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."
Why can't they just leave our unsecured network alone? Next we'll have to secure that WiFi network so the Australians stop leeching.
insecure purposely? what about SSH? what about VPN? jesus, arent these scientist smart? cant they use some tools for that matter, cant someone creat a gui so the dont have to?
this is the most riddiculous thing I've ever heard.
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
all your base belong to us!
Must be the penguins out tehre.
That's cold, man... that's cold!
I almost had FP, but the latency out here on the south pole is horrible.
Purposefully insecure? That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. And I've heard it often. :)
There must be SOME technology (VPNs, as previously mentioned, perhaps) that can make it both easy and secure?
Heck, if they'll buy me the books and fly me down there, I'll fix it myself.
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
that pure blocks of ice a firewall does not make.
Come on, physical location means nothing now!!!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
In a computer sense, or in a pristine wilderness sense?
If the latter, then I'd like to point out that there's a great deal we can learn about the Earth's climate and biological history, as well as contained ecosystems. (Lakes under the ice with more than just bacteria? Who knew there'd be enough O2 for animal life?)
If the former, well, you know those haxxor guys...
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
There used to be a machine at McMurdo Station called mcmvax.mcmurdo.gov. I remember back in, oh, 1994 or so, sending finger requests to their machine and using the VMS equivalent of talk(1) (can't remember what it was called...) to send text messages to the folks logged on. I don't remember ever getting a response, though. It was also kind of fun to do traceroutes and pings to the machine. The network path was insane...apparently it went over satellite and the latency was usually at least 800ms+. Ah, memories...I miss the days when almost everyone ran open finger and talk/ntalk daemons.
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)
The main reason for running unsecure, is that the data pipe running to the South Pole is only open for just a few seconds at a time. You have to be able to transfer your data packet in little bitty windows of opportunity. If you have your data packaged in nice large security packets it will take forever to transfer your files, if at all. As soon as they come up with a better way to communicate with those stations I think they will be the first to secure there data.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
CowboyNeal! You have just slashdotted an insecure server running the lifeline of dedicated scientists, far far away in Antartica! You insensitive clod!
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
Hate to break it to you but, Antartica has been split between half a dozen nations for a long time now, Australia in fact claims the largest chunk.
Would some Slashdotter with some spare time please hack their network and install SSH and a firewall? Thanks!
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
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.
You'll never be a real hacker with that opinion.
As someone who's set up Internet servers in the high Arctic and who quite recently found himself posting 'I'm still alive' updates to my blog as the remote South Pacific island I was on was being battered by a hurricane, I STILL made sure to use ssh/ssl to connect to remote servers.
I was dialed in over a microwave link running at about 10Kbps. Even pathetic bandwidth is no excuse not to use simple security measures.
P.S. I'm posting from yet another Pacific Island, where I regularly use an ssh tunnel to connect to my home IMAP server, over a modem line that I share with 12 other computers on our local network.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
I just found Big Dead Place a couple days ago, and read their account of one of these 'hacker attacks' and Raytheon Polar Services' (RPSC) reaction to it.
Short version: Everyone at the pole was pissed. Denver (RPSC headquarters) took away their porn^H^H^H^Hnet access, and thus made a bunch of already deprived individuals even more deprived.
There's a ~500 K newsletter-spoof PDF on the site that expresses some of their feelings.
- "Kudos to the Denver IT staff for quickly responding to a hacker attack on South Pole Station. The attack occurred Friday night Denver time and our crack professional team denied the attacker access by immediately pulling the plug on Pole. They got back to dealing with the aftermath of this knee jerk response sometime Wednesday shortly after the last chocolate sprinkle donut had been eaten but shortly before nap time."
There's also: Top Ten Reasons South Pole Can't Access the InternetSome other interesting things on the site:
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
The Amundsen-Scott station is very expensive to maintain. During the winter the entire base population can be as low as 17 individuals; this can increase significantly during a few months out of the summer, but with cuts in funding the total personnel at the station remains low.
The station is designed for one thing: scientific research. With that in mind, the people you send to the station are those capable of doing the research, or those that are capable of maintaining the station so that others can do their research. Most of the folks there are conversant in a half-dozen jobs - *because they have to be*. There isn't enough funding for critical positions, much less a position like 'computer network administrator' which is nothing more than dead weight 99% of the time. A person who, if they can't also fix tractor engines, maintain the fuel-based heating system, and help calibrate various pieces of astronomical equipment, is nothing more than a waste of space, food, and energy.
No doubt the Amundsen-Scott folks decided to do business 'as usual', e.g., in a not very secure manner, because a) who the hell would want to hack the system when there's nothing to gain?, and b) there isn't anyone there who's life work is system security.
(In fact, I'm willing to bet they *could* secure the system in a decent manner, but never saw the point of it since they couldn't conceive of why anyone would want to mess with it in the first place. Frankly, I can't either; it takes a real jack-off to do something like this.)
All those clueless gits out there who scream "they should have a network administrator!" might want to keep in mind that a network administrator isn't worth his weight in fuel to ship out there, much less keep around during the eight months of the year they're pretty much cut off from the outside world. And yes, that means *you*; if all you know is network administration/security then you're useless waste of good oxygen at Amundsen-Scott, and the people there neither want or need you cluttering up the cramped base, eating their food and using their heat.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
...is, of course, here.
Remember, RMS was against introducing passwords into the MIT AI lab, and when they eventually did it he sabotaged the system buy coercing users to choose a blank password. He even brags about it in the Revolution OS documentary.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Ease of use does not mean it has to be insecure!! Strong passwords and patched applications do not make usage difficult!!
Seriously, if you're setting up a network for a long term project, you set it up once, and move it all over there with everythig ready to go... (which means the Amundsun base might have been permanently been stuck with a network of 386's, had things worked that way.) Of course, my guess is that the computers wandered over there one at a time, with no coordinated plan - and no through beyond "we need a few computers, which people in the states need access too, located at the south pole!)
The key issue is that if an academic is given a computer, they're not going to have the faintest idea of what's required security wise. [In fact, I've seen academics go out and buy really big (30") screens and fancy macintoshs just to run email and a browser, if that gives you an idea of the mindset of many in the scientific community.] - and other than the penguins (who only work for herrings and probably don't want to pay tax), there aren't any "neighborhood geeks" nearby to help them with their machines.
I just spent two years in a science laboratory in North America at a VERY large institution. Of the two hundred or so scientists in that department alone, maybe ten or fifteen knew enough about computers to write HTML - and probably not a lot further. As the department evolved over time, computers were added in one at a time, by whom ever felt like putting in a computer. Thus, there wasn't a single coordinated plan , and some of the computers were left completely vulnerable intentionally! If there's no one in charge, no structure to coordinate the addition of computers, and no one able to make the decisions to put an infrastructure in place, there's no one to insist on security standards. Can you say welcome mat to hackers?
I'd be willing to bet that that's exactly what happened at the South Pole. Someone decided they wanted to be able to share files with another scientist, and I'd doubt either had ever heard of SSH. Net result: they intentionally put a hole in the flimsy security they had to begin with. I can imagine the thought process: "I need to share a file with someone 30000km away.. lets just create an annonymous ftp to c:\, that way I won't have to worry about them not having access to anything they need!"
Finally, the key point is that if you have computers at the south pole, it's going to cost an exorbitant amount to send someone out to mantain them, and the only alternative is to have the scientists call "tech support" back in the states (or is india closer?), which is probably like talking my father through a computer problem. It's bad enough when you're there, but 100x worse when you're at opposite ends of the country. Of course, if you leave a few "holes" open intentionally, someone back home can log in and maintain it for you. (-;
Sorry for the overlong rant!
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
RTFA. The life support systems weren't controlled by the hacked system. That was added by the US department of propaganda to make the threat of cyber-terrorism sound scarier.
...Never mind
You know. I'm disappointed that /. would get this wrong. Although the content of this topic has it right, why would you then title it with "hacked" instead of "cracked"? Of all places, /. should be setting the bar by using correct terminology.
assert(expired(knowledge));