Botnet Attack Shuts Down Hospital Network

aricusmaximus writes "A California student is now facing felony conspiracy charges after unleashing a botnet attack that shut down the network of a Seattle hospital intensive care unit. This indictment comes a few weeks after another California man pled guilty to similar charges. Both attacks were attempts to make money off of adware affiliate programs. So who's really at fault here? The students? The hospital for not securing their computers and network? Or the adware companies for providing the incentive?"

Comments

Student's Fault

[eldavojohn]

So who's really at fault here? The students? The hospital for not securing their computers and network? Or the adware companies for providing the incentive?

The students, clearly.

Colt manufactures guns. Man opens fire in public with a Colt pistol. Who's at fault? The shooter, of course.

I don't want to hear any psychology bullshit claiming it's not their fault--that it's society's fault for making them desire more money. I don't want to hear any bullshit that they didn't know what they were doing or the hospital should have had better security. This is an aggressive act against a public service--the internet. Computer savvy students implement code that shuts down many computers for the purpose of advertising profit. They didn't realize what they were doing? Oh, come on. Even if they didn't, it's a valuable lesson and a few less spammers to ruin the world when they graduate. Tough. You like computers? How about five to ten in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison?

I'll bet they wished they had enrolled in Computer Ethics 101 before going on this capital venture. As an additional punishment, they should be forced to code software to stop stuff like this from happening and tailor it for medical equipment/computers.

And what kind of intensive care unit is "shut down" when they can't use computers? It's not like their work would have to grind to a stand still. I don't want to sound like a luddite but are we really that dependent on computers? They're medical professionals, I hope they did just shut down and stop working when the computers crashed.

This student is in deep trouble. He chose actions that had grave consequences and now he'll face the charges resulting from those actions.

Inignot: Your stereo is now his stereo by way of my actions.
Shake: Yes meatwad, with actions.

Re:Student's Fault

[OffTheLip]

I agree with much of what you say with exception of "And what kind of intensive care unit is "shut down" when they can't use computers?". The acute shortage of bedside nurses elevates computers and networks to a big player in short staffed ICU's. Patient to nurse ratios are improved because of computers. Sure the ICU can continue to function but things would be hectic and possibly deadly for some patients.

Re:Student's Fault

[strider44]

Colt manufactures guns. Man opens fire in public with a Colt pistol. Who's at fault? The shooter, of course.

Haven't you been reading the summary? It's the victim's fault for not wearing a bullet proof vest!

Re:Student's Fault

[malkavian]

And what kind of intensive care unit is "shut down" when they can't use computers?

I work in a hostpital as one of the business continuity team; we keep the place running in the event of something just like this, and have to evaluate the problems that'll occur in an outage if it happens.
ITU is dependant on having patient records, history, full charts and responses available in a very rapid fashion. When the computers go down, they don't stop working, just all the communications that happen near instantly suddenly have to be ordered from medical records, and use sneakernet, which is a massive time overhead. In time critical requirements, this may mean the difference between life and death.

Fair enough, the hospital should have been more secure, but there again, it all comes down to how many admins they have on the job. I know my time is allocated (still) in a very small part on security. I'm pressing to have more allocated. And my budget for security tools is small. Hell, with the NHS budget cuts next year, we'll be lucky to have much budget at all. Still, it's improving slowly. I'm still not happy with it, which gives me more incentive to work harder on it.
But anyone who would attack a hospital system has to be aware that lives are at stake here, not just a few pounds/dollars. In commercial places, I'd frequently warn people if I could work out who they were, or the admin of the sytems they came in from if I couldn't. Eventually, I'd call the police if I believed they were being too persistent, as a last resort.
In the hospital, I spot an attack, police will be warned promptly. No messing around. The place I work at saved my brother's life years back in ITU (when, by rights, his injuries should have killed him). I'm a little protective of the work they do, and the systems that let them do their job more efficiently. After all, they may just make that difference between life and death in the borderline cases, and every little win by the skin of the teeth means a lifetime to somebody.

That was just a clarification, not a dispute. I'm behind you all the way in the sentiment you express. They're in trouble, and justly so.

Re:Student's Fault

[Mistshadow2k4]

Making guns isn't really comparable to an adware company offering incentives to execute botnet attacks, imho. It would only be comparable if the gun manufacturer offered rewards for shooting people, which I've never heard of any doing. If someone takes out a contract on another person's life, we don't let them walk away and just punish the hitman.

Re:Student's Fault

[v1]

So who's really at fault here? The students? The hospital for not securing their computers and network? Or the adware companies for providing the incentive?"

YES

Though not all to the same degree as I'm sure you would agree. The student is of course the one that chose to break the law, and is most directly responsible for his actions. He was influenced by the adware company that offered incentive to break the law, "conspiracy to commit felony" or some such law. It's not as severe of a punishment as the felony (usually) but it's still illegal and clearly wrong.

"blame the victim" is a more controversial issue. I believe that "gross neglegence to protect one's own best interests" should in itself place a small amount of the blame on the victim. The world is not perfect, everyone is not honest, and you cannot possibly convince me that anyone in the world believes everyone around them is a saint. By not taking basic precautions when exposed to the general public, you dramatically increase your risk of becoming a victim, and that is your fault.

If I leave my car parked for a week downtown with the doors unlocked and the keys in the ignition, I'd be quite surprised to find it there a week later when I returned for it. Am I the one that stole the car? Of course not. But did my actions (or lack of actions) knowingly contribute to the theft? Of course. Were they easily preventable? Of course. That's why many insurance companies will not insure against theft if you leave your car unlocked and keys in the ignition, they recognize that you invited unnecessary and excessive risk.

I believe that the ones who so strongly resist blaming the victim are those that either have been victims in the past or that are afraid of becoming a victim, and believe that they have no responsibility to take care of themselves, and that the world should protect them. They are living in a fantasy world.

Looked at another way, criminals prefer easy targets, and this is a known factor. By taking less precaution for your safety and security than the average person, you attract the criminals to you and increase your odds of becoming a victim. Choosing to do that has got to be considered an error in judgement.

Re:Student's Fault

[aelbric]

How can anyone even debate this? Two words. Personal responsibility. It should be a required class in all primary, secondary and higher education school systems.

Returning to your analogy, it would be like a gun shop not properly securing its merchandise and then shrugging its shoulders when there was a massacre using firearms stolen from said shop.

So the merchant is responsible for someone stealing his merchandise (an illegal act) and then psychoing out somewhere (another illegal act)? If someone steals a car during a test drive, goes out and gets hammered and plows through a line of school children, are you suggesting the dealer is at fault for not "properly securing their merchandise"? I'm having trouble seeing the logic here.

Re:Student's Fault

[sqlrob]

But beyond that, diagnostic instruments and otherwise are so complicated they need to be on some sort of computer system.

On a computer system, yes.

WTF do they need to be on the Internet for?

Re:Student's Fault

[TFGeditor]

Bullshit.

I used to be on the "Microsoft sucks" bandwagon, but then realized that "security vulnerabilities" would not exist if there were no dirtbags exploiting them.

No, vulnerabilities or not, it is not Microsoft's/Bill Gates' or Steve Jobs' or Linus Torvald's fauly when some criminal with a computer wreaks havoc on the internet or a private network. It is ALWAYS the criminal's fault.

An unsecured system is no more an "invitation" to exploit than a short skirt is an invitation to rape.

Re:Student's Fault

[MysteriousPreacher]

Returning to the gun shop analogy (since it seems to be popular). If the gun shop doesn't take the precautions required by law and someone steals guns to use in a crime then the gun shop is liable. The point though is that the gun shop is not to blame for the shootings but should be legally liable for the fact that it allowed it's guns to be stolen because they didn't observe their legal obligations.

If a car shop allows a visibly drunk man with no drivers licence to test drive a car then while not responsible for the deaths caused, they should bear some responsibility for fulfulling their legal obligations (assuming they have any).

Re:Student's Fault

[mortis_aeturnus]

If you believe that some of the hospital staff is not partially at fault, then you are either not a proponent of personal responsibility, or you are a contradicting yourself.

The criteria for responsibility is cause and effect. If one entity was not present or did not perform an action (or held an inaction), and the problematic event did not occur, than that entity is responsible.

Victims should not deserve any benefit of lax criticism solely for being a victim. Furthermore, those who wrongfully claim to be a victim when they are not victims are clearly liars.

In this case, the victim is not just the hospital. The victims are also the patients of this hospital. However, the patients were at more of a loss than the hospital itself. There has been little discussion of how the hospital staff should be protecting the patients from this attack. The staff is complacent in their inability to protect the integrity of the hospital and, more importantly, the well being of the patients.

Consider the following examples. If a hospital did not use use sterile equiptment and patients become infected with a pathogen, should the hospital be responsible, or should the pathogen be responsible. By your logic, the pathogen will be responsible. However, the hospital is clearly at fault here.

If a network of computers becomes zombies after an individual invades them, would you consider the owners of the computers to be at fault? Clearly, you might not. However the computers are similar to pets of an owner. If a pet kills a person, the owner is also at fault. Similarly, the owners of the computer(s) are also at at fault because their property is being used, addendum a hypothesis that the zombies are to be used in an invasive act, should be partially responsible. If one does not believe that the computer owners are at fault, then one can not support laws of most Western societies in their entirety.

Re:Student's Fault

[Randseed]

I'm a physician and have worked in around seven hospitals, six ICUs, two pediatric ICUs, and one neonatal intensive care unit, among all the wards, clinics, and other random mechanisms of healthcare delivery. I can honestly say that the IT guys are damn, fucking, scarily incompetent. Some examples:

One hospital, a major level 1 trauma center, has a medical record system that's almost entirely on computer. It actually works pretty well. The application runs under X11, and bounces off a server program which is basically a middle-end to some SQL database software. So instead of going out and buying some PCs, installing Linux or BSD on them, and running their app, they splurge and spend much more for these IBM workstations. Again, no big deal. Then, because they're worried about fires, etc., they have several fallback servers which are basically mirrored copies of the database clustered around the hospital. I was bored one night in the E.R., where one of these fallover servers is, and got sick of an AIX login prompt staring at me. "login: root" "password: " Boom. Root prompt. (And am I going to report this? HELL NO. "Hey, that doctor hacked the network! REPORT HIM TO THE STATE! AIEEEEE!")

This same place at least did something sane. They have a bunch of Winblows machines running on their major network. They subnetted the AIX machines such that they can't access the Internet, and can only access the health information systems. The problem, however, is since now they had a bunch of Windows machines around that nobody ever used, they installed some kind of X11 server, and opened the network to these machines. So the AIX machines can't talk to the Internet. However, the Windows machines -- the one which are most likely to get infected with something -- can talk to the Internet and the medical records network with impunity. Oops.

Another hospital installed a software package which was a IBM DB2 frontend of some sort, written in ncurses. It left some things to be desired, but worked okay once you got used to it. (I prefer CLIs, damn it!) For various reasons, there were mechanisms to directly access the SQL database -- free of auditing, access restriction, or anything else -- from within the CLI, provided that you had a database login and password. Normally what happened is that the client program had the DB login and password locked away somewhere, and merely "authorized" you to use it. So one day I hit the wrong button and accidentally tell it I want straight SQL access. This system used a period to indicate "Oops. No, um, take me back." So I hit a period. "Password: " Uh. Period. I GET SOMETHING SAYING MY PASSWORD HAS EXPIRED AND I MUST RESET IT! Since it won't let me out otherwise, I set it to "12345" and get the hell out.

Two years later when I left that hospital, I checked on my last day. The password still worked.

The point is that hospitals are run by the same kind of incompetent Devry dingbats that corporate America is. It's just that they don't know it. So I'm not surprised that this hospital's network setup was so bad that this kid managed to pull this off.

I also think the kid is a supreme idiot, and given exactly what he did, I'd like to beat him with a crowbar.

Who's at fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

So who's really at fault here? The students? The hospital for not securing their computers and network? Or the adware companies for providing the incentive?"

This is slashdot. The answer to that question is either Bill Gates or George Bush.

The Perpetrators Are At Fault

[Kurt Wall]

Suggesting that the hospitals are at fault for failing to secure their networks adequately is assinine. The perpetrators are at fault. Adware companies might provide incentive and the hospitals evidently need to secure their networks, too, but culpability lies solely with the two defectives who committed the crime.

Re:The Perpetrators Are At Fault

[Mark Hood]

[C]ulpability lies solely with the two defectives who committed the crime

So do you lock the front door when you leave the house?

Yes? But why, surely it's not your fault if someone comes in and takes everything, it's entirely their fault, no?

Lock your car too? Use passwords on your PC? Do you walk along flashing your cash at all and sundry?

You're right, it's the choice of these kids to break the law - but a hospital ought to 'lock the doors'... Not least because if they have a system that literally controls whether people live & die, they should not let just anyone have access to it. I want to know why the Intensive Care unit was on the Internet at all. If ever there was a system that should have an 'air gap' to the real world, it's that.

And the people saying 'the hospital isn't to blame any more than a woman in a short skirt is to blame for being raped' - it's not about blame, it's about responsible actions. If a woman dressed provocatively walks home alone on darkened streets, of course she doest not want to be raped, but she has to appreciate it raises the likelihood. Rapists exist, and every woman has a duty to herself not to make herself a target. Criminals exist, and every person (institution, business) have a duty to themselves (and their customers) not to make themselves targets too. If you walk down the street with your iPod in your hand, a mugger is more likely to target you than if you don't - doesn't mean it's not his fault, just that you didn't try and protect yourself.

Agreed, the 'short skirt' argument shouldn't get the rapist a lighter sentence, just because his justifcation was 'she was asking for it' any more than the hospital being insecure should reduce the penalty on these cretins. But I hope the judge says 'you see the scum that's out there? Be smart, be safe, and don't take the risk'.

It's possible for both sides to be at fault - but that seems to elude a large number of the Slashdot 'group thinkers'. Lock these guys up as long as you like, but if you don't also get the hospital to wise up then it's pointless - there's a never ending collection of criminals out there... and next time someone could die.

Mark

At fault: all three

[hellfire]

All three are to blame, but to different degrees.

The students should be taken out and beaten. Anyone with any level of computer knowledge these days should know such activities are both highly immoral and illegal. This isn't stealing MP3s. And to attack a hospital? How thoughtless can you get? However, it's easy to be tempted by this type of thing, while these students got caught, many more got away with it at some point.

The Hospital should be scolded, but it's hard to know just from the story to what degree. It could range from a slap on the wrist to a lawsuit. If they had good computer security, then the students were just good at getting through. If it was bad computer security, then they need to step up and admit it. In any case, they are a hospital that appears to be running Windows to control their sensitive security systems. Bad choice, and that alone warrants one finger pointed at the hospital, if it's true. However, many hospitals are notoriously underfunded. In any case, I hope the IT staff of the hospital reviews this situation and revamps their software to minimize this risk in the future.

The adware makes should all be taken out and shot. They are the immoral facilitators and the ones who should take the most blame. They are the modern day equivalent of drug dealers. They didn't kill the person taking their drugs, but they knew it eventually would come to that, and they never stopped selling. They put all the risk for the crime on the students, knowing full well they could get caught, and that someone elses computer system would be seriously damaged. Something very gruesome and painful should befall them, before execution.

Re:So who's really at fault here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a pity that the US legal system is no longer about justice; it is now about what can be proven.

I don't understand your comment. If you cannot prove a person is guilty, punishing them is not justice.

Stupid question

[SmallFurryCreature]

So who's really at fault here? The students? The hospital for not securing their computers and network? Or the adware companies for providing the incentive?

Note that what follows below is only based on RTFA wich as usuall when dealing with mainstream press reporting on tech may be wrong or inaccurate or indeed made up on the spot. Nonetheless based on this I conclude the following.

That the student used zombie computers to install adware software that would then generate 'hits' for the students account so that he would be paid. He was using computers he did not own to defraud adware companies by generating false ad hits. This is a wellknown fraud dealing mostly with pay-per-click style ad schemes.

So who takes blaim here and for what? Funny enough that the 'question' left out the first and most obvious cullprit.

• Microsoft for creating an OS that never bothered with security. How do I know it was windows that was hacked? Because everyone know just how many ad programs there are that run on that various unix like OS'es out there.
• The hospital for not buying proper software, anything not made by MS, and not properly securing their infrastructure. Yes criminals are to blaim for breaking in but you should still lock your house.
• The adware companies really ain't to blaim that much. They are the victims here. The only blaim they share is like with the hospital in that they do not properly secure their operations to guard against fraud. But since they are the ones who lost money by paying for fake advertising they are the victim.
• And finally the student. Well it is clear he is a criminal, he took computers that did not belong to him and used them to defraud a third party (the ad companies) for his own personal gain. He is not just some hacker who got caught playing around, he was doing it for the money. I doubt very much he is in fact a hacker, more likely he just used readily available tools to do the work for him. This makes him a simple criminal.

I am amazed that MS was not mentioned as one of the cullprits. How often does their software got to lead to crap like this before people will finally ban it for any serious use. Would we accept a hospital that used say oxygen bottles filled by the local scuba diver club? Use alcohol produced in someone's bathtub?

I would very much like to hear that the person responsible for that hospitals computer systems is fired and never allowed to work again. Yes the student is the criminal here who deserves jail time but a sysadmin who installs windows deserves the chair. And yes I would be happy to throw the switch. Hell I would be happy to peddle on a bike to generate the electricity.

If I sound a bit biased against MS it is because I have once again been drafted in working on some piece of crap MS setup because some MSCE idiot made a nice sales pitch. Why don't you just put a sign on your server "Own me!" and be done with it.

Before you blame the admins...

[NorbrookC]

Yet another slashdot thread where everyone immediately starts screaming "Linux!" "BSD!" the second they hear the term "security breach". Of course, it'd be nice if there were actually a lot of applications for healthcare that run on those OSs - which there aren't. OSS is pretty thin on the ground when it comes to this field.

Why don't you look and see what's involved in hospital IT? I've been there, and it's a major headache for admins. You have administrators who don't really know much about computers and doctors who are frequently the biggest prima donnas in the world when it comes to getting what they want, in a corporate culture which caters to them.

Add in software developers who frequently have no clue as to what's actually needed, how to make a useable UI, and how information flows in a healthcare setting. But they have a hell of a sales pitch to the doctors and administrators, and you're the one who has to make it work.

Now try to secure it. Really! Wait until the first time Doctor X decides they're going to install their personal software on the workstation. Never mind that supposedly they're not allowed to do that - they'll do it anyways and then scream at you when you take it off. Take a wild guess as to who the hospital's going to back!

It's easy to blame the IT people, and the use of Windows, here. Wrong, but easy. They picked it up pretty quickly, and dealt with it. I'm sure they'd have loved to have more control, but unfortunately it's a question of what you're allowed to do, not what you want to do.

Why do they need the internet in the first place?

[atomic_toaster]

Let's set the argument regarding who is at fault aside for a moment. Let's even set aside the "this wouldn't have happened on a non-Microsoft OS" hyperbole. My main question is this:

WHY WERE THE HOSPITAL'S COMPUTERS CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I can't think of a single reason that the computers containing confidential information, personal medical records, and systems necessary for the day-to-day running of the hospital weren't on a stand-alone network in the first place. There are probably some tools that require internet connection, but why weren't these tools run on separate computers? It's fairly easy to transfer data from an internet-connected computer to a non-internet-connected computer (and vice-versa) with floppy discs, removable drives, CDs, DVDs, etc. It may create a small extra step every once and a while, but it's not like the dangers of computers being hacked over the internet is unknown. Even if it did not create an ethical dilemma to have patient records possibly available to a competent internet hacker, the threat of massive lawsuits should such information be stolen should be enough to create some justifiable paranoia about internet attacks. Also, if someone had died because of a slowing of communications within the hospital due to the current hacking, the hospital probably would have been faced with a wrongful death suit. Whether the hospital lost such a lawsuit or not, it would still cost a lot of money and effect the bottom line.

Come on, people, this should be a case of enlightened self-interest. It may be the robber's fault if the robber comes into your house through an unlocked door, but the insurance company won't cover your losses if you left the door unlocked. Locking your doors can be a bit inconveninent if you have to get the door open again while carrying an armload of groceries, but it's worth the security in the long run.