Slashdot Mirror
Staged Hack Causes Generator to Self-Destruct
An anonymous reader writes "It has been revealed that in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security exercise codenamed 'Aurora' conducted in March of this year, researchers were able to cause a power generator to self-destruct remotely via a hack which changed the operating cycle of the generator. 'Government sources said changes are being made to both computer software and physical hardware to protect power generating equipment. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it is conducting inspections to ensure all nuclear plants have made the fix. Industry experts also said the experiment shows large electric systems are vulnerable in ways not previously demonstrated.'"
because the automation system controlling the infrastructure is not connected to a public network, like say, the internet - right ?
If it is, then someone should probably do some quick patching asap.
Doolittle :
Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
There is a really simple and quick fix for this problem - don't connect the control equipment to a (public) computer network.
What is more interesting than the fact this was possible is the fact that some numb skull thought it might be a good idea to link critical control systems to a public network. I can see that there is scope for remote control, especially with a nuclear plant, but I hardly think sending the data over the Intertubes is the correct way to do it.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
I don't understand why Nuclear power needed to be singled out. The electrical generators are pretty similar regardless of the fuel source. And if it blows up, it's not going to take the nuclear reactor / coal furnace / (insert steam source here) with it, since they tend to be very well separated from each other.
My blog
I'm no computer security expert but I do know of the world's most unhackable firewall -- it's called a one inch air gap. Put that gap between the network cable and the NIC and nobody is gaining access.
Yes, I know power plants will require some net access for web, email, etc. But the office worker network and the command and control computers and network for the generators should have nothing to do with each other! Separate systems, no network connectivity, the plant software should be operating in a vacuum bubble. The rest of the world should not exist for it, no way, no how. Oh, need to install a patch for the software? After being thoroughly tested and vetted on a proofing system, the software is then installed the old-fashioned way, off of CD-ROM's. Now if someone can fuck with the CD-ROM's, THAT I can understand. I can buy the plausibility of the NSA printer hack, even if it was a hoax. (NSA puts a virus on printers heading to Iraq, takes down their network.) The story about the CIA sabotaging software for equipment the Russians were buying to use in their pipelines is true. These are secure systems completely cut off from external contact that were sabotaged by the insertion of compromised components that were not detected. That makes perfect sense.
It always bothers me when I see movies showing hackers getting in to some place and gaining access to files on servers that should never have a connection to the outside world. Then again, maybe I'm giving the fictional syadmins of the target systems too much credit. Who knows, maybe next week we'll read about some Korean hackers who were able to compromise a Minuteman silo and add it to their botnet.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
2. Complain about lack of funding to solve desperate hole in our nation's security.
3. ???
4. Profit!
I am the system administrator for a large state government agency. Recently I was essentially forced to connect a Windows XP boiler control system for an electrical generation plant to the Internet, so that the vendor can do remote maintenance. If I hadn't found out about it, it would be connected directly without even a firewall... This system had no anti-virus software, and of course it has a popular remote-control software installed for the vendor's access. The only reason I can sleep at night is that the plant is far away from any populated area, and may be shut down due to other reasons soon. I will be sending this video to a number of people in an email today.
From TFA "researchers were able to cause a power generator to self-destruct remotely via a hack which changed the operating cycle of the generator"
You mean they upgraded it to Microsoft Windows Vista?
Hi! This is Chief Rufus Xavier Sarsaparilla of the Grammar Police. Where do we send your check, Lt. Permaculture?
My blog
These post are getting ridiculous. Too many people are saying "why don't they just disconnect it from the network?" and getting modded as "insightful".
It's NOT that simple! If they are connected to the network, there is probably a very good reason for it, and not just cause some engineer wants to check his email and download pr0n while listening to the generators hum.
These generators more than likely are controlled by self-optimizing systems based on a variety of data that is collected. If they're providing power to various remote sites, they need the internet for gathering data from those sites.
The internet is more than just a public free-for-all, it is the communication medium for many business/mission-critical systems (see LehiNephi's response above). They really just need to have the right security in place to keep it safe.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
There are easier ways to damage the bulk power grid (or local transmission). Pick up a rifle at your nearest sporting goods store. Go to your nearest transmission substation (or even large generating plant). Take a shot at the porcelain on one of the transformer bushings. Kablam! You just removed a few hundred MW (or perhaps more) or generating capacity or transfer capability and caused millions of dollars in damage. If it's a generating station, the cost of lost revenue could drive the total to 70 or 80 million. Actually, I have seen bushings with bullet holes. Obviously not that common, or something would be done about it, but it does happen. It won't always cause an immediate and catastrophic failure, but it certainly can. Especially if one keeps trying... The bigger danger to this nations power grid is lack of investment and a severe brain drain in engineering personnel.
What a bunch of sad geeks we've become. Instead of crying about how it was connected to the 'net i watched the video.
I'd like to know what they did to make a multi-ton generator JUMP like that thing did. After a few jumps there were a couple chunks of black stuff flying around. If you watch the "full" video it's clear they cut it at least once if not more. I'm guessing it took them quite a long while to get the generator to "blow up".
Anyone have thoughts as to how they did it? I'm going to guess they messed with the fuel/air mix or delivery and caused a massive backfire while under/overloading the alternator side. I'd guess for kicks they also forcibly turned off the cooling fans creating an over-temp in the engine. Assuming i'm right and they cut out 95% of the video length that explains it a bit better. The failure seemed two-fold: A failed main-crankshaft seal spewed out white "smoke" (read over-temp coolant) and something up by the valves making black smoke.
This is probably something you could do to a regular car if you were poking around in the engine management computer.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
I used to be a developer for a SCADA/HMI software vendor. That stands for Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition / Human Machine Interface.
It is quite common for such software to be used in places where its failure could cause injury or death.
Many of our customers put their SCADA systems on the Internet, so that our support staff could work with their systems, as well as to allow our consultant engineers to remotely upload new releases.
One day my boss told me that a lot of our customers didn't use SSL encryption, either because they couldn't be bothered with it, or because they couldn't figure out how to install the server software or certificate correctly.
Anyone with a packet sniffer running on the path between us and our customers could have easily stolen the passwords.
Our product, BTW, ran on Microsoft Windows.
We know that, because *we* did it to the Soviets. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002
And their machines weren't even connected to the internet. So all the people who are saying, "Just disconnect it", well, that's not good enough. We have to engineer systems that are hardened and handle failure gracefully. And don't use stolen software.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
As I've said before, it's all about money. There are almost irresistible forces that lead organizations to connect control systems to the Internet. An isolated private internet is extremely expensive and difficult to maintain. It's so much easier, cheaper, and tempting, to plug that cable into the public internet, perhaps with a crappy firewall to provide an illusion of security. Even if an engineer is willing to stick his neck out and say that it's an unacceptable security risk, he isn't being a team player and will be overruled by someone higher up the food chain.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
As someone who as worked in this position in a power station, let me say that this social engineering attack is not likely. You very quickly learn the names, attitudes, and voices of all the people that frequently call asking for changes to the generators. The number of people calling for these changes is usually a handful, 5 or less. If someone odd calls, we would often ask if another guy we knew was on vacation or sick.
If someone we never had heard of called asking for something strange, I would have definitely asked to talk to someone I knew at the independent system operator, emergency or not.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
There is no such thing as an "operating cycle" to change for a generator.
/or human lives at stake, one invests more in safeguards such as electromechanical relays, breakers and other non digital gadgets.
The generator pictured in the video is not the kind used in large power plants. It appears to be a diesel generator similar to the kind that is used for backup power in many buildings. Backup generators are typically 1 MW or lesss, whereas big power plant generators are 1000 MW or more. It is like comparing a RC controlled model airplane with a 747. Besides being bigger, the 747 and the power plant will have much more elaborate systems to protect things from damage and destruction caused by malfunctioning equipment and/or misbehaving control systems. When there are billions of dollars and
The thing that could cause the generator to jump and destroy itself like in the video is to attempt to synchronize it with the grid out of phase or at the wrong speed. Another post in this thread, "This has happened before computer controls" by Maximum Prophet hit on the correct answer. In small, unattended, backup generators synchronization may be automated by computer, but in large power plants nobody trusts the computer enough to allow this critical operation to be automated. It is still typically done by hand with the aid of old fashioned non-digital equipment. Even if one did mis-synchronize a generator (and it does happen) other protective devices shut things down quickly to limit the scope of damage. And yes, mis-synchronization does happen in real life every once in a while, usually in a brand new installation and usually because the instruments are wired up wrong. The result can be damage sometimes, but I never heard of it destroying a whole plant.
That is not to say that cyberwar is not a threat, nor to say that it is not good policy to isolate all critical control computer from the net. Again its a matter of money. If you are running a $5 billion power plant, your budget is big enough to hire real people to come and maintain systems rather than using remote diagnostics. Or, if you do want remote diagnostics, you can afford to use leased private lines rather than the internet. Power plants and the power grid can afford gold standard security and they should be required to do it. I don't oppose the security thrust, but I do oppose the hyped up scare tactics designed to panic us into unwise government spending.
I spent most of my life modeling power plants and their control systems to build operator training simulators. As part of training, we inject myriads of simulated malfunctions. As part of debugging of the models, we get to see just about every detail of the plant and its control and its safeguards working incorrectly before we debug them and make them correct. That gave me and others experiences up to our chinny chin chins about what can go wrong and what the consequences might be.
I'm afraid that what this is about is another naked grab for government money and using scare tactics to get it. Mr. Joe Weiss in the video works for EPRI. He, and the government committee on critical infrastructure protection, were both singing the song in 1999 that no matter what Y2K bugs might exist, they couldn't do any real harm. Get it? Not that the Y2K bugs didn't exist or would be fixed (at proved to be the case) but that they couldn't do any substantial harm no matter what. Now these same people are saying that a few hacks can cause widespread and catastrophic damage. One can not argue both sides of this issue and keep credibility. If a control system misbehaves, it matters not whether the problem is inadvertent or malevolent. Yet these people pooh pooh the risk of inadvertent bugs yet hype the danger of malevolent ones. It's bunk.
EPRI wants $100 billion to automate everything in the power grid as a massive research project. Next they'll want another $250 billion to secure it from cyberwar threats. DOE wants a national DOE control center for the
Whatever the reason's given for connecting any critical infrastructure to the public Internet, it is far too risky of a proposition to seriously consider it. They absolutely should be using private WANs, preferably encrypted eight ways to Sunday.
There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for making this equipment accessable from the public Internet. None. Zero. Zilch.
Frame Relay T1 lines are cheap nowadays, and they should be using them.
My (paranoid?) suspicions are: 1. DHS produced this FUD/PhotoOp (remember, it is CNN) to justify their funding. Their current terrorist prevention accomplishments are in the category of 'See any elephants/terrorists? No? Must mean our elephant/terrorist repellent works' 2. Showing a terrorist target that 'hits closer to home' (no pun intended) for Joe/Jane citizen 3. A reason to let them monitor everything they can on the internet. Their justification would be 'If we see them trying to get in, we can find and stop them.' Seems that a proper firewall / VPN setup would be required/more useful K
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
I mangled a gear change coming back on a stretch of motorway at about 4am, this was maybe 6 months after passing my test, I'm not entirely sure what I did but it was with a change from 4th to first or 4th to reverse (and yes this was a fairly old car). I must say it was fairly spectacular, the smell of burning clutch, the sparks, the rapid deceleration. But most interestingly when I finally got the car to stop, I found that the clutch was stuck/fused, and I couldn't start the engine at all, 20 minutes later and I had it started, and moving in second gear at about 20Mph, all the way back home @50 Miles (and yes off the motorway.). Next day, I found that everything worked beautifully, and whereas previously the clutch used to slip quite a bit, had regained a decent bite.
Needless to say it didn't pass its next MOT, but then a £250 C Reg Ford Sierra is something you can drive for a year and then replace.