Slashdot Mirror


Significant Russian Attack On US Military Networks

killmofasta notes an LA Times story on a severe and widespread attack on US military computers that may have originated in Russia. Turns out the military's recent ban on flash drives was a precursor to this attack, which was significant enough that the President and the Defense Secretary were briefed on it. "The 'malware' strike, thought to be from inside Russia, hit combat zone computers and the US Central Command overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan. The attack underscores concerns about computer warfare. 'This one was significant; this one got our attention,' said one defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing internal assessments. Although officials are withholding many details, the attack underscores the increasing danger and potential significance of computer warfare, which defense experts say could one day be used by combatants to undermine even a militarily superior adversary. ... [A defense official said] 'We have taken a number of corrective measures, but I would be overstating it if I said we were through this.'"

198 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to have sensitive systems directly connected to the internet?

    Oh , wait...

    1. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ban on flash drives ... doesn't seem they came in through the internet.

      (btw : of course the military has computers connected directly to the internet. They created the internet. The remaining systems are only sensitive in the economic sense of the word though)

      just my 2c

    2. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by theaveng · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do we know this attack even happened?

      Supreme Commander/General Eisenhower warned us to be wary of the military-industrial complex's desire to create wars just to keep themselves in business, and we already caught them in a recent lie (WMDs in Iraq that never existed). How do we know this "computer war" happened and is not just another made-up story to try to get trillions more dollars & keep the military-industrial companies employed?

      I work for these people, and frankly I don't trust them. I'd personally be happy to give up my job in order to bring the Congressional budget into the black & reduce taxpayer burdens, but I know many of my colleagues would not. They want to keep their jobs regardless of cost (or lies).

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The other side of the coin is like this:

      How do we know that it's not retaliation for an attack on Russian computers that originated from US military networks?

      When we start hearing news stories about computer attacks from Latvia, Peru, or some small country in the far east perhaps they can be believed. Right now the news is all about attacks from people that the current administration would like to demonize. That makes the believability of these reports a little less than zero IMO. It sounds like pure propaganda at this point. If it is real, it's probably part of a cat/mouse game that we've been playing with them all along. Anyone who has been in the US military knows that we play war games all the time with Russia. Look up news on the USS Augusta, search for news about submarines a week before and after, you'll see that it hit a Russian sub in a bad game of chicken. Why would computer networks be any different? I bet there are teams of IT people that set up honey pot networks just for this kind of war game. It would be stupid to believe otherwise.

    4. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Did you mean "isn't".

      Because right now your "Oh, wait..." is redundant.

    5. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.

      Sorry. No.

      That's so wrong it's funny. The whole world didn't believe shit about WMDs. Your government made shit up and then our government (UK) got involved because they thought it was politically expedient.

      And the Syria thing? Please. Bullshit to justify US actions in light of the complete clusterfuck that the Iraq thing became.

    6. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      "The whole world" did not believe. Only right-wing Americans did.

      The rest of the world (where I live) knew it was only bullshit all the time, except for half a dozen Bush-ass-kisser politicians and media pundits.

    7. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Deadplant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the whole world believed that Iraq had WMDs

      That is so ludicrously wrong you must have been watching american news.
      The vast majority of the world did NOT believe that WMD nonsense.

    8. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "So 17 UN resolutions referencing WMDs represents what to you, moron?"

      History. The Irqi gov't weren't cooperating, but Blix was not convinced they had any WMD when he was pulled out.

      "Put the propaganda UK rags down, get some better medications, and go back to middle school and learn something before further poisoning the internet with your ignorance."

      Lol. Republitard.

    9. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Deadplant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So 17 UN resolutions referencing WMDs represents what to you, moron?

      That is the result of the disfunctional and undemocratic security council where the USA has a vetoe.
      Don't confuse security council resolutions for something representing world opinion.
      It is the general assembly that is democratic and representative, the security council is a private club.

    10. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I work for these people, and frankly I don't trust them. I'd personally be happy to give up my job in order to bring the Congressional budget into the black & reduce taxpayer burdens, but I know many of my colleagues would not. They want to keep their jobs regardless of cost (or lies).

      I don't trust any upper-level manager in any industry, but especially not in DoD contracting, and I certainly don't trust DoD civilians to be honest or competent.
      This is taking place during the transition between Administrations, so someone at the DoD hierarchy wants to make a show about how they are "protecting America" when everyone in the commercial sector dealt with the agent.btz trojan quietly months ago.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    11. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is the result of the disfunctional and undemocratic security council where the USA has a vetoe.
      Don't confuse security council resolutions for something representing world opinion.

      Except when they agree with you presumably, like just before the war.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      Luckily both those tyrants and patriots can be Iraqi or North Korean.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      "I work for these people, and frankly I don't trust them."

      So leave. Obviously, you have no issue taking home a paycheck from the folks you don't trust. Which, by the way is supporting their cause.

      "budget into the black"

      Sorry, but if it makes it into the black, I want my money back. Zero should be the target, not profit.

      Look, it is very necessary to put information to a litmus test. The press doesn't really do it since they inject so much personal agenda it becomes hard to find the "real" facts. However, when information comes out, yelling "false" really isn't a viable method either. I think a little more information gathering would be needed. And I don't remember reading anything about the Govt asking for more money concerning this event.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    14. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by jambox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You must live in a parallel universe!

      There are so many mainstream sources around UNSCOM and the IAEA that have come forward since the Iraq war that the truth is no longer in question. It goes like this:

      Firstly, the Iraqi military and economy had been smashed by the first gulf war and subsequent sanctions.

      Secondly, Hussein and the rest weren't stupid and clearly knew the US government, public and media were all baying for war.

      Thirdly, the UNSCOM inspections were very thorough and even well funded and equipped (largely by the US taxpayer) and had a great deal of success in pressurizing the Iraqi regime into getting rid of what it had left, which in any case wasn't much because it was all so old. Dozens of Iraqi army officers defected through Syria or Jordan and confirmed the story.

      Because of all this, successive administrations tried and failed to find a pretext to war. Parent is entirely correct - it's the defense industry wanting cash and the government finding any excuse to pump tax dollars to their well-to-do pals. It's good for the economy, according to the politicians.

      What helped most of all to tip the balance in favour of war was when someone or other (probably the CIA) forged a now infamous document purporting to show the sale of yellow-cake uranium by Niger to Iraq. It was by all accounts a hilariously bad forgery and contained many, many obvious errors that clearly showed it could not be genuine. However, the White House released it to the media as genuine, who immediately, without checking it, presented it as causus belli to the trusting public. By the time the IAEA's Mohammed El Baradei announced a couple of days later that it was utterly false, it was too late. Not that the same, supposedly liberal media made a big deal of that.

      That, my friend, is how rich, powerful people can manipulate the public into doing whatever they see as necessary, even when it calls for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of normal, working class people on all sides.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    15. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole point of the inspections was to make positively sure that Saddam didn't have any. I'm assuming you agree that's better than thinking he probably-maybe-not-sure doesn't then finding out that you're wrong, in the form of a big fireball over some city?

      Answer this, if he didn't have any and wasn't in the process of making any, why was he so keen to get rid of the inspectors?

      Everybody who says he didn't have WMD (on the basis of what we know now) is just a Monday morning quarterback. Hindsight is always 20-20.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      The main problem with the "reasoning" for the invasion was WMD. There were so many Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire that warranted a continuation of the war, but which were just ignored.

      As for the UK getting "involved because they thought it was politically expedient" is fantasy, the US/UK were going to hit Iraq the moment an Allied aircraft was shot down over Iraq. See Operation Desert Badger for planning during the Clinton/Blair administrations.

      Every time Iraq fired AAA or a SAM at an Allied plane in a no-fly zone, violation of the cease-fire from March 1991.

      Lets not forget that the Iraqi government before the US/UK invaded was sponsoring terrorism in Israel, or plotting to murder current and former heads of state, and killing tens of thousands of civilians a year, oh and the did have stockpiles of chemical weapons left...

      No, its all the fault of the Bush administration.

    17. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 3, Informative

      Easy to keep the military systems safe, don't plug them into the internet...that way people all the way from Russia wont be able to hack them if there is no access....it would only be something from within, and this we already have a budget for, not need more money for it as a separate expenditure

    18. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      well the simplest solution is to look at non US news sources. frequently the BBC posts stories about US military hours before american news outlets do. Pull your head out of your arse, and look at some else's news for a while. France while a some what ally will publish news that American news outlets won't as they are considered "sensitive" or not news worthy(read latest actress scandal is more important).

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by gwait · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bullshit.
      Those of us outside the feverish and patriotic US Propaganda machine could see that machine heavily at work.

      Yes it was entirely plausible that Saddam had WMD,
      so yes it was expedient to send in inspectors.
      When said inspectors turned up absolutely nothing,
      that wasn't the answer America wanted to hear, since "Something had to be done about 911!".

      The best summary of the Iraq war propoganda machine at work is here:

      http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

      Why should you care? America is now worse than broke, and you spend trillions blowing up a country for no benefit to that country or to the average US citizen.

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    20. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How do we know that it's not retaliation for an attack on Russian computers that originated from US military networks?

      I'm not sure it matters. Whether US military computers were choosing to load and execute foreign code as a result of a foreign first strike, or a foreign counter-attack, we still have the situation that US military computers are loading and executing untrusted code, and apparently unsandboxed, so that it ended up mattering.

      I don't care why it happened at the political level; I care about why it's happening at the computer or operator level. People using "important" computers shouldn't be doing that, nor should their computers be making it easy for them to do that.

      No matter why the military computers were attacked, the fact that the attack worked proves incompetence.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    21. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      while i don't doubt that electronic warfare is being actively developed by other nations (i'm sure the U.S. armed forces aren't the only military interested in, or actively developing, electronic warfare tactics), i wouldn't put it past the MIC to exaggerate the risk of electronic attacks in order to manipulate the public. it certainly wouldn't be the first time the public was mislead about our nation's defense in order to funnel tax dollars into unnecessary defense projects. and now with war logistics being an more lucrative than ever through the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and its cost-plus award-fee contracts, even more more private sector companies have a vested interest in seeing a renewed Cold-War-type international tension and corresponding military spending.

      it's just too bad Americans never heeded Eisenhower's farewell address. of course, if more people working in the defense industry were truly patriotic, they'd all be as morally enlightened as you, and the MIC wouldn't exist.

    22. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Mod me flamebait if you want, but even Iraqi Generals believed that there were WMDs. Not saying that there were WMDs, there is no proof to indicate that there ever were WMDs, but it is conceivable that Generals in the Iraqi Army believed that there were WMDs, because this was the info that they were being given by Saddam's regime. This is conjecture, but I believe that many of the higher-ups in the Iraqi Army were probably given a lot of false info to believe that they were better armed than they really were. Most of the grunts knew better, which is why you saw many in the general Iraqi Army (non Republican Guards) give up pretty damn quick when we swept through. They are the ones that would've likely been handling the weapons, and frankly they knew that they had nothing to offer real resistance. I do not believe that the American Government purposely lied about the WMDs, even Clinton's Administration strongly believed at one point that Iraq had the capability of deploying WMDs, and we of course know that they tested such weapons in the 80's and were prepared to use them during the first gulf war. It's likely that most programs were simply canceled and this info was not widely known amongst Saddam's own Generals. The intel was certainly bad, but it was the same intel that many agencies, not just the US CIA, concurred on. The joke was on all of us, because the British, French, and Germans at one point all believed that Saddam possessed WMDs outright or the capability to produce them. The only thing I blame Bush for is being so gung-ho in going in and finishing what his father started that he didn't question the intel, but you can also blame Clinton, Blair, and others for looking at the intel and taking it at face value.

    23. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Informative

      *sigh* this is just so stupid it's hard to decide where to begin, but I'll try :

      When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it. There is a third agency, but it's name escapes me for now.

      AP stands for associated press, which is not American
      AFP stands for "agence france-presse" which is french.

      They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP. They both translate those articles in over 30 languages, and give their clients, like cnn, the right to copy them verbatim.

      So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.

      You will find nearly all news duplicated across the atlantic in practice. Everybody agrees having a singular entity collect all news is a terrible idea. Everybody also agrees that it's cheaper, so it wasn't a contest at all.

      Also keep in mind that e.g. during the Israel-Lebanon (or rather Israel vs Lebanese terrorists that Lebanon couldn't (and can't) deal with, who are therefore in massive violation of just about every international treaty by their existence alone), AFP hired a Hezbollah "kolonel" to collect news for them (he had very good access to the battlefield, you see, and he didn't tell AFP about his position). This is then passed of as "impartial" information.

      But the sad reality is, there isn't any alternative to them.

    24. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Xelios · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think Stephen Colbert did a great job of summarizing the propaganda machine behind the Iraq war. You can watch the bit I'm talking about here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diEdNgnzR3g

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    25. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      Except when they agree with you presumably, like just before the war.

      You have asolutely no basis for that accusation.
      Presume whatever you want, that doesn't make it true.

      Try forming your opinions from observation rather than wild speculation.

    26. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      We don't really know what Blix was convinced of, because he tried to play statesman instead of .. you know.. impartially doing his job.

      For most of the Clinton administration, it went like this: If Iraq (and the vaunted UN weapons inspectors) was out of the news for a while, all of a sudden Saddam was being uncooperative and suspicious. If it looked like actual military action was approaching imminence, then "no evidence was found."

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    27. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by adam.dorsey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it. There is a third agency, but it's name escapes me for now.

      Reuters

      --
      You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
    28. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 1

      He was keen on getting rid of the inspectors so that there would always be an element of doubt with his immediate neighbors that posed a direct threat to his nation. He never thought that the US would invade over the flimsy intelligence, and was more concerned about Iran invading if it were shown that there were no WMDs in country.

      For what its worth, I'm not the only one that believes so.
      Agent: Hussein was surprised U.S. invaded - cnn.com

      OK - now run off and slashdot CNN, then come back and tell us what you think.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
    29. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by uglydog · · Score: 1

      Do you remember Hans Blix?

    30. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by uglydog · · Score: 1

      No, I'm using Hans Blix as a basis for saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs.
      Why so keen to get rid of the inspectors? Well, Iraq is a sovereign nation. Why WOULD they want other people in their business?

    31. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes lets forget about the Russia's recent aggression into Georgia
      Lets also pretend Russia isn't going to finish building Irans first nuclear plant in 2009
      Lets not acknowledge that Medvedev just signed a nuclear deal with Venezuela
      Lets forget all the recent _obvious_ Russian aggression against the United States and just skip to the part where you make up facts out of thin air about the US attacking Russian computers. Then lets take this big steamy pile of B.s. and mod it plus 5 cause its anti-american and on slashdot.

      It's obvious Russia wants war. They are doing everything they can to provoke the united states in hopes the US will be seen as the aggressor. The world doesn't seem to care Russia is trying to provoke a world war. You can say the US provoked the war with Iraq i suppose but its alittle late for that and has nothing to do with Russia. Iraq and the US have already reached an agreement and they seem fine. Its too late to jump in on their behalf talking of an unjust war when they're signing agreements saying when its okay to be there, and when its time to leave. So I say this Russia thing is a separate issue. they're on a hunt for power and they see the US as weak right now. Now is the time for them to assert themselves. We all know this is whats happening im just concerned why nobody in the world has a problem with another cold war. I guess hate for the US is so high they'd like to see it.
      Its good to be skeptical of the US's claims on attacks but you gotta admit if you're a logical person this fits right in line with what Russia has been doing the last several months.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    32. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Tends to spoil the tree though, it gets chopped down and turned into paper to print laws on then.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    33. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by chrb · · Score: 2, Informative

      AP stands for associated press, which is not American
      AFP stands for "agence france-presse" which is french....
       

      So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.

      Do you really believe that this is true? For a start, the world's largest broadcasting news gathering organisation is the BBC, which is British. Secondly, I was under the impression that U.S. news broadcasters mostly ignore international issues and focus on domestic issues instead. It is unlikely that more than one third of U.S. domestic news is gathered by French men. You may also be interested to learn that the Associated Press (AP) is an American news agency and Reuters Group Limited is a British based news service.

      As a non-U.S. citizen, the idea that over 1/3rd of U.S. news content is written by the French is an amusing idea - kind of on the same intellectual level as ranting about Freedom Fries and Surrender Monkeys.

    34. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by chrb · · Score: 1

      So 17 UN resolutions referencing WMDs represents what to you, moron?

      And what about the UN resolutions regarding Israel and the occupied territories? I'm not saying whether those resolutions are right or wrong, but merely pointing out that when the U.S. government talks about Iraq and tries to back up its argument with reference to the UN resolutions it likes, whilst seeking to discredit those it doesn't, it seems more than a little hypocritical.

    35. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by chrb · · Score: 1

      You may find the story of Curveball interesting. The German Federal Intelligence Service warned the CIA that the information it was receiving about WMDs was extremely suspect. But the reality was ignored if favour of the fantasy - like Tyler Drumheller said "Everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening"

    36. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, since your handle is 'Pros_n_Cons' perhaps we should revisit the news:

      Georgia started the strife with Russia - not the other way around.
      Russia has been trying to get in on Iranian nuclear power to sell them stuff for a long time. The politics of the middle east is complex enough that no slashdot post will explain it all. Russia still needs warm water ports. Iran is a strategically valid place for them. Russia actually offered to help settle the sabre rattling over nuclear power in Iran by assisting with running the program. If you were to sit and look at America the way that the rest of the world has to, what Russia has done is not all that out of line.

      One reason that people found a fondness for the cold war between Russia and the US is because it managed to keep a lid on the nuclear arms problem. With too many wild cards in the game, the game gets that much more difficult to play without losing.

      ....They are doing everything they can to provoke the united states in hopes the US will be seen as the aggressor.

      uhmmmm, yeah, Iraq had to work pretty hard at that, didn't they?

      Demonizing Russia or any other country is nothing more than propaganda. period. Propaganda that the world, specifically the US, does not need now, or ever.

    37. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a few years back when the american Sub hit a japanese fishing trawler, I heard about it from the BBC 3 hours earlier than CNN, FOX, or NBC began to air what happened.

      the AP had it but it wasn't news worthy for hours afterwards. I didn't say other news sources wouldn't be biased as well, but if you want to know what is happening in the USA try an external news source first.

      Another point the hotel shooting in India. the USA news sources are focusing 90% of their coverage on the 3 americans inside, more or else ignoring the other hundreds of people wounded.

      I am smart enough to understand that french and british news are also biased towards their own people. You can learn quite a bit by keeping an open mind.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    38. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, there was eventually a lot of suspicion regarding the intel, and rightly so. It was mostly uncorroborated, and frankly, a lot of it was put together in a very sloppy fashion. I think my argument is that just simply chalking it up as the Bush Administration trying to pull one over on everyone is not only wrong, but frankly it's giving them too much credit. The same people that call him an idiot claim that he has bamboozled the entire world. More likely, I think the CIA was pushed to come up with quick intel and the result of this was sloppy and either inaccurate or outdated information.

      Now that being said, Curveball was also deemed an unreliable witness who had an agenda, and had misrepresented his qualifications (such as claiming to be at the top of his class but finishing near or at the bottom). So, like anything else, you gotta look at the whole Curveball incident with a grain of salt.

    39. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Those of us outside the feverish and patriotic US Propaganda machine could see that machine heavily at work.

      Lots of us inside could see it as well. Sadly, not enough of us...

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    40. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by tacarat · · Score: 1

      Further, anyone who's done a bit of looking knows that the WMDs that remained were moved to Syria right before the war - there was even a book written by an Iraqi general who knew it was happening.

      This General? http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    41. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by CrossChris · · Score: 1

      I don't trust any upper-level manager in any industry, but especially not in DoD contracting.

      Nor do I. $270 "mil spec" screwdrivers, anyone?

    42. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Right now the news is all about attacks from people that the current administration would like to demonize. That makes the believability of these reports a little less than zero IMO.

      Your logic is weak. You're saying "this evidence supports what the Bush Administration has been saying all along, therefor it is false." How can you honestly come to that conclusion?

      You then go on to remind us of past Soviet/Russian-American encounters. We could also discuss the mock bombing runs of the cold war, RB-47s and RB-50s, spies, and everything else we've been doing to each other for all this time. None of these are valid arguments against the truthiness of this article.

      What are you going to do now, attack my use of the word "truthiness"?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    43. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      Listening to the BBC is like listening to "Parliament News" or the American-equivalent "Bush/Obama News Network". The BBC is funded by the government and carry what the government wants them to say, and the government enjoys making war as much as the military-industrial complex.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    44. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by theaveng · · Score: 1

      >>>Sorry, but if it makes it into the black, I want my money back.

      I agree with you in principle, but remember there's a multi-trillion dollar debt to pay off. Only after that debt is erased, and there is a true surplus, can government start giving money back to taxpayers.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    45. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      If I had 5 Mod points to put on anything I have read here in the last month, Id put them all on this:

      "The fact is, war is the single most lucrative business for government to be in. If it wasn't for war, the US government would be half the size it is today, measured both in revenue and power over the people."

      Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.

    46. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by guanxi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps OeLeWaPpErKe was exaggerating to make a point, but there are many large exaggerations in the parent:

      When you see an American article, in English, you always see "AP", "AFP" under it.

      Many news organization reprint wire service articles, but: 1) There are many other wire services (Reuters and the AP being the largest, I think, and you can see a list at the preceeding link); 2) News organization also do their own original reporting; the wire services are usually a minority of their content and an organization like the New York Times uses almost exclusively original reporting. I doubt the BBC uses AP or AFP stories (though maybe they use some Reuters). Watch a press conference; where are all those journalists from? Just the AP and AFP?

      AP stands for associated press, which is not American

      I assume that's a typo, but the AP is American, if that matters. The AP is a non-profit cooperative owned by American daily newspapers. AFAIK, the idea is that it's not cost-effective or useful for every daily newspaper to send a reporter to, for example, the big football game this weekend. So they formed a cooperative and send one reporter.

      The AFP is not, AFAIK, nearly as large in English-speaking markets as the AP and Reuters.

      They cooperate with one another, hardly ever making double coverage, so in practice an article with AP under it might have come from AFP.

      I don't know about that; I've seen plenty of overlapping coverage. AFP is, not suprisingly, much less focused on the English-speaking world than AP is, but they both cover all major stories. Here are AP and AFP headlines from Yahoo!:

      http://news.yahoo.com/i/514

      http://news.yahoo.com/i/1504
       

      So 1/3rd (in theory, in practice more) of all the news you see has been collected by French reporters, or at least reporters paid by french people.

      First, who cares. But that number is not nearly accurate. Much/most of the news you see is produced by journalists in the organization that publishes it; what do you think all those journalists on all the TV, print, and website news organizations do all day? Also, as I said above, AFP has much less presence than AP and Reuters in the English-speaking world and there are other newswires, so they produce much less than 1/3 of the content. I'd guess it's more like 3% in English publications, but that's just a guess and of course it depends on how you measure it (stories published on newswires? stories published by news organizations (e.g., CNN)? stories read?).

    47. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Even if that were true (and it's not. In fact the Israeli's consistently OBEYED the resolutions time and time again until the arabs betrayed them time and time again) the arabs, their opponents, have declared they will NEVER follow the human rights charter. Arabs have consistently exploited every last chance they had to kill Jews, and Jews have consistently restrained themselves.

      If the arabs drop their arms today, tomorrow there is peace in the middle east. If the Jews drop their arms, tomorrow the holocaust is restarted.

      And you expect the Jews to undergo ANOTHER holocaust, just so you can feel you made them "act fair" against arabs.

      Arabs rejected human rights, all their governments, many democratic, did so. They did not do this as Arabs, they did not do this as "palestinians", Jordanians or Egyptians or any nationality. They did this AS A RELIGION.

      The reason arabs reject human rights is that "it's against allah's will". Of course their prophet, who dictated "allah's will" was a paedophile massacring slave-trader. This might have something to do with the contents of their belief system.

      It has been declared fundamentally incompatible with sharia by every muslim institution of authority.

      So what's your answer now ? The muslims, and yes the muslims, the people who adhere to the paedophile religion, declared their intention to fight and kill until human rights are no more. It's right there in the wikipedia link, the references are all abound, and VERY hard to deny.

      So what now ? Do you tolerate their religion, and their constant violation of human rights, or do you push human rights, demanding, if necessary by force of arms, they drop their religion, at least partially.

      Take a concrete case : Do you think women are equal to men OR that muslims get to exist. This is, mind you, an EXCLUSIVE OR, not a choice.

      Read the quran, if you have any doubts about the content of islam. Note that it literally states "muslims are the slaves of allah, he bought their souls in trade for paradise. They are slaves and their orders are to fight, kill and die in allah's name. To fight until there is only islam".

    48. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Answer this, if he didn't have any and wasn't in the process of making any, why was he so keen to get rid of the inspectors?

      Why don't you want me to search your person/car/house? What are you hiding?

      Of course, we knew that Saddam once had WMDs, because we sold them to him. But all we ended up finding was some old expired crap (shells with traces of nerve agent.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Surely the US military is dumb enough.. by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Whoopie shit...you hear about the troller 3 hours earlier on the BBC. It's frequently the other way around.

      As for the Mumbai situation, I actually heard a lot more about French hostages on CNN than I did Americans. I just assumed it was because that's all the information they had. That aside, of course news affecting Americans is more newsworthy to an American audience. So what?

      Finally, this whole issue of journalistic bias makes me laugh. People argue about this as if there's the possibility that a news source can be unbiased. I hate to inform you all that there's no such thing as an unbiased news source and that includes the BBC (and I read their site frequently). They are all biased because ALL HUMANS ARE BIASED. It's not possible to not be biased. The only thing that changes is how much bias there is and there's no absolute way to measure that because it's relative to the observer.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. Oblig Windows jab by mrbcs · · Score: 3, Funny

    So umm, how's that Vista working out for you? What'd they use for the attack? Solitaire?

    --
    I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    1. Re:Oblig Windows jab by pubjames · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually it was britneynude.exe

    2. Re:Oblig Windows jab by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

      britneynude.exe

      *shudder*

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Oblig Windows jab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I bet the infection is having trouble spreading because every time it tries to install it crashes out with the error "Please exit the following programs: US Government Trojan before attempting to install Russian Government Trojan."

    4. Re:Oblig Windows jab by orielbean · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pre or post exploitation?

    5. Re:Oblig Windows jab by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      >Actually it was britneynude.exe

      Only US soldiers would fall on THAT!

  3. I offer my services by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 4, Funny

    $100/hour to install air-gap firewalls on sensitive/classified networks. (Includes rental of scissors.)

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    1. Re:I offer my services by jo42 · · Score: 1

      $99/hour to upgrade all military hardware from Microsoft by-products to Renuks.

    2. Re:I offer my services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      $100/hour to install air-gap firewalls on sensitive/classified networks. (Includes rental of scissors.)

      In little old New Zealand anything classified above commercial-sensitive is not allowed to be on any computer system with a connection to the internet.

    3. Re:I offer my services by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Funny

      You work for cheap. Ask for $225/hr and then offer a "preferred services provider" agreement where they can get you for $195 if they guarantee a minimum of 1000 hours.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    4. Re:I offer my services by networkconsultant · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is for the Government, try $1500 / hr.

  4. Originating in Russian != Russian National by UltraAyla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just remember that just because it originated in Russia does not mean that this was a Russian Government attack (though it could have been known about and ignored by them if it wasn't) - it just happens to have been in Russia - the headline is a little misleading in that sense.

    1. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just remember that just because it originated in Russia does not mean that this was a Russian Government attack (though it could have been known about and ignored by them if it wasn't) - it just happens to have been in Russia - the headline is a little misleading in that sense.

      But surely there are just evil dudes and dragons beyond our borders jealous about our freedoms (ignore DRM, unwarranted phone snooping, etc for this argument)? I know for sure that there are ice dragons and Igloo dwellers to the north. To the east there is meant to be an old continent, but I am yet to be convinced of its existence. ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be equally silly to ignore the fact that China, Russia and certain other countries have well-funded technical and military intelligence collection programs that have been running for many decades, and explicitly target the United States.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by UltraAyla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're absolutely right and I completely agree - I'm not saying that this wasn't sponsored by or carried out by a foreign nation, but that we should not conclude that this is the case. It is very likely that this attack was from a foreign nation, and if it wasn't, there will be others.

    4. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      Not only headline is misleading, RTFA clearly states that source of the malware is not identified.
      And this wasnt targeted attack I assume, some stupid fuck just ran piece of malware on secure computer and it spreaded.
      Of course to make things big and get money on "cyberdefense" there should be some country to blame.

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    5. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by blhack · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure how things work in Russia (if the state owns the networks or not) but wouldn't it be the ISP or bandwidth provider ignoring this?

      I know, I know, ISPs can't (and shouldn't) be held responsible for this sort of thing, but just jumping at the Russian government because technically the copper(or fiber, or whatever) exists in Russian territory is a little bit silly IMHO.

      Really the only way that we could hold a foreign government responsible for the actions of their citizens on the Internet would be to expect government oversight on all the packets floating around on the networks that exist within their territories. I highly doubt that there are many people on slashdot that would advocate that.
      Really, the Internet needs to exist separately from real-world governments. I know that some are in favor of having no regulatory body of any kind on the networks, but I think things are starting to get out of hand. A government that exists for the internet only is starting to make sense, especially since people who have studied traditional, physical-world-based law have generally don't know head from ass when it comes to computer networks.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    6. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by methamorph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't even mean that the ones behind the attack are russian nationals. For all we know it could be americans using 0wned computers in Russia.

    7. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Yea we have it tough in America (DRM, IP rights, a well publicized illegal actions by the government). I much rather live in a country that will kill you if you say something unpatriotic loud enough, or just reported it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by vvaduva · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the ex KGB agents who are now running the country have no ill interests towards the United States whatsoever? :)

      Look, maybe tfa is exaggerating what actually happened, but you guys need to get your heads out of your asses too. If you think the Chinese or Russian governments are no behind some of those attacks or if you think they are not backing the criminal groups doing this, then we are hopeless.

    9. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by keithjr · · Score: 2

      The global ramifications of this stance are more nuanced than that. It would be a sign of good faith if the Russian government were to prosecute the parties responsible for an attack on a foreign military body. Conversely, it is a sign of complacence if they do not.

      Basically, the problems that the network can create are too many and too serious for the governments of the world to ignore. This doesn't mean 'Net Neutrality is impossible, but it means security reforms is going to have to happen sooner than later. Otherwise, the government will see no other option but to own the tubes.

    10. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by ivlad · · Score: 1

      This thing propagates using USB flash drives, what ISPs are you talking about? OTOH, during Estonia DDoS incident, it was proclaimed, that a cyberattack against a NATO-country might require an "asymmetric response" from the military of all alliance members. So, in the best memories of Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as a response to this "attack", US would have a reason for a military aggression. Cannot wait, when will it be discovered, that Iran government is responsible for this piece of malware.

    11. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Jeez! Enough! We don't all live in Igloo's up here... Some of us dig snow caves. But I can't defend my wife, the Ice Drag... ummm, nevermind.

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    12. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, there are countries worse than us, much worse. But, there are also countries better than us. I find it odd that we went from claiming "We're the bastion to freedom" to claiming "We're not as bad as random Muslim theocracies, and some African anarchies, and perhaps China!". We should be striving to be the most free country in the world again, and not just mediocre.

      As for all of our other metrics, we're failing. Sure, we're better than Congo, but who isn't (besides the Congo)? Its like murdering someone and saying "at least I didn't rape her!".

      I do find it odd that we count DRM in here, DRM is not a government mandate, its a stupid mandate from the free market. No one is forcing anyone to use DRM media, sell DRM media, or anything else like that. Companies decided to do so, we decide to buy their products. Isn't the free market grand?

      This is why my idea of striving to be the freest country in the world doesn't equate with many other people's idea of freedom. I don't think corporations fall into the list of priorities, only people as individuals. Free corporations have done their share in destroying America. I'm getting sick of having to spend energy on thinking of reasons to be proud of my own country.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    13. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by Venik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case one should also remember that the US has similar programs that explicitly target Russia and China. And so, perhaps, it would make sense to better protect one's own networks than to blame the Russians and the Chinese for every security breach. Even if they are responsible. Especially if they are responsible. This way the Pentagon may only appear vulnerable, as opposed to vulnerable AND incompetent.

    14. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by w000t · · Score: 1

      Dear, vvaduva,
      Thanks for playing along.
      --
      Uncle Sam.

    15. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      DRM is not a government mandate,

      You are correct in almost everything else. DRM, however, is something that isn't done by the govt, but it would never exist without their support. DRM breaks the US copyright pack from the US constitution (you can interfere with free speech, but only as long as you produce many copyable works which will be free in a short time after the copyright runs out). DRM would be completely irrelevant if it were legal to make copies of DRM media and distribute them in any format the copier wishes.

      As ever; the "free market" is a regulatory construction and a useful tool but in the end it's at least partly a creation of the govt. If nothing else by providing a police force which stops the people with the biggest tanks (trust me your "second amendment guns will be totally irrelevant in this case) coming and taking your stuff without paying.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    16. Re:Originating in Russian != Russian National by UltraAyla · · Score: 1

      Nobody said that. What I said is that we can't prove anything right now and we shouldn't just assume that is the Russian government as the headline insinuates. It is totally possible it is the government, but we don't know that yet and assuming so will only make things worse.

  5. KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by threeturn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love the way these things are always spun as if they are significant military attacks coordinate by the foreign government or their agents. Is there any evidence that it isn't just a few bored teenagers who happen to live in Russia and think it would be fun to try and hack the US DOD?

    1. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 3, Informative

      After all that went down in Georgia, I think it proves that there really isn't that much of a difference between the two.

    2. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by pubjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It probably is some windows worm or something written by a script-kiddie. But to admit that would be to embarrassing, so they make it out to be a big deal.

      Like that poor Brit who was looking for info. about UFOs.

    3. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      You would think that what happened with Georgia would highlight the fact that the Government of Russia hasn't really changed in 90 years.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    4. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, it's not like when the US reports these attacks to China/Russia they do anything about them to suggest you might be right though.

      It's the same with the whole Litvinenko thing here in the UK, we know where the Polonium came from (a Russian lab) we even pretty much know Lugovoi did it but as they wont help whatsoever to put him to trial and have instead put him into their parliament in a position of power it's kind of hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Maybe if they actually helped bring these perpetrators to justice we could give them the benefit of the doubt as you suggest, but when they instead protect the almost certainly guilt with no real trial or investigation then it only adds to the idea that the governments of these nations themselves are in fact responsible.

      If a bunch of Canadians crossed the US border and attacked the US and then made it back to Canada safely and the Canadian government did nothing about it or even went as far as giving these people places in government as per the Luogovoi/Litvinenko affair then yeah I think most people would still say the Canadian government deserves a lot of the blame.

      Don't get me wrong however, I do feel these "cyber attacks" are a little overstated, I hate to say it but it's becoming so common when I read about them I can't help but think "Who cares, stop moaning and either return the favour or learn from it and stop it happening again". As is pointed out here on Slashdot often though, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes and instead simply repeat them over and over. I'm not sure what the US government is trying to achieve with these cries? Trying to make us hate Russia/China? Don't worry their human rights record means a lot of us already do. Trying to get sympathy? Well what for? You're the military, you're the ones who are meant to be dealing with it and so on.

      Or in other words, to put it simply- they're all just as bad as each other.

    5. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Kent+Recal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It probably is some windows worm or something written by a script-kiddie. But to admit that would be to embarrassing, so they make it out to be a big deal.

      It is exactly this vain "cover-my-ass" attitude that makes situations escalate, sometimes up to the point of war. I understand that a bunch of old farts in DoD feel a strong need to justify (or increase) their Cyberwarfare budgets but pointing fingers at an allied country (relations with which are not always easy) in public over a non-issue like this is, imho, going way too far.

      Network security by isolation of the critical parts is possible and this whole "cyberwarfare"-bullshit is just driving tears into the eyes of anyone who knows a bit about the subject.
      Yes, an attacker could overload and DoS less important/perimeter networks and yes an attacker may able to overtake various individual machines or department networks, e.g. by sneaking trojans onto employee's computers, phishing etc.

      If any of that worries you in a national-security kind of way then do your fucking homework and implement appropiate security layers and airgaps already!
      A flash trojan is a non-issue because a critical system won't run flash. In fact, a critical system won't even interface with a system that could be taken over in such a way.

    6. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by aderuwe · · Score: 1

      This.

      I know it is bad form to just post 'This.', but this couldn't be better said than parent did.

    7. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by $0.02 · · Score: 1

      Were they looking for a soul to steal?

      --
      If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
    8. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Dramacrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it defended itself from an invasion just as it did in 1941. You're right, nothing has changed, nor should it.

      --
      There are over 36 million lines of COBOL code in the world, and they are all raping children.
    9. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Rinkhals · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree.

      If this is the cutting edge of cyber-warfare, then it's quite frankly piss-poor.

      And if the DoD defences against this attack are weak enough to be breached then the last thing they should be doing is bleating on about it and drawing attention to the fact.

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
    10. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by tzhuge · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand what you mean by that so I don't feel terribly informed. Could you elaborate a bit? What happened in Georgia was a gong show all around, but that aside, I would consider the South Ossetian separatists to at least be Russian backed (i.e. their agents). So I'm not sure how that demonstrates 'a few bored teenagers who happen to live in Russia' are effectively the same as the Russian government or their agents.

    11. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by apathy+maybe · · Score: 1

      90 why pick such an odd number?

      The Russian Empire was doing a lot of really bad stuff way before the USSR was even thought of. Of course, the British Empire, the Japanese Empire, the French Empire etc. all imposed by force their rule of law.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    12. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like that poor Brit who was looking for info. about UFOs.

      That Brit was a Red. He gave an interview to the Guardian.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      As opposed to the counter-propaganda propaganda machine?

      It doesn't take propaganda to show you that Russia's run by a bunch of corrupt jerks. Their premier is making a big deal about being a big macho tough guy, like shooting tigers and playing at being USSR version II, invading Georgia, (funny how people around here are all "US imperialism in Iraq! evil! bad!" and won't say a thing about "Russian imperialism in Georgia!"), sending big boats down to Cuba to show off, et cetera. Blah. Whatever. Saber-rattling, at worst, for now, and they're hurting a bit at the moment with the drop in the price of oil.

      Grandparent is also right that this is overstated; if it comes to deterioration of relations and war it won't be over some silly little cybersomething; it'll be over something in eastern Europe. And China is an entirely different matter altogether.... but you don't need propaganda to tell they're run by a bunch of jerks, either. :)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    14. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Exacketilly - Russia is not our enemy. Russia is an ally and has been an ally for hundreds of years. Sure, there has been the ocational minor disagreement, but in times of war Russia, UK, France and USA always stick together. I know that is contrary to what CNN and others would like it to be, but the facts are otherwise.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    15. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      There are clear downsides, but you must admit the US would have the advantage of surprise at this point.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      >funny how people around here are all "US imperialism in Iraq! evil! bad!" and won't say a thing about "Russian imperialism in Georgia!"
      Because Russia didn't capture the whole country looking for non-existent WMD's and didn't hang Georgia's president? :) Besides, Russian troops have already left Georgia.

      Come on, at least pretend you did some research on the topic instead of repeating what the Big Media has conveniently provided to you. Georgian government wanted to strike down the separatism in self-declared but de-facto independent South Osetian Republic. While it is sensible for any country to maintain its integrity you have to understand that the conflict is much older then you might think and people of South Osetia have voted for independency numerous times.
      As for Russian response: vast majority of people in South Osetia have Russian citizenship. So it was sensible for Russia to interfere too.

      I personally think that the whole conflict was a test to see how Russia will react. A win-win situation for USA which "sponsored" Georgian's assault and has provided military equipment (Russian troops are particularly happy about new Hummers they have captured). Either you'll get more influence in the region by striking down pro-Russian autonomy (and harming Russia's reputation in the process) or you can complain about Russia being an aggressor.

    17. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they were way behind so they were willing to make a deal.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    18. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      When it comes to Security Council vetoes, it's clear that the only country that is less in tune with the views of the others than Russia is, ... well, it would be impolite of me to point the finger west.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    19. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      That Brit was a Red. He gave an interview to the Guardian.

      Hmmm, is that just a weak troll, or the ramblings of a reactionary still stuck in the 80s as far as political dogma goes?

      Ahhh, who cares, they're both full of suck!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    20. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I think that's inaccurate enough that it's not nit-picking to correct it. Russia wasn't defending itself, it was defending a friendly sovereign state from invasion, and taking reprisals for attacks on the civilian population.

      So things have changed: Russia has improved a lot since 1941. I can't see Stalin behaving this way.

    21. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Dramacrat · · Score: 1

      Yes, point taken, but I wouldn't be a Dramacrat if I focused on transmitting factual, and not emotional, information.

      --
      There are over 36 million lines of COBOL code in the world, and they are all raping children.
    22. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what do you thing has happened in Georgia? To tell the long story short -- Russia has stopped a Georgian assault on its citizens (most people in South Osetia have Russian citizenship) and made Georgia return to negotiations with South Osetia.

      The propaganda machine is working very well though. Next you'll tell that the Russians have violated Germany's sovereignty in 1945 and made their democratic elected leader commit suicide.

    23. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Actually, that may have been me. Sorry. I was royally pissed off that I could no longer gain entry into those Pentagon systems because those clowns in Redmond changed the cache poisoning techniques I had been using forever.......

    24. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Fair enough :-)

    25. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    26. Re:KGB or Spotty Teenagers? by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Offering Russian citizenship to South Osetians didn't violate Russian or Georgian laws.
      Artillery strike on the city of Tskhinvali is a different story though.

  6. It isn't just targeting the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anonymous coward here, for a reason etc.

    I work with the USAF in a very official capacity in IT and got wind of the flash media ban a while back.

    I've been asked to keep quiet about this, but since it isn't classified, and nobody takes slashdot seriously, take this for what it is worth:

    We stopped using all flash media on all networks because we can no longer be confident that they do not come from the factory with payloads attached. I've seen entire boxes of flash media from the "amnesty boxes" set up inside USAF buildings sent off to NSA and FBI for investigation.

    There are some who think that manufacturers have been infiltrated with the sole purpose of loading malware onto drives. And it isn't that it's specifically an attack on US Gov. computers - it's just that Gov. networks tend to be pretty incestuous, and flash drives are often moved back and forth between multiple computers daily by most users due to the flakiness of CAC (common access card) infrastructure.

    So beware.

    1. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There are some who think that manufacturers have been infiltrated with the sole purpose of loading malware onto drives.

      What's the point of putting malware if it won't be run? Or did I miss something, and "autorun" actually works on UMS devices in Windows?

    2. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by jimicus · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the point of putting malware if it won't be run? Or did I miss something, and "autorun" actually works on UMS devices in Windows?

      You did, it does.

    3. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, seriously, why the fuck is the US military using so many systems that are so absurdly vulnerable in the first place? Misplaced "Microsoft == USA!!!" pride? Corporate corruption?

      Now, I'm not from or in the USA, on a purely selfish basis that the US military is weakened by such blithering stupidity isn't particularly bad for me, but it just seems so ...dumb.

    4. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by watice · · Score: 1

      I take slashdot seriously. What kind of jab was that?!

    5. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      Are we talking hardware or software? Because I'd be really impressed if it was something a quick
      dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sdb1
      wouldn't fix.

      Oh right, Windows.

    6. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by soulsteal · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ban on flash media was to stop the propagation of a Win32 worm that "spreads by creating an AUTORUN.INF file to the root of each drive with the malicious .dll file."

      It was just one of many steps taken to triage infected systems and protect uninfected systems.

      It's possible it was an attempt to breach the DoD networks, but it's just as likely and more plausible that it's just another botnet being created.

    7. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by freddy_dreddy · · Score: 1

      Flashbacks to the days that rumours were rampant about McAfee installing viral software in printers for Russia ... Does anyone remember those stories?

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the competent, and, generally, the first refuge of the incompetent" - Thing_1
    8. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's the point of putting malware if it won't be run? Or did I miss something, and "autorun" actually works on UMS devices in Windows?

      Yes, it does. But, it's relatively easy to disable.

      Use a Microsoft "PowerToys" application to simply disable all drives: Tweak UI. It's only available for XP, at least from Microsoft. There is reportedly a version for Vista from a third-party developer.

    9. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, yeah. The problem is that flash drives are commonly used to bridge air gaps. The air gaps are there to isolate networks and and force manual transfer of data, but if the manual transfer method cannot be trusted then then something needs to be done about it. Banning flash drives may help, but it still leaves CDROMs and DVDs as a medium to bridge air gaps, so banning flash drives is just a temporary knee-jerk reaction really. The only long term solution is to stop using Mickey Mouse operating systems on secure networks.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    10. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I work with the USAF in a very official capacity in IT

      I other words, you're the airman stuck on the Help Desk on the weekends?

      I don't know about your story... Not what they tell me here at McChord.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    11. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by vuo · · Score: 1

      Nice, except if the hardware is compromised.

    12. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by Rinkhals · · Score: 1

      Good Grief!

      I suppose the saying is: "Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean that they *aren't* out to get you".

      What about those of us who don't use Windows as an operating system? I suppose we are doomed to stay out of the loop?

      --
      "I'm a snake if we disagree"-Jethro Tull, Bungle in the Jungle
    13. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by wkk2 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like all new flash drives should be zeroed, formatted, and assigned a property id before being used. I guess it would still be possible for a factory to design in a back store, with malware, that would show up later.

    14. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by will_die · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The bad thing about this was that all major malware/virus software has had protection against it since June.
      So what had to of happened is some office with a high ranking official was not keeping their protection software up to date or disabled it, both against existing regulations.
      They then ran into problem and it spread across their network and they spread the alarm. At that point it got high enough that you got the new requirements.

    15. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It makes you wonder if there is any way to do a system compromise at the hardware level (taking over DMA, etc). I remember reading back that there was at least one popular system interface (firewire?) that allowed the foreign device DMA access. If a device made by a non-trusted vendor can access a systen's DMA, then it can be used to completely compromise the system.

    16. Re:It isn't just targeting the US. by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1
      it's just that Gov. networks tend to be pretty incestuous, and flash drives are often moved back and forth between multiple computers daily by most users due to the flakiness of CAC (common access card) infrastructure.

      WTF are the DOD computers doing with the potential to be hosed from an external media.. If they permit Windows OSes without severe user access restrictions then God help us.

      You would think that ANY laptop or portable would need to be cleared of bios or UAC/OS settings to run or load software from external media before being used by any one on any military network.

      If it is the case that pc style laptops are used without the right bios setting modifications and a restricted bios password then the stupidity of Military IT is beyond comprehension!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  7. My god. solution is stupidly simple by unity100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    DO NOT connect military affiliated computers to internet, EVER.

    dont you already have your on military-net ? run them only on that network.

    1. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, we all know what happens when you connect military computers to the internet. Mostly because we all saw War Games.

      --
      No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
    2. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by wiredog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Almost as stupidly simple as reading the freakin' article. Which mentions that flash drives were banned inorder to keep the attack off of SIPRNet computers.

      And almost as stupidly simple as banning soldiers from e-mailing and blogging on the public internet that, ummm, their families are on and, ummm, OK, maybe we need publicly accessible DoD computers.

    3. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by Endo13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RFTA maybe? This infection is specifically designed to put itself on flash drives. I'll leave you to figure out the rest for yourself, since you think you're so smart.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    4. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The flash drive ban is aimed at internal attacks. The problem is not as much the internet as the vulnerability of the internal network. Personally I think running windows on commdoity hardware is silly for any part of the military industrial complex. They should be running something like SElinux or maybe OpenBSD on hardware with the operating system in ROM. Come on...Flash!? Javascript??? wtf!?

    5. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      "And almost as stupidly simple as banning soldiers from e-mailing and blogging on the public internet that, ummm, their families are on and, ummm, OK, maybe we need publicly accessible DoD computers."

      Publicly accessible terminals or kiosks that don't contain any pertinent information what-so-ever, and also don't allow flashdrives (since they could, conceivably, contain sensitive information), could be set up in a DMZ to allow personnel to communicate with the "outside world" without security concerns. Sort of like an internet cafe for employees that's physically detached from the military network.

    6. Re:My god. solution is stupidly simple by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent. +2 I used to work at a college. They had three networks. The campus network, the teachers, and the staff, the lab network, ( which was very insucure, and the Admin Network. ( Admissions/ Budget/grades ) ( Which I could not work on without direct supervision ).

      Its interesting, that in the ensuing 14 years, the college has NEVER had ONE grade changing problem. The Admin network has NEVER been comprimised. ( even after a few surriptious attacks by me personally! ).

      Another college in the district was comprimised, by Admissions office staff. Big scandal. But not the place I worked.

  8. Return Fire!!! by RealBothersome · · Score: 1

    So, let's send the attacks back to them. If they want to play that game, let's crash their communications/economy/country/way-of-life.

    1. Re:Return Fire!!! by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Yea, coz, like, that worked out so well for us in that other country threatening our way of life, Iraq! We should do it again to the Russians!

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:Return Fire!!! by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1

      So, let's send the attacks back to them. If they want to play that game, let's crash their communications/economy/country/way-of-life.

      You assume that we can, but frankly, they've got more experiance with computer warfare, failure of the economy and change to their way of life then we do.

      There's also the probability that this wasn't in any way related to the Russian government, there's enough cyber-mercenaries in Russia and they'll work for anyone that will pay them.

  9. Good old federal government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The federal government is finally starting to see the fruits of its trifecta of asinine spending policies:

    1) Lowest bidder (God forbid we get the best value for the tax dollar, not the cheapest).
    2) Standard pay rates that don't take into serious consideration the skills and experience of employees. God forbid we adopt private sector pay policies because that might make us look like we're discriminating if some employees get paid a lot less than others.
    3) The fact that it often takes an act of Congress to fire a federal employee.

    Like most Northern Virginia-based software engineers, I've worked a federal contract here and there. I've been exposed to incompetence from federal employees that would not be tolerated by almost any corporation. My company actually brought a formal business case for why our government program manager was wrong and her decisions would be a disastrous waste of tax payer money to her bosses. We **pleaded* with them to override her and let our senior engineer do the architecture since she had no idea how to do it.

    Guess what? They told us to shut up and get back in line.

    There's this myth that the outsourcing of government has ruined the federal government. That's bullshit. Government contractors are often the only people who actually get shit done! We're the ones who actually do much of the heavy lifting because the civil service for so long was allowed to deteriorate into a combination of an affirmative action program and a welfare program for stupid white men.

    There are real pockets of genuine competence and intelligence in the federal government, but unfortunately, they're so isolated by the prevailing culture and leadership that it would take a real Leviathan-wrangler at least 2 presidential terms to get any meaningful culling done.

    1. Re:Good old federal government... by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Standard pay rates that don't take into serious consideration the skills and experience of employees. God forbid we adopt private sector pay policies because that might make us look like we're discriminating if some employees get paid a lot less than others.

      Private sector pay policies? As someone who works in the private sector, I can pretty much guarantee that private sector companies also use standard pay grades. Why is it that everybody thinks that private sector is a bastion of efficiency. I've worked for both private sector companies and government and the truth is that the private sector is just as screwed up as the government.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    2. Re:Good old federal government... by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US Military does not always choose the lowest bidder. The military is, in effect, a huge welfare program. Many times, we choose the vendor that provides the best social benefit. For instance, the GSA program gives additional weight to women-owned or minority-owned businesses.

      As for pay, the military takes teenagers off the street and puts them in charge of some of the most complex systems in the world. When IBM hires a 19yo high-school grad and put him in charge of corporate email servers, then US military people can complain about pay in-equality.

      Once you have been in for a while, you start to see how well the pay stacks up. You get free housing, tax-free shopping, free medical and dental, very cheap insurance, free travel, etc. Most base paychecks can easily be worth twice the advertised amount due to benefits.

      Your final point is also not entirely valid. In most cases, an enlisted person or officer can be fired with 6 months of consistently bad reports. Civilian contractors can be easily dropped. GS and WG employees can be fired with 9 months of bad reports. SAS employees are usually asked to resign if they flub more than one major project.

      The problem is that most people don't document performance issues properly. Without documentation, you can't fire anyone.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
  10. Yes they created the internet by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    But that was before every wannabe script kiddy used it. I would have thought they'd have had a seperate disconnected military network of their own by now.

    1. Re:Yes they created the internet by wfeick · · Score: 1

      They do.

  11. tag MICROSOFT + WINDOWS... again n/t by toby · · Score: 1

    When will people learn...

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:tag MICROSOFT + WINDOWS... again n/t by malevolentjelly · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't use a lot of Windows on internal systems in the DoD. As I'm to understand, they run a lot more Linux and Solaris. In the interests of national security, though, all these systems are too close to make a big difference security-wise.

      They may have different levels of attackability for circumstances relating to casual attacks and casual computer use (this is where we say "is the default linux installation in X version of linux more or less secure than the default windows installation in Y version of windows?) But when these systems have proper internal security policies set up, it doesn't make a huge difference-- when they are well configured, they're functionally the same.

      DoD systems are generally set up so that one is connected to the internal network and one to the external network-- when you want to move a file, you simply use a flash drive. The chances are very good that these are running different operating systems, anyway.

      For a coordinated and advanced attack on our DoD network infrastructure it has less to do with what operating systems we are running, which is really just a question of usability and administration time, but moreso broader questions of security policy-- such as where do you get your flash drives?

      In short, if one OS was the issue here, this attack couldn't have gotten anywhere. An OS really doesn't mean much when you compare it to the overall security model for the network infrastructure, especially with the physical network restrictions used by the DoD.

      The biggest difference for the operating systems for their purposes would be more on features like TPM-enabled drive encryption, etc-- things that would make it more difficult to hack a stolen laptop-- stuff like that.

    2. Re:tag MICROSOFT + WINDOWS... again n/t by dcw · · Score: 1

      Much as I'd love to blame MS Windows, the OS on these boxen doesn't matter WRT an outside attack. It is the encryption of the LAN/MAN/WAN that matters, and that involves hardware, firmware, software and wetware. When they are handled properly these systems can be allmost untouchable. However ... all it takes is one wetware failure (britnynude.exe) and you can pooch the whole thing.

      --
      "All those, moments will be lost, in time, like tears, in rain. Time to die." Roy Batty
    3. Re:tag MICROSOFT + WINDOWS... again n/t by malevolentjelly · · Score: 1

      I am basing this on information I received where the military was evaluating the use of virtualization solutions to prevent having to use flash drives to move sensitive information between internet and intranet machines. For all I know this is another government branch that has sensitive defense information that is not expressly the DoD? I am not sure.

      The only OS I've ever seen running on a military system was Solaris- occasionally linux- but that's just me, I suppose.

  12. It's ALL PROPAGANDA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These are professional liars, folks! This is a part of the Military disinformation effort - so publicly trumpeted right here on Slashdot - not so long ago.

    If there had been any such REAL significance to this 'attack', do you think that it would be published and publicly acknowledged? There are very minor cold-war-era incidents and slip-ups that are still highly-classified, and never acknowledged.

    I suppose this to be a non-event of ordinary malware, that is being used to:
    1) Shape public opinion and generate suspicion
    2) Justify restrictions on the Internet access/speech of military personnel
    3) Profit!

    Remember: In Soviet America, Military Network Attacks YOU!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  13. Russian hackers by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "may have originated in Russia" is not the same as "originated with the Russian government," of course.

    My guess, the attacks are an attempt to turn the vast power of military computer systems into one giant spam-bot.

    And, also, just think of all the new Nigerian scam letters that they could pull off with military connections... the "your son was wounded in Iraq and is being airlifted to a hospital in Germany, please send $10,000 to pay for a private room for him" scam will be much more powerful if it issues from a military computer (and, for that matter, much more convincing if the scammer knows the actual name, rank, and next-of-kin of the 'son').

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  14. The Americans Should Learn From The Brits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The British Intelligence have learnt how to avoid infecting their systems with infected flash drives. They leave them on the train where they can't do any harm.

    1. Re:The Americans Should Learn From The Brits by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

      If that wasn't so true it'd be funny. I did laugh out loud though.

  15. Preparing for the new propaganda by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Funny

    If thse attacks are successful, they will replace the old practice of dropping leaflets on enemy soldiers... Now when the modern soldier opens his e-mail, he will be greeted with "Feeling ashamed of your small willy, we can help" etc etc

  16. they "think" it's from Russia by Mishotaki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, the other day, i thought that my girlfriend would like the present i gave her... God was i wrong...

    Now they think that the attack comes from Russia... That means they're not sure about it at all, they just got a hunch that the attack is from the Russians, they don't say they got proof or anything, they just say they think it's from there...

    However, suspicions of Russian involvement come at an especially delicate time because of sagging relations between Washington and Moscow and growing tension over U.S. plans to develop a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. The two governments also have traded charges of regional meddling after U.S. support for democratic elections in former Soviet states and recent Russian overtures in Latin America.

    Just because the relations with the Russians aren't that good doesn't automatically mean they'll attack you in Irak...

    For all we know, it could be Irakians who would attack the Americans... Well that would rather be "the Irakians defend themselves by trying to bring the American's computers down"

    1. Re:they "think" it's from Russia by will_die · · Score: 1

      The missile defense system is not a factor with this, it is on the back burner and Russia problem is not the system but that we are housing it in Czech Republic and Poland. They have said they would have no problem it the US housed in Russia and have provided locations they would be willing to lease for a cheap price.
      The problem is NATO and allowing Ukraine and Georgia to join. President Bush is pushing to get them quickly accepted but France is fighting it, some some minor acceptance of this from other European countries. B.O. will be in a hard place of either repairing US ties with Europe by stopping this push or ignoring Europe. Going through with the push from President Bush will causing a rift with Europe but strengthening the former Soviet countries and what they want to do; doing what Russia and France want us to do will heal the poor relationship the US has with Europe but tell all the former Soviet countries that the US does not care what happens to them, especially after the attack into Georgia. The main thing is that Russia does not want those countries to be part of NATO or to strength ties with the US and if anything what they can to stop it.
      However at this time, and until B.O. is sworn in, nothing is going to be happening with either of those items so if this was an attack from Russia they have the worse timing around. The foolish writer of that article should of tied it in with the war games that Venezuela and Russia are having but that is Naval based so even less of a cause.

    2. Re:they "think" it's from Russia by killmofasta · · Score: 1

      Your girlfriend is named Russia? is she cute?

  17. Not News by jmyers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reading the article, which has almost no details, I think the LA Times is trying to make news out of nothing. The "senior military leaders" are basically like "senior business executives" who probably have no clue about any actual "attacks". They are just trying to hype up anything they can to increase their budgets.

    The actual details they are dealing with is the same as any organization that uses computers and employs people.

  18. Last message before systems are compromised: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Better luck next time, Slugheads!

  19. What about what the US does? by warGod3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the odd thing... you never hear about the huge attacks on the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, etc. But then again, the USG would never do anything unethical or underhanded or hypocritical or .

    --
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
    1. Re:What about what the US does? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "That is the odd thing... you never hear about the huge attacks on the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, etc."

      Not hearing is not the same as not happening. They may and probably DO not talk about those incidents. We live in a free-er society, and this stuff comes out because our press is marginally functional. That is, when it's not being willingly led by the nose by the current 'cause'. And slamming the current administration is always good business for our press.

      I would presume that every government is probing other governments' networks, looking for weakness and potential exploits.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:What about what the US does? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If the US/UK/NATO/Israelis/Indian militaries and intelligence services weren't out there poking and prodding the networks of current and potential foes...I'd be *very* disappointed.

    3. Re:What about what the US does? by warGod3 · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that the USG does those kind of things, admittedly or not. Yes, the press in the US is quite "free", however, you would think that other countries would love to use that kind of information as propaganda. But of course, international politics what they are and all, there are plenty of other things that we never hear about.

      --
      "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
    4. Re:What about what the US does? by WTF+Chuck · · Score: 1

      "That is the odd thing... you never hear about the huge attacks on the Chinese, Russian, North Korean, etc."

      Not hearing is not the same as not happening. They may and probably DO not talk about those incidents. We live in a free-er society, and this stuff comes out because our press is marginally functional. That is, when it's not being willingly led by the nose by the current 'cause'. And slamming the current administration is always good business for our press.

      I would presume that every government is probing other governments' networks, looking for weakness and potential exploits.

      Of course we never hear about the attacks on China, Russia, whoever because they are viewed as propaganda. Just as the Russians/Chinese/whoeverans view our reports on such matters as propaganda. If it is mentioned in their press at all, it will be about the negative propaganda we are spreading, rather than the issue that is reported.

      --
      Note - Liberal use of <sarcasm> tags may or may not need to be applied.
  20. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why not have all these genius Slashdotters run the entire network? They seem know so much more about these systems, their funding limitations, and functional requirements than the admins.

    Or, we can question and challenge the government to do better without arrogantly pretending we're so much smarter than *everyone*.

  21. "We have always been at war with East Asia" by leoofborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Also, the CBC [Canadians] are running sensationalist crud on their TV.

    Most irritating soundbite from a DHS 'expert':

    "Digital Pearl Harbor"

    I think they must have run the same quote 3-4 times.

    Me? I think the military / DoD is begging for $$$ as usual. What? We didn't bail out the military? Shame!

    --
    --- See you at the Tannhäuser Gate.
  22. They Aren't. by maz2331 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US military is not stupid, and does take systems security very seriously. What would look like ultra-paranoid behavior to a civilian may well be fully justified in the military world.

    The reason is simple: any breach, leak, or DoS can result in somebody being killed, operations foiled, or even wars lost.

    Security people have to guard against known threats and techniques, which are very challenging, plus unknown ones that nobody has even thought to consider. Being able to trust the technology that they are using is a very important element in managing that security.

    All systems are somewhat sensitive, given that even non-sensitive tidbits of information can be assembled together to give a pretty good picture of very sensitive activities if enough of them are available.

    For example, a point of sale system in a military base's dining facility could be tapped to give a count of meals served per day. If an adversary sees a sudden drop or increase, they know that SOMETHING is going on. Combine that with changes at other bases and a picture of force distribution begins to emerge that then guides the adversary where to plan to deploy their forces to defend or attack.

    I can see why there is a need to avoid the use of any removable media, even on non-sensitive systems. Just a few pieces of malware or compromised hardware can result in leaking enough unclassified "factoids" to compromise the secrecy and security of important operations.

    Hardware is especially troublesome from a security standpoint. It does not need operating system permission to access memory, and can sit silently in place until activated. One innocuous-looking IC can easily contain a hidden microcontroller that has full DMA capabilities, and there's no way - short of physically mapping out every transistor in every chip in the device - to even know whether or not they exist.

    I'd be paranoid too if military systems security was part of my job.

    1. Re:They Aren't. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      >The US military is not stupid, and does take systems security very seriously. What would look like ultra-paranoid behavior to a civilian may well be fully justified in the military world.

      I couldn't agree more. Allowing autostart from USB flash devices on Windows is so paranoid...

      Wait, what?..

    2. Re:They Aren't. by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      For example, a point of sale system in a military base's dining facility could be tapped to give a count of meals served per day. If an adversary sees a sudden drop or increase, they know that SOMETHING is going on.

      Yeah, cuz that's so much easier than noticing 5,000 troops marching off base.

  23. Re:From the RTFA by gadabyte · · Score: 1

    that's the second time in this thread i've seen the non-word "spreaded."

    you have failured.

    --
    the united states is a nation of laws; badly written and randomly enforced -- frank zappa
  24. sigh by Deadplant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...experts have not pinpointed the source or motive of the attack and could not say whether the destructive program was created by an individual hacker or whether the Russian government may have had some involvement.

    Classic propoganda.
    Shame on Julian Barnes of the LA Times and the unnamed senior military leaders.

    1. Re:sigh by Sibko · · Score: 1

      With the media as it is today, when they say "unnamed senior military leader" I hear "47 year old staff sergeant who provided a quote for a little cash under the table."

      IMO It's perfectly alright to watch and read the news from the major media conglomerates, so long as you keep in mind they're never presenting the whole truth, and often even blatantly lying.

      If I want the real story - I go on the internet and talk to people.

  25. military level software by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    I would have expected that on a military level, all software and operating systems used should be compiled from source, the source checked and risky features locked down. That would exclude proprietary operating systems like windows and mac OX and even prepackaged open source systems. Its probably not cheaper but cases like this should be wake up calls.

  26. OpenBSD & Theo de Raadt by viridari · · Score: 1

    Maybe DARPA shouldn't have pulled funding for OpenBSD research a few years ago. I knew that was going to come back to bite the US DoD in the ass sooner or later.

  27. You've got it all wrong! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Threatening but ultimately harmless attacks are carried about by scary foreign militaries, and devastating wide-scale attacks are carried out by bored spotty teenagers. What don't you watch TV!?!?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  28. Re:US Military computers by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Honeypots are gnu ... er, new? I recall encountering a honeypot site shortly after Gulf War One, "Endearing Sandstorm," or whatever that was. It had photos of the first predator reconnaissance flyer, but nothing to indicate scale except plastic bonding details. It sucked you in to a mysterious set of graphics which seemed to suggest that GPS was "fuzzy" for everyone but the military. I didn't linger. The ratio of effort to detail was set way too high, for something so obviously exposed.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  29. Re:Let me translate this news item for you: by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Oh fuck, I missed:
    "We have taken a number of corrective measures, but I would be overstating it if I said we were through this."
    =
    We can't protect ourself from things like this.

  30. Re:So we are attacked and we do what? by cliffski · · Score: 1

    you want to start a thermonuclear war because of a DDOS attempt?
    get real.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  31. Don't use windows for sensitive computers! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    Do not even use a standard linux !
    Use a SE linux or a BSD-like. Computer security is serious business in a few domains. In hospitals and military operations, authorizing a closed-source OS with the biggest malware and virus repository on the planet should be charged with felony or criminal negligence.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  32. Said the Cold War: by toriver · · Score: 1

    "The news of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

  33. Did Iraq have WMD's ? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    It's funny how blind politically correct idiots can be. Nobody, not even Saddam himself, disputes that Saddam's army, under the direction of "Chemical Ali", FIRED WMD's AT DEFENSELESS CIVILIANS.

    But of course it's politically expedient to claim he didn't have them.

    It's a sad joke that people can be so stupid. It's like agreeing that a convicted murderer, who shot 10 people on live television, then bragged about it to the whole wold "never touched a gun". It's beyond stupid.

    1. Re:Did Iraq have WMD's ? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Btw : google "halabja campaign" for pictures that will be VERY hard to deny. And will make it very hard to keep your lunch inside too.

    2. Re:Did Iraq have WMD's ? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Yeah in the beginning of the 1990's.. When USSR collapsed. That was the undisputed time to invade and "cleanup", not 12 years later...
      And FYI, the reason was not that he could commit mass murder in his own country, the reason was that he would attack someone else, witch is a lie.
      So yeah he had them, 12 years before, but he had them NOT when US decided to attack.
      It's like saying, that the whole world should wipe US off the face of the earth just because of the killing of native americans and slavery...

    3. Re:Did Iraq have WMD's ? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Oh, and BTW should I remind you who armed Saddam in the first place?

  34. Hacking and a State of War by lionchild · · Score: 1

    I'm just curious: Presuming all these things were real events, not made up, over exagerated, etc... At what point do you consider an attempt at hacking into government or military systems by another country to be an act of war? Are there levels of it? It's okay to break into some minor functionaries system, but we draw the line when you get into command and control systems that are passing sensitive data?

    Or, is it just accepted that countries will be hacking one another's systems and that's okay?

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
  35. Anoter "Russian" attack, huh? by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

    That "Russian" attack on Estonia turned out to be Estonian in the end. The there was another "Russian" attack on USA, which turned out the be Chinese. Now we have a "Russian" attack again... These, combined with recent silly PR campaign "warning" the US citizens of the dangers of visiting Russian and ex-USSR domains, is obviously staged in order to prepare the US population for the forthcoming internet censorship measures in the US. Apparently, the emergence of Russian sources presenting information in English does not sit well with federal US brainwashing/propaganda structures. Expect this PR campaign to continue. I wonder what BS will they put out next.

  36. Oblig by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, the US Military Networks attack YOU! Now, wait...

  37. General Assembly Democratic? BULL by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

    It is the general assembly that is democratic and representative, the security council is a private club.

    ROFL!! Boy are YOU ever the dupe. The majority of all the nations represented in the security council are tyrannies of one form or another. Most of the nations in Asia, most of the nations in Africa, and most of the nations in South America are either dictatorships or oligarchies, and that's just for starters. In the middle east everyone but Israel (and now Iraq) is, and in Europe you still find some undemocratic nations as well (Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, etc). So the body you claim is "democratic" and "representative of world opinion" is actually a body largely controlled by the small subset of the world population that are dictators, and is only representative of their interests.

    At least in the security council a larger proportion of the permanent council members are democratic regimes. Yes, you have China and Russia, but at least you have some veto wielding democracies in the mix to strike down all the tyranny friendly policies that originate in the rest of the UN. One of the reasons America as a nation is great is that all of our states are democracies, and they joined to form a regional democratic government that IS representative of us. In the farce that is the UN that is not the case, and it turns into a massively ineffectual body that tends to reward corruption and legitimize dictators.

    I think if we learn anything from the UN, it is that a government made up of anything other than democratic states is worthless, and will fail completely.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    1. Re:General Assembly Democratic? BULL by Deadplant · · Score: 1

      ROFL!! Boy are YOU ever the dupe. The majority of all the nations represented in the security council are tyrannies of one form or another.

      Sigh.
      I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post as you seem to have reading comprehension deficiencies.

      The general assembly is representative of the governments of the member nations.
      1 nation, 1 vote. That is by definition democratic. The legitimacy of the governments of the member nations is not germain to the characterization of the assembly as democratic.

      Maybe another real-world example will help you understand.
      A trade industry association with let's say 15 corporate members may structure itself such that each member CEO gets one vote when they make decisions about press releases or lobbying activites.
      That is a democratic structure.
      It does not mean or imply in any way that the member CEOs were elected by the public.

  38. Re:So we are attacked and we do what? by cptnapalm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that, right now, no one is really sure what to do. I don't think that it is a cause for war (traditionally speaking), but it is a violation of sovereignty. I'm not sure what we can do about it at this point aside from defense and counter-offense.

  39. Re:OS X, or a UNIX? by gatkinso · · Score: 2, Informative

    On a classified system, the entire computer, and anything that touches it (be it media, monitor, printer, or network) is also classified. There can be no instance of one window being classified and the other not: they are both classified at the same level regardless of content.

    You can have an unclassified system running right next to a classified one, but they cannot interact with each other at all.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  40. d'oh by revxul · · Score: 1

    This just proves that mission critical operations and life-or-death reliance should not co-exist with networking.

    --
    Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
    1. Re:d'oh by rampant+poodle · · Score: 1

      At least part of this problem is due to lack of networking. There are some environments where networking isn't practical/possible. A USB key around the neck may be the only way to easily distribute data, (sort of an updated SneakerNet).

      Lots of folks howling about how USB keys should never be allowed. Reality is that with the use of known, inspected, and encrypted devices it is a very safe method of transferring data, (in the same way that a trusted courier is a very safe way of transferring things.

      The wonders of Autoplay, combined with outdated anti-virus software, can get a pretty good infective chain reaction going. Propagation of malware by this method may not be fast compared to some famous network worms. However, it certainly can be effective.

      Expect that some Sysaddys will have sore, red rings by the time this is over. Either updated AV, or disabled Autoplay would have slowed/stopped AgentBTZ/SillyFTD while it was still a nuisance rather than ltting it grow into a crisis.

  41. My take on the attacks: A call for OSS adoption by haaz · · Score: 1

    Security through obscurity = bad. Peer verification of architecture = good. Old news, but it's all on my blog.

    --
    -- haaz.
  42. Nope, and topical by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    They don't use a lot of Windows on internal systems in the DoD. As I'm to understand, they run a lot more Linux and Solaris.

    Please clarify the source of your understanding. It's wrong. I know people who do DoD CnC work and they're MCSE's. But that's not a problem itself - the question is one of access controls. In some of the more secure TLA's you can't do file transfers between networks of different security levels, only formatted and validated data can do that.

    But I suspect people with classified documents on their computers regularly access the IntarWeb, and that's a weakness, and, golly gee, our enemies are trying to exploit our weaknesses. Personally I have no problem giving a General two desktop computers so he can buy movie tickets from work, but that may not be 'streamlined'.

    Now if you want to talk about military hardware, then just read linuxdevices.com for a few months and you'll get a good feel for what's in there.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Nope, and topical by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1
      Here Here! If the ability to run scripts from an external source is not well controlled at the OS UAC level on all computers that access any internal military network,then the ranking IT people setting UACs should replaced and/or disciplined. Also the ability to change any settings on these computers should be severely restricted. All portables accessing the internal networks should have bios boot devices password protected and locked as to not permit any system level changes. If this is not the case then God help US....

      .....

      My God It Is Full Of Sores!

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  43. Validation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    it is the encryption of the LAN/MAN/WAN that matters

    Not just encryption, but how information is allowed to flow between systems with varying security classifications. We know how to do this right, but fail to do the right thing in the name of convenience and cost.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  44. DoD isn't unbreakable by neelb4me · · Score: 1

    All you have to do is go on Myspace pretending to be a girl, phishing for "Honeywell" employees, etc. I'm not particularly interested in that, but history tells us that in Russia and China they have all their engineers locked in a cage somewhere but I'm willing to guess it isn't like that anymore if you can get past the language barrier..

  45. Re:Good old contractor bias... by Net_fiend · · Score: 1

    I often ask for him to be fired.

    By your previous statement that it is career limiting (of the above statement), wouldn't this limit your career?

    But I see both sides. I'm a younger guy and started working for a larger company and have eyed the government for some time. However, from what I understand its near impossible in some situations to get a job with the government and takes a billion years to actually finish the process.

    Not only this but I hear stories from various family members that the government is so bureaucratic that half the crap that needs to get done doesn't because of all the BS red tape. Then most of the things that are done are done without any brains behind it. Granted these stories don't deal with the area of IT, but at least gives me a jilted picture of what goes on.

    When I was a younger kid I'd go with one of my parents to hang out and watch them work for a day. Whenever we'd walk by offices with open doors I'd usually see nobody (probably in a meeting), or see someone but not really doing work. Granted I was like 9 or 10 and who knows what they were doing. But I did get games from several people (Commander Keen being one of them) so you knew they weren't always working, but screwing around with a game.

    My parents didn't do that as far as I know. My mom might have done something as mundane as solitaire on her lunch hour, but I doubt it. Both of my parents instilled in me a sense of pride in my work which they both have...regardless of how crappy everyone else may work. So as an adult I'm astounded by how much people will screw around or even find ways not to do work. Even if I web browse at work I'm always attempting to further my knowledge in computer systems...even if it means reading /. ;)

    Its funny that contractors are brought up...seeing as some online learning that I've been reading states that one great feature of contractors are the taxes for the company that is asking for the contractor. Not only that, but the company asking for the contractor normally doesn't have to worry about benefits or long term health care. So that is a huge trade off imo. One which I thought was sort of screwy. There is a lot of leeway in there to screw over independent contractors....Sorry meant to say "independent contractors" as contractors working from another business are dealt with differently I believe.

    Heck, I have a friend who works for a contractor, that I think contracts for the government, and he gets screwed with overtime all the time. He ends having to work weekends just to get some projects finished, not by his part but due to others. And he's not getting much more than I am and I don't even have a degree (yet..I'm still working on mine, but I've got a full time IT job atm to at least get my career started).

    --
    "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
  46. In related news... by mabu · · Score: 1

    Administration says one thing... reality is likely the other.

    Haven't we learned yet?

    I'm not believing a damn thing those people say. Chances are the attack is coming from within their own network.

  47. Re:The very last thing by bhiestand · · Score: 1

    Right, Americans didn't suffer during World War II, either. Pull your head out. The entire world felt that war and that's why we've tried so hard to avoid any major conflicts.

    --
    SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  48. Re:The very last thing by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    Your absolutly right. The Russians do not want a war, any more then we wanted a war with Iraq, but the GOVERNMENT went ahead, fabricated lies about WMDs and poof! Pissed away BILLIONS of dollars. You think Medelev woudnt do the same?

    I did some research into the losses Russia sustained during WWII. 30 Million killed in the Siege on Stalingrad alone. I think that the figure of 67 million total dead is also conservative.

    (btw, it is a good oberservation anyway, good point! )

  49. Civilians think military is dumb? That's a first. by FlyingHuck · · Score: 1

    "Don't confuse security council resolutions for something representing world opinion. It is the general assembly that is democratic and representative, the security council is a private club."

    Yes, and it is the general assembly that contains such shining stars of freedom and prosperity that allow socialist authoritarian despotic hellholes like Zimbabwe to chair the Council on Sustainable Development (what's their inflation rate up to? One million percent? Gotta love shelling out a few hundred kilograms of paper for a beer.). The U.N., an international body with no internal corruption-busting mechanism (a prosecutor, if you will), has also allowed LIBYA to chair the Human Rights Commission. Hell, while they're at it, they should let Sudan chair something squishy feely-goody and human-rightsy too. You can obviously see the conflict of interest when Human Rights Watch makes a recommendation to the U.N. Group on Arbitrary Detentions to go into Libya. I'm no Bush supporter by any means... he trashed conservatism to the point where it became impossible for a true American hero to win the election, but I will always give credit where credit is due, and sending John Bolton to the U.N. was absolutely a good decision. After all, the U.N. is such a bang-up organization that they can funnel tens of billions of dollars through the oil for food "programme" (I love that spelling... makes it seem so... European), and not a single person is prosecuted and imprisoned for it. If there were a corrupt governmental bureaucracy studies field in universities, the U.N. would be the textbook example.

    Most of the freaks and geeks (not that there's anything wrong with that) on /. are not military veterans, and as such, display the typical kind of juvenile disconnect from what really happens inside the terrible "military-industrial complex." I was part of the initial invasion, and sure as you're born, we had serious reason to believe that Chemical Ali would dump all sorts of nasty chicken-dance vapors on us, hence the entire first assault being performed at full MOPP protection in 110 degree heat. What else were we to believe? Surrendering Iraqi officers were telling our officers that they had chemical weapons at their disposal. As a commander, you HAVE to take such information as valid for the safety of your troops. As it turns out, it was merely a weak attempt to slow U.S. forces... because let me assure you, spending twelve hours straight in a chemical protection suit in the Iraqi heat sucks... a lot. No, really, it was about as fun as having your teeth drilled.

    Invading Iraq was not about getting the WMDs, it was about removing a regime after it simply would not abide by the rules of the international community. Irregardless of how few weapons Hans Blix (what a raging wimp if I ever saw one) believed were in Iraq, the real issue was Saddam's constant manhandling of U.N. inspection teams that would often times be held at gunpoint for hours at road checkpoints and given access to sensitive and suspect sights only several hours or days after an attempted surprise inspection. As a comparison, if a police officer has every reason to believe is armed, because the guy is hiding something in his hand and says is a weapon, and when the suspect gestures it toward the officer the suspect gets killed, that officer acted in accordance with a proper escalation of force.

    But, hey, I'm just a dumb Marine who remembers sitting in a cold squadbay out in the boonies of Camp Lejeune in February of 2003, and being with fifty other Marines huddled around a small radio, and listening to the news reports of Iraq's defiance of inspection demands and knowing that tomorrow we were heading over to supply to get issued most every piece of gear we rated. All those liberals out there who feel that Iraq "was about oil" or "was Bush's conspiracy" simply don't get it. They weren't the ones who helped civilian forensics teams load bodies onto the back of trucks as they were removed from mass graves, sweating their asses off in chemical protection suits, or geting intel reports from the S-2 NCO about the likelihood of nerve agents making you funky chicken dance in the sand.

  50. The operating system is the problem by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    The reason this virus spreads around is that Microsoft in its infinite wisdom decided that if certain files existed on a drive, they would get executed immediately when the drive is detected. While this is convenient for loading extensions that enhance the drives function, like encryption/decryption features, it is also obviously a problem when it loads malware. In the old days (DOS days) the user looked for a setup.exe file or install.exe and ran that if they wanted to install the software. These days when you stick in the CD, suddenly the installer is already running. This is either brilliant, or the most stupid idea ever. Microsoft probably created this feature of Windows primarily so there application software would be easier to install. The old way was never much of a barrier to getting software installed as long as the use knew about the "DIR" command. Of course the use of command line and commands like DIR or CD require basic knowledge, and Microsoft prefers, Plug and Play where installing and running software is no more difficult than inserting a DVD and having the movie start right away.

  51. Re:The very last thing by themusicgod1 · · Score: 1

    The entire world felt that war and that's why we've tried so hard to avoid any major conflicts.

    ...by outspending most of the world on offensive military technology and conducting offensive military campaigns against small, defenceless countries every few years....

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  52. reminder to the article submitter. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    cold war is over. bodily fluids...intact.

    war room, still no room for brawling.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.