Slashdot Mirror


Crackers Cause Pentagon to Put Computers Offline

Anarchysoft writes "As many as 1500 Pentagon computers were brought offline on Wednesday in response to a cyber attack. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported of the fallout both that the attack had 'no adverse impact on department operations' and that 'there will be some administrative disruptions and personal inconveniences.' When asked whether his own e-mail had been compromised, Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

260 comments

  1. yarr by zaunuz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    first post? O.o

    --
    this is probably the most boring sig in the world
    1. Re:yarr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Claiming a fifth post would have been on topic.

  2. Keyboard Infestation by pipingguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I recommend a less-crumbly type of snack, like carrot sticks or celery. Dip is right out.

    1. Re:Keyboard Infestation by It'sYerMam · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm handing in my geek card. I actually thought this story was referring to food.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    2. Re:Keyboard Infestation by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm handing in my geek card. I actually thought this story was referring to food.

      That's ok, you were closer than me, I thought it meant that honkeys took over the Pentagon!

    3. Re:Keyboard Infestation by danpsmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's ok, you were closer than me, I thought it meant that honkeys took over the Pentagon!

      I don't know how to break this to you but...they already had.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    4. Re:Keyboard Infestation by Superpants · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, I read the title as well and assumed a couple of things: Mainly being that these pentagon types really like crackers and secondly, they must really have been good crackers. A scenario flashed through my head where some intern or something brought in some Triscuits, which are really good crackers, and then all the cracker crazed regulars started fighting over the remnants which got every where. Then a number of fights broke out and eventually someone tripped over a power cord, dislodging it from the socket causing unpleasantness. The person tripping over the power cord, having been the only one authorized to handle electricity and the outlets to which they stream from fell on his face knocking out several teeth. He was rushed to emergency dental surgery and left all the other cracker hungry workers without someone to plug the cord back in. Voila!

    5. Re:Keyboard Infestation by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Joking aside, I applaud the article for differentiating between hackers and crackers.

    6. Re:Keyboard Infestation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wuj you talkin bout Willis?!?!

    7. Re:Keyboard Infestation by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Um, when did the crackers *lose* control of the Pentagon?

      I was under the impression that they had it built for their purposes, have occupied it and used it for those purposes without significant interruption since construction, and with few exceptions can be considered to be in control there. Allowing for a rather broad definition of 'control'.

      ps- I'm a cracker. I know whereof I speak.

      pps- A really good cracker is a Chicken In A Biskit. All else is deficient. Triscuits are an acceptable substitute, and Tam Tams during certain feasts and celebrations. Tell no one about Pringles, for the supply is dangerously low. And don't get me started about Peeps. If Peeps had infested the Pentagon, the world would be a better place.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    8. Re:Keyboard Infestation by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

      I guess this explains why THEY took Gates off of black-bag operations and put him in a desk job in the analysis section.....

    9. Re:Keyboard Infestation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about "crazy crackers"? Such as dosed Tollhouse crackers. And, they'll get very stale by the time you eat them. But, of course since they are "special", you can't throw them away... Just make sure you have something to wash it down with, like say: a Diet Sunkist or Robo-tussin (mmm... cherry menthol). All-in-all, you would wish you had sweettarts instead. What was my point? Oh yea, this crazy orange that ragging on me.

    10. Re:Keyboard Infestation by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Funny


      The one time somebody uses the term "cracker" vs "hacker" correctly (supposedly) and everybody at /. doesn't understand it.

      You can't make this stuff up, folks.

      And here we find out Gates "doesn't do email." I thought Andrea Corr was technologically illiterate when she admitted only learning how to do email in fall of 2005 (sister Caroline told her, "Don't tell people that!").

      But here we have more evidence of the nature of managers - reflecting the joke from the publishing world many years ago. A publisher and his editor entered an elevator. The editor was carrying an armload of bags and manuscripts. The publisher wasn't. The publisher pointed to the editor: "You, editor. Me, publisher."

      Flunkies do email and bring the results to the people with the real power.

      Feudalism lives.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  3. i guess it's true, then by zaunuz · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that the hairdresser's hair is the one with the ugliest haircut.

    --
    this is probably the most boring sig in the world
    1. Re:i guess it's true, then by caluml · · Score: 1

      Hair has haircuts?

    2. Re:i guess it's true, then by zaunuz · · Score: 1

      According to my typing and crappy gramar they do..

      --
      this is probably the most boring sig in the world
    3. Re:i guess it's true, then by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      Hair has haircuts?

      Clams have legs!!!

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  4. oh lord by deathtopaulw · · Score: 1

    those crafty crackas!

    1. Re:oh lord by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The dude who pulled this off was black! But The Man will never give credit for something this big to a brother.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:oh lord by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. This is his ten minutes of fame. Why only ten? Because The Man would never give him fifteen of anything. He's lucky to get ten.

    3. Re:oh lord by FredDC · · Score: 1

      'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

      No, those crafty Defense Secretaries!

      --
      09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
    4. Re:oh lord by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      > 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"
      > No, those crafty Defense Secretaries!

      I guess they have their special secret code such as: dropping one bomb on innocent civilians means "Ok", dropping two means "No Way"?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    5. Re:oh lord by cafucu · · Score: 1

      'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"
      In Soviet Pentagon, e-mail does you!
      --
      :%s:work:/.:g
  5. USA Tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Do we really need a damn USA tag? Seriously, this is a US-centric site, so naturally more stories are going to come from the US. I don't see any EU, UK, AU, etc tags.

    1. Re:USA Tag? by gogodidi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although obviously offtopic, it is an interesting thought, maybe Slashdot should have a tag for different countries as well as for the States. I'm probably gonna get modded down for agreeing with an offtopic post... ugh....

      --
      ugh...
    2. Re:USA Tag? by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      Do we really need a damn USA tag? Seriously, this is a US-centric site, so naturally more stories are going to come from the US. I don't see any EU, UK, AU, etc tags.


      That's ok - I submitted a story about the ongoing CSIRO vs American Companies story here about companies that are violating patents of Australian organisations without paying royalties (yes, it is patented in the US), and the article gets rejected. I can guarantee that if this was the other way around, it'd be front page news! But I guess it's ok to do this - you know, as it's by an American company vs someone overseas.

      If you want to read about it, a copy of my submission is here.
      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    3. Re:USA Tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just need a USA flag and a world flag. Luckily the rest of the world has a single flag. It looks just like the USA flag, except it is on fire.

  6. Not to worry by stox · · Score: 2, Funny

    That hacker will never figure out what to do with the launch codes to the continental ICBM inventory. On the other hand, can you imagine a nuclear attack being started from an iPhone?

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      or from a young man and his computer playing a simple game of Tic-Tac-Toe

    2. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The launch codes are easy to figure out. The hard part is working out which TLA (three letter acronym) correlates to the correct MLS (missile launch system) for FTN (firing the nukes).

    3. Re:Not to worry by Shipwack · · Score: 1

      When I see "FTN", I automatically think of my favorite TLA, "Fuck the Navy"... True story. Back when Orlando had a major Naval base, a young man robbed a convenience store. The newswoman describing the story said that the the kid's initials were "FTN", since that was written on the toes of his sneakers. A person rushed in from off camera and whispered into her ear. She got red and told the audience that those letters probably stood for something else that she couldn't say on air. I can't think of the acronym for a launch sequence... retirement is slowly sapping my memory.

    4. Re:Not to worry by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Ain't that the truth. I'm in the military, and I don't know why, but the DoD LOVES acronyms. There is an acronym for *everything*. Even the most mundane, obscure objects/ideas have acronyms associated with them. It's ridiculous, and honestly, it makes even the simplest concepts complicated as hell and difficult to wrap your mind around.

      Aside: Suddenly I'm reminded of a joke from the Space Quest IV manual about a condition known as "CHAOS", aka "Collective High-Tech Acronym Overexposure Syndrome". There was another good one in the FAQ section where one of the questions was "I got Space Quest on a 3.5 disk, but only have a 5.25 drive. How do I get a bigger disk?" The reply went to great length explaining that creams and pills won't work, and neither will any fancy gadgets, and the best solution is just to be satisfied with ... "oh wait, did you say DISK?" :D

  7. Gates onto something?? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

    Actually, this makes Gates sound stupid but as a general rule don't put sensitive information on computers connected to the internet. The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place. At the top levels of government, where nation-states are trying to install spyware, intercept and decrypt your packets, and otherwise penetrate your defense, maybe having one of a thousand aides sneakernet it is a good solution.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Gates onto something?? by Icarus1919 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right, nothing could ever go wrong having someone physically carrying a message.

    2. Re:Gates onto something?? by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      If that's the kind of management ethos the Sr Brass has...

      It explains a lot, doesn't it?

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    3. Re:Gates onto something?? by Belacgod · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In 1914 General Joffre, commander of the French forces, refused to use the telephone, claiming he "didn't understand the mechanism." Therefore he spent hours driving back and forth to the British army headquarters in the middle of a desperate campaign to stop the Germans. It is believed that he feared his words being recorded on the other end without his knowledge.

    4. Re:Gates onto something?? by Divebus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place.

      Ahhh yes... the air-gap firewall - works better than anything.

      I'm sure Cisco has one for $40,000 they can sell the DHS (empty box with two RJ-45s). They need it.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    5. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > General Joffre, commander of the French forces, refused to use the telephone... It is believed that he feared his words being recorded on the other end without his knowledge.

      So did Don Vito di Corleone, our beloved godfather.

    6. Re:Gates onto something?? by Karrde45 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gates calling himself low tech is most likely an attempt to deflect further questions. It was well known in his time at Texas A&M that he would personally respond to many emails from students, and as he was leaving the university he made it known that he frequented a popular aggie message board. http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_i d=768382&forum_id=5

    7. Re:Gates onto something?? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It explains a lot, doesn't it?

      For once, I'm with him.

      Email is often ignored these days - in fact, its principal virtue seems to be the fact that it is so easy to ignore until such time (if then) as it suits you.

      Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone.

    8. Re:Gates onto something?? by gruntled · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a general rule, sensitive information is already prohibited on military computers that are connected to the Internet. If you've ever seen an office in, say, the Department of Homeland Security, you'll notice that they have two or even three systems on each desk; that's because none of those computers are connected to each other. Computers that can touch the Internet can't have anything sensitive on them; computers that might have something sensitive on them can't touch the Internet.

    9. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point, the telegraph had been around for more than a half century. Sounds like bullshit to me.

    10. Re:Gates onto something?? by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I find it remarkable that moderators have ignored this Informative comment. It should be seen by more people, imo.

    11. Re:Gates onto something?? by rikkards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am 100% sure that they do separate the classified info (i.e secret and above) from the normal everyday workings. Whether there is a physical disconnect or hardware encryption tunneled in nonclassified lines, I don't know.

    12. Re:Gates onto something?? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

      The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place. Exactly. Wi-fi is the only safe way to transfer information safely. Get rid of the wires and we can all relax. And if you can't have wireless, at least make sure there's more space than a nomad. What were we talking about again?
    13. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone. Is that before during or after reading /.?

    14. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I notice this is your first post. Congrats. If you want to look slick, learn to use the anchor element to embed the link. Here's one of many guides. (You'll want the first item in this list.)
      Alternatively, select the text from any comment which contains a link and use your browser's View Source function to see real-life examples.
      Fair or not, this is part of the slashdot culture; what one says is important, but how it appears to the reader also carries weight.

      Glad you got up-modded.

    15. Re:Gates onto something?? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      It actually does make him sound like the sort of ignorant barbarian that will only get into a position of power by bullying and nepotism. Unfortunately that is more likely to be the real reason than the well thought out approach descibed by the earlier poster. There really is no point trying to second guess these people, they are blunt instruments - not intellectuals by any stretch and extremely ignorant of even other english speaking cultures.

      A bit of extra effort in stemming corruption, making "legacy" and degrees illegal and shutting down the mail order degree mills, and a few of the checks and balances used in other counties will save your service men and women from taking orders from clowns.

    16. Re:Gates onto something?? by Runefox · · Score: 1

      Oh, god. It's a helpful AC.

      Where's the bomb shelter?

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
    17. Re:Gates onto something?? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is most people are smart enough to burn cds or use USB keys to transfer the info hence the viruses from one computer to another....

    18. Re:Gates onto something?? by endianx · · Score: 1

      Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone. Or sending a subordinate. As I understand it, general types will send someone to your desk who will stand there and wait until you have done whatever it is they wanted you to do.
    19. Re:Gates onto something?? by halivar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gates got an academic scholarship to College of William and Mary, got a master's at Indiana U. (history), and a Ph.D. from Georgetown (Russian history). He served as president of Texas A&M, and initially declined an appointment as head of DHS to remain there.

      So, what exactly is your definition of "intellectual" and "diploma mill?"

    20. Re:Gates onto something?? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Sorry - wrong member of the executive branch.

    21. Re:Gates onto something?? by idontgno · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the classified processing facilities I've seen, the PCs have no writeable removable media (CD-ROM drive only, no floppy drive, etc.) and the USB, Firewire, and unused I/O ports are filled with epoxy. And the cases are locked shut with the tamper-detection switch active. And reporting to something like Tivoli or HP OpenView.

      Did I mention the network switches also administratively disable any network port that shows a significant interruption in ethernet link status (or change in attached MAC address)? So don't bother trying to switch out PCs either.

      Ultimately, I'm sure it can be worked around. Just not very easily, and failing means an espionage trial and a few months or years in federal pound-you-in-the... well, you know.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:Gates onto something?? by jettawu · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure exactly what Gates means by he's "a very low-tech person".

      I hope it just means that he doesn't use as much technology as the rest of the world and not that he doesn't understand the rest of the world's technology. Since he is the defense secretary, I would want him to at least informed about how some of it works.

      Although regardless of the technology, security still needs to be adhered to -- hard copies can also be stolen given the motive and opportunity. Both of which seem to be in abundant in government/politics.

    23. Re:Gates onto something?? by bstempi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone.

      This approach only works when you're at the top of the food-chain. Everywhere I've worked, the corporate culture has always emphasized "covering one's ass" more than actually doing business.

      For instance, PHB gives a subordinate an assignment and asks for X, Y, and Z. The subordinate then delivers X, Y, and Z. PHB then finds out that he fsked-up the requirements (because he's a PHB). Instead of taking the blame, his first instinct is to pass the blame to the subordinate. If it were not for email, it would simply become a he-said/she-said loop, with the manager always winning, simply because they are more trusted due to their title.

      I, like most human beings, would like to be able to actually talk with the people that I'm in close quarters with. It seems kind of silly that I have to send an email to the guy sitting next to me, but that's the reality. The business place is too cut-throat to ignore using a communications system that produces a paper trail.

    24. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was "Goodfellas" not "Godfather" you insensitive clod!

    25. Re:Gates onto something?? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place.

      So, wireless then?

    26. Re:Gates onto something?? by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ones I've seen are as you describe, only with removable drives. The drives with classified data on them are kept in a separate vault, you have to check out the individual drive with the data you need, take it to the secured computer, plug it in and use it, and then check it back in. And they weren't on any kind of a network, they were in a EM shielded room with nothing but electrical wires leading in and out.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    27. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. That approach to perimeter security even works against Cylons.

    28. Re:Gates onto something?? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      his first instinct is to pass the blame to the subordinate. If it were not for email, it would simply become a he-said/she-said loop, with the manager always winning, simply because they are more trusted due to their title.

      When my boss would claim he'd told me something, but I recalled the opposite, and I proved it by quoting his email, he just yelled louder and blamed me more. Since he was actually the owner of the company, there was no appeal. Eventually of course I quit. Rationality and evidence don't count for a lot with many people in management (or government).

    29. Re:Gates onto something?? by bstempi · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain whole-heartedly. The paper-trail methodology only works when there is someone in charge that appeals to reason. I'm in a similar situation myself.

    30. Re:Gates onto something?? by Belacgod · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For that matter, on the german side General Von Kluck, at crucial points in the campaign, made his headquarters in pretty captured French villas without telephone access. Cars delivering messages got lost on the way, with predictable results.

      It's not bullshit at all--the telegraph is a poor medium for conducting real-time debates. Joffre couldn't order the British, he had to convince them, and for that he needed to argue back and forth. That required telephone or face-to-face communications.

      I'm getting this information from Barbara Tuchmann's 'The Guns of August.' Pick it up, it's a good read and makes World War I make sense, which no amount of schooling I recieved could do.

    31. Re:Gates onto something?? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Of course he's full of shit. This is the same administration currently being investigated for violating the Hatch Act and the Presidential Records Act. Basically, in a poor attempt to circumvent law, they've been using RNC servers to conduct official business. The Bush Administration is going to go down HARD this year as those emails start surfacing. We already have black and white evidence that Republicans were using illegal caging lists (attempting to suppress the Black vote). Tim Griffin didn't up and quit to "spend more time with his family." He quit the day after the story broke...overseas of course.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    32. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go down the hall, walk (don't run) to the secret door that is labeled "Keep Out" and go in. Follow the lighted floor bulbs past the crocodile pit and the swinging sword curtain, turn right (your right, that is) and head East. When you've gotten to the library basement oculus, hop through and you're there.
      HTH.

    33. Re:Gates onto something?? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Me too, but I'm still giggling at the thought of telling my boss, "I don't do email."

    34. Re:Gates onto something?? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Look for an exit, now. They'll be looking for an excuse to can you and be collecting evidence to withhold benefits (or even sue you if they can). Fortunately, if it comes to a court case, evidence does matter, so have some hard copy offsite backups of anything you might need.

    35. Re:Gates onto something?? by beggarstune · · Score: 1

      That's called closed storage. I've worked in environments where you can only leave stuff unattended (bathroom break) for 2 minutes max - any longer and everything has to be shut down and put away in a safe. Open storage requires more detailed security approval, including armed guards and multiple criteria required for entrance to the space. For the space where I work you need an employee badge to get into the hallway, a sequence of buttons to be pressed on a 5-digit cypher lock, a combination lock to the room, and a special code to be entered into the ADT-like alarm panel upon entry to disable the motion detected alarms.

      --
      (S+C) x (B+F)/T = V
    36. Re:Gates onto something?? by adam613 · · Score: 1

      It was both. I don't think they mentioned The Godfather's refusal to use the phone in the movie though.

    37. Re:Gates onto something?? by Bent+Mind · · Score: 2, Funny

      My boss, at my previous place of employment, was also the owner. He had a standard saying that he used in these situations, "Shit, you did exactly what I asked. What were you thinking?"

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    38. Re:Gates onto something?? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Hate to shock you, dood, but at Gates' level he has others pick up the phone for him and dial the number, and carry the numbers, and.....

    39. Re:Gates onto something?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas A&M isn't that great of a university. Search "aggie jokes" on google.

    40. Re:Gates onto something?? by greggygate · · Score: 1

      Sec. Rice doesn't use email either. They don't have the time in their day to use it... I'd be surprised if they have a moment in their day when there is not someone talking to/with them. Hire an underling to read the email, the decisions that matter are made in person.

    41. Re:Gates onto something?? by Sutkh · · Score: 1

      Technically, RJ-45 is strictly for phone jacks. 8P8C is used for ethernet, but the two are commonly confused.

      Or I could be totally wrong, in which case let the mocking begin.

    42. Re:Gates onto something?? by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

      They are separate, except for special limited connections to the "classified Internet". Mostly hardware encryption, sometimes double-encrypted (by the sender and the carrier (e.g. AT&T)). If you are using a secure voice line, you can use a unclass phone line, as long as both parties' phone units agree on the level of classification, you don't say anything other than "HELLO?" and "GO SECURE" before starting your real conversation, and you recognize the voice to which you are speaking.

  8. but its not even 4th of July yet by weighn · · Score: 2

    Not sure if you call fireworks crackers in the USA, but its the 1st thing I thought when reading the subject.

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:but its not even 4th of July yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US a cracker is a slang term for a white man. Like a Richard Pryor white man.

    2. Re:but its not even 4th of July yet by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      In Canadian English, and presumably American, small fireworks are called firecrackers.

      In Australian, isn't "cracker" slang for something or someone good?

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    3. Re:but its not even 4th of July yet by mjpaci · · Score: 1

      Richard Pryor white man? I must be dense, I don't understand your analogy. I alway understood cracker to refer to southern whites -- whip carrying slave driver types who would 'crack' the whip.

      --Mike

  9. Uh oh by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another slashdot meme in the making?

    "I don't do $technology, I'm a very low-tech person."

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another slashdot meme in the making?
      "I don't do $technology, I'm a very low-tech person."

      That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft.

      - billg
    2. Re:Uh oh by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      I am a low-tech person, you insensitive clod! (I'm actually posting this via telephone)

    3. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't do slashdot memes, I'm a very low-tech person.

    4. Re:Uh oh by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      All your low tech are belong to us.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    5. Re:Uh oh by Belacgod · · Score: 2, Funny

      In soviet russia, emails don't use you!

    6. Re:Uh oh by gbobeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, welcome our new low tech non-email using overlords.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    7. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another one: "I don't do sex, I'm a /.er"

    8. Re:Uh oh by Mike89 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Another slashdot meme in the making?

      "I don't do $technology, I'm a very low-tech person."

      I don't do Slashdot memes, I'm a very low-tech person.
  10. Bad news, sir... by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scene: Secretary Gates's office - dawn

    A PERSISTENT BEEPING breaks the stillness.

    SECRETARY GATES stumbles in from an adjoining room, bleary-eyed. Another all-nighter of trying to keep the world safe for democracy.

    SECRETARY GATES: What the blazes is it now?

    He picks up his Big Red Phone.

    SECRETARY GATES: Gates here. What is it?

    TECH #1: Sir! This is Collins at Central. We've got a situation -- massive DOS, widely distributed. One of the worst yet.

    SECRETARY GATES: Damn! Tell me it's not--

    TECH #1: Bad news, sir. It's your brother.

    BILL GATES: Mwa ha ha ha!

    SECRETARY GATES: Curse you, Bill! What infernal scheme have you cooked up now?

    BILL GATES: By making Windows insecure and ensuring its worldwide adoption, I now have an army of millions of zombie computers at my disposal! I will instruct them to PERMANENTLY destroy your computer network unless you pay me... <pinky>one hundred BEEEELLYON dollars!</pinky>

    SECRETARY GATES: But... you already have billions of dollars!

    BILL GATES: Yes, but Mother always liked you better, so now I'm overcompensating. Top of the world, ma!

    JAMES CAGNEY'S GHOST: Cut that out!

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:Bad news, sir... by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Let's just call Secretary Gates, Bob Gates...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  11. And... by Elsan · · Score: 1

    ...this is a guy who has the near-final say on which technologies the money goes.

    Anyway, it surely wouldn't be him, maybe more the companies...

    1. Re:And... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      No. The Congress says where the money goes. If this were not so, then we would have no B-2 bombers and would be forced to stop researching the VTOL hover-aircraft that doesn't really VTOL & hover.
      The Secretary of Defense only determines how inefficiently the money is spent.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    2. Re:And... by Elsan · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I said but just in different words... Congress gives numbers, he just separates the numbers between technologies. "This one yes; this one no." I doubt the congress decides to give X money to a specific technology.

  12. Re:Gate's quote by g-san · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > I really seems that none of the politicians or bureaucrats in the U.S. government have the slightest clue.

    Fixed that for ya.

  13. Re:Gate's quote by phreakv6 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OMG! this guys sooo cuuuuute... i appreciate the guys' honesty.

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
  14. Re:Gate's quote by ms1234 · · Score: 1

    Ofcourse not. The politicians are too worried about whose pocket they can reach into next and the officials are too worried about not screwing up getting them fired.

  15. Re:What the flying fuck? by aichpvee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is what happens when you elect idiots who don't believe in government but do believe in political favors.

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  16. There's modern reporting for ya by kungfoolery · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could think of a million important questions to ask in a situation like this if I were a reporter:

    "What specific systems were attacked?"

    "Do we have an idea as to who the attackers were? Al Queda? The Chinese?"

    "Were any intelligence reports lost? What steps are being taken to ensure the safety of individuals whose data may have been compromised

    etc, etc, ad naseum....,

    Instead, we get a single insipid question pondering the Secretary of Defense's private email habits and his moderately disturbing technophobic response. Sheesh.

    1. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fine article is originally from the AP, which I don't trust if there is anyone else covering the story. It is also simply covering a press briefing from the Pentagon.
      Important questions were asked, but the Pentagon simply didn't answer most of them.
      What specific systems? All we know is, the DoD Blackberries didn't get hit by this particular attack. We're also told that the Pentagon systems are attacked all the time.
      If the Pentagon systems are attacked all the time, then it's likely not an easy task to determine who launched any specific attack. Al Qaeda, the Chinese government, a Chinese cracker working on his own, a mindless virus--who knows?
      Whether any intelligence reports were lost or copied is likely classified itself. If the cracker doesn't know whether what he has, or what he destroyed, is valuable, then why should our government tell him?
      We're talking about the Department of Defense, remember. They likely don't care about the safety of the individuals whose data was compromised. They had to compromise those individuals themselves to make their intelligence reports!

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    2. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by smurfsurf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > his moderately disturbing technophobic response

      You can argue that a person in his position does not have to deal with email. Communicating face to face or by phone is better suited to the job, allows for better relationship building. Any email (requests, reports, document distribution et al.) will be handled, filtered (and dealt with where possible), and presented to him by his admin anyway. He probably gets the remainder printed out, so be it.

    3. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though there definitely is some bad journalism out there I have the feeling that in this case questions such as those would simply not be answered. Giving out information about the systems attacked would give hints to anyone out there as to how the Pentagon uses its computers - and heaven forbid - they might even actually have to bring someone in and *fix* the system (instead of taking it offline for a while and applying some hot-fixes). Regarding the blame-game: assigning blame with insufficient evidence (or none at all) is also not very useful (unless, of course, it serves as propaganda and/or as a pretext to invade another country).

    4. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Going on previous reports of thwarted terrorist plots they may actually be nothing at all to the story apart from the press release. It is quite possible that this has come from one of the PR companies employed by the executive branch.

    5. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1

      I'd say that commucating face to face or by phone is a great way to minimize a written record of what you've said. Too bad about all that video and congressional testimony, though.

    6. Re:There's modern reporting for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were any intelligence reports lost?

      The US DoD doesn't keep any classified material on computers connected to the Internet. The .mil domain is huge, but they have entirely seperate networks for the good stuff. Attacking DoD machines over the Internet is kind of like crippling them by stealing the tape for the latest "Army Strong" ad from your local TV station, and then inspecting it for top intelligence secrets.

  17. Am I the only one... by tuxlove · · Score: 1

    ... who thought this story had something to do with sysadmins dribbling cracker crumbs in places where they don't belong?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      *Raises hand*

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    2. Re:Am I the only one... by burkal · · Score: 1

      last time i fixed a cracker...

  18. F'ing windows 98! by MacDork · · Score: 1

    Uh oh... we know what this means.... Oh my God, they killed Billy! You bastards!!

  19. Wait a minute! by yogurtforthesoul · · Score: 0

    The headline should have been "Crackers Cause Pentagon to Put Computers Down". Not only do we get eatery jokes, but we can complain about how PETA will go after the Pentagon. Remember, Pentagons take servers offline, not crackers!

    --
    Something witty goes here.
  20. Re:Gate's quote by mbstone · · Score: 1

    Hey, hammers are $600. What more do you need to know about 'em.

  21. Re:Gates' quote by cp.tar · · Score: 1

    When asked whether his own e-mail had been compromised, Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'

    Taken out of context like this, this statement can be very confusing. I mean, Bill Gates not using e-mail? WTF?

    Seriously, though, the guy's 63. OK, so e-mail's been around for quite some time... but basically, it's quite a time-consuming means of communication for anyone with a poor eyesight, lack of typing skills (and computer skills in general).
    And that's without having to deal with spam.

    What actually interests me is - why isn't all e-mail heavily encrypted?
    Then again, people have entered - IIRC - the Pentagon, the CIA building and the NSA building flashing an ID with a picture of a person of a different race, with "THIS IS A FAKE ID" in big block letters.

    Is basic security so hard to train?

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  22. That blinking 12:00am by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 2, Interesting

    on his VCR must get on his nerves. Does anyone really believe that he is being honest about his lack of technical aptitude? I believe that about as much as I believe that George Bush didn't know the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. Gates may or may not do email, but nobody will successfully subpoena any of it. He is jerking you off, folks.

    1. Re:That blinking 12:00am by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Exactly, it's his own arse he is protecting nothing at all to do with state secrets or technical ineptitude, or as Bill Cosby one put it: "It takes a genius to act that dumb".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  23. If anything can go wrong.... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least when something goes wrong with a sealed message sent over the sneakernet, you'll know that something has gone wrong.
    Encryption isn't common in the current internet. And it is possible for someone to copy data and leave hardly any trace that it was copied.
    "Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer?

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    1. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer?

      No, that's still not theft. That's espionage.

    2. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'll know that something has gone wrong.
      Maybe not, if you have a traitor / spy.
    3. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by delinear · · Score: 1

      What has this got to do with copyright infringement? If you "steal" state secrets they don't go after you for copyright infringement. You're more likely to face charges along the lines of treason.

      Besides, the whole point of state secrets is that they are, well, secret. By copying them, you're taking away the secrecy, their key value, so it has even less to do with "copyright infringement", where it's not argued you are taking such a value away, just taking away a possible chance of making money from the copyrighted item.

    4. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by z0idberg · · Score: 1

      You can still copy a letter/document and leave the original. Photo, scanner, photocopier. Just because its not digital doesnt mean it cant be copied leaving the original intact.

    5. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer? This and the "what about your personal data?" analogies would be comparable to trade secret infringement, not copyright infringement.
    6. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right about relative severity and seriousness. (Though--has anyone actually been tried for treason lately?)
      Still--commercial value (aka "making money") may be less valuable than national security in any sane society, but it is still a form of value. The record labels maybe shouldn't have the right to make so much money off their records at the expense of its artists, but the gov. likely shouldn't have the right to re-classify stuff.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    7. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      True. But if you aren't the one planning to do such things, then it's easier to surveil a physical document, or secure it, to make sure such things don't happen. Seal that envelope the letter is in! Keep the document on your person, or locked in a steel suitcase chained to your wrist! How many people are good enough pickpockets to put something back without your noticing?
      If people used the same standards of safety for computer documents as they used to for paper documents, electronic ID theft would be less of a problem.

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    8. Re:If anything can go wrong.... by Geekbot · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought that was Echelon?

  24. Good Ole Boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess Gomer got hisself a kompooter.

  25. Re:Gate's quote by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

    > It really seems that none of the politicians or bureaucrats in the U.S. government have the slightest clue. Fixed that for ya.

  26. less-crumbly? by weighn · · Score: 1

    I recommend a less-crumbly type of snack

    But surely white-crackers* only become crumbly when deep-fried?

    * my apols, I only just learned what that means and am referring to it as a way of integrating it in my system memory ... brutherrrrrr - polywanna

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    1. Re:less-crumbly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always OK to be racist.

    2. Re:less-crumbly? by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      It's always OK to be racist.

      Only if you are racists towards someone who is not looking to be offended.

      <sarcasm>Remember, it is impossible to be racist if you don't have power. It is impossible to be racist if the person you are discriminating against is part of a group that was once known to have racist members. It is impossible to be racist against WASPs. It's not racist request special treatment because of your...wait for it...race.</sarcasm>

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    3. Re:less-crumbly? by JasonTik · · Score: 1

      The term is typically derogatory and not very often used in comparison to the snack version, in my experience.

  27. Hackers today are jokers by freedom_india · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree. Hackers today are not ParMasters of yesteryears.
    I guess they were just looking to recruit more zombies for their credit card scams and by mistake they stumbled upon the DoD unsecure network.
    Heck, half the jokers (who call themselves hackers) can't even expand the acronym ICBM in full. And i bet $100 that one of the words in their expansion would be either International or Business.

    The DoD is fretting unnecessarily.
    A whole generation has already been dumbed down by McDonalds, Pepsi and KFC, not to mention Desperate Housewives, Paris Hilton, Britney's head antics etc.
    So the worst these jokers can do is to filch the CC numbers of some DoD officials and buy some "close massage services" or buy fle$hlight.

    Today's jokers are more interested in earning serious money quickly and buy a Lamby or an Aston-Martin or an iPhone atleast.

    Lameduck attacks against a lameduck department.

    Its like one ant colony waging war against another ant colony 10 yards away while humans watch it amusingly...

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Hackers today are jokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      shut the fuck up or i bring your tv set offline for good so you'll smarten up a bit.

    2. Re:Hackers today are jokers by kdemetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ICBM : Intercontinental ballistic missile .

      you may donate that $100 to EFF http://eff.org/ :-)

      on a more serious note though : just because they can't use the codes , doesn't mean there is no threat in it .
      In matters like this , it's better to be paranoid . If thisq can happen , they are not paranoid enough .

    3. Re:Hackers today are jokers by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Yea... they could sell the codes... that would mean a lot of money for them...

    4. Re:Hackers today are jokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I hope that was a joke, because if it wasn't, you're probably the most retarded hacker I've ever met. Television sets aren't online.

    5. Re:Hackers today are jokers by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      I would hope that these codes change on a frequent basis making the sale of the "code of the week" a bit worthless.

      If the code doesn't change, then I am truly frightened by the incompetence of our goverment.

      --
      I got nothin'
    6. Re:Hackers today are jokers by dryueh · · Score: 1
      "Heck, half the jokers (who call themselves hackers) can't even expand the acronym ICBM in full. And i bet $100 that one of the words in their expansion would be either International or Business."

      Whatever, man. Even NEO didn't know what an EMP was, and he was THE hacker...

      ..next to Zero Cool, of course.

    7. Re:Hackers today are jokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking please.

      Maybe they are just smart enough to go for the money rather than stagnating in their parents basement? What type of ideological bullshit was driving you? Did you think your pristine sandbox would last forever uncorrupted and pure?

      If it has value, a capitalist will find a way to market and sell it. Boo hoo, cry me a fucking river like every other liberal dumbass who believes in the good of mankind.

      They reality is, all the script kiddies these days care about is results, and couldn't give a rats ass about your intellectual puzzle solving. You may have the l337est bragging rights- but the clown with an msblaster farm is strapped and an ambitious little fuck working for organized crime.

      You don't like hooligans knocking down your sand castle while they dig for clams? GROW UP! Look elsewhere for a sympathetic ear. It's an old fucking story. Naive halfwit.

    8. Re:Hackers today are jokers by wellingj · · Score: 1

      what if it did change every week but the hacker was payed to get it for a certain week for an orchestrated attack...
      wait I have an Idea for a movie brewing don't I?

  28. Re:Gates' quote by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, though, the guy's 63.

    That's the lamest excuse for incompetence. I'd *almost* buy that if we were talking about some retired grandmother or something.

    But saying "the guy's 63", like he's completely incapable of learning is just ridiculous. I've worked with people older than that, and none of them had any problem using email. In this day and age, I think just about anybody with a "white collar" type of job can send and receive email.

    "I don't do email" was avoiding the question. He gives orders that affect hundreds of billions of dollars worth of high tech military equipment, and controls hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but he's baffled by email? I just don't buy it.

    Which isn't to say I don't think he's incompetent. He's just not incompetent in this particular way ;-)

  29. Re:Surfing Computer and my Real Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of R-tards..

    Do you even take measures to prevent the so-called, prevalent "keyloggers" to make it on your PC in the first place? Dont patch? Just run everything that is sent to you via email?

    I call BS, becuase why would you have to reformat a linux box? Well I guess your probably running some joke of a "every service running out of the box" version of R-Tard Linux from CD's you bought 5 years ago? If your gonna go that route, just go with a virtual-machine.

    Even if u have to run windows, its not that difficult to keep it somewhat secure. Patch. Dont run anything you dont TRUST. Virii defs up to date. And for the truly paranoid run somthing like SIM or Osiris.

  30. Re: 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person by Belacgod · · Score: 1
  31. Re:Gate's quote - The other opinion by Acid-Duck · · Score: 1

    Or, maybe he doesn't want to make himself a target and figured if he didn't admit to having an e-mail people wouldn't try to gain access to his account. But then again this won't stop someone from comprimising an entire e-mail server and then stumbling upon his account. I guess this is just another reason why usernames shouldn't be so identicale to the person's name, I personally always thought cryptic usernames (a few letters followed by numbers, not your initials btw) are a good idea. If someone gains access to your e-mail server, at least there isn't a big red bull's eye painted on your e-mail account.

  32. Re:Gate's quote by Belacgod · · Score: 3, Funny

    The $600 hammer was explained thusly: A box of miscellaneous parts, including some very expensive high-tech items and some cheap low-tech ones (like hammers), was shipped. By the accounting rules, each item is assigned an identical part of the shipping and processing costs. So the hammer cost like $10, plus $590 in processing, while there were $5000 items in there that also had $590 in processing assigned to them. Some idiot soldier opened the box, saw the invoice, and called his congressman.

  33. Why is Slashdot quoting Time abut Cybersecurity? by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Shouldn't it be the other way around?
    There's nothing of substance in the article.

    My guess is this was related to the MPACK issue, but us nerds knew about that over the geekend.

  34. "Handheld Blackkberries" by xhydra · · Score: 3, Funny

    Employees whose computers were affected could still use their 'handheld BlackBerries'. OMG that means hackers compromised the Desktop Blackberries

    --
    "Drawing closer to world domination, keystroke by keystroke."
  35. Re:Gates' quote by crucini · · Score: 1

    "I don't do email" was avoiding the question. He gives orders that affect hundreds of billions of dollars worth of high tech military equipment, and controls hundreds of thousands of soldiers, but he's baffled by email? I just don't buy it

    He didn't say he's baffled by it; he said he doesn't do it. He probably knows how to clean a toilet, too, but doesn't clean the Pentagon's toilets.
  36. Re: 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person by janrinok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And why is the ability to use email now a yardstick for someone being capable to do their job? I flew aircraft, using email was totally irrelevant. Nor is it a critical skill for a shopkeeper, a gardener, a fireman or a million other tasks. Sure, they can all use it if they wish to do so, but it does not affect their ability to do their job. I commanded large groups of people and I didn't need to use an email to do it. Lots of information had to be written down but an email was NOT an acceptable format for a set of orders, an intelligence assessment, a personal report on a subordinate or a request for leave. In my environment, you had to be able to write correctly and accurately, using a big boy's pen. Yes, it could be typed, using a traditional typewriter or a computer, but it still didn't need an email to do it. For security reasons, the vast majority of the computers that I used were either standalone or on very limited networks. The email facility, if used at all, wasn't always high up on the list. You probably work in something connected to computers, hence your interest here on /. You are probably interested in technology and other geek pursuits. It might be important to you, but that doesn't make it important to others.

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  37. Re:Gate's quote by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you're a member of the military with some rank, shouting is a much more effective mode of communication. I imagine Microsoft producing specialized keyboards for the military, such as the MS Multimedia Sergeant Keyboard, which defaults to caps lock being always on.

    --
    Task Mangler
  38. Crackers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we know the race of those involved? I'd appreciate more respectful language as well, thanks.

  39. Re:Gates' quote by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

    Giving a crap is hard to train, especially in rent-a-cops, which the rush to outsource formerly Military functions to contractors has put in charge of all forms of security in CONUS.
    Something about a lack of personnel for "non Combat duty" due to "force structure".

  40. Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by venomkid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's hacker, okay? Hacker. When someone is able to write code to get a computer to do something awesomely good, that person is a hacker. When someone manages to get a computer to do something is awesomely evil, that's also a hacker. If someone builds a spice rack for Gandhi, or a spice rack for Stalin, they're still both carpenters. Trying to frontload the term with your own moral judgment is just a little too newspeak for me.

    --
    vk.
    1. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      Your analogy to a carpenter is ridiculous. A spicy rack is not dangerous, and never will be (unless put in the hands of Steve Balmer).

      The skills necessary to be a successful cracker are very different from those necessary to be a good hacker.

      It is definitely not newspeak, but rather it is oldspeak.

    2. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by waity · · Score: 1

      Never thought of it that way. makes me think... *head*hurts*

    3. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by zdarnell · · Score: 1

      It's more along the lines of someone making a spice rack and someone making a spear.

      They're both using wood, they may even be using the same tools to do so, but you'd only call one of them a carpenter. The outcome and intents are entirely different. Therefore you refer to the person doing the act differently.

    4. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by stud9920 · · Score: 1

      In most cases, crackers are not hackers, just immature people ("script kiddies") using hackers' stuff, generally created to demonstrate security holes or just for the fun proof of concept, to do evil things.

      Is Stalin a carpenter because he uses the spice rack a carpenter made?

    5. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by one_red_eye · · Score: 1

      Damn, +5 just isn't enough.

    6. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by bhamlin · · Score: 1

      If someone builds [...] a spice rack for Stalin, they're still both carpenters. I'd call him 54 years too late...
    7. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He he.
      Spicy rack eh? Is that like boobs full of peppers?

    8. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, shit, everybody listen to this random guy on Slashdot. He's the guy that defines English! Obviously no other words in the english language are loaded with moral judgement. He even brought up newspeak as a cunning reference to another horrible mangling of the English language, as another example of the slow creeping addition of new, complicated additional and optional word meanings to English.

      Thanks for contributing, Mr. English Man! Next time, add a comment about how you'll be modded down for going against the groupthink, the post is a little incomplete without it.

    9. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      [sarcasm on]
      Oh, ok. Then let's just call all hackers what they really are: criminals.
      [sarcasm off]

      Take your own dogma and go home.

    10. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by db32 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you just called every locksmith in business a safe cracker. You just put the engineer who built your car on the same level as the guy who runs over a cop. The architect that built your house is now the same as the guy that kicks your front door in to steal your TV.

      It isn't even in the same ballpark. Hacker came from people coding and other engineering/reverse engineering feats. Cracking has precious little to do with that, and frequently involves no kind of coding/engineering/reverse engineering. They are breaking and entering. Hackers CAN be crackers, just as an architect COULD break down your door more effectively knowing its weak points and steal your TV, so some overlap is possible. This isn't a moral judgement thing, its describing two entirely different types of acts. The real offense comes from the people that take pride in being skilled hackers being put on the same level as criminals and script kiddies.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    11. Re:Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit by zdarnell · · Score: 1

      You're an angry man, and that makes me sad.

  41. You know what bothered me most about that story? by SmoothTom · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As many as 1500 Pentagon computers were brought offline on Wednesday in response to a cyber attack. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported of the fallout ... that the attack had 'no adverse impact on department operations'...

    What in Hell are those guys doing if taking 1500 'puters off line doesn't affect operations? Should those 'puters even BE on-line then?

    *shakes head*

    --Tomas

  42. Re:Surfing Computer and my Real Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    give him a break. he's obviously 6

  43. Flamebaiting the digerati by Shohat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now, every other person online will mock him for not knowing how to use email, and being "low tech".
    There is no reason why a person should use such new technology, when most of you probably spend all your time sitting of furniture you have no idea how to build (most have no idea how to build a chair that lasts a week), spend a life inside a home with no understanding of architecture or even the most basic ability to alter your surroundings, no ability to fix a broken toilet, repair a frozen refrigerator, fix a broken washing machine, or just replace a window in your house with a new one. And these are things that people live with from their early childhood, unavoidable parts of everyone's lives."Low tech" so to speak.
    But when a person doesn't use email? OMG ROFL ROFL ROFL WHAT A DUMBASS NEWB.

    1. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      I might not know how to make a refrigerator, but I damn well use one.

      I might not know how to fix a washing machine, but I damn well know how to use one.

      I might not know how to replace a window, but I damn well know how to look out one.


      I might not know how to fix a toilet, but I damn well know how to use one.

    2. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by StevenKe · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that he was unaware of how to use it, he simply said he doesn't use it. You simply assumed thats what he meant. Also: I now hate you for making me want to defend a member of the Bush Admin. I mean seriously, dude.

    3. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      " . . . repair a frozen refrigerator . . ."

      Thaw it out?

    4. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      As has been mentioned, he didn't say he doesn't know how to use e-mail; he said he doesn't use it.

      I would expect that he probably does have an e-mail address (if not a business one, at least a personal one), but denying its existence helps keep people from looking for it.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by James+Lewis · · Score: 1
      You are comparing not knowing how to even use a technology (or refusing to) with not knowing how a technology works or how to create it/maintain it. Those are two very different things. I drive a car, but I don't know how to fix it or build one. People would laugh at me, and rightly so, for refusing to use automobiles. I can open a window. I can live in a house. I can open my refrigerator door. I don't NEED to know anything else to use those technologies. My expertise are specialized to my job, just like everyone else in society. I pay someone to come fix my windows, and they'll pay me (or professionals like me) for the software they use. That's how society functions. Not everyone can know everything about everything. But everyone can know enough to use the technologies created by other people.


      So, should people be shocked that Gates, the head of an organization that greatly depends on the US's technological superiority, claims he doesn't use email? I would say so. Maybe he has his reasons, and maybe he can be effective. But his response sounds technophobic, and that is what sounds ridiculous coming from someone responsible for putting the technological superiority of the United States to good use.

    6. Re:Flamebaiting the digerati by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      ...repair a frozen refrigerator...

      Duh. That one's easy.

      You just put it in the microwave.

      Bill

  44. Email? Why should he? by crucini · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Quite a few posters here seem to think Gates is a fool for not using email. To me, that shows an inability to understand his role. He's not a sysadmin or middle manager; he's the head of a huge federal agency. To me, that implies:
    • He's very busy.
    • He has too many documents to read, and too many meetings to attend.
    • He's supported by able subordinates whose only goal is to increase his effectiveness.
    • Someone else keeps his schedule.
    • Someone else types any emails or memos from his office.
      What could someone like that gain from personally using email?

      Actually, I wonder how many CEOs use email.
  45. Found them by xhydra · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    "Drawing closer to world domination, keystroke by keystroke."
  46. Attack or Counterattack? by TransEurope · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the question.

    The CIAs and NSAs operations are totally secret, maybe they attacked a cybertarget before, and that's the just a counterattack. That's a widely known strategy to control the media. The public thinks their countries computers are attacked by evil guys from whereever because they can't link that event to the secret event done by their own secret service before. So the (counter)attacker looks more wvil ("Hey, why do they hate us???") and the government can use this to raise the fear of the people. Also the computer guys from the services can demand more money for defense of the countries networks.

    You shouldn't believe everything the secret services (of any country) make public. Especially when they make something public ;-)

    1. Re:Attack or Counterattack? by xhydra · · Score: 1

      WTF did the pentagon attack. Iraq insurgency command control server cluster ?? Osama's Data center in the caves of afghanistan ?? catch up man! Conspiracy theorys are so YESTERDAY!!

      --
      "Drawing closer to world domination, keystroke by keystroke."
    2. Re:Attack or Counterattack? by TransEurope · · Score: 1

      Uh, a specialist... I think there are enough targets in cyberspace. Belive it or not, but even the countless axis ov evlis (China, N-Korea and so on) and "wog"-terrorist have computers today. But hey, you're free to believe what your ultra-independent newspapers tell you withot questioning, no problem. And the iraqis killed little babies...

    3. Re:Attack or Counterattack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check this out, Mr. Doubting Thomas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare/

  47. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't agree more

  48. Re:You know what bothered me most about that story by CRC'99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    What in Hell are those guys doing if taking 1500 'puters off line doesn't affect operations? Should those 'puters even BE on-line then?


    I love it when they get it wrong.... It was 1500 accounts, not computers. Get the story from a real IT news source.
    --
    Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  49. Slashdot should know better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    FYI, that's not crackers. Thats hackers. Does anyone else find it incredibly annoying when main stream media get these 2 terms confused? Do you find it doubly annoying when people who should know better like SLASHDOT get them confused?

    I do. Not sure why really. But I do.

  50. Re:Gates' quote by patio11 · · Score: 1

    Yep. When you get to that level of management, it is a more efficient use of your time to have a trusted aide or secretary read 100 emails and summarize them into the 5 things you need to worry about this afternoon than it is to read the emails yourself. Its the same reason why he doesn't make his own appointments, despite the low demands of carrying a paper notebook in his pocket to record them in.

  51. Stallman by xhydra · · Score: 1

    Stallman.....Is that you?

    --
    "Drawing closer to world domination, keystroke by keystroke."
    1. Re:Stallman by zionian117 · · Score: 1

      Not me, it's gotta be Captain Crunch!!!

  52. but note the comment about blackberries... by sethawoolley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He seemed perfectly fine letting people talk about secret military matters on their insecured wireless crackberries.

  53. Re:Email? Why should he? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About CEOs, based on rumors and wild speculation, I've heard that Michael Dell does indeed use email, and does it pretty much directly. This is why he has to change email addresses pretty frequently, whenever it becomes known to the wider world and they start sending him hatemail / penis enlargement ads / technical support questions.

    In contrast, some other CEOs have catchy, widely-published email addresses, and I can only assume whole staffs of people to read their Inbox and sort the wheat from the chaff. Sam Palmisano (CEO of IBM) used to have an address that was like "sam@ibm.com" or something like that. I thought it was kinda cool, but then realized that anyone sending an email there, thinking a CEO is actually going to read it, is on as much crack as someone who writes to their Senator and doesn't realize that it's going to be read and filed by some unpaid summer intern.

    Anyway, although I've never gotten to use them, most of the big corporate email suites (Exchange, Notes, etc.) have features that allow for 'delegation' of people's email boxes to secretaries and assistants. So an executive can have their own address but route all the mail coming into it to an assistant, who can sort through and pass stuff along appropriately. And that's for executives that do any of their own email.

    Doubtless, at the very high end of the power ladder, there are people whose time is just so valuable that it's wasteful to ever have them sitting and typing at a keyboard -- it's cheaper to have a well-paid executive assistant actually read, summarize, note the desired response to, draft, and present for approval the responses to, all incoming messages. Whether most CEOs do that I don't know (I suspect not too many, anymore), but I bet that a lot of high-ranking government officials do it that way.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  54. Hammer by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Informative

    The hammer in question was Platinum. Because only platinum does NOT produce sparks [of fire] when struck against other metals in a flammable environment.
    The congress critter who displayed the hammer for all to see conveniently failed to mention it was platinum.
    Now since platinum looks more or less like highly polished steel from a distance, people took it as ripping off..
    The military may be an idiot in many ways: Paying contractors and money? I don;t think they are that dumb.
    And the toilet seat incident? It was a bolt-down toilet for a transport plane with ability to prevent automatic regurgitation when the plane does a hoop-a-hoop (throwing poop on crew is NOT advisable in war].
    Yes, the military was overcharged. But not to the degree you think. The contractors overcharged by 15% on platinum and 12% on toilet seats.
    And the military got the money back.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hammer in question was Platinum. Because only platinum does NOT produce sparks [of fire] when struck against other metals in a flammable environment.
      You're joking, right? There are all kinds of non-sparking hammers available made of much cheaper metals (i.e. brass). I can't imagine what a platinum hammer would be useful for, if they exist, except maybe as a symbolic art piece commissioned by a carpenter after he wins the lottery.

      Besides that, I'm not even sure you could make a platinum coated hammer for $600, that would maybe buy half an ounce of platinum and platinum is very very heavy (heavier than gold) so half an ounce isn't much.
    2. Re:Hammer by freedom_india · · Score: 3, Informative

      Search for hammer or toilet seats at http://assist.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/
      Read the story at http://gutrumbles.com/archives2/001873.php

      And the hammer in question was a Modal Impact Hammer costing $1,000 originally.
      Have you bid on government, especially military contracts?

      The military *did* pay $600 for a device that had a handle on one end and a striking surface on the other, but that was a 'hammer' in the same way that a mainframe computer is an 'adding machine'.

      The specs for an Ashtray are similar to specs for an F-22 Raptor (the spec book outweighs the ashtray) because the military is so exact in its specs.
      To make them, contractors often have to specially have special plates/machines which can't be used for anything else often.

      Yes i agree that there are wastages and contractors earn a lot. But it is limited to KBR, Halliburton variety, the majority of other contractors are mom-and-pop variety with sales less than $2.5 mil annually and actually struggle.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Hammer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brass is a very soft material. We have plenty of brass hammers. They're all mushroomed on the end. Brass also gets brittle when it's cold. think -20 ... -20 F. That's cold. It would suck if your hammer shattered and put little pieces of shrapnel in your arm, or eyes. It's for an explosive environment. Imagine how much it would suck if it didn't have a non-slip coating that works when covered in jet fuel. That would kind of suck too. So, the military has specs for all of these things. Therefore, the hammer has to be designed and tested for all of these. That's kind of expensive. Very expensive. The paperwork specifying the hammer probably weighs more then the hammer.

    4. Re:Hammer by djmcmath · · Score: 1

      Granted, the two classic examples turn out to be not such classic examples as you'd like them to be.

      But there are countless other examples. I once paid $300 for a 6' piece of wire. Sure, it was _exactly_ 6 feet, but the actual length wasn't critical. One of my sailors admitted to having fixed a broken computer (in a strategic weapons system, none less!) by purchasing the required part on eBay for about 10% of what the Supply System was charging for the part. (Yes, that system worked fine after the repair; had he not told me, I never would have suspected.) The specific example that any submarine officer will recognize is the Susse Chalet on the base in Groton, CT. Whoever signed their 20 year contract for "first rights to any transient personnel" should be shot -- that place is no longer required to operate in accordance with any of the normal market requirements. There was nothing in the contract that said "The minimum level of acceptable living conditions are:" but there was stuff in the contract describing the minimum level of payment given to the hotel, regardless of occupancy. The Susse has turned into a dump because it doesn't have to compete for it's business.

      Don't get me started on the Defense Message System ("Boss, this baby is ugly."), DMS-Proxy ("Boss, the baby is ugly, but not it lives here..."), or even NMCI/EDS. I could get into the Navy's history of proprietary SATCOM, but that would take forever. Suffice it to say that we've managed to virtually master the art of buying into idiotic hype to the point of supporting industries that shouldn't exist.

    5. Re:Hammer by Doctor+O · · Score: 1

      throwing poop on crew is NOT advisable in war

      *LOL* - mind if I sig you?
      --
      Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
  55. Its not "Crackers"- the OS is open 24/7 by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ppl remember Gary McKinnon?
    Perl script, default passwords and a modem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  56. Re:Gates onto something?? nope, just stupid by Tensor · · Score: 1

    I would much rather trust in a good strong encryption than something as easy to loose/copy/show to someone/etc as simple PAPER.

    I think you read too much into the phrase, if you were right he would've said something as "I dont put sensitive information on computers connected to the internet" instead of the much stupider "i don't do email" Not doing email today is like not doing faxes 20 years ago, as telex was a bitch. Not secure enough is an ignorant reply, specially coming from the guy briefing the president in all things Security

  57. Re:Gate's quote - The other opinion by udippel · · Score: 1

    I guess this is just another reason why usernames shouldn't be so identicale to the person's name, I personally always thought cryptic usernames (a few letters followed by numbers, not your initials btw) are a good idea

    So much about 'Security Through Obfuscation' for you ...

  58. my hacks, let me show you them... by iHasaFlavour · · Score: 1

    Agreed.

    I use the terms hacking and hack when I refer to my code. Usually when I am referring to something I worked up quickly, or something that makes me recoil in agony but solves a problem, such as my three body problem workaround (oh gods, the horror, but it does work). I don't tend to use it to describe really good code, or stuff that I've matured over time, I didn't think that was what it meant, doesn't to me anyway.

    I don't care frankly whether or not the term is used to describe people who do illegal stuff. They 'hack' websites and banks, I hack code. There's no point getting all worked up about it, or so I think. It's about as likely for 'hacking' to no longer be used for describing illegal stuff as it is for Chedder to regain exclusive use of their Mark.

    Cracker just sounds stupid to me anyway.

    --
    Reality is that which, when we cease to believe in it, still exists. - Philip K Dick
  59. Those Damn Crackers by ettlz · · Score: 1

    According to some reports, the crackers say they were driven to desperate measures. "We had to go this far because they just weren't listening to our concerns. How much more of being spread with this soft, white mush should we tolerate? Is a decent Cheddar so much to ask for?!"

  60. Pretzels by jlebrech · · Score: 0

    But we did have pretzels almost kill the President, so those condiments are now a matter of national security.

  61. OMG by yogurtforthesoul · · Score: 1, Funny

    As a Caucasian I find the whole article racist!

    --
    Something witty goes here.
  62. Re:Why is Slashdot quoting Time abut Cybersecurity by niceone · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it be the other way around?

    The Slashdot editors have been infected by their own "In Soviet Russia..." joke. From now on everything will be the other way round.

  63. think about your future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think in this time and age we need to think
    a bit PR for computer savvy people.
    anyway, acctually crackers are evil.
    hackers are not.
    me thinks.
    what is important is to distinguish between the two, because
    of the less computer savvy people out there (big media company
    with not too smart reporters).
    anyway, a hacker might breakinto the DoD or such, but might leave
    a message like "all ur base belong to u.s.(sic)" and append a
    guide how to avoid a future breakin, a craker might acctually
    destroy something / steal something /install a backdoor.
    so there you go ...

    so, for PR sake, keep to teh difference, please ...

  64. cracker? by chenjeru · · Score: 3, Funny

    How did they know it was pasty white guys?

    --
    Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  65. Re:Email? Why should he? by Shohat · · Score: 1

    I know for a fact that the Owner/President(not the CEO) of the company I work for, doesn't use email. The man is smart, rich, and an accomplished Mechanical Engineer, simply doesn't have a computer at any of his person offices (in the multipe factories that belong to him)

  66. Re:You know what bothered me most about that story by Roguey · · Score: 1

    Zero Cool would have nabbed 1507.

  67. Eh, no. it's more a case of by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    "I have people to do that for me".

    --
    Deleted
  68. Microsoft e-mail software. by master_p · · Score: 1

    "In Microsoft-land, e-mail does you."

  69. He has used email by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just FYI, I would guess that the 'I don't use email' statement is mostly tongue-in-cheek, with a mode of truth (e.g. his secretary handles most of the actual process.)

    As a student at Texas A&M University (where Dr. Gates was president until 6 months ago,) he communicated with the student body regularly via email, and in fact that was how I first learned of his nomination as Secretary of Defense.

  70. Cracker defined by xsadar · · Score: 1

    Yes, they are hackers. There's no question about that, but hacker is a vague term. Cracker is a more specific and descriptive term, and it does not mean someone who does something "awesomely evil". It means specifically someone who breaks through some security measure (like a safe cracker would for instance). A cracker does not necessarily do anything "evil" either. An example of what I would call a cracker is someone who's job it is to test a security system by trying to crack it, which can be very important inn assuring that the security system is effective.

    What you are talking about in your post is the difference between "black hat" and "white hat" hackers, which, although most crackers are probably black hat, the two terms are not synonymous as I understand them. Also note that there can be black hat hackers who are not crackers. For instance, you could write adware or spyware without being a cracker, although malware that exploits security flaws may be more effective.

    --
    The only thing I know is that I don't know anything; and I'm not even sure about that.
    1. Re:Cracker defined by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      What you are talking about in your post is the difference between "black hat" and "white hat" hackers, which, although most crackers are probably black hat, the two terms are not synonymous as I understand them. Also note that there can be black hat hackers who are not crackers. For instance, you could write adware or spyware without being a cracker, although malware that exploits security flaws may be more effective.

      I agree. There are different kinds of computer enthusiast/expert, and it's useful to have different labels for them, rather than trying to lump them all together as 'hackers'. For example, I would say Linus Torvalds is a hacker, but I wouldn't say it in a mainstream media because people might confuse it with 'cracker'.

      I imagine the constructive kind of hacker is called something like 'professional' or 'expert' in mainstream media. There seems to be an assumption that a very skilled person has to channel that skill through a narrowly defined, society-approved occupation -- otherwise it's either worthless tinkering or evil crax0ring.

      *sigh* This discussion reminds me of my attempts to explain how 'bandwidth' is not the same thing as data rate, and once again it's mainstream media where the two are equated. I want to stress the fact that it's useful to have different words for different things. Otherwise we could just say 'ugh' all the time, and try to extract the meaning from the context.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  71. too late by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Another slashdot meme in the making? Perhaps but unfortunately it's too late to make the list.
  72. Re:You know what bothered me most about that story by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Zero Cool would have nabbed 1507. if they really wanted street cred, the crackers should have stopped at 1337.
  73. Re:You know what bothered me most about that story by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    I love it when they get it wrong.... It was 1500 accounts, not computers. The article says that many users were "taken offline." So we return to a variation of the original poster's question -- if taking 1500 users offline doesn't compromise operations in any way, what the hell are those users doing online anyway? Reading slashdot?
  74. Microsoft Fucking Windows by toby · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hello? The message really isn't getting through to you morons, is it?

    Flamebait me, it's gonna help ya feel better.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Microsoft Fucking Windows by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because hackers, crackers and international spies would just spontaneously give up their ways and throw up their hands in the air the minute the Us goverment adopts a Linux/Mac-only policy. "IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!"

      You can`t see it but I'm rolling my eyes so hard my skull and optical nerve ache.

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  75. Re: Too busy for email??! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I don't buy that.

    Execs like to save time, and email is ASynchronous Communication, whereupon the message is still there 6 hours later after your eleven meetings. Even if he has an army of bees to assist, it's still his email.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  76. Bond, James Bond by rts008 · · Score: 1

    I really hope none of your + mod points came from this:
    ""Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer?"

    If they did, both you and the moderators need taken out and shot.
    No?..then nevermind.

    But if you are anywhere near trying to be serious with this one, crawl back in mom's basement...you aren't done yet.

    This will not get you into a copyright or theft problem...this gets you stood in front of firing squads, free Gitmo vacations, Siberian mine explorations, gallows, and other Bad Things.

    You must be new here, and new to the real world too.

    P.S. If this was an attempt at humour...you failed.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  77. Intruders to the pentagon system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good they identified the race of the the intruders...

    But do they have to be referred to in such derogatory terms

  78. When asked.... by Chineseyes · · Score: 1

    "When asked whether his own e-mail had been compromised, Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

    Later, when notified that his carrier pigeon had been intercepted on its way to Iraq, Gates declared a state of emergency and had the threat level raised to orange.

    --
    I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended

    --A wise old fart named SC0RN
    1. Re:When asked.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      That's very funny (I did to laugh). But remember, Gates spent most of his adult working life with the CIA, he didn't use e-mail because he was busy killing people.....

  79. Damn it's early for me... by delirium28 · · Score: 1

    Here I thought there was some security breach because of some Ritz crackers...

    --
    Who is John Galt?
  80. Knuth by barik · · Score: 1

    For all those of you bashing Gates and claiming he's a buffoon simply because he doesn't use e-mail -- you do realize that Knuth doesn't either, right?

  81. Crackers? by DdJ · · Score: 1

    My first reaction was, "what do white people have against the pentagon? They're the ones that run the military/industrial complex to begin with!".

  82. 1500 Pentagon computers by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's a nice round number - just like those sixteen thousand WMD sites in Iraq. We need a reliable source here.

  83. Slashdot rules by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    No, there are rules for slashdot that stipulate moderation should be opposite what a person states they are going to receive, believe it is Section 3, Article 8. Since you said you would be modded down, there is no need to worry, unless you really wanted to be modded down. I'm not sure if there are rules on reverse psychology in place, I will have to consult the moderation manual.

  84. Re:You know what bothered me most about that story by stuntpope · · Score: 1

    Yes.

  85. Crackers ? With Or Without Cheese ? by craznar · · Score: 1

    Just wondering.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  86. In other news.... by BobMcD · · Score: 1


    Honkeys Make Other Honkeys Go Outside for a Change

    (Okay, so it's been done. Sorry.)

  87. Another Conservative failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just goes to show everyone in the country how a government run by conservatives will accomplish nothing but failure.

  88. Ha, ha--isn't it funny that I'm so ignorant by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    I love the way older people still quip about not being computer literate as if it were a joking matter. In the 21st century, being computer illiterate isn't a joke--it's a serious and potentially dangerous handicap. Gates' statement is analogous to a general from the early-20th century, when asked about his courier system, admitting that he himself can't read or write.

    Such a statement shouldn't elicit laughter, it should elicit concern.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Ha, ha--isn't it funny that I'm so ignorant by KevReedUK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IIRC, Gates DIDN'T say he doesn't UNDERSTAND email, just that he didn't use it himself...

      Not sure, however, whether he meant he doesn't use it specifically for classified/ sensitive info, or whether he simply meant that whilst email is circulated with his credentials in the "From" line, it's one of his army (no pun intended here... it's probably quite literal in this case!) of secretaries who has authored it using delegated access to his mailbox.

      Having said that, if it's the latter, this does open up a minefield of possibilities with a subordinate with delegated access using this priviledge to pursue their own agenda...

      Just my $0.04 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
  89. Anonymous Douchebag Tag? by puto · · Score: 1

    Seriously,

    Slashdot might have a multinational following, but in the end it is a US site. And we all have a right to be patriotic about our own countries? So let Slashdot us the flag for their own country.

    I might not like some of things my country does, but I still love it, still like seeing the flag.

    Puto

    --
    The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
  90. Low Blow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm 100% with you on your comment.
    Really. I don't know *everything*, but damn it, I know how to fix shit. And I'm a geek.

    But I just couldn't let this pass...

    ...repair a frozen refrigerator...

    Dude, just unplug it.
  91. Oblig Onion Article by LanMan04 · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29023

    "Evil Genius Gates Drops Windows 98 Into NYC Water Supply"

    Man do I love The Onion. SFW.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  92. The Push For A One-Way Internet by asphaltjesus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This story is exactly why most governments don't particularly want an internet where upload bandwidth is the same as download and there's a reasonable possibility for anonymity. "Cracker" stories like this start appearing more frequently with the same amount of non-information below the headline. As another post mentions, there are few if any facts.

    The U.S. government is preparing to legislate the end of the Internet as a democratizing force by turning it into a content delivery mechnanism. But they can't legislate without preparing public opinion. My bet is TPM is sold as a safety feature to protect us from "cracker stories" like this. After all, if you aren't a bad guy then it should be no problem right?

    Even if I'm dead wrong, (and I might be) recent political history is full of examples where news events is at worst fabricated, at best spun to justify all kind of crazy agendas.

    --
    Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
  93. +1 by HEbGb · · Score: 1

    I wish I could rate you higher. Thanks for saying it...

  94. Counterattack !@# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00317.htm

    When Hamas gunmen stormed the Fatah security compounds in Gaza last week they found huge supplies of American-made weaponry including 7,400 M-16 assault rifles, dozens of mounted machine guns, rocket launchers, 7 armored military jeeps, 800,000 rounds of bullets and 18 US-made armored personnel carriers. They also discovered something far more valuable--- CIA files which purportedly contain "information about the collaboration between Fatah and the Israeli and American security organizations; CIA methods on how to prevent attacks, chase and follow after cells of Hamas and the Committees; plans about Fatah assassinations of members of Hamas and other organizations; and American studies on the security situation in Gaza." (Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily.com) ...
    "the files contain, among other information, details of CIA networks in the Middle East" ...

  95. only weasels and illiterates hate email by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For me, its principal virtue is that it serves as a record of what I actually said, and what was said to me. I want taskings and requirements in writing. I'm okay with them changing, as long as I have a record of what I was originally asked so we can track the change in objectives.

    I have waaaaay too many memories of supervisors saying "I never said that." Of course, I still have supervisors who want every encounter face-to-face, ostensibly because they feel that email is impersonal. Guess which supervisors have rather flexible memories when it comes to what they did and didn't say to me?

    I'll even type up what we discussed right after the meeting and pass it by them to "make sure I understood," and they just reply with "see me." But I push for written records as often as I can. Only weasels and illiterates hate email.

  96. Caused? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Not that i read the entire story, but if the DoD shut down computers as part of a protection procedure in event of an attempted attack, i don't think id give the criminal the credit.

    Sounds like good practice to me. If someone tries to attack your building, you lock the doors..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Caused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that i read the entire story, but if the DoD shut down computers as part of a protection procedure in event of an attempted attack, i don't think id give the criminal the credit. Sounds like good practice to me. If someone tries to attack your building, you lock the doors..

      The pentagon has a deployment of Peakflow X, which provides several ways to quarantine non-essential services and boxes that appear compromised during an attack or worm outbreak. I don't know if that is the tool they used in this case. That said, another poster claimed the number given was the number of accounts "compromised" so it is entirely possible just one or two servers were shut down because someone cracked them and the IPS's noticed it. It would be nice to have some details.

  97. I'm surprised it took this long. DoD has lousy IT. by Shipwack · · Score: 1

    In general. at least (no pun intended).

    A good IT policy will be restrictive, and put limits on its users. Officers, especially the asshats that make it to the Pentagon, hate have restrictions put on them. Some high ranking zero probably whined when he found out that some web sites were blocked, and when he couldn't get to "Ostrichlove.com", told the IT guys to remove all blocking from his computer. Then the officer and his colleagues started visiting all sorts of nasty virus infected sites. Not to mention all the people taking their laptops home with them to do "work".

    When I worked at Pt Mugu Naval Station, my unit CO called me into his office to tell me that a colleague had sent a classified document through the unclassified email system, and asked me what he had to do. I told him that the Base IT department had to be informed, and that per official memorandums his computer, and possible the base mail server and the originating base mail server and sending computer would have to be digitally scrubbed, and an incident report filed with the Navy Computer Incidence Response Team. He turned to the (civilian) IT guy who had walked into the room after me, and whined "can't I just delete the letter, and there will be no classified material on my PC?" The IT guy immediately said "Yes sir, that's all that needs to be done!".

    The captain was happy; he got the answer he wanted to hear. The IT guy was happy; he had gotten out of doing a lot of work and made the captain happy.

  98. Hogwash by tootlemonde · · Score: 1

    In 1914 General Joffre, commander of the French forces, refused to use the telephone...

    There are numerous references to Joffre using the telephone, such as this one about the Battle of the Marne in 1914:

    In contrast to these difficulties, Joffre remained in close contact with his subordinates. An advantage for the French came from their falling back on their lines of communications and their relying on the telephone. While Moltke issued no orders from September 5 to 9 and received no reports from his First and Second Army commanders from September 7 to 9, Joffre maintained contact with his army commanders via telephone (even though he preferred written messages). The French also gained very valuable information from intercepted wireless transmissions.

    One can understand that written messages have an advantage over orders issued verbally since they are less likely to be confused when they are relayed or remembered. For a similar reason, email messages today have an advantage over the telephone calls.

    1. Re:Hogwash by Belacgod · · Score: 1

      I hadn't realized that. I guess that shows that he really was pretending to not know the telephone--he wasn't afraid of his subordinates recording his words.

  99. Dumb Language Infestation by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I thought, "Hey, yet another attempt to blame computer crime on people from Georgia. Where is this politically correct BS coming from?"

    Then I remembered that for some time now, some people who think of themselves as "hackers" (in the original sense of the word) have played language nazi every time they've heard the more popular use of the word. "No!" they exclaim. "You mean cracker!"

    This ignores two important linguistic principles:

    1. Words can have more than one meaning. You're supposed to figure out which one from context.
    2. You can't just coin a new word and expect people to use it in place of an existing well-established word. Especially when the coinage is so lame.
  100. Re: if anything could go wrong ... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    "Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer?

    No, that's still not theft. That's espionage.

    It might be theft if you deleted the files.

    *ring, ring*
    Secretary: "This is the office of the Pentagon, how may I direct your call?"
    Cracker: "Yes, Pentagon? I have something you may want ... but it'll cost you."

  101. names? by jon_joy_1999 · · Score: 1

    Robert Gates -- Bob Gates
    William Gates - Bill Gates
    I'd hate to see these two powerheads exist in the same system.
    this could be the "cracking" that took place.

    bobert> I WAN BGATES@PH.INT
    billiam> NO I WAN BGATES@PH.INT
    bobert> I HAX U!
    billiam> I CRAS UR COMPUTAR!
    bobert> BRIGN IT PUNX!
    billiam quit: (No Route to Host)
    bobert quit: (Broken Pipe)
    * the_world rejoices.

    --
    there are 10 types of people in this world; those who get this joke, and those who don't
  102. Crackered by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, if we didn't have a silly-sounding neologism that nobody uses to describe the distinction, nobody could possibly distinguish between "improvisational engineering" from "computer crime".

  103. It's not all black-box spending by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

    Again, no. There are some black boxes on Congress's defense appropriation bills--they don't micromanage everything--but for many years, I've heard about Congress setting aside money to fund specific projects the military doesn't actually want to pursue, such as that VTOL hover-aircraft. This gets done because the project in question sounds like a neat idea and brings jobs to, or keeps them in, some important representative's district.
    Once money is allocated by Congress, it must be spent toward the goals it's allocated to. The only question for the Secretary of Defense and underlings is how efficiently to spend it--how much goes to $6000 screwdrivers, one-corp. bids, bids guaranteed to run over, etc.

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
  104. Joffre used telephones at the Somme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least that's what I gather from reading Keegan's "Face of Battle" (which is mostly a horribly overrated book, though it has sections on Waterloo and the Somme that I enjoyed).

    Keegan says the British built a huge network of phone lines that linked all the starting positions of the British and French divisions. They were buried under the duckboards of the trenches, deeper and deeper as they neared no-man's land, until finally terminating at six feet deep. This was to protect them from bombing, but it was apparently a major strategic mistake since it also made them more difficult for friendly forces to work with. Once a phone was shot or bombed off, you had to dig down six feet and find the bitter end before you could get back on the wire.

  105. Re: Too busy for email??! by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

    Robert Gates isn't an exec, he's a Secretary of Defense. Using time efficiently isn't quite as high a priority in the gov.

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
  106. Re: Very high government official doesn't do email by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1
    Here we are, 21st century. And our secretary of defense is "low tech" and "does'nt use email".Here we are, 21st century. And our secretary of defense is "low tech" and "does'nt use email".

    I too find it hard to take that someone in that position would claim to be low-tech. Even if it's true, I can't believe he actually said it. :-)

  107. Might not be that hard to figure out by SonnyJimATC · · Score: 1

    I remember reading somewhere that the US goverment changed the codes (not the launch codes, I think it was the doors) to something like 1234567 because they were afraid that in the event of attack they wouldn't be able to locate/remember the proper codes.