Slashdot Mirror
Four Threats For '09 You Haven't Heard of
ancientribe writes "Security experts are cautiously on the lookout for some lesser-known but potentially lethal threats that could be more difficult to prepare for and defend against in 2009. These aren't your typical enterprise hack attacks. They're mainly large-scale Internet threats — attacks that knock out sections of the Internet infrastructure, radical extremist hackers, Web attacks that adversely affect online ad revenue, and even the unthinkable: human casualties as a result of a cyberattack." Also known as the new group of things the fear mongers will use to make you do their bidding.
Why is "human causalities as the result of cyberattack" supposedly unthinkable?
'Three U.K. hospitals were forced to shut down their networks last month after a malware outbreak infiltrated their systems .. Prince says he worries that eventually, human lives could be affected by a cyberattack like that of those hospitals or attacks on national infrastructures such as utilities. "It will happen at some point," he says'
Have these security professionals ever considered using computers that don't get malware ?
Anti-virus, Anti-phishing, Spyware
davecb5620@gmail.com
One U.S. hospital was recently hit with a denial-of-service attack that knocked its critical services offline temporarily. "There have been several close calls" including that one, notes Perimeter eSecurity's Prince, who couldn't reveal details about the attack on the hospital. Prince says the hospital was able to deploy some redundant power sources to keep its operations going during the attack on its network. But Prince says he worries that eventually, human lives could be affected by a cyberattack like that of those hospitals or attacks on national infrastructures such as utilities. "It will happen at some point," he says.
Of course you do. Got to keep those customers coming in.
The hospital I'm familiar with has an internal LAN with the Life or Death systems on it. The Docs that have access to it go through their gateway. In other words, a DOS attack would keep folks from seeing the hospital's website that has their marketing stuff, job listings, location, etc... nothing that would kill anyone.
See, the IT folks there are actually pretty smart and read the security journals and some even come from defense contractors. Imagine that. This hyperbole is just a PR statement to get the suits and their lawyers all worked up to hire people like that for very large fees.
There is precious little new in this story, just a little present-day Nostradamus mixed in with a conspiracy theory, alarmism, and an admission that the enemies of the western world are not stupid and know how to use computers.
If we want to go beyond panic stories, we have to start treating such attacks, any attacks, as real crimes. That means FBI needs to get involved, and there must be a serious effort at apprehension. Once apprehended, those folks must be treated like criminals, that means orange jumpsuites (not three-piece suites) and long prison terms. This must be publicized.
As far as foreign threats, we need to work with local authorities. If those actitivites are conducted from within war zones, they need to be treated as enemy saboteurs and shot.
It's time to stop distinguishing between "computer crime" and regular crime. The consequences are the same, the victims are the same, the costs are the same. Therefore, the penalties must also be the same.
That may not be as simple as it sounds. Sure, it is technologically feasible to lock down a computer system, but there are matters of money and politics to consider. Consider the expense of hiring a full time security team that can tune ACLs and security policies and monitor the hospital network for intrusions. Here in America, hospitals, especially public hospitals, often have to fight for every dollar just to afford medical equipment, and there is constant political wrangling about paying for healthcare. Investing millions of dollars per hospital to create a secure IT infrastructure is a difficult move to justify when you are engaged in a battle for money for other equipment, and a lot of people either do not understand or do not care about the risks patients face from IT failures.
There is also the matter of commercialization of healthcare software. Gone are the days when a hospital's IT staff would roll their own middle tier and front end systems -- healthcare software systems are now purchased from companies that "specialize" in such products. Those companies often market proprietary software, compile it for the world's most popular desktop OS, and send shrink-wrapped copies to hospitals. That software can force choices upon the hospital, like requiring a certain database that only runs on a certain server OS or preventing certain ACLs from being in place because of the manner in which the software utilizes system resources. It is neither malice nor incompetence, it is just a byproduct of the system we have in place for managing our healthcare centers.
Personally, I have never understood how utilities might wind up in a situation where their systems may be vulnerable to a malware attack. I would think that the critical systems in utilities would be offline and running some sort of highly application-specific software, but I could be wrong.
Palm trees and 8
From TFA:
e-bomb
Middle Eastern cybercartels
And so forth. Lots of technobabble, not much factual information.
The biggest threat facing the internet in 2009 is pointless scaremongering laid out on more pages than it should be to get more ad revenue.
so who certified the malware ??
Because of your post, I think we need a "Billy Madison" moderation.
What you wrote wasn't flamebait or over rated, it was stupid.
"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
In real science we state claims and provide proof and theory as to why we accept them as true. Furthermore, we make predictions that can be tested. In science, nothing is "disproved," all things are assumed false until proved. Its make more sense that way as I can not disprove your watermellon claim, but you have offered no theory or proof as to why your claims should be believed in the first place.
I could claim anything and you would be foolish to believe. If I make a claim and provide proof and a theory to explain why it is so, and you check out the proof, you have the ability to prove or disprove it on your own.