Slashdot Mirror
South Pole Research Station Hacked Twice
Marda writes "It's been known for a while that Romainian cyber extortionists cracked the computer network at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station last year. Now SecurityFocus is reporting that another computer intruder penetrated the station just two months before, and cracked the data acquisition system for the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), a radiotelescope that measures properties of the cosmic microwave background. It turns out the station was insecure 'purposely, to allow for our scientists at this remotest of locations to exchange data under difficult circumstances,' according to internal reports."
Some people are just plain jerks. Sure, I want to know if my financial information is safe. But why should hackers take the time to bother scientific equipment?
I can just see it now. A buoy in the ocean with millions of dollars in scientific instruments and sensors, collecting data for good of all mankind. Then some hacker finds his way in through the radio connection and manages to burn out or blow up the equipment by playing with the settings. His excuse? "See! It should have been secure! Next time you'll know better!" Way to miss the point, jack.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
This has got to be among the all-time lamest excuses I've ever heard uttered.
For Pete's sake HIRE A CONSULTANT or better yet ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there who'd LOVE to have something like this on their resume.
C'mon. How about: we were cracked because we were lazy. Now that I'll buy--the first time.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Scientists are generally knowledgable, but only in their field of specialization. You don't expect a particle physicist to know about macro biology, and you don't expect an ornithologist to know about particle physics.
Computer security is another one of those fields that requires its own study time to be competent in, and most people aren't interested or don't want to spend the time.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
FTA:
"Given the fact that no financial records or systems were compromised, no safety or loss of life was threatened, and no critical system corrupted, we need to balance legitimate security needs with the legitimate needs of our scientists at the Pole," the memo reads.
...Other documents show that less than two months earlier the NSF's security team was plunged into a similar fire drill when a computer intruder named "PoizonB0x" penetrated the primary and backup data acquisition servers for a radio telescope at the station called the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer (DASI), which measures properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation -- the afterglow of the Big Bang. The intruder, rated a prolific website defacer by tracking site Zone-H, used his moment of cosmic access to erect a webpage on the servers proclaiming, "I love my angel Laura."
Now, I'm not one for people snooping around in my stuff when they're not invited or anything, but consider this: The first hack modified a web page on a system that collects monitoring data (but most likely does not contain other meaningful data, like formulas), and the second intruder accessed no financial data, did not threaten safety, and did not corrupt any critical systems.
Isn't it possible that the systems that were compromised were actually left insecure, not necessarily "on purpose", but because they felt that there wasn't much of a need to secure them in the first place? They probably calculated the possible risks and decided that, if both systems did in fact only contain informational webpages or data collected from their equipment, that there wasn't much point in worrying a lot about securing them (after all, who would really care about the data besides them?).
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
Why is this a troll?
It is a valid point. If you do not have the skills to do something, pay someone to do it. If you don't have the funds, ask for a volunteer.
These people have screwed around with their system until the data transfer did what they wanted. What they didn't realize (I hope) is that they have opened up their system to these sorts of attacks.
If business did this sort of thing, imagine what the web would be like now...
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Ease of use does not mean it has to be insecure!! Strong passwords and patched applications do not make usage difficult!!
No, of course not. If they could, they would be computer scientists, or hackers. Instead they are physicists.
Exactly. Those of us immersed in the information technology world often have little or no exposure to the disciples of pure science. And undergraduate physics students don't count. Traditional scientists don't think the way IT people or even computer scientists do. We see a system, and the goal is to optimize that system to perform correctly and efficiently. Traditional scientists have no interest in applied technology. Their goal is to gather knowledge, and to hell with everything that gets in the way. Typing in a tough password, applying patches, and following "best practices" gets in the way.
To make matters worse, these people are highly educated and are often the resident lords of their specialties. Academic types tend to have swollen egos. Poke something swollen, and it hurts-these guys will be pissed off if you try to tell them what to do, and more pissed off if what you're telling them to do doesn't clearly further their scientific goals. They simply don't take the computer security threat seriously, and they refuse to worry about it until they get burned.
It's hard for you to understand rational people saying, "ha, who in their right mind would hack into our secret antarctic lab full of data?" But most slashdotters would have the same attitude towards other things they don't have experience with. How many of you fear the consequences of unsecured eyelash curlers? Yes, eyelash curlers, which so befuddle the opposite sex and are an essential in many ladies' makeup boxes double as a lethal instrument of pain and torture - as my best friend can testify.
Last week as she was getting glammed up for a party she was trying to do 25 million things at once and not concentrating on any of them. What exactly happened though remains a bit of mystery-all I know is that moments after whatever did happen, she was screaming in pain, bruised and bleeding, with lashes no longer in lids but in the curlers. Suffice to say she shan't be using eyelash curlers ever, ever, ever, EVER again.
She's not the only one who has been incapacitated as the result of a cosmetic catastrophe and it is actually more common than one would suppose. Another friend had a very unfortunate accident on the night of a May Ball last summer. She was rushing around straightening her hair, helping a friend with her makeup, making a phone call, and trying to decide which bag to take when she encountered the upturned business end of her electric hair straighteners. You could her the screams from across the street!
So now you know! which is like half the battle. Trying to do your lashes can land you in the hospital, a fiendish fate not "faced" by hacker victims! Girls will always want their makeup but for our peace of mind and for the longevity of your eyelashes and more importantly, your eyesight, I implore you to throw away your eyelash curlers. They are veryvery dangerous.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash up..this foundation doesn't cause cancer..right?
I am not a car mechanic or an electrician, but if my car alarm and door locks stop working, I take it to a mechanic who can fix it. I don't park the car on public street at night where it may get stolen. The excuse that since they know and care little about security, they can skip it altogether, is - as others pointed out - lame. A computer network containing sensitive or important data connected to the Internet requires security, whether you are a 3-time Nobel prize laureate or a warehouse janitor.
And as far as things that "get in the way" - security practices, or lack thereof - could easily get in the way of collecting and keeping valuable scientific data.
There are a limited amount of people who may occupy the South Pole at any one time due to humans' impact on the environment down there. Why waste a bed on a sysadmin when you could have more important people doing more important work?
Clearly you're not a physicist. Most of the ones I've worked for, some of whom are also at the pole, are convinced that:
since physics is one bad mamajama of a difficult subject, and as they've kicked that bad mamajama's ass, they are gods among men, seemingly privy to the unknown secrets of the universe.
They hire IT people not because IT is too difficult for them to do on their own, but too mundane. Please don't make the mistake of telling them how things should be done.