Slashdot Mirror


Virus Infection Hits UK's Ministry of Defense, Including Warships

Retrovirus writes with a link to a Register story which says that the UK's "Ministry of Defence confirmed today that it has suffered virus infections which have shut down 'a small number' of MoD systems, most notably including admin networks aboard Royal Navy warships."

19 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. What happened to *nix ? by Sapdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised something as crucial as Defence systems are running a version of Windows.

    1. Re:What happened to *nix ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, they play solitaire so they can hide the p0rn they are streaming.

      That's probably what got them, someone on the network looking for and distributing p0rn.

  2. troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    now that everyone knows this account is fake, could you stop using it?

    at least to show some respect to the man who passed away so recently

  3. Re:Switching to Windows by pejyel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually the article you're linking to only refers to the nuclear submarines
    and the article doesn't tell whether this infection affected them as well.

    Still, I hope this gives second thoughts to any people in charge
    who considering to "spare money" by installing Windows on such sensitive systems...

  4. Re:Is Fujitsu not to be held accountable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the contract was given to Fujitsu should they not be held accountable as well

    If we give Fujitsu the sack, we would still have to pay them. So we might as well let them sort out the mess. The alternative is to scrap the system and tender new contracts, where the only bidder would be Fujitsu.

    And the next time any moronic civil servants think of some dumb-ass IT scheme, Fujitsu will probably be awarded the contract. Again.

  5. Re:Switching to Windows by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And when that topic came up on slashdot I questioned the wisdom running windows on military hardware for security reasons and was laughed at since people took they view that this is the military, they're not going to network the boxes, they have more sense, it's not like they'd be connected to the net! god no!
    Well now I claim the right of "I told you so!"

  6. Re:Switching to Windows by cgenman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They mention an e-mail system, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were running Exchange. For some reason, people seem to have trouble realizing that IMAP does basically everything that Exchange does, but with complete compatibility and reduced risk.

  7. Re:Switching to Windows by dominique_cimafranca · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I beg to disagree. A search of publicly available documents shows that NavyStar has Windows and DOS components. Fujitsu's ITSEC certification report (No. P230), in particular, shows Windows XP, Windows XPe, and DOS clients. See diagram on page 10.

    Also, the article doesn't say that the servers were hit. Only that the system was based on a server cabinet and cable-networked PCs. As I understand it, NavyStar is a hardware platform of ruggedized PC components.

  8. Nice. by tenco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Armies battling computer viruses at least don't engage in other kinds of warfare. Let's keep it that way.

    1. Re:Nice. by NoisySplatter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, a warship sure has a hard time doing anything without their ship store to supply them with junk food and toothpaste.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
  9. Re:B-5 by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Admin system, not OPS. The ships still run fine, they just lost stuff like crew performance reviews. Quoting TFA: "purposes such as storekeeping, email and similar support functions." That said, the article notes that the loss of email for the crew was a significant blow to morale since that's how most of them kept in touch with their families. Anyone in the military knows how important mail call is.

  10. Re:Switching to Windows by mewsenews · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IMAP doesn't have a calendar, and Outlook's IMAP support is really terrible.

    Don't get me wrong, I hope Exchange/Outlook dies out, but IMAP is not a drop in replacement, server side or client side.

  11. Re:B-5 by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course - they would be crazy to use Windows for their operational systems, right?

    --
    [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
  12. Re:Switching to Windows by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    no but there is a year 1900, 1800, 1000 ect.

    Yes, but no year zero. In the Gregorian calendar, 31st December of 1 BC is followed by 1st January of 1 AD. Therefore the AD period reaches a hundred years old at the end of the year 100, not at the beginning of that year. Same for the millennia: the second millennium ended on the night of 31st December 2000.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  13. Re:Switching to Windows by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And given the virus outbreak the MOD only hires moron admins.

    Servers should never be run by idiots. As crap like this happens every second because of it.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  14. What the hell is wrong with these people!!! by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Windows has *real* security problems. We are not talking about mere differences in opinion, but real-live security problems from the ground-up. We are talking about a systemic philosophy within Microsoft that allows things like the TIFF code to execute binary programs, privilege escalation, and so on.

    The Windows apologists like to claim that there are so many exploits only because Windows is so "popular." It isn't true. Windows is insecure by design. Microsoft intentionally installs APIs through which the system can be modified regardless of the user. On top of that, the kernel device driver model is less regulated than unix.

    Windows is a security disaster, and while it is dangerous enough in a consumer setting. It is a stunningly bad idea to put it in a secure situation.

  15. Re:B-5 by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes... everyone likes to trivialize the non-essential non-combat functions until suddenly there's no grog.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  16. Re:B-5 by robthebloke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can't wait to see what happens after the £20bn Trident update. I'm not sure I'd feel safe knowing Norton is a required install on the next generation of nuclear missiles...

  17. Re:B-5 by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But this *is* a critical system. If you know your opponent's logistics capabilities, you can very effectively plan around his resupply requirements (or worse, pin him down and play the attrition card.) The MoD is playing it down, but it's a big deal.