, gasp!, not secure when they are all in the same convention hall.

    The news has all kinds of stories like this, designed to make you afraid for a couple of minutes, until the next scary "story" comes along, and you can forget all about this one.

    On the local news here (Portland, OR) the other night, there were a couple of drownings in the river. A tragedy, I know. But one of the followups was about the dangers of water. Frankly, the biggest danger is trying to breathe it in, but the news never gets to the nub of the issue like that.

    The news sucks. I hate TV news more than print news, but this one makes me start to hate the print news as well.

  60. Do they have it under control? by caldroun · · Score: 1

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

    Ahh... Ok.

    BTW:Interesting Article.

    --
    "If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg
  61. U h4v b33n pWn3d by gWb!!@#@! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm... but if someone writes "pwn3d!" or "all your base are belong to us" on them, won't the Democrats naturally blame GWB, given the grammatical ability and IQ displayed by those comments?

    Of course, most of them probably think he's not smart enough to hack into anything. Something about a script monkey with too much monkey and not enough script...

  62. whats to worry about? by pgnas · · Score: 1

    I am sure there is a likely threat, however, since we all know that Al Gore will be there (The inventor of the Internet) we are assured that this technologically savvy group of people will over-come any security obstacle.

    In any case, doing something about it now would result in the creation of a formal commitee, multiple meetings, a voting of some sort, or some introduction of a new bill. There is no doubt that this new security commitee would require additional funding, so I am sure that they would vote to increase some tax (more than likely petroleum, or tobacco) and as a rider to the bill, all members would receive additional pay increases.

    you know, the usual...

  63. ObCounterMeme by Bearpaw · · Score: 3, Informative
    How can they get hacked when it was AL Gore who invented the internet...

    Har. Har.

    It was Republicans who invented that claim. What Gore actually said was "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf -- two of the people who did "invent the internet" have publicly stated that "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." Repub spinmasters pushed the reworded version hard as part of their successful effort to exaggerate Gore's supposed exaggerations.

    (The Repub spin this time around is that Kerry always "flip-flops". That's the script, and they're pushing it hard. I guess this is to distinguish him from Bush, who sometimes flip-flops and sometimes sticks to his opinions ... regardless of the facts.)

    1. Re:ObCounterMeme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It is impossble to invent, or even just "take the intiative in creating" a thing that PREDATES the time you are referring to. What makes Gore's statement stupid (his actual statement, not just the republican falsified version of it) is that the internet was already in existence before the act in question. He can't have taken the initiative in creating the internet for the same exact reason I can't have taken the initiative in creating the automobile. I wasn't there at the time.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    2. Re:ObCounterMeme by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Informative
      It is impossble to invent, or even just "take the intiative in creating" a thing that PREDATES the time you are referring to. What makes Gore's statement stupid (his actual statement, not just the republican falsified version of it) is that the internet was already in existence before the act in question. He can't have taken the initiative in creating the internet for the same exact reason I can't have taken the initiative in creating the automobile. I wasn't there at the time.

      Nope, not exactly. ARPAnet was in place, but that and the modern internet (even that and the 1980's Gopher/WAIS type internet) are very different beasts.
      To use your analogy, it's more like people saying that Gottlieb Daimler didn't really invent the modern automobile because internal combustion engines already existed. They existsed in a different form, limited in use and ability, and he turned it into something usable in a car, but he didn't invent the engine.

      Likewise, Gore didn't invent ARPAnet, but he was one of the primary people pushing open, non-military use of it.

      -T

    3. Re:ObCounterMeme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Nice try trying to change the topic, but you didn't say "modern internet" until just now. You (and Gore) said just plain "internet". Gore's money appropriation did not create UDP,. or TCP. It did not create sockets, server/client models, bind, or any of that. The internet existed already when he appropriated money to expand its scope and size.

      No, it's nothing like Daimler claiming to invent the car when the engine existed already. It's like Daimler claiming to invent the car when the CAR existed already. He didn't invent it - he just improved it.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  64. Why didn't he call the convention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've read stuff by Hiawatha Bray that I liked, but this is incredibly sloppy. First of all, it's generic FUD. 'You can drive by the Fleet center and connect to laptops inside via wifi' -- jesus, you can drive by ANY building and do that. This is news? He didn't speak with technology people from the convention. Why didn't he call someone at the DNC? He didn't even use Google, or he could have read the in-depth technical interview eWeek did with the Convention's CTO. Had he read that, he might have found that the wireless network isn't connected to the staff network and, contrary to the baseless assertions in the original article, they've actually thought through the wireless security angle...
    How do you keep the access restricted?

    There's a couple layers of what we can do. With the tri-band access points that we're using from Cisco we can do a couple different things. We can do surveys with the antennas. Each band, [802.11] a, b and g can be VLANed, so if you hit the access point with a card, you'll be sent to our authenticated PEAP [Protected Extensible Authentication Protocol] system through our firewall, through our ISA server and into our network...We'll be able to turn them on and off as we need to through a centralized management system. We can also monitor for rogue activity.
    I don't know what half of that shit means. However, it's clear they've put some thought into this. Hiawatha, a fucking phone call would kill you? The REAL story would be if local Beantown geeks said "Cisco PEAP, that's crap, I already hacked it, I've got the EPS file for the convention badges on my iPod." But this is plain, useless FUD.
  65. Here's what they need... by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The DNC might want to invest in several of these little goodies. Power them up and problem solved.

    --
    Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
  66. Interesting by dsouth · · Score: 1
    Will web security be a factor?

    [I'm mostly joking, but it is somewhat interesting that the two major parties don't even agree on web platforms.]

  67. Technology Partners? by jelloburn · · Score: 1
    From near the end of the article...

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

    Uhmmm. I'd be a bit worried if one of my partners that I trusted with security was Microsoft. Just how many times has Windows Update used the word "critical" to describe a patch recently?

    Maybe it's just me...

  68. Technology by President by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When it seems technology moves too slow, consider that 4 years is a very long time in the computer world.

    1981 - start of Reagan 1st term. IBM PC barely exists.

    1985 - Reagan 2nd term. Amiga still months from introduction.

    1989 - Bush Sr. 1st term. Gopher looks like it's going to be a real winner.

    1993 - Bill Clinton 1st term. Most people are stil l having trouble accessing more than 1 Megabyte of memory. Microsoft offers users "himem.sys" as a solution. Linux begins to change all that.

    1997 - Bill clinton 2nd term. Everybody's reading about who poked who in the Oval Office - on a computer network that spans the globe

    2001 - GWBush 1st term. Cheap computers perform at a more than a billion FLOPS. Hard drive prices crash through the floor. Wireless networking barely alive.

    2005 - Wireless networking causes massive chaos in the government, allowing robotic overlords to storm the Democratic Convention. Scene is repeated three weeks later at the Republican Convention. Robots declare martial law, and institute an omnipotent supercomputer and the emperor of the world. Declares Sunday to be free ice cream day. Jaded citizens eat it up.

    When you look at the state of the art at 4 year intervals, it seems like a lifetime. When GW Bush was first elected, a nice computer would have been 1 GHZ or less, with 64 megs of RAM. And before that, it would have been a little Celeron 300A, or maybe a Pentium MMX.

    Can anyone predict the state of the art in 2009?

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Technology by President by thinkninja · · Score: 1

      Well, 2009 == 3 Moore cycles = $((CURRENTSPEC ** 3)), in theory, but I don't see consumers buying such machines -- even to run Longhorn -- and I don't know if such expotential advancement is still possible in the chip world.

      I don't know what I would do with a 40000+ machine (to use AMD's rating system)...

      --
      "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
    2. Re:Technology by President by DeadSea · · Score: 1
      > Well, 2009 == 3 Moore cycles = $((CURRENTSPEC ** 3))

      3 more Moore cycles is $CURRENTSPEC*2^3 == $CURRENTSPEC*8

    3. Re:Technology by President by thinkninja · · Score: 1

      ** is expotentiation in C (and zsh, not sure of other shells).

      I was inconsistant, however, in saying 40000+ -- 4^(4/1.5), 'cause of a 4 year term -- instead of 60000+. Comes of posting when tired. Um, yeah :/

      --
      "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
    4. Re:Technology by President by thinkninja · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, I'm just retarded.

      Comes of posting whilst being a moron.

      --
      "The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
    5. Re:Technology by President by d474 · · Score: 1
      2005 - Wireless networking causes massive chaos in the government, allowing robotic overlords to storm the Democratic Convention. Scene is repeated three weeks later at the Republican Convention. Robots declare martial law, and institute an omnipotent supercomputer and the emperor of the world. Declares Sunday to be free ice cream day. Jaded citizens eat it up.
      LMFAO - I honestly didn't see that coming. I was all "Oh, yeah, 1981, good point there...Oh, I forgot about that in 1989...That's right, wow, 1997 seems like yesterday..."
      Then I got to your 2005 comment and I'm trying to figure out a way to wash the Mt.Dew out of my keyboard....
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  69. not illegal -- for Republicans by nusratt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Who in their right mind would want to hack into the democratic convention? The only ones I can think of are Republicans, and we all know they never do anything illegal like that..."

    They only need to say that it's part of a terrorism investigation, and then the carrier is required to let them snoop the wired network, and the carrier is prohibited from revealing the snooping -- EVER, even long after the fact -- and, oh yeah, I forgot to mention, no judge or warrant required.

    They don't have to do it illegally, just invisibly.

    1. Re:not illegal -- for Republicans by narcc · · Score: 1

      "Who in their right mind would want to hack into the democratic convention? The only ones I can think of are Republicans, and we all know they never do anything illegal like that..."

      It's True:
      "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I've earned everything that I've got." --Richard M. Nixon

      So are we going to have any .wav files come up missing? :)

  70. A real comedian: by gillbates · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. ''People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, ''and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure." [emphasis mine]

    And this, my friends, is why Kerry won't be moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave next year....

    Security and stability have never been Microsoft's defining features. The familiar joke about Democrats being stupid but passionate and Republicans being cold but smart seems to fit this situation rather well, unfortunately.

    These guys would have been better off to call IBM or Red Hat, who believe that security is more than just a marketing buzzword.

    Hopefully, the Cisco folks will be able to minimize the damage that the Microsoft does.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:A real comedian: by aredubya74 · · Score: 1

      The familiar joke about Democrats being stupid but passionate and Republicans being cold but smart seems to fit this situation rather well, unfortunately.

      I prefer Dave Barry's take on said joke:

      The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club. ~Dave Barry

      FWIW, I'm registered Unenrolled, but vote Democratic. Thanks to QuoteGarden.

      --

      RW

  71. No Worries by NaCh0 · · Score: 0

    Any information found out about Kerry will flip-flop several more times before election day.

    1. Re:No Worries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any information found out about Kerry will flip-flop several more times before election day.

      Possibly. But W will cancel the elections using his recent invasion of Puerto Rico as an excuse. When informed that his "intellegence" was incorrect and that Puerto Rico is in fact already part of the USA, he will pass it off saying that 'Merica is a safer place now that Puerto Rico is under 'Merican military control - and proceed to ask Congress to approve 17 billion dollars annually for the "rebuilding of Puerto Rico" contract awarded non-compete/sole source to a company owned by one of W's old frat buddies.

      Vote Republican: It's easier than thinking.

      At least the Johns can spell "Wi-Fi" without an aide, and pronounce "Nuclear" correctly...

  72. Even more confused by meganthom · · Score: 1

    I had thought of the time complications, but (and maybe I missed this in the article) it didn't seem to me that it would take any longer to disable the WiFi than to scan each computer for viruses and WiFi and then block only those computers from the network.

    --
    Live free or die
  73. Mod parent up.. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

    Is this guy dead on or what? All major news sources are almost worthless. After dumbing down the information for the masses and then throwing in the spin and bias of writers and editors, modern news sources spew a lot of nothingness. As this post's parent correctly points out, this is not news. We all know WiFi is a security threat to computer networks (but we also know that can be mitigated).

    I want a truly intelligent and intellectual news network/newspaper that sincerely presents news and is not a propaganda machine. I want news that is thoughtful, informative, and really hits the "nub of the issue." However, any media source is out to do one thing.. make money. Consequently, they try to appeal to the largest number of people possible and thus must result to dumbing down their content for laymen. It is truly unfortunate that people are not smarter.

  74. An Easy fix by PeterHammer · · Score: 1

    Judging by how reliably my laptop drops its connection everytime I approach it with my 2.4GHz cordless phone, it sounds like a pretty easy approach would be to install some fairly high powered interference generators spreading noise on that frequency in and around the FleetCenter. OH wait, that is probably against some FCC rule. Nevermind. We're doomed.

  75. pretty weird idea of security by darksaber · · Score: 1

    So, after RTFA,we can secure our network by checking for viruses and making sure wireless chips are off? Are they forcing everyone to install special software to check these things? Would all the conventionners really want to deal with that hassle? And who make sures the software provider is really trusted and hasn't been compromised themselves?

    Shouldn't the main thrust of the security efforts to protect computers from each other be off of those computers? There are plenty of other ways to compromise computers them without a virus or WiFi, same as always, and they won't necessarily show up on a virus scan. Isolating each machine from the others will do a ton more than running a program on what you think is the actual machine. Cisco can surely do a good job at making sure they can only reach the outside world and not their "LAN" neighbors. This is not to say that the conventionners will all be running VMWare or Virtual PC, but if their machine was already compromised, do you really trust the results of a program running on their machine? It's not like this a big geek-fest with a LAN party every night.

  76. You insensive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still running Celeron 300A's on 3 of my computers at home!

  77. this hurts (from the article) by eatmadust · · Score: 1

    "People can rest assured that we are aware of the need for a strong security system for our technology infrastructure," said Garcia, reading from a prepared statement, "and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

  78. Practical security by syrinje · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The democratic convention is only providing wired security so that people who bring their own notebooks to the party can plug in and share their dirty pictures with each other.

    So WiFi security is not something the Convention IT staff can control, with or without WEP

    Nearly a 100% of all notebook computers brought to the convention will have WiFi built-in to them. A few sensible folks will have their notebooks configured to only latch onto "known" access points using wep. The rest will have their WiFi settings set to allow both ad-hoc and infrastructure mode and to connect automatically. These people, while probably smart and successful in other ways, are likely to be morons who are network-retarded.

    As a result they are unlikely to realise that while they are busy and connected to the wired network, their computers have also connected automatically to the blackHatAP that has been setup in the closed-for-the weekend in the Pizzeria across the street. A convenient and cheap SEP field will prevent them from seeing small message dialogs that inform them of these events.

    Some of these notebooks, as a result of belonging to irresponible morons, will already be 0wn3d. They are twice as likely to not be updated using windos update..

    In short these computers will behave pretty much the same as the drunk chick flahing her tits at Dayton Beach on spring break (altho why we only see photos of them on the internet and never meet any of these tipsy goddesses IRL is beyond me. Oh wait, that probably cuz I'm here instead of there.!)

    I would lay a wager of 10 bucks at odds of 5-1 that at least 5% of the notebooks on-site will automatically latch onto the first available AP AND be unpatched enough to allow arbitrary code execution using a buffer overflow vulnerability on some port OR have a trojan installed which can be leveraged to execute said code

    What is the hapless IT support guy to do? Here are a few ideas -

    1. Ban all notebooks since you cant physically inspect the WiFi settings for the visitors. This idea will probably get you fired though. The morons are rich and powerful and will get their way in penetrating your network with their toys. Being a BOFH is only going to get you shafted.

    2. Set up your own AP with repeaters all over the place and hope the ho-ing notebooks latch on to your WiFi network first. I am sure this is not foolproof, but will probably bring down your risk by 70%. The boundary cases here are truly that - the notebooks on the wifi edge might see a better signal from blackHatAP and kiss up to it.

    3. This may not be legal in your Locale/state/country. Adherence to local laws is your responsibility. Disclaimer made, heres the option - Install a jammer for WiFi frequencies. Better yet, if you have the Secret servce on hand, get them to do it. Simple and efficient. Unintended Interference is a bizatch though.

    I thought about the option of setting up a WiFi farm that would create its own /. effect on the BlackHatAP but that wouldn't scale well if the BlackHat set up more than one AP....

    --
    See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    1. Re:Practical security by Krunch · · Score: 1
      1. Ban all notebooks since you cant physically inspect the WiFi settings for the visitors. This idea will probably get you fired though. The morons are rich and powerful and will get their way in penetrating your network with their toys. Being a BOFH is only going to get you shafted.
      You get it all wrong dude. The true BOFH would just set his own "BlackHatAP" that would automagically exploit some hole in the notebooks' software and download any interesting information it find.

      BTW we already discussed about blocking wifi.
      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
  79. Al Gore designed the internet!! by whoda · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whats a little intranet security?

    1. Re:Al Gore designed the internet!! by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

      ROFLMAOPMP.... and stuff.

  80. Easy to accomplish by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is turn on 'internet sharing' for the wifi port ... instant gateway ....

    I'm sure a virus or 2 is out there to do this for you automatically..

    Only takes one malicious ( or clueless ) person..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  81. Re:The real security issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as cute as the it-was-the-other-guys-fault crowd.

  82. free advertising by ashultz · · Score: 1


    I hope Hiawatha and the Globe paid for the primo advertising spot.

    This is even a self-admitted attempt to get more traffic to his own article, which is an article he wrote for pay for a news organization that wants more page traffic. Never mind that he gets paid depending on how many people have heard of him.

    So, how much does it cost to buy a slashdot story? Is there a discount for frequent buyers?

  83. And this'll make you head explode by Quila · · Score: 1

    Your tax dollars are paying for it all. Yep, you get to pay to get screwed.

    Have a nice day. :)

  84. this is not a story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or they could unleash an attack that would bring down the network and throw the convention into chaos.

    Uh, yeah. I'm sure the entire convention will fall to shambles because the bloggers with press credentials will have to use an outside connection to post stories.

    What a non-story! You know, a while ago, they had conventions without any internet connection at all and somehow they managed. And at events *every day*, *all around the country* you have open access points, much worst than the open wired networks at the convention.

    However, I do commend you for not using the word "cyberterrorism" on the first page (I didn't bother reading the second page though).

  85. Not news.. easily done anywhere by theendlessnow · · Score: 1
    There are many wireless ways besides 802.*.

    The only solution, if this bothers folks, is to not allow computing equipment at all or at least for them to not have some kind of shared network.

    They could setup a network that did not allow connection apart from their own equipment and then allow people to check out equipment, but most people will want access to their data, and you really couldn't allow that and be secure.

    Trucks monitoring wireless aren't the answer and would not keep out the experienced hacker.

    Newbury is clearly trying to make a dishonest buck. If they're smart, they'd hire em and then sue the pants off them for being stupid.

    The quarantine and certifying of laptop idea is totally bogus. These folks are clearly security amateurs.

    I only wish I was stating the obvious.

    And Ms. Garcia (or whoever is in charge of DNS security), who apparently feels that the DNC's best bet is security by obscurity... well... I suppose there's always a job for you in Redmond. It's no surprise that they chose Cisco and M$ for their "security"... trust me... there will NO SECURITY at the DNC for anyone with even rudimentary hacking skills if they allow folks to use their own equipment (laptops, PDAs, etc.).

    If they allow outside devices of any kind and are planning on a "secure" network, they don't understand security and deserve the end result.

    Of course, we're talking about politicians... so arguably, there's nothing on the network of any real value anyway.

    ...so... nevermind...

  86. Wireless Virus? by TheSync · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At a technical conference earlier this year, I noticed something going between a few machines that looked a lot like a wireless virus, but was unable to capture it properly (they weren't my machines, I was just trying to shut down rouge APs).

    The trick is being able to turn a normal laptop into an access point, then spreading the virus to other machines as they "automagically" try to connect to whatever AP they can find. Then those infected computers turn into APs, etc.

    1. Re:Wireless Virus? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      (they weren't my machines, I was just trying to shut down rouge APs).

      Really? We only buy the beige ones here. They blend in better with the ceiling tiles.

      (Why is rogue such a hard word for so many people to spell? R-O-G-U-E!)

  87. Aside by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    The familiar joke about Democrats being stupid but passionate and Republicans being cold but smart seems to fit this situation rather well, unfortunately

    So which Party is smart and passionate and which Party gets to be cold and stupid? ;-)

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Aside by gillbates · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Well, what I heard went something like this:

      • If you're not a Democrat when you're young, it's because you have no heart.
      • If you're not a Republican when you're older, it's because you have no brain.
      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  88. This has happened before - IETF by ThOr101 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This type of thing has happened before, but in this case we did have a 802.11A/B/G network running as well as wired. There is no solution to prevent it from happening (short of forcing people not to bridge their connections), but there are ways to detect and contain it. The netadmins just need to setup something that will also talk to these bridged 802.11A/B/G cards. Once they detect a bridge, find out what hardwired port they are coming through, find the Mac address, penalty box the mac address, and you've then forced them to go seek help hopefully from a helpdesk that knows what you are doing to people to cause them to go to the helpdesk.

    Cheers!

    --Brett

  89. The greater threat... by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    ...is getting that many liberals in one spot without adult supervision. There should be a 5-mile safe zone around the perimeter to ensure that conservatives and moderates don't spontaneously combust.

    In other news, the laser-cannon-enabled crosses of the ridculously Christian right will be set around the perimeter of the Republican convention later this year. Liberals walking within the perimeter will be burned alive instantly, their ashes teleported to Hell, where, according to Rush Limbaugh and his demonic minions, all liberals go.

    Finally, independents will sit at home and grouse, "Why the hell do we only have Nader to pick from?"

    IronChefMorimoto
    Equal Opportunity Troll

  90. yeah, really by twitter · · Score: 1
    Spies from Russia, China, France and 120 of the UN 159 not to mention the Republicans proably have been assigned laptops by the Democrats and will have no need to lurk in vans before reporting to their pals in Los Alamos. Quit worrying!

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  91. Hiawatha Bray tooting his own horn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Excuse me for tooting my own horn, but check out my story in today's Boston Globe about a possible security problem at the Democratic convention next week.

    That's OK. at least you:

    1. are up front about it, making it clear it's your work, unlike this spam troll
    2. only self-link once a year as far as I can tell, unlike this spam troll
    3. have some legitimate concerns despite a FUD-like undercurrent and some factual errors (a honeypot is "A host or network with known vulnerabilities deliberately exposed to a public network" with the express intent to study attackers' behavior, NOT as you wrote "an access point programmed to attract compatible WiFi laptops"), and
    4. only link to your own site once, unlike this spam troll that has been a plague on Slashdot for far too long.

    I for one refuse to buy a Slashdot subscription as long as the "stuff that matters" is just more Roland Piquepaille spam.

  92. Re:The real security issue by CarlosTheDwarf · · Score: 1

    If the GOP is truly worried about information security, then why don't they do something about all of our nation's financial institutions having their sensitive back end systems being coded offshore? Especially in areas like India, where terrorism is a big problem? If terrorists really wanted to disrupt the American way of life - all they would need to do is to hack into our financial systems. And given that these are coded offshore, they definately have the opportunity.

  93. Funny quote from the article... by farzadb82 · · Score: 1
    "and we are working with our partners, Cisco and Microsoft, to ensure that our systems remain secure."

    Couldn't resist laughing when I read this quote.

  94. This has already happened in the past. by bombadillo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The republicans already have hacked some democrat computers.

  95. Democrats are the terrorist's friend by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

    Fuck wireless security, we're talking about actual bona fide security problems here.

    Who cares how unsecure the DNC is. Nothing will happen. Why would the terrorists attack their favorite candidates? They'll be too busy working on the attack details for the RNC anyway.

    1. Re:Democrats are the terrorist's friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, does stupid pass down through your family or is it in the water?

  96. free speech internment camps by sheldon · · Score: 1

    These stupid things are the fault of the Secret Service. They've been doing this to Bush for years now.

    It's forced Bush to become out of touch with how real Americans are thinking. I hope the same doesn't happen to the Democrats as a result of this convention.

    1. Re:free speech internment camps by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      It's forced Bush to become out of touch with how real Americans are thinking.

      I'm quite sure Mr. Bush is capable of ignoring the opposition on his own. It's the media that they don't want capturing shots of protestors near Bush.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
  97. Jammin' by plawson · · Score: 1

    Why can't they just jam the wireless frequencies to make wireless useless within 200 yards of the place?

  98. Maybe I'm missing something here, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But aren't laptops insecure by their very definition?

    Physical security is a large part of security, and laptops get stolen constantly.

    As for the rest of the picture, you don't want to know what happens to the average laptop at a trendy WiFi-enabled internet cafe...

  99. Wifi jamming by Pedrito · · Score: 1

    Why not just jam the wifi frequencies. There are plenty of ways to do it.

    You can set up radio transmitters to do it. Or hell, get a few dozen APs, don't connect them to anything but power, each set to a different channel, put on some good antennas and spread them around. That ought to cause enough confusion to keep anyone from doing anything wireless.

  100. Re:The real security issue by Slugworth01 · · Score: 1
    And why would this be something the GOP should do? Sounds like you are asking for the gummint to do something to limit and control decisions that businesses can make. Smells like something that's right up the Dem's alley.

    My guess as to your real beef ...

    <South Park redneck accent>
    Dey took har jobs!
    </South Park redneck accent>
  101. Microsoft to the Rescue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Not to worry....

    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp.
    ... Microsoft will be there ensuring that everything is as secure as Windows itself.

    --Mike Perry, Inkling blog

  102. there's at least one good reason..... by zogger · · Score: 1

    ... to actually vote your candidate of choice, especially if they are not projected to "win" per se, and that is to contribute to the furtherence of theo\ir party, election after election. This is because of federal matching funds, which are voluntary check offs of three dollars on everyones income tax. According to the site, candidates are eligible for matching funds once they have crossed a threshold of receiving 5,000$ from individial contributions of 250$ a head in at least 20 states. This helps those candidates and parties to continue to grow, should the candidate/party choose to apply for the funds. I see nothing wrong with it, as it's the only voluntary tax we really have, and it can go to your alternative candidate, if they can cross that threshold. Frankly I think it should go to anyone who makes it to the ballot, but that's for another time. Believe it, the R andD guys always take these funds, so there's no reason to deny your third party alternative candidate the same opportunity, who knows, as the kitty builds up maybe they can become a very credible force. Continually voting for the same old tired party combo that you KNOW will always give you the same exact crap we have had for multiple generations now is a sure fire way to keep getting the same exact crap for the next several generations.

    Of course, who knows with blackbox voting any more, but at least the alternative candidates can keep getting additional funding.

  103. bet he does.... by zogger · · Score: 1

    Think about it, Linux is the up and coming main competitor to windows. Don't you think a guy with an ego/business sense like gates wouldn't want to *personally* see what linux is capable of? I bet he has a few linux boxes and distros kicking around, just to stare at, think a bit, then bark orders to his serfs about.

    1. Re:bet he does.... by Ari_Haviv · · Score: 1

      check out his competition? yes. actually use linux instead of windows? heresy :)

      --
      Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home
    2. Re:bet he does.... by mdamaged · · Score: 1

      Yea, alot easier than dumpster diving for code ;)

      --
      Someone asked me the difference between ignorance and apathy, I told them I don't know and I don't care.
    3. Re:bet he does.... by zogger · · Score: 1

      heh heh heh heh

  104. Pull the plug on them. by Mal-2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Have someone (or several someones) walking the convention hall floor with sniffers. Any machine found to be transmitting packets via WiFi gets the plug pulled on the wired network. Since every location in the hall is numbered, a simple call back to the network center can get them switched off without having to physically confront them. However, I just like the idea of a guy walking up with scissors and SNIPPING them.

    Maybe they should hire Nigerian guards.

    Signs would be posted all over -- "TURN OFF YOUR WIFI OR YOUR NETWORK CONNECTION WILL BE TURNED OFF. If you do not know how to do this, please call 1-900-xxx-xxxx ($3.95/minute) for assistance." Using the number of a phone sex line would not be funny. (OK, yes it would, but it's still not a very good idea.)

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  105. Republicans are the terrorist's friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Wrong.

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

    "WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

    The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

    In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

    "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."

    "Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.""

  106. Bloggers by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Sounds to me like they just don't want anyone but the 'official' bloggers posting review... "Worst convention EVER!"

  107. the FUD said what? by Jonny+Royale · · Score: 1
    Newbury Networks stands to profit from its warning. The company specializes in wireless network security products. But other technical specialists agreed the convention offers a ripe target for attackers.

  108. Look at who is providing the money for security. by mhollis · · Score: 1

    I note that this year, despite two national political conventions in cities, the allocation of money for homeland security is apportioned so that states with low populations receive a windfall, while states with large urban areas have to foot the bill for their own security.

    This, in light of the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that al-Qaida took advantage of this very same type of governmental ineptitude in their attack on America almost three years ago provides me with ample proof that there is plenty of reason to doubt security.

    Just today, the FBI told all of the news agencies that they had information that al-Qaida is specifically targeting the news vans at Fleet Center.

    In light of all of this, I have to figure that the terrorists are either in the US government and plotting to keep us all so scared that we won't go anywhere or do anything or they are evil hackers bent on global dominance through the takeover of every computer for the purpose of downloading everyone's bank account information from their copy of Quicken (probably a pirated copy). Frankly, I like the hacker idea best.

    Fade up on Joe Democrat at the Boston Convention, computer unsecured from WiFi attack. Suddenly, randon characters race across his computer screen.

    Mesmerized, Joe stares into his screen as the images flitting before him lull him into a hypnotic trance as we fade to black...

    Fade up on Joe Democrat as he shakes the hand of the Candidate. The Candidate pauses and looks intently at Joe's eyes, which begin to display random characters like his computer screen did. The Candidate nods and immediately rises to go tot he lecturn.

    Cut to the Candidate delivering a speech where he refuses the party's nomination and decides to not run.

    Cut to the newsvans where the producers and directors stare at each other in consternation as Joe Democrat infiltrates the newsvan compound unseen. Fade to black.

    Fade up on idyllic world without media, computers political parties, newspapers, candidates or cursing Vice Presidents. Camera trucks into the open door of the Presidential Mansion, through the entryway of the Oval Office. There, wearing the Turban of the Holy One sits...

    Monica Lewinsky!

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  109. here's an idea by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    use the tactics of the late former mayor daley during chicago's hosting of a democratic convention back in the late sixties. at least the irony would be entertaining.

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  110. You think you've got it tough? Try being a photog! by unfortunateson · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine is a photographer at the DNC, and aside from having to have all his gear inspected regularly (digital's great, no film to fog in X-rays), he's got one really big problem:

    He's got these two heavy-duty custom battery packs for keeping the flash going full-tilt. They look like bombs. No lie. Aluminum case, heavy, solidly built, bolts at the corners... you can't get more suspicious looking.

    I'm waiting for his report on enduring regular cavity searches. I told him anytime someone hassles him, he should just say, "Imshallah," and bear it.

    --
    Design for Use, not Construction!
  111. ... no? by compwiz · · Score: 1

    Somehow I doubt anyone's going to be able to get any kind of "wireless transmitter" anywhere near the FleetCenter without being severely beaten, seeing as how security in the entire city of Boston is going to be tighter than ever.

    But by far the best quote in the article is:
    But Garcia insisted the Democrats have the computer security situation well in hand, with the help of security specialists from Cisco Systems Inc. and Microsoft Corp. .. Because I sure know that when I hear about Microsoft and Cisco, I immediately think security.

  112. bridging loops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone plugs a wireless laptop on which has Microsoft's network bridging enabled, the potential exists for loop conditions to wipe out the network also. Microsoft's bridge runs spanning tree, but it doesn't really help much if spanning tree isn't properly configured on the rest of the ethernet topology. Cisco switches, and perhaps others, have configurable provisions to handle such errors, but if they aren't in place, the convention could fall victim not to Republicans or terrorists, but Microsoft.

  113. 6th HOPE? by d474 · · Score: 1

    Is it too late to whip together a 6th HOPE in Boston on, oh, let's say.....July 26th-29th?

    We'll all be meeting in the free speech zone....see you there!

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  114. Viruses spreading at the DNC? by hobo2k · · Score: 2, Funny

    No doubt many viruses will be transfered at the convention, but it really is a private matter between the senator and... oh, did you say computer viruses?

  115. People can actually live of this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing that people can actually live doing nothing other than "evaluating" security in different workplaces (or conventions) i mean i could ask them the same standard questions:
    1. Are your (wireless) network password protected?

    If answer is yes, then "good carry on..." If answer is no, then "ALERT ALERT we have a problem here, do something about it immediately, you commie-terrorist-loving bastard" and in both cases i would cash in $200 an hour..

    The same applies to Executive-Virus-Security-Chiefs whoose only job is to read bulletins about new viruses and hitting the global virusdefinition update button.

  116. quick fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    easy solution:

    just fill the place up with microwaves and hand out free bags of popcorn to keep the microwaves running.. this should sufficiently "disable" wifi furing the event.

  117. Re:The real security issue by CarlosTheDwarf · · Score: 1

    I guess it does sound like that, but no, I haven't lost my job to a "goo-back from the future". I was just hoping to responses that would make me better informed - perhaps my opinion is bogus. The government DOES already control business decisions in the name of terrorism, I want to know why they are not concerned about exposing our country's financial code in this way. Terrorists attack places of business and finance with bombs, and I think that the next step to this is to attach businesses through technology. It is where we are the most vulnerable, and it is the one place that the government is not protecting.

  118. Re:The real security issue by kippy · · Score: 1

    While I don't agree with the grandparent's assertion that India is some kind of terrorist hot-spot, the poster has a point.

    The US already forbids a host of technologies that are military of nature. At my last job, whenever we had to duplicate a database to one of our overseas sites, we had to ask the project owner if it contained any contraband for legal reasons. Laser tech, strong encryption, missile tech, certain kinds of advanced computing and electronic tech are all forbidden from leaving the country's borders along with a few dozen other things.

    While India isn't a hotbed of terrorism, we have no control of what happens to software once it's being worked on over there. For a few thousand rupees, a foreign programmer might be very tempted to burn a disk of bank software to the highest bidder. Lax foreign laws and lack of realistic enforcement would make that much more likely in developing countries than within the US.

    I think that the government should consider the fact that there is a greater danger posed to the citizens of this country from hijacked personal information and security systems than from missiles. This is another part of national security that should be retooled now that the cold war has been over for more than a decade.

  119. Re:The real security issue by Slugworth01 · · Score: 1
    My objection to your previous post was that you seemed to make this a political party issue instead of a national security issue. Take away the partisanship and you raise an interesting issue. The export of financial information seems like a risk on a couple of different levels.

    You can even take the national security aspect out of the argument. When you look at giving a third party access to intellectual property, you should be looking at a risk assessment to determine what are the possibilities that there will be unauthorized disclosure, and what you will do to mitigate the risk.

    Having been involved in various outsourcing activities, I've done the risk assessment exercises. The approach is the same if you are talking about outsourcing the production of your company annual report, your call center activities, the development of your software, or sensitive customer information (like your banking example.) If disclosure of the information would put you, or your company in a risk position, you need to deal with it or not disclose. The government isn't really needed to oversee what you are doing here if you do your job right.

    If a company outsources the production of their annual report to some goo-backs from the future and they use the information to do some insider trading before your financials are announced publically, you deserve the full force and effect of SEC laws that prohibit leaking insider information. I would think the same approach would be valid for financial code.

    So I guess I'm arguing for the more libertarian approach of letting corporations make their business decisions with full knowledge of the penalties for messing it up. Not a real-world scenario perhaps, but (IMO) the way it should be done.

  120. Re:The real security issue by CarlosTheDwarf · · Score: 1

    You are right that this should be a national security issue instead of a party issue. However, any party that talks about national security should make this their business. Not being totally libertarian, I am glad that the government does oversee some (but not all) parts of the private sector to prevent injury to its citizens. I am glad that they mandate airport security to prevent physical harm. I am glad that they FDIC insure our bank accounts to prevent financial loss. I am glad that the Sarbanes-Oxley law was implemented to prevent entire corporations from falling, and thus hurting people's and the economy's financial health. I believe that the government should continue on this track. They should prevent corporations from exposing private information to consulting firms that are not subject to the same laws and the same monitoring. Because the company alone will not pay the penalty for messing up. It could hurt the nation as a whole.