Slashdot Mirror


Fannie Mae Worker Indicted For Malicious Script

dfdashh writes "A former Fannie Mae contractor has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Baltimore, MD for computer intrusion. He attempted to propagate a malicious script throughout the company's 4,000 servers. The DC Examiner has details of the incident: 'Had this malicious script executed, [Fannie Mae] engineers expect it would have caused millions of dollars of damage and reduced if not shutdown operations at [Fannie Mae] for at least one week. ... The virus was set to execute at 9 a.m. Jan. 31, first disabling Fannie Mae's computer monitoring system and then cutting all access to the company's 4,000 servers, Nye wrote. Anyone trying to log in would receive a message saying "Server Graveyard." From there, the virus would wipe out all Fannie Mae data, replacing it with zeros, Nye wrote. Finally, the virus would shut down the servers.'"

325 comments

  1. erase my mortgage by tritonman · · Score: 5, Funny

    the only thing that matters to me... will it erase my mortgage??!??!

    1. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The writer of that script should be erased.

    2. Re:erase my mortgage by internerdj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The more important question for me is if my mortgage gets erased do the records that I'm at least part owner of the property get erased or does the company just get the deed to my home? Well it was mortgaged, but we don't have the records anymore we'll just assume you owe the full purchase value of the property until you can prove otherwise.

    3. Re:erase my mortgage by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There would be records proving you own the home.

      When you take out a mortgage, the deed is still in your name. That's one of the main reasons foreclosure is actually kind of a pain in the ass for banks. They have to get the house transferred to their ownership before they can sell it.

      The deed is on paper in a filing cabinet in some county office (It's also stored electronically by the county). You should also have received a copy of it when you signed the flurry of paperwork when you bought the house.

    4. Re:erase my mortgage by tritonman · · Score: 5, Funny

      even if that were true... erase my mortgage, take my house, I go buy one the same size for half the price now!

    5. Re:erase my mortgage by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Return you to Year Zero? Be careful what you wish for.

    6. Re:erase my mortgage by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if someone say nuked the Fannie Mae servers then millions of people would get free homes?

      --
      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;
    7. Re:erase my mortgage by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I think they would go back to the paper copies...but first the backups. Really data corruption/erasure is best if you can do the corruption before the backup cycle and not have it noticed until afterwards... but even then its just a matter of using older backups.

      Barring that, I imagine they would go back to the paper docs. Of course, that wouldn't have payment history, so they would probably have to just assume that all the loans were current unless they could find evidence they were otherwise, and of course, ask the customers for information they have about extra payments that they made.

      I think the reality is more like, a bunch of people would get credited for whatever payment information was just lost and unrecoverable.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:erase my mortgage by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of 'backups'? Even if Iron Mountain lost half the tapes on the way back to Fannie Mae (again)... there are digital records of your mortgage somewhere.

      Surely you have copies of your payments, insurance, property taxes, etc to prove you don't owe the full amount listed on the closing contract, yes?

    9. Re:erase my mortgage by internerdj · · Score: 1

      Of course I do but that doesn't mean that everyone is as careful as me and that the mortgage company would treat me as if I owed them less than the full amount until I proved otherwise if they lost ALL their records.

    10. Re:erase my mortgage by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Very true. It amazes me that middle class anarchists believe that if the current society is obliterated it will be a net gain for them because a more equitable society will replace it. Historically you're much more likely to end up with a some sort of Pol Pot style nightmare.

      As Jello Biafra put it in Holiday in Cambodia

      So you been to school
      For a year or two
      And you know youve seen it all
      In daddys car
      Thinkin youll go far
      Back east your type dont crawl

      Play ethnicky jazz
      To parade your snazz
      On your five grand stereo
      Braggin that you know
      How the niggers feel cold
      And the slums got so much soul

      Its time to taste what you most fear
      Right guard will not help you here
      Brace yourself, my dear

      Its a holiday in cambodia
      Its tough, kid, but its life
      Its a holiday in cambodia
      Dont forget to pack a wife

      Youre a star-belly sneech
      You suck like a leach
      You want everyone to act like you
      Kiss ass while you bitch
      So you can get rich
      But your boss gets richer off you

      Well youll work harder
      With a gun in your back
      For a bowl of rice a day
      Slave for soldiers
      Till you starve
      Then your head is skewered on a stake

      Now you can go where people are one
      Now you can go where they get things done
      What you need, my son.

      Is a holiday in cambodia
      Where people dress in black
      A holiday in cambodia
      Where youll kiss ass or crack

      Pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, pol pot, etc.

      And its a holiday in cambodia
      Where youll do what youre told
      A holiday in cambodia
      Where the slums got so much soul

      --
      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;
    11. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Foreclosed upon with extreme prejudice.

    12. Re:erase my mortgage by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Let's lynch the landlord!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was an unnecessarily snarky post. Try to be happier, please! Life ain't so bad =)

    14. Re:erase my mortgage by julian67 · · Score: 1

      >As Jello Biafra put it in Holiday in Cambodia >So you been to school >For a year or two ..... I went to Camodia and it wasn't anything like Jello Biafra's song. Nor was it like Kim Wilde's song. Overall it was a very disappointing experience, paling besides the time I was Lost in France or when I met some Young Americans.

    15. Re:erase my mortgage by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmm....got me to thinking.

      Considering Fannie and Freddie's part in the mortguage/financial meltdown currently in session. Maybe wiping it out for a spell wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:erase my mortgage by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

      The present economic crisis will take care of that.

    17. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jello Biafra's song? True, but I think more people might be familiar with the citation if you just referred to it as a Dead Kennedys song. For those in need of a music history lesson, the Dead Kennedys were an influential American punk rock band based out of Oakland California in the early 1980s.

    18. Re:erase my mortgage by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know, we slashdotters, as natural problem-solvers, should get together and work on a program to do that. It's a pretty pie-in-the-sky idea, though. Hey, that gives me an idea. We should call it "Pie-in-the-Sky."

      No, sounds too hokey. Need something more computer-sounding. How about "Skynet"?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:erase my mortgage by nwf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering Fannie and Freddie's part in the mortguage/financial meltdown currently in session. Maybe wiping it out for a spell wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing?

      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

      Truing to prove your sig? :-)

      Many lenders only offer mortgages because they know there is an organization like Fannie Mae who will or at least could buy their mortgages. That would pretty much end mortgage lending in the US, or at least make it much, much more expensive. The democrats would never let this happen, since it would disproportionately affect their voting base.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    20. Re:erase my mortgage by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      No because the virus can't wipe out the offline backups. Examples would be like tape storage sent off-site.

    21. Re:erase my mortgage by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, since you are actually here to post about it, you didn't go to Cambodia while Pol Pot was in power. I assure you, disappointment would be the least of your worries in Cambodia in the 70's.

    22. Re:erase my mortgage by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Your bank would have records of your payments also.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    23. Re:erase my mortgage by julian67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Presumably, since you are actually here to post about it, you didn't go to Cambodia while Pol Pot was in power. I assure you, disappointment would be the least of your worries in Cambodia in the 70's." I went to Cambodia several times in the last decade. Quite obviously there was not a whole lot of tourism in the kingdom in the last quarter of the 20th century. I think everyone knows this even without you announcing it on /. I'm not sure why two people mentioning some songs and making a silly comment brings two such pedantic, pompous and condescending replies. I don't know what your problem is, or why you think you ought to give me a lecture (about a country I visited many times...did you?) or what kind of asshole mods up your pedantic and stupid remarks. To summarize: piss off.

    24. Re:erase my mortgage by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      You really think a company that saw nothing but dollar signs when lending to people it knew couldn't pay them back would really splash out on backups?

      I kid, I kid.

    25. Re:erase my mortgage by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hmm, let's see. You said.

      I went to Camodia(sic) and it wasn't anything like Jello Biafra's song ... Overall it was a very disappointing experience

      Jello Biafra's song was about life under a government that killed 25% of the population of the country. You presumably didn't visit the country when Pol Pot was in power since it was one big work camp. Actually even if you had have done so then, they would probably have assigned you a minder and made sure you didn't see anything too nasty happening, rather like the North Koreans did during the 90's famine, or the North Vietnamese did when they huge numbers of South Vietnames off to a camps after they annexed South Vietnam in 1975. Actually come to think of it all murderous totalitarian regimes tend to be a bit wary of showing tourists their concentration camps, for some reason.

      So if you go on holidays looking to see lots of people being killed for some twisted reason, you will most likely be disappointed. Still you can always jack off to pictures of the concentration camps the Allies liberated, which are uncensored, you sick fuck.

      --
      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:erase my mortgage by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you think that is funny, but there is no telling how many guys are out there right now trying to cook up the Warhol Worm just so they can say they "shut down the earth". Can you imagine if they figure out a way to get it to wipe out the databases while they are at it? While it would be a good money day for us tech guys can you imagine how long it would take to restore all those backup tapes? And they would have to probably pay us time and a half too......What the hell are you guys waiting for? Write the damned worm already! Don't you want to create jobs and help the economy?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    27. Re:erase my mortgage by julian67 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It was a joke you stupid cunt. Hence the other references to Kim Wilde's song "Cambodia", Bonnie Tyler's "Lost in France" and David Bowie's "Young Americans". fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off fuck off you humourless, soulless, pedantic cretin. p.s. I really have been to Cambodia many times, I've seen the piles of skulls and the numerous people horribly injured by landmines, it still happens, usually to poor rural kids playing who can't really understand what a landmine is until they step on one, or people so poor that they'll risk their lives to forage or hunt. I never met anyone as fucking dumb as you.

    28. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what would happen if mortgage lending ended? Houses would lower in price to a level affordable without 30 year financing.

    29. Re:erase my mortgage by Ironica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know what would happen if mortgage lending ended? Houses would lower in price to a level affordable without 30 year financing.

      No, actually, it wouldn't...

      What would happen is that the real estate market would pretty much freeze. You could buy a house if you had one to sell; otherwise, you'd rent. If you inherited a house from someone else, you might sell it (to someone who could pay for it out-of-pocket), and then buy another... but the ability to buy and sell houses would be limited to those who already owned one to sell for the money, and/or had cash in hand.

      Granted, this would dramatically lower prices, but not to the point where people who can currently afford to buy with a multi-decade mortgage would be able to buy one without it. Land prices are pretty stable over time.

      Of course, if the mortgage industry disappeared, it would only be a little while before someone would come up with a new way of having it... like rent-to-own, for example. If mortgages didn't exist, someone would have to invent them.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    30. Re:erase my mortgage by Ironica · · Score: 1

      No because the virus can't wipe out the offline backups. Examples would be like tape storage sent off-site.

      Why bother with offline backups? Isn't mirroring a perfectly adequate backup solution?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    31. Re:erase my mortgage by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      So if someone say nuked the Fannie Mae servers then millions of people would get free homes?

      Do it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

    32. Re:erase my mortgage by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I dunno, they might actually go back to ONLY loaning to people with a downpayment, and that were actual good credit risks....

      If they'd stuck with that in the past...we wouldn't be in this mess...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    33. Re:erase my mortgage by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      If it caused millions of dollars of damage *and* shut everything down for a week, they might save money overall.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    34. Re:erase my mortgage by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, you have been meta trolled.

      --
      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;
    35. Re:erase my mortgage by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      the only thing that matters to me... will it erase my mortgage?

      While I agree that is funny, at the same time, there are precedents for these losses of data to bounce back beneficially.

      Although my memory of the details is spotty, there was a bombing (Weather Underground, perhaps?) of a computer center in California (possibly Sacramento, due to the presence of DMV data) that had data destroyed, and part of that data turned out to be records of about one half of the outstanding parking tickets in the City and County of San Francisco. So, Mayor Alioto(?) of San Francisco decided that fair was fair, and they tossed out the remaining records of the outstanding tickets. I "gained" about $1500 thanks to that. Parking in SF was notoriously rough, assuming one didn't have an hour or two to roam around looking for a "legal" spot.

    36. Re:erase my mortgage by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Peronsonally I think "Pienet" has more of a ring to it :)

      Mmmm... "Pienet"...

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    37. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

      Truing to prove your sig? :-)

      Well... technically you weren't hearing him, but seeing his text in the form of light shot at your face from your monitor.

      I think what I'm trying to say is I'm going to shoot you guys in the face.

    38. Re:erase my mortgage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually come to think of it all murderous totalitarian regimes tend to be a bit wary of showing tourists their concentration camps, for some reason.

      So that's why I can't get a tour of the local Federal Detention Center..

  2. The First Rule of Fight Club by rhathar · · Score: 5, Funny

    We've gotta wipe the system, man. Give everyone a blank slate!

    --
    http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
    1. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1, Informative

      Clearly he was just trying to announce NESARA.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      is that thing still up? It's too good to be true and easy to debunk.. but Why NESARA hasn't been debunked yet? Am I missing something?

    3. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Why not? The banks should be out of business anyway. New banks will rise to take their place and we, the tax payers, are the ones keeping them on life support.

      If they choose to buy 7bln euro foreign construction companies and new jets with the bailout money, they deserve to die.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    4. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks...the only reason I look at the responses to this was to see if anyone made a Fight Club reference. :-D

      The flaw in the movie's plan to erase everything, and with this script is a little thing called off-site backups.

    5. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

      We've gotta wipe the system, man. Give everyone a blank slate!

      Actually, that's the first principle of The Shock Doctrine.

      Interesting parallel, isn't it?

    6. Re:The First Rule of Fight Club by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! You weren't supposed to talk about Fight Club!!

      We told you *twice*!

  3. but would it have had graphics? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Either a laughing skull and bones or an animated version of him as a bobblehead that pisses off Samuel L. Jackson with his hacker crap?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:but would it have had graphics? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking more like an avatar of him as a bespectacled fat dude wagging his finger and going, "Nah ah ah! You didn't say the magic word! Nah ah ah!"

    2. Re:but would it have had graphics? by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      Well clearly he wasn't "eenveencible".

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:but would it have had graphics? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Not quite, but as I understand it the script was uploaded from 23.75.345.200.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  4. Shutdown operations for at least one week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Leading to a downturn in mortgages issued to people who have no chance of paying them back.

    Sounds like a white hat to me.

  5. Disappointing... by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "Fight Club" guy in me would like to have seen that particular bomb go off. I know the damage would not have been , permanent, perfect or complete (That's what backups are for... right?) but still. Taking those financial giants down a peg might have tickled me. (It damn sure wouldn't have taught anyone any moral lessons or anything.

    1. Re:Disappointing... by Slumdog · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know the damage would not have been , permanent, perfect or complete (That's what backups are for... right?)

      Big companies only report successes. They report failures if its too big to hide.

    2. Re:Disappointing... by barneco · · Score: 1

      What moral lessons are there to be learned? Don't hire hackers?

    3. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm guessing you don't really understand what Fannie Mae does if you think the folk taken down a peg would be the banks.

      Fannie Mae purchased mortgages from banks to ensure the banks always had money on hand to make loans. They sold these mortgages as securities, guarantying the purchaser the money (paying it themselves if the mortgagee defaults).

      Them loosing their records would simply mean that suddenly the banks would run out of 'liquid assets' to make loans with. Who do you think that would hurt: The average joe or the banks?

      Let me give you a clue, it wouldn't be the banks. They'd just hold onto the mortgages they have and start foreclosing aggressively to come up with the assets they need.

    4. Re:Disappointing... by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Them loosing their records would simply mean that suddenly the banks would run out of 'liquid assets' to make loans with. Who do you think that would hurt: The average joe or the banks?

      It seems to me that banks making loans over the last four years IS THE major problem. Had they not been able to, we wouldn't have had a baseless boom, Angelo Mozillo, a gazillion dollar bailout of the wealthiest individuals, and schemes to assist the most foolish "housing investors" -- all at my expense. I too am rather disappointed the script was found and I don't even have a mortgage. I refused to get caught up in the housing bubble choosing instead to wait for a return to normalcy, which turned out to be a mistake. What I should have done is bought a house way more expensive than I could afford on a negative amortization loan and let the government modify my interest rate and principal balance. I now realize that in America, prudence is punished and stupidity rewarded. So yeah, I'm actually very depressed the script didn't execute.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fannie Mae was not the problem there, they only purchased "conforming" mortgages which matched their definition of a 'non-risky' loan.

      The problem was from the fact that the banks started moving from relying on Fannie Mae and started making "non-conforming" mortgages and selling them to other privately held companies. Once these mortgages started defaulting and housing prices started falling, even the "conforming" mortgages started having problems and the house of cards fell.

      Fannie Mae is a good scapegoat for people who want to pin this whole situation on one group, but that's all they really are, a scapegoat. They had their own problems (notably shady dealing in the upper echelons) but they weren't the ones who cause or even setup this scenario.

    6. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Banks don't make money (really, not much) on money sitting in their vaults. For them to make money, they have to invest it. Banks invest money by making loans. Some of those loans are home mortgages, some aren't.

      Loans come with the expectation that they will be repaid.

      In a 'nicer' time, banks might look at a person's situation before foreclosing after the first missed payment. But in lean times, missing a payment means distrupting the bank's own flow of money. It's better, in their head, to foreclose, sell to recoup what can be recouped, and reinvest in something else that is less likely to miss a payment.

      Plus, banks were used to dumping risky mortages off onto other companies, and thus many have a fairly large stable of unstable mortages which may or may not make their payments. It's safer to foreclose those as quickly as possible and move the money to a more stable mortagee.

    7. Re:Disappointing... by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      No, the lesson is don't hire an idiot to try to bury your mess.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    8. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the flick do you mean by 'foreclosing aggressively'? A bank has to wait until at least one payment is late before starting the procedure. It cannot transfer the property 'aggressively'. Sheesh.

    9. Re:Disappointing... by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So if Fannie Mae had NOT been able to buy the conforming loans, banks making stupid loans would have had less money available to them because they'd have to hold the conforming loans, and as a result, those banks would have made fewer stupid loans. Sounds to me like FM was part of the problem. Honestly, I'm pissed. I'd like to see the entire banking industry lined up against the wall, because all it has amounted to recently is a Federally sanctioned highway robbery program targeted against people who live within their means and act responsibly.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Disappointing... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      Totally agree. Fannie was stuck with the bad loans that other institutions made. For years banks and credit unions had to be conservative when lending because had to absorb any bad loans they made. What caused the housing mess was that mortgages and loans became speculative instruments that could be sold and bought like stocks. It suddenly didn't matter as much to a bank if the person getting a mortgage could not pay it off. The bank would have made their money by selling off the mortgage long before that happened. The institution that bought the loan would have sold it off too before that happened. Eventually someone would have to take the loss when the house was foreclosed. Unfortunately that institution was Fannie Mae as it was designed to guarantee mortgages.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Disappointing... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      The banks would have just sold those loans to someone other than FM instead. Preventing FM from buying loans doesn't solve anything.

      If anything, it makes it worse... Because then the banks feel no need to 'conform' to FM's standards and many more loans would have been stupid.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    12. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live within your means and act responsibly, that means you have saved up for 6 to 12 months, and can sustain a layoff or no job. It also means you run very little credit, and are not in debt at all.

      So there's no WAY you can be "highway robbed", because you are so wonderfully living within your means.

    13. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      They would have also made less loans, period. And they would have been far stricter on the terms of the loan (i.e. one strike and you are out) since being forced to hold onto the loans would have made their cash flow dependent on timely payments.

      Certainly, an arguement could be made for that setup. On the other hand, if you go that route, you also have to accept that housing would still be out of reach of most of the nation because most people wouldn't be able to afford a home without a loan and wouldn't be able to get a loan without a home (or similar property).

      It's like saying that the power company was at fault because it provided electricity to run the servers that the loans were tracked on and that if only we stayed in a pre-electric state, this would have never had happened. While it might be true, we'd also loose many many benefits of electricty that we now take for granted. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      Don't get me wrong, I agree that there was irresponsibilty in the banking industry (but not just the banking industry), I just don't feel like playing the part of torch wielding peasant in the mob to hang Fannie Mae. They acted responsibly in this, they weren't making risky calls, they weren't being greedy, they weren't even advising people to be greedy.

    14. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true. Fannie Mae purchased a considerable amount of CDO's comprised of subprime loans in order to meet their HUD goals. Most of their current losses revolve around those vehicles.

    15. Re:Disappointing... by conlaw · · Score: 1

      That's a very good moral lesson, barneco; even if this stunt was not very original. The idea of doing a total wipe like this was the basis of John D. McDonald's 1984 book, One More Sunday. It's a very good read except for those who believe that the charismatic, television preachers are actually conveying a moral lesson.

    16. Re:Disappointing... by Gospodin · · Score: 1

      In a 'nicer' time, banks might look at a person's situation before foreclosing after the first missed payment. But in lean times, missing a payment means distrupting the bank's own flow of money. It's better, in their head, to foreclose, sell to recoup what can be recouped, and reinvest in something else that is less likely to miss a payment.

      This argument makes no sense. The bank's thinking is very simple: will it cost more to foreclose (which means probably losing value on the property itself, which likely has not been well maintained, plus costs of transferring ownership, selling to a new owner, etc.) than the expected net present value of the lost revenue stream? In fat or lean times, if the answer is yes, the bank is likely to be "nice" and take another look at your terms. And in fat or lean times, if the answer is no, the bank will foreclose.

      The only difference the overall economy or the bank's health might make to the above calculation is how they expect it will affect those costs. For example, with the housing market depressed, foreclosure on a house that has negative equity carries the built-in cost (to the bank) of the amount by which the mortgage is under water. This can be a pretty significant amount in the current market. If the bank can figure out a way to "split the difference" with the borrower, they can both come out ahead, even if they lose money overall.

      Part of the problem we have now, though, is that for a lot of non-performing, negative-equity mortgages, no one bank owns them. They are split up into various tranches. So changing the terms isn't just a simple deal between the borrower and the lender.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    17. Re:Disappointing... by tristanreid · · Score: 1

      So if Fannie Mae had NOT been able to buy the conforming loans, banks making stupid loans would have had less money available to them because they'd have to hold the conforming loans, and as a result, those banks would have made fewer stupid loans. Sounds to me like FM was part of the problem. Honestly, I'm pissed. ...

      No, that's not right. Banks in general are not required to hold the conforming loans. Only the agencies have that mandate. You're saying that somehow the fact that FNMA made lots of good loans means that other banks were somehow forced to make bad ones? I'd like to understand how you got from A to B; it sounds to me like you're just ranting without really knowing what you're talking about.

      -t.

    18. Re:Disappointing... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stupid SHOULD hurt. The government and the liberals don't realize this. And yes, I said Liberals ... not Democrats. There were plenty of LIBERAL (see compassionate conservatives) in the Republican Party too.

      And by "Stupid" I don't mean lack of intelligence (IQ), I mean DARWIN Award winners types. These are the people who have a brain, should know better, but don't F'in care about what they are doing and expect everyone else to clean up their mess.

      Sorry, but STUPID SHOULD HURT! Like when you stick your hand on the stove hurt. Like when you make stupid loans and bundle them into derivatives to leverage the stupidity and then re-bundle those into even more stupid derivatives. IT all works, until it doesn't, then everyone pays for the Ponzi Schemes.

      Which is why the stupid Bailouts to the same people that caused this mess is just stupidity on top of stupidity. We are now leveraging STUPID to try to stop the "HURT".

      And nobody is willing to tell it like it is. STUPID!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re:Disappointing... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't go absolving Fannie Mae, their management was just as evil as anyone else's. Let's not forget their little, "oops we need to restate our income by a few billion dollars" fiasco. There were plenty of people in the FNMA Market Room who were playing fast and loose with mortgage backed securities.

    20. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how can you claim fannie mae didn't make mistakes? they made bad loans. there is a reason why their stock price fell 90%. if they didn't make bad loans they would be fine. just because the loans were conforming doesn't mean they were good. conforming was ok when house prices weren't so overvalued but with house prices so crazy high even conforming loans were terrible.

    21. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just so everyone is clear, the reason banks made risky loans is because they were REQUIRED TO BY LAW. Congress in the early part of this decade(2000 or 2001 iirc) caved in to pressure to give housing mortgages to people who had shitty credit in urban areas. You are living the result right now.

    22. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      That would be a lovely idea, but not how the world works. Banks need liquid assets to make loans. When late payments threaten their cash flow, they threaten the liquid assets of that bank. Without liquid assets, the bank can't make loans. The tighter the times, the more a missed payment hurts their cash flow, the more it hurts their ability to make further loans, the more likely they are to be stringent on cutting you down the first time you are late.

      For most lending banks, a short term hit in value is far less of a scare than a short term hit in the ability to make more money.

    23. Re:Disappointing... by dwillden · · Score: 1

      People who live within their means and act responsibly are not the ones who took out interest only mortgages they could just barely afford to pay, expecting to be able to flip the house in a couple years for a profit.

      People who live within their means and act responsibly, make their mortgage payments on time and usually try to pay a little extra each month. They also purchase houses they can afford, rather than the McMansions they somehow think they deserve.

      And People who live within their means and act responsibly are not the ones who've been getting forclosed on. Now they might be getting into trouble now if their jobs are evaporating, but they are far from the "Target" of any Federally Sanctioned highway robbery program.

      The only way they were victimized was in that the housing bubble caused by mortgages issued to people who wer irresponsible and didn't live within their means, push the costs of houses up, thus lowering the size/quality of house that the responsible people could responsibly afford.

      Me, I would have liked to buy a larger home in 2005, but my wife and I looked at what we would be able to afford and only looked at homes in that price range.

      Be mad, but be mad at those who really deserve the blame. Everyone in congress who voted in the bill in the mid 90's that started the bubble, by encourgaging, nay, forcing lenders to issue more loans to sub-prime customers. And be mad at everyone who tried to buy the abosolutely largest home they could possible stretch to afford, hoping to flip the houses or get massive raises before their ARM doubled or even tripled their payment due each month.

      And be mad at the previous Treasury Sec who chose to use the bailout money to buy stock in the struggling banks with little accountability, rather than by buying the bad debts, and refinancing those mortgages at minimal interest rates so the homebuyers could maybe once again make the payments.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    24. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of people who are willing to tell it like you see it, the problem is, you all don't seem to see that this particular brand of "STUPID" hurt is going to hurt everyone, not just the folk who were stupid.

      Sometimes it's comforting to let stupid people fail when you have been playing it 'smart' all along. But sometimes it's just your own brand of stupid for not recognizing that their failure will bring about your own.

    25. Re:Disappointing... by publiclurker · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That is nothing more than pure bullshit spewed by the Rush bunch in a pathetic attempt to somehow place the blame on everyone but the responsible parties. Please turn off Fox and get a clue before you insult us again.

    26. Re:Disappointing... by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      That is why the 'bailouts' should've come with the stipulation that the top 3 layers of management either go 2 years without any form of compensation whatsoever or that they be fired and replaced with people who were never involved in any of the banks or financial houses that failed.

      Those people have tons of money that they made by hurting everybody else. Perhaps they never did anything technically illegal, but if their organization is so important that it can't be allowed to fail, then it should hurt them personally in a very big way.

    27. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      A bad loan is a loan made to someone who obviously can't or won't pay it back.

      A bad loan is not a loan made to someone who could have paid it back had their income not been suddenly dropped to zero.

      A bad loan is a loan made to someone for property that is obviously overvalued, regardless of their current ability to pay off the loan.

      A bad loan is not a loan made to someone whose property's value suddenly took a nose dive because 90% of their neighborhood is currently unoccupied and unsold.

      Yes, Fannie Mae may have made mistakes. But they didn't make the big ones, the ones that started this.

    28. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What strikes me is that one person will say this was the problem and another will say that was the problem and nobody agrees on what the problem was, including economists and politicians. So not more that one of them can be right.

      Personally I think we should let businesses fail and start over.

    29. Re:Disappointing... by anagama · · Score: 1

      The only way they were victimized was in that the housing bubble caused by mortgages issued to people who wer irresponsible and didn't live within their means, push the costs of houses up, thus lowering the size/quality of house that the responsible people could responsibly afford.

      This is only partly true. Yes, the prudent people who didn't play the game were priced out of the market. That is one victimization. The prudent people will also be victimized by:

      • Inflation devaluing savings.
      • Increased taxes to cover the costs of the bailouts.
      • Some will surely lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

      I'm sure there are more ways, but it is definitely understatement to say that prudent people's only harm was getting priced out of the market.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    30. Re:Disappointing... by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to the trillions of tax dollars spent on bullshit in the name of 'fixing' the current economic issues.
      hopefully my great-great grandchildren will see the debt incurred by it paid off, but i doubt it.

    31. Re:Disappointing... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      No, the current kind of STUPID is just passing the "HURT" on to our children, in the form of Massive debt.

      This is the problem with Liberals, they don't think it is going to hurt those that have to pay the debt eventually.

      Yes, it does hurt us now if we don't do anything. IT SHOULD!!! STUPID often hurts those around STUPID who aren't stupid. My question is, why should my kids pay for other people being STUPID.

      It only encourages people to BE STUPID. That is the problem with LIBERAL views is that it is okay to be stupid, everyone will pay to clean up the mess. The problem gets passed on until people realize that it doesn't pay to be SMART because SMART ends up paying for STUPID. So, in the end, everyone ends up STUPID and nobody is cleaning up the mess because ... well everyone is STUPID and doesn't care.

      The only way to stop STUPID is to let stupid get what stupid deserves. YES, it MIGHT hurt those around stupid, but that is the case anyway.

      The only way to stop STUPID is to MAKE STUPID HURT. and sometimes, just sometimes it makes people smarter in the end. At least it might stop them from being stupid the next time.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    32. Re:Disappointing... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That isn't enough pain for STUPID. Take all their assets, take their freedom, take everything away from these "Brilliant" CEOs and upper management.

      And then, let the stupid companies fail. Let the Stupid Investors lose everything. Next time, they'll look beyond the last quarter's earnings and next quarters projections and look into the soundness of the business plan.

      Quit trying to protect the STUPID from their mess. They made their bed, let them sleep in it for a while. I don't care if they end up being homeless bums.

      The worst part of all this, is the same people who got us in this mess, are the ones telling us how to get out of it. AND the only thing I can see, is that they are STILL raping the Treasury

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    33. Re:Disappointing... by ball-lightning · · Score: 1

      They are not as much of a scapegoat as you'd think. They were originally government run, and then later "privatized". This led to a situation where they were still extremely (relatively) responsive to government policy (like buying loans to low-income families that were lower than their original standards to increase availability of loans) and had an implicit (now explicit) guarantee from the USG. This implicit guarantee allowed FM to borrow at a lower cost than its competitors, which allowed it to "crowd out" its competitors in the market for reasonably high-quality mortgages. In response, other financial companies began to "invest" (speculate) in lower-quality, sub prime mortgages. This is why it is very important for us (USians) to be careful about what we do now. Organizations we setup to combat this recession could very well do us harm 10, 20, (60!) years from now.

    34. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jesus FUCKING Christ on a stick.

      Would you honestly rather your kids live through another Great Depression (with the knowledge that neither of the "Great"s were solved by anything other wars so massive that they slaughtered good percents of the working base, thus removing the issue of unemployment) or with a devalued dollar and stable nation?

      STUPID is cutting your nose off just to spite your face, which is exactly the plan of action you are pushing for.

      STUPID is letting the whole thing go down the tubes and fucking everyone over just to hold on to your sense of pride over the fact that a few scam artists might get away with their scam. Not, mind you, have any of them actually made it to the clear yet.

      STUPID is waving the banner for your children while setting them up for a life of misery.

      And frankly, as STUPID as I consider your plan of action, since my life is also impacted by your STUPID, I'm not interested in hearing anymore. Take a tranquilizer or something for your stiff neck and let it go.

    35. Re:Disappointing... by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      I was ready to buy a house in 2003. I decided the market was high, and I'd wait. 6 years I've been waiting, now is my time. I acted responsibly. Now I have to pay the bankers who failed at their number one job (risk management), and the real estate speculators? That is a real crock of shit!

      Nice to hear someone else say it, though. Thanks.

    36. Re:Disappointing... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The Great Society didn't end the Depression. It in all likelyhood extended it until WWII. I don't want a war to end this, but at this rate, Obama will blame _____ people, round them all up and gas them.

      STUPID is letting stupid get away with it. Punish the STUPID Assholes. ALL of them. Congress, Governors, CEOs that raped their companies. ALL of them.

      STUPID is thinking more GOVERNMENT is the solution. Government of the people for the people and by the people. Not special interest groups. I'd toss all the Lobbyists in Jail. ALL of them. They are F'ing up the country fast as they can.

      I'm not for letting the ASSHOLES get away with it, I'm for raping them back. Take all their assets and lock them up. Putting the same people in CHARGE again isn't the solution either.

      STUPID is not realizing the my kids are already going to suffer for the stupidity of others. My goal is to minimize how STUPID people affect them. Your solution is for everyone to be STUPID and thus, equal. STUPID and EQUAL WOOO HOOO.

      Excuse me, if YOUR LIFE is affected because of MY "stupid", it is only because YOU are Stupid to let yourself get that way. ALL I'm suggesting is that STUPID PEOPLE pay the most.

      You obviously have issue with STUPID having any consequences, because you like being STUPID and think I (who hasn't participated in any of this stupid shit) should pay more so you can remain stupid.

      Yeah, because it is easier to blame everyone else for you being STUPID!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:Disappointing... by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      So first he was like all:

      ...at this rate, Obama will blame _____ people, round them all up and gas them...

      but then:

      STUPID is letting stupid get away with it. Punish the STUPID Assholes. ALL of them. Congress, Governors, CEOs that raped their companies. ALL of them.

      and then:

      I'd toss all the Lobbyists in Jail. ALL of them. They are F'ing up the country fast as they can.

      and after that:

      I'm not for letting the ASSHOLES get away with it, I'm for raping them back. Take all their assets and lock them up.

      Mr Pot? There is a Mr Kettle on the line for you, Mr Archangel Michael Kettle. Shall I take a message?

    38. Re:Disappointing... by Ironica · · Score: 1

      And from what I can tell, the legislation referred to has the word "Carter" at the front of it... and he stopped signing laws in 1980. So I'm not sure how that legislation could possibly have caused *this* crisis *now* all of a sudden.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    39. Re:Disappointing... by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      Actually that is only partially correct. FM underwrote loans and then resold them to whoever wanted to buy them. So if the loans that FM thought was conforming defaulted, FM was liable to pay them. FM is a state backed institution, so everyone trusted them and bought everything they signed. The CXO's of FM had their payments linked to how big their loan portfolio was. See how easily the system can go wrong ?
      When in doubt, always follow the incentives...

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    40. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is human beings. Every one of us is corruptible and greedy.

      Politicians and pundits will blame this person, or that person, and new laws will be passed to go along with the other 15,000 laws that were passed to stop people from fucking each other over.

      And so it goes.

    41. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus FUCKING Christ on a stick.

      Is that a new porn movie?

    42. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that's what, like, three people?

    43. Re:Disappointing... by anagama · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you aren't following all of the implications. Let's say a bank has reserves allowing it to have loans totaling $X. If it makes $X of conforming loans, it can't make any stupid loans till it sells off its existing stock. With Fannie Mae there to buy up those loans, arguably backed by the US taxpayer, the bank is quickly back in business -- except it makes $0.2X stupid, $0.8X conforming -- rinse and repeat. If Fannie wasn't there for banks to unload loans on, they would have to find private individuals to buy the loans, and they did of course, but there would be one fewer massive customer and a proportionately smaller number of stupid loans, because the banks wouldn't have had the ability to lend as much. Investors would be better off. The taxpayers would be better off. A small percentage of CEOs would be forced to retire with $100m instead of $500m, but that doesn't make feel bad.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    44. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all very well if stupid only hurts the people responsible (Americans), but unless we find a way to bail them out it will hurt everyone else (the rest of the world) too.

    45. Re:Disappointing... by maxume · · Score: 1

      It is far from obvious that a Fannie/Freddie free housing market would have been as liquid as the market that existed prior to the breakdown, mostly because each of those entities was walking around with an implicit government guarantee on their actions.

      They certainly aren't the only contributor to the problem, but it seems pretty clear to me that they added to the magnitude.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    46. Re:Disappointing... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Don't worry-- with the New New Deal that Obama will sign, we'll have another ten-year-long Great Depression.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    47. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would you honestly rather your kids live through another Great Depression (with the knowledge that neither of the "Great"s were solved by anything other wars so massive that they slaughtered good percents of the working base, thus removing the issue of unemployment) or with a devalued dollar and stable nation?"

      Glad you asked.

      Yes, in fact I'd like to see a huge war and a Great Depression.

      The herd needs thinning.

      Idiots like you are dragging the rest of us down with your feeble
      "think of the children" mindset.

      As for tranquilizers, why don't you eat a whole bottle of them,
      cocksucker ?

    48. Re:Disappointing... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The last way they are getting screwed over is by the government propping up the existing housing market and keeping people in homes they shouldn't have bought in the first place.

    49. Re:Disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No--I'd say stupid is pretty much exactly as he described it: privatizing gains and socializing losses. It's unsustainable, teaches the wrong lessons (so we're going to see this same crap happen again) and generally, well--stupid.

      Drama queens like yourself (and the current crop of representatives and senators) like to Chicken Little the entire economy. But big institutions have been failing for as long as they've existed and outside some specific circumstances (like the government intervention idiocy of the 30's) it never kills the economy. Heck, in terms of GDP the S&L failures were a bigger deal than the current crisis.

      But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rush to throw good taxpayer money after bad private investment.

  6. Obviously wasn't good/smart enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well now, if you are going to go big, go big or go home... this guy probably shouldn't have even left the house as he obviously wasn't smart enough to make the precautions that would have been necessary to hide his tracks..

  7. But did it.... by Phoenixhawk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look like he was flying through a cyberspace version of his city while he was doing it???

  8. Really? by ideonode · · Score: 1

    A virus that can propagate through an entire enterprise's array of servers, and then wipe out all data?

    Most enterprises comprise a heterogeneous mix of servers of differing breeds. Getting a program to run on all of them, and then to gain access to data and transform it all in a single virus would be a great piece of programming, and any enterprise looking to hire an efficient data migration specialist or integration architect should consider hiring...

    1. Re:Really? by Phoenixhawk · · Score: 1

      A virus that can propagate through an entire enterprise's array of servers, and then wipe out all data?

      Most enterprises comprise a heterogeneous mix of servers of differing breeds. Getting a program to run on all of them, and then to gain access to data and transform it all in a single virus would be a great piece of programming, and any enterprise looking to hire an efficient data migration specialist or integration architect should consider hiring...

      What Mix? They got the government discount at dell

    2. Re:Really? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not in the financial business.

      Everything needs to be approved, certified and someone has to get a kickback. Only the former two are official, the third is most likely the reason for the first two because I, at least, couldn't find any other sensible explanation, but that's just how it is. To be allowed in some important network, this can be some auditing standard or information exchange, you almost certainly have to use one of the "approved" systems.

      So it's quite likely, actually, that you find a monoculture of servers in financial companies. And guess what kind of monoculture it will be?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Really? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why?

      Fanne May more than likely uses Server 2003 with MSSQL. and I'm betting all on the same domain with a global user list.

      This would not a hard thing to do. 1 afternoon with VB and I can write the same thing. Hacker 101 stuff.

      Most financial places have REALLY SHITTY IT security.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Former FNMA employee here- I left a couple years ago.

      1- The vast majority of their servers run Solaris- this wasn't some sort of cross-platform attack.

      2- They have an infrastructure that allows a single admin server to execute commands on the entire farm simultaneously.

      Suddenly being able to wipe out everything doesn't sound too difficult does it? From what I heard from friends- it was just a couple lines of shell, and it was discovered because there was a typo, and script to failed. Not a virus by any stretch.

      Oh- and of course they have backups, but imagine restoring 2500+ servers from tape... Thats probably where the week of downtime came from, and it sounds accurate to me.

    5. Re:Really? by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obviously virus is what the idiot who wrote the article is calling it (and possibly a term used in whatever he has been charged with), but since he had root access to all the servers it wouldn't really be a virus. Just a script installed on them, probably run via plain old cron.

      When you terminate a contractor or employee it is wise to also terminate their access to your servers...

      #!/bin/sh
      for i in /dev/[sh]d*
      do
              cat /dev/zero >"$i" &
      done

      is not exactly a great piece of programming (and the above is obviously untested, and since he was a unix admin he would actually know what the drive device names are in the presence of wierdo RAID setups...)

    6. Re:Really? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Fannie Mae uses Tandem Nonstops.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    7. Re:Really? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Getting a program to run on all of them, and then to gain access to data and transform it all in a single virus would be a great piece of programming...

      You obviously underestimate the power of VB script my friend. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:Really? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean HP Nonstops? Or have they not upgraded their hardware since Tandem went away?

    9. Re:Really? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      You could still have a mix of OSs. E.g some Linux, some Windows, different OS versions and so on.

      --
      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;
    10. Re:Really? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Yes, I mean HP. I work with a bunch of ex-Tandem types, so they call them 'Tandems'. I picked up that nomenclature.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    11. Re:Really? by powerlord · · Score: 1

      1- The vast majority of their servers run Solaris- this wasn't some sort of cross-platform attack.

      Even if the vast majority are Solaris, a previous poster mentioned a fair amount of HP hardware may also be in the mix.

      Something we all would do well to recognize is that a shell script can easily be "cross platform", at least regarding all the flavors of *nix including Solaris, HPUX, Linux and BSD.

      (although I'd probably use perl to pull in the libraries and speed up development time)

      Heck, with only a little bit of work, you could probably make a java app that could crossover to MS as well. Include a quick command to set it up in crontab, and another quick command to set it up in the MS equivalent (whose name eludes me), and you're done, with your cross-platform "bomb" ready to go off.

      2- They have an infrastructure that allows a single admin server to execute commands on the entire farm simultaneously.

      Suddenly being able to wipe out everything doesn't sound too difficult does it? From what I heard from friends- it was just a couple lines of shell, and it was discovered because there was a typo, and script to failed. Not a virus by any stretch.

      Sounds very possible. reminds me of a similar story we heard a few years ago of someone trying to do the same thing.

      Its no wonder these people got fired considering they don't bother to test their code before deploying it. ;)

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    12. Re:Really? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Besides, that's a dumb way to screw over someone who you know makes good backups.

      A real doozy is the script that slowly writes crap (but valid) data into the system, which then gets duly backed up. Just have it keep going until it's discovered. Then they're REALLY fscked, 'cause they first have to figure out which backups are good (if they still have any), and probably loose weeks or months worth of good data along with the bad, since they don't know what they can and can't trust.

    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former FNMA contractor here. You're absolutely right. They seem to have strong security measures, but its more like security theater because they simply hand out root access to a crap load of people.

      While working at that hole, I contemplated mass destruction now and then myself. Between the clueless H1-Bs, the lazy employees, and the asshole (and clueless) management, it was a place that sincerely made me wonder if I should leave my chosen profession.

    14. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I heard of a dead man switch script that an admin left that triggered when he was terminated (and not *touching* a seemingly innocuous file every week).

      He was much more effective: he modified the backup script so it would encrypt all its data. The file sizes where correct, names correct, at a glance all looked right, but all files contained encrypted data.

      The company only kept 6 months of backups. After six months, the script wiped the servers. The company couldn't recover anything.

      They couldn't pin point it on anyone: they had fired a bunch of admins at the same time.

      That is one mean, mean trick.

    15. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spawn a shell for each drive. /dev/zero (/dev/random) has pretty low contention and it'll finish earlier.

    16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was caught for the very same reason that Fannie Mae was moronic for hiring them.

      They love hiring H1-Bs who have a pulse and can use a keyboard. They aren't all that skillful, but they are cheap and management can treat them like shit.

      This guy was probably fired because he was a moron, and probably tried to get Fannie Mae back because the management of Systems Engineering are assholes. As you would expect, he failed to succeed because he was a moron, and the asshole managers decided to make an example out of him and so got some shitty press from what ended up being a non-event.

      So, in the end, they deserve each other.

      I am a different poster than the original poster who worked there, and I can assure you, what he said is 100% correct. I mean, they reboot 4000 servers all at the same time every weekend just to make sure they come back up again. You could pay an entire H1-B just to auto-close the automatic Remedy tickets that spam them every weekend just from the scheduled reboots.

    17. Re:Really? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that requires effort.

      Also, since he had free access he could probably have broken the backups - maybe that's why the delay - give them a lot of time to have non-working backups first. They should of course be testing the backups. But yes changing stuff subtly is nastier - it's also much harder.

    18. Re:Really? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you weren't a moron then maybe you'd see that that's what the snippet I posted does.

    19. Re:Really? by Menkhaf · · Score: 1

      ...and /dev/random is overkill, /dev/urandom should be sufficient.

      When read, the /dev/random device will only return random bytes within the estimated number of bits of noise in the entropy pool. /dev/random should be suitable for uses that need very high quality randomness such as one-time pad or key generation. When the entropy pool is empty, reads from /dev/random will block until additional environmental noise is gathered.

      --
      A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
    20. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! All you need is 2500 guys and 2500 tape drives and you're back up in no time.

    21. Re:Really? by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      and all the important data is likely stored in SQL databases, which can be modified from any OS.
      also you can use a single server as a launching point to use remote management to do the rest of the job. doesnt seem like too much work, when you think about it.

    22. Re:Really? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Suddenly being able to wipe out everything doesn't sound too difficult does it? From what I heard from friends- it was just a couple lines of shell, and it was discovered because there was a typo, and script to failed. Not a virus by any stretch.

      That same scenario happened less than a year back at another company, a DBA was being fired for poor performance and he wrote a script to trash his company's databases and yup, typo. Looks like both these bozos were fired for cause: incompetence. :)

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    23. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was discovered because there was a typo

      Now why does that not surprise me? I read the article, saw the programmer's name and figured that he was an H1-B hire and no matter what he wrote it wouldn't have worked.

    24. Re:Really? by byronf · · Score: 1

      What are all these servers used for?

    25. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked for a large ISP in Des Moines, IA for about a year as a network op tech. After they began axing my fellow employees with no reason one after the other, I quit to get a jump on my turn. I had access to the server from which we did nearly all of our diagnostics for over a year after the fact.

      I had been tempted to mess with it but the consequences after the Patriot Act squelched that desire.

    26. Re:Really? by DutchSter · · Score: 1

      When you terminate a contractor or employee it is wise to also terminate their access to your servers...
      Unfortunately it's not as simple as this. At my company we have "Service Accounts" which are not owned by individuals, but by technical groups. Any program that is not going to be run interactively is supposed to be run via a service account. The password is controlled by the group and does not expire. The idea is that if Jack quits and his ID is disabled all the cron/task scheduler jobs won't quit working and cause a massive outage. Likewise an expired password could cause big problems.

      In 99% of the cases the service account has extremely limited rights so it's actually not a bad model. However there are at least a dozen accounts that I know of that are members of the Domain Admins group or some other group that effectively gives admin rights on almost all servers. These are typically used for security patches, server audits and the like. I left one of the support groups over three years ago but I still remember a Domain Admin service account password. Hell, after setting up scheduled tasks for four years it's kind of hard to forget it. If I wanted to be really malicious I'd wait until the next round of layoffs were rumored and then I would set my script up using the service account and have it check a few random people's logon ID's to see if any were disabled. I'd pick some highly technical, somewhat eccentric individuals. Later on the forensic investigators would show up and the first thing they're going to do is look at the list of highly technical people in the AD support group who were set up as triggers. "Hey, didn't we fire Peter Gibbons last week? Well he's one of three people who would trigger this thing...plus his friends Michael and Samir...Naga...Naga...NotGonnaWorkHereAnyLonger"

    27. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. "Fanne May more than likely uses Server 2003 with MSSQL" nice guessing. wrong.
      2. "This would not a hard thing to do." Nothing is really hard until you actually try to do it.
      3. "1 afternoon with VB and I can write the same thing." What's it like being a script kiddie ?
      4. "Hacker 101 stuff." vb = hacking? that's why you're a script kiddie.
      5. "Most financial places have REALLY SHITTY IT security" Generalization that is not even close to being correct.

    28. Re:Really? by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      What a cool script!. I am trying on my computer righ

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    29. Re:Really? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Obviously you check such accounts when someone leaves - in fact you probably have notification of changes made to them so you can catch idiots before it's too late.

      If you leave them with access after they have left, then they can add such things after you have done that check.

      You aren't really trying to stop the paranoid sociopaths who set things to run when they first start and reset them each month so that when they aren't there to do the reset everything blows up. You are trying to stop the people who get vindictive after they are sacked.

    30. Re:Really? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Having seen HP getting confused when you mention HP NonStop to them (even some US/Canadian HP people contracted to support the thing), I'm not sure HP themselves really know anything about this platform.
      Then again - after 4 years, I'm pretty sure that I still don't know much of anything about it either.
      ./G

  9. Why care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the fuss all about? I'm sure they've got everything reliably backed up on tape...right? right???!?!?

    1. Re:Why care? by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they were going to do an rm -rf* on all data anyway, as part of the ongoing write-downs....

      Back to a more serious note. The summary does hint it would have taken them down for a week, so I assume they have some form of backup and recovery in place...

    2. Re:Why care? by Bourbonium · · Score: 1

      Then again, we're talking Fannie Mae here. They couldn't even run their normal business operations competently, blew away BILLIONS of dollars and staffed most of these critical IT positions with H1-B employees who had no loyalty to the organization. And in a previous post, a former Fannie Mae employee said they gave just about everyone root access to all servers in the farm. With a track record like this, what gives you any confidence that they maintained a reliable backup strategy as well?

    3. Re:Why care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they don't give it to everyone, but they do give it to the entire UNIXSUPP staff as well as one or two other SA groups.

      In the article, they state that one of 20 people had it, which sounds fairly small, actually. However, it might have been a specialist Admin group like the MorNet Plus team which has fewer admins. Rest assured, however, when I was at Fannie Mae, I could have done what this guy did, and unless they had huge amounts of layoffs since I was there, there were more like 40-60 SAs and management who all had root access to all hosts. It was distributed to the employees and contractors (who did all the routine work) on a small wallet sized piece of paper with the current and the older root passwords on it.

      They did try and take some pains to only distribute the list to the people who were supposed to get it, but to be honest, once you give 40-50 people root access to like 4000 servers whether they need that access or not, you've already let the horse out of the barn.

      Aficionados of Veritas Cluster Server, as well as using NIS+ for just about everything will feel right at home at FannieMae. It is probably the only place I have worked at in the 21st Century that uses NIS to do... well anything.

  10. Moron Fannie Mae Worker +1, Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should have had it wipe out WINDOWS !

    I hope this helps your next malicious script.

    Yours In Socialism,
    Kilgore Trout

  11. "Rajendrasinh Babubhai Makwan"? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Any comment at this point would bring the Political Correctness Police down on me like a horde of avenging non-denominational metaphysical winged beings.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:"Rajendrasinh Babubhai Makwan"? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but his friends call him "Raj".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:"Rajendrasinh Babubhai Makwan"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess (by his name) is that this is not an American citizen. Frankly, that's what they get for dropping American workers for those cheap H1B's.

    3. Re:"Rajendrasinh Babubhai Makwan"? by Phoenixhawk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but his friends call him "Raj".

      My gods man, have you never placed a call to tech support, his name is (Tom, Mike, George, or Larry)

    4. Re:"Rajendrasinh Babubhai Makwan"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do the needful.

  12. Security is a process by Covert+Penguin · · Score: 0

    Bruce Schneier is right; security is a process, not a product. The internal threats are just as great, if not greater, than the external ones.

    1. Re:Security is a process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bruce Schneier is right; security is a process, not a product. The internal threats are just as great, if not greater, than the external ones.

      And it appears their security process was rather good - they caught and stopped the threat in time.

    2. Re:Security is a process by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because of a bug in the script which made it error...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Security is a process by powerlord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because of a bug in the script which made it error...

      Which is obviously part of their overall security policy, to only hire incompetent programmers.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    4. Re:Security is a process by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Bruce Schneier is right; security is a process, not a product. The internal threats are just as great, if not greater, than the external ones.

      Internal threats are easily greater than external threats.

      The only saving grace is that internal threats are generally less likely to be malicious.

  13. My goodness! It might have... by Petersko · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...turned Fannie Mae into a financial failure.

    1. Re:My goodness! It might have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "Fixed that for you" and "...you insensitive clod!" are hilarious. They will never die.

      Fixed that for you, you insensitive clod.

    2. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...turned Fannie Mae into a financial failure

      ... which it never was during the 30 years from 1968 to 2000, roughly when banking deregulation took effect. It may be that such an institution is a bad idea, but you have to consider that financial institutions of all kinds are in desperate condition as well, so you can't use the financial disasters of 2008 as proof that Fannie is any worse an idea than, say, a private investment bank.

      The idea that Fannies failure shows that it ought never have been, applied consistently, would argue for nationalizing banks. I, as one who has been a staunch liberal though the long winter of liberal dispute, think nationalization is a terrible idea. This is not because the government is bad and business is good, but because government and business would be indistinguishable, leaving nobody to watch the foxes in the chicken coop.

      All in all, I think the widespread calamity in the financial sector more probably indicates that the particular kind of banking deregulation practiced in the post Gramm-Leach-Bliley era has at the very least unintended consequences.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:My goodness! It might have... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sympathetic to the idea that deregulation had a hand in the financial implosion but I'm not sure I understand the logic behind blaming "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" specifically. It seems that, in the early stages of the crisis before it cascaded to impact everyone it was the least diversified investment banks that were remnants of Glass-Stiegall that had, and caused, the most trouble and the most diversified banks that would have been illegal before Gramm were the healthiest and in a few cases because it wasn't illegal (as it would have been without Gramm) were able to ride to the rescue of the more strictly focussed investment banks that were at the financial ground zero. It seems there are probably other decisions having to do with regulating mortgage backed securities, or the degree to which banks could leverage their assets that are more to blame. (Though I can understand the a political logic behind blaming "Gramm" it since Gramm was one of McCain's advisors so it's politically convenient to use "Gramm" as shorthand for deregulation generally even though Gramm's bill itself was probably only a minor contributor to the problem, or perhaps even mitigated some of the damage.)

    4. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that GLBA isn't the whole story, or even necessarily the main part of the story. In fact I'm fairly certain it's going to take years to sort out the story. Economists still disagree over the causes of the Great Depression, after all.

      One of the striking aspects of this story is the degree to which CEOs of banks had no idea what their banks were investing in. This is a consequence, I believe, of GLBA encouraging financial institutions to become both bigger and more complex. It's not, of course an inevitable consequence. But there is another aspect of GLBA to consider. The diversification of banks created an avenue for the crisis to spread to all kinds of assets. Even if an asset did not directly contain mortgage based securities, it certainly had components which depended on the solvency of other institutions with exposure to mortgage based risk.

      This is why TARP couldn't operate as it was originally conceived. It was supposed to by up risky assets, but the problem wasn't contained to assets that that directly contained mortgages. It was too late, especially after the decision to let Bear Sterns collapse, to contain the uncertainty about all institutions.

      Again, I'm not saying that things are as simple as saying no GLBA, no crisis, with GLBA inevitable crisis. It is probable we'd have some kind of crisis anyway, given the same policies without GLBA. I believe that GLBA and the collapse of Bear Sterns accelerated the spread of the crisis. Absent either one and I believe that damage could have been contained more quickly and effectively.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:My goodness! It might have... by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... which it never was during the 30 years from 1968 to 2000, roughly when banking deregulation took effect. It may be that such an institution is a bad idea, but you have to consider that financial institutions of all kinds are in desperate condition as well, so you can't use the financial disasters of 2008 as proof that Fannie is any worse an idea than, say, a private investment bank.

      Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served an unusual role. They were a huge source of poorly understood risk. And their special status with government resulted in their securities instruments being considered more sound than they actually were. They helped start the financial disaster. Frankly, due to their exceptional size, I think the economic problems now would be considerably better in their absence. Other banks would have taken their place and made the same bad decisions. But those private banks wouldn't have the same access to capital.

    6. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, but the wise men of wall street were supposed to have their exalted status because they knew how to grade and price risk better than ordinary mortals. If I were a Citibank investor, and Charlie Prince told me to my face that the reason my stock was in the toilet wast that Franklin Raines pulled a two bit Svengali act on him, I'd spit in Prince's eye.

      And with respect to Fannie and Freddie's "special status with the government", what, exactly is this special status they enjoy? That they are too big to fail? That's hardly confined to Fannie and Freddie. The only thing that is special is that they were started by the government; aside from that they don't have any more clout than any other private institution that controls astronomical sums of money (which admittedly leaves room for that being too much clout).

      In fact Freddie was started for the exact too-many-eggs-in-one-basket concerns you raise. It doesn't matter how many baskets the economy's eggs are in, if the rules create an incentive to place them all in the same precarious position.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:My goodness! It might have... by T3hD0gg · · Score: 1

      Hmm? I thought there were 32 years between 1968 and 2000... I must be wrong though.

    8. Re:My goodness! It might have... by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

      Lol, if only I had mod points :)

    9. Re:My goodness! It might have... by antibryce · · Score: 1

      barney frank dated the ceo of fannie mae for many years. chris dodd got sweetheart deals from countrywide. citigroup just sponsored a trip the caribbean for 5 democrats.

      regulation or not, the foxes are already in the chicken coop, and nobody is watching them.

    10. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Missed that high school science class where they talked about precision, did you?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Talk about looking for a piece of straw in a haystack.

      I'm less concerned about the corrupting infuene that kind of "in bed" than the kind that keeps funneling money to election campaigns. For one thing, when its over its over. A politician corrupted is corrupted forever.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:My goodness! It might have... by syousef · · Score: 1

      ...turned Fannie Mae into a financial failure.

      Hey this guy is an idiot and should be prosecuted - you simply can't let people get away without paying for malicious damage like the - but is anyone on the case to make sure the idiots that ran the business into the ground are nailed if they did the slightest thing wrong? They did a lot more wrong.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    13. Re:My goodness! It might have... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      I'm still skeptical. Glass Steagall didn't prevent the lending institutions from lending to investment institutions which is how the contagion has spread from brokerage to bank. It prevented the ownership of both lending institutions and investment institutions by the same entity. But, in this incident it was almost without exception narrowly focused institutions mandated by Glass that have instigated the crisis. The worst damage has been done to, and by, narrow investment banks that got killed when their investment in mortgage backed securities ended up being worth nothing, or in lending institutions narrowly focussed in the mortgage business. The broadly diversified banks that have their hands in all sorts of business took a bath in those areas as well... BUT they were stabilized by their other businesses offsetting their losses. They didn't initiate the crisis, have weathered the storm better and have ridden in to rescue the broken firms (either looking to diversify further into investment banking, or hoping they can somehow mitigate their own losses by buying firms that owe them a lot of money)

      Bear Stearns for just one example was exactly the kind of narrowly focussed investment banks required by Glass-Steagall, JP Morgan Chase which bought it up and prevented it's dissolution is exactly the kind of large diversified bank permitted by Gramm (as is the fact that it's legal for Chase to buy them in the first place)

      I've read a lot on this controversy over Glass-Steigal vs. Gramm-Leach-Bliley and most of the time when the general punditry or a politician blames Gramm for the crisis there's no explanation of how it's at fault... it's just stated as a truism that requires no explanation. In those cases I suspect the reason is really a knee-jerk opposition to deregulation generally, and Phil Gramm's position as a McCain advisor during the election than any actual analysis of how the act actually impacted the crisis. When more informed economist pundits have made the argument I frankly just couldn't follow their logic. That could be a product of my own economic ignorance but I suspect it's just hand-waving trying to find a way to assign blame on someone they're predisposed against & the bill named for him rather than the product of really honest analysis.

      If you want to blame Phil Gramm there's a much better argument to make against him based on his role championing the deregulation of derivatives but that has the disadvantage that the bill didn't bear his name, and worse it was passed by an overwhelming majority of both parties in the house, by unanimous consent in the senate and signed by President Clinton so its hard to pin on him individually or Republicans generally.

    14. Re:My goodness! It might have... by khallow · · Score: 1

      True, but the wise men of wall street were supposed to have their exalted status because they knew how to grade and price risk better than ordinary mortals. If I were a Citibank investor, and Charlie Prince told me to my face that the reason my stock was in the toilet wast that Franklin Raines pulled a two bit Svengali act on him, I'd spit in Prince's eye.

      As I see it, the finance industry has long enjoyed an undeserved reputation. The key thing to remember in these situations is that their interests are not your interests. I don't know about the regulations in question, but my impression is that there was after the deregulation insufficient alignment of the leadership's interests with the customers' interests. And frankly a lot of that blame has to lie at the feet of the customers. It's one reason I'm a strong believer in strictly enforced savings insurance along with a deductible, say 10% of the savings account. Regulations as they stand insulate the customer from too much risk associated with the choices the customer makes.

      And with respect to Fannie and Freddie's "special status with the government", what, exactly is this special status they enjoy? That they are too big to fail? That's hardly confined to Fannie and Freddie. The only thing that is special is that they were started by the government; aside from that they don't have any more clout than any other private institution that controls astronomical sums of money (which admittedly leaves room for that being too much clout).

      The explicit link is that they have access to a vague but substantial credit line from the US government. The government connection however tenuous has been good enough that their bonds could be discounted by several tenths of a percent over investments of equivalent risk (once you ignore the government connection, that is). That's big money in the investment world especially over several decades of operation. It resulted in a huge concentration of assets (on the order of a trillion dollars, maybe more) in these two companies. They simply could take on larger investments and investments of greater risk than companies without these advantages.

      In fact Freddie was started for the exact too-many-eggs-in-one-basket concerns you raise. It doesn't matter how many baskets the economy's eggs are in, if the rules create an incentive to place them all in the same precarious position.

      The thing to remember here is that my observation wasn't that the housing bubble wouldn't happen. The precarious, too-many-eggs-in-one-basket situation would still occur. But that there would be fewer eggs in the basket. That in turn would have helped protect the rest of the economy when failure happened.

    15. Re:My goodness! It might have... by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's not the stamp of Gramm's name on the bill that makes it suspect to my way of thinking, it's the stamp of his philosophy. I have no animus against Phil Gramm, as you seem to think. A lot of people on the right and left have trouble thinking about politics on any level higher than personal hostility. If Gramm sponsored a resolution declaring oxygen to be the official respiratory gas of the United States, I know that a lot of people would probably try to hold their breath indefinitely, but I would not be one of them.

      Now the left has got power, and there are a lot of people on my side who see this as payback time. I think that's a mistake. The Republican leadership overreached and let hostility make them stupid. I think it's a mistake to copy that, but there you go.

      It's right, of course, to be skeptical of any theory that is to neat, like, it's all GLBA's fault. I don't subscribe to such a simplistic explanation. Nor do I subscribe to the theory that diversification per se contributed to the instability of banks. But what is medicine in one context is poison in another. Under the business and regulatory practices that prevailed in the better part of the last decade, diversification has certainly not been a shield against instability, and has been an avenue for instability to spread among poorly managed banks.

      I own JP Morgan Chase stock, by the way, so I certainly don't think diversification is the automatic kiss of doom by any means.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:My goodness! It might have... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 1

      I should clarify... I don't think it's a case of personal animus against Phil Gramm, I think politicians and the more partisan pundits have a political reason to identify a bill which prominently contains his name (as the most prominent Free Market purist & a chief McCain advisor) as the primary cause of the crisis when the particular bill doesn't appear to have had a big effect on the crisis.

      Now, the argument that he as a politician and the laissez faire policies he favored more generally contributed to the crisis is a legitimate argument. I'll be honest, I don't fully buy that argument... but it's a legitimate one to make and it deserves serious consideration. It's unfortunate that this larger point ends up encapuslated in a debate about a particular bill that doesn't appear to have much impact when other bills and policies are much more relevant and appear to be much more at fault in precipitating the crisis. I think the politicians have traded a serious argument about deregulation for a few cheap political points based almost entirely on the presence of a mans name in a bill rather than it's actual provisions and their impact. It probably is effective politics in the short run but I suspect in the long run it weakens their argument.

  14. It's a deal! by cfulmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Considering that Fannie Mae has been losing billions every week, the idea of only losing a few million for a week sounds like a great idea.

    1. Re:It's a deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much do you suppose all of the banks and credit unions that depend on Fannie Mae would have lost?

    2. Re:It's a deal! by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Your honor, I didn't want to cause damage, actually, I wanted to help save a little money by only damaging them for a few millions so they cannot blow billions of taxpayer money this week"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. I am .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

  16. Technically by cowscows · · Score: 5, Funny

    Technically, all of the data in a computer is really just a bunch of ones and zeros, so assuming a fairly even mix of those two possibilities, writing over everything with zeros would only change half of their data.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    1. Re:Technically by wren337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Great defense.
      "In fairness, a lot of those were zeros already."

    2. Re:Technically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      technically, if there is no way to discern which were the original zeros and which were the new zeros, all of your data is still lost

    3. Re:Technically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *applauds*

    4. Re:Technically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The script must have run already, my account balance is all zeros.

    5. Re:Technically by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Technically, all of the data in a computer is really just a bunch of ones and zeros, so assuming a fairly even mix of those two possibilities, writing over everything with zeros would only change half of their data.

      Actually, since one and zero is zero, it wouldn't change the actual data. However, it would change the representation of the data to allow for extremely efficient compression, thus freeing up a lot of hard drive space. This guy was simply doing his duty and doing it well.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Technically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha

      That's funny cows!

  17. Maybe he used Perl. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perl can do just about anything.

  18. This just had to be he one thing they get right by Zolodoco · · Score: 1

    What could have been. On the other hand. It could also have been Fannie Mae execs attempting to cover up illegal activities and fraud. In that case, nice catch!

  19. Re:IP by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    The report is obviously not a techy. Its "IP Address"!

    But is the reporter a science guy?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  20. Interesting Comment in TFA by tristanreid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course it isn't verifiable, but I thought this was interesting:

    H1B#36a: "What wasn't reported was that the contractor was fired for writing a script poorly, that caused the failover over of a number of High-Availablitity production servers. His "landmine/timebomb" script was found through his same poor scripting skills. Whatever doping manager that hired that guy should be fired too, along with his director and VP!"

    -t.

    1. Re:Interesting Comment in TFA by bsane · · Score: 1

      Thats sounds like the FNMA I know :-)

    2. Re:Interesting Comment in TFA by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yup that's the Fannie Mae I came to know and love.

      I wonder if Joe White has learned how to spell yet?

    3. Re:Interesting Comment in TFA by t-twisted · · Score: 1

      That man makes a very strong case for an elementary education being a minimum requirement for a Director position in any publicly-traded company.

    4. Re:Interesting Comment in TFA by bsane · · Score: 1

      Wo, I tink we mght all now each ather. Its ben long enuf I cnat quit rember how bad teh mails from hmi wer, but purty bad I think.

      And hes the FUCKING DIRECTOR!

  21. Ha, Yeah, that old gag. by corychristison · · Score: 0

    Are you sure it was actually malicious?

    I remember I was accused of malicious behaviour when my teacher say me writing HTML code. I was banned from use of any computer in the building until I hit high school.

    (yea, yea.. this is a little more serious. I know.)

    1. Re:Ha, Yeah, that old gag. by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 1

      One would think if the sys admin's who opted in reporting this issue and provided technical details to law enforcement would know whether it was actually malicious.

      If you were caught using a blink or marquee tag, then you owe your teacher a debt of gratitude.

      I got a hearing front of the superintendent for ctrl-C'n out of a batch login prompt, and playing a $5 star trek diskette from a magazine type distribution. They threatened expulsion, but settled for a string of Saturday detentions. I'm glad that happened in the mid 90's, cause who knows the string of felonies you'd be hit with now on it.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    2. Re:Ha, Yeah, that old gag. by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Way back in the day, I confused a teacher. I was playing with Quickbasic on I think a Win3.1 box. I made a silly random graphic thing, at 640x480 resolution. It would draw lines on the screen, and throw random blocks of color around. I was bored.

          Random characters went well, until it hit the bell character. :) The beep gave me away at first, so I changed it to just do the blocks at random coordinates.

          The teacher came by, saw what I was doing, and asked.

          "Oh, I was just writing a little program to make something pretty on the screen. I was bored."

          This was a beginning computer class. The teacher was sure that it was impossible, so I broke it and showed him the code. I was told not to do it any more.

          Ya, I remember why I didn't like school much. It was boring.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  22. Woah by bFusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is like if someone mixed the movies Office Space and Fight Club together!

    1. Re:Woah by maino82 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The first rule of PC Load Letter is you don't talk about PC Load Letter.

    2. Re:Woah by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does that mean?

    3. Re:Woah by NoisySplatter · · Score: 1

      His name is Henry Paulson.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    4. Re:Woah by snowtigger · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sounds like someone had a case of the Mondays...

    5. Re:Woah by initialE · · Score: 1

      The stapler is in his hands... The stapler is in _my_ hands...

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    6. Re:Woah by BriggsBU · · Score: 1

      If this is your first night, you have to use the new cover sheets for your TPS reports.

  23. So what they're saying... by Murpster · · Score: 1

    Fannie Mae doesn't keep backups of their critical data? Awesome. No wonder they're so successful!

    1. Re:So what they're saying... by dfdashh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fannie Mae most certainly does have backups. Having a backup and the time to recover said backup, though, are two very different things.

      --
      df -h /my/head
    2. Re:So what they're saying... by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Right. Which is why they would be down for a week.

  24. Might have been a good idea... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    Maybe it would have gotten rid of them (should have happened when they went bankrupt, like what happens to most companies)...

    Slightly sarcastic, but with a point.

  25. Re:IP by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

    The real question is how did they prove he was the person at the keyboard at the time the IP address was used?

    ZING!!

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!
  26. Public flogging by m0s3m8n · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    It's high time for a public flogging.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  27. Re:IP by bsane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They don't need to, I'm sure that:

    1- he was fired that day
    2- the edits came from his account
    3- the login came from his workstation

    Thats more than enough evidence to convict, unless he can prove otherwise. Don't think you need to be caught red-handed with photographic proof to be sent to prison. Circumstantial evidence is more than enough unless you have a good defense.

  28. obviously came to FNME from a wall street bank by swschrad · · Score: 1

    this is their business model over there.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  29. He should be forced by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

    To have an affair with Barney Frank

  30. Wow.. millions?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gosh, what would they do if they lost millions? They're so used to losing billions they'd probably keep accidentally adding extra zeros to the end.

  31. That guy is an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm referring to the guy that pointed out the virus of course. The act of placing a virus to erase the data was an act of great heroism. It would have been great if it worked.

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. So much for by hey! · · Score: 1

    cinema's next The Devil Wears Prada.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  34. Re:Shutdown operations for at least one week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up!

  35. Millions of dollars worth of damage? by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    What about the billions or trillions of dollars of damage done to the taxpayers by Fannie Mae, and its incestuous twin, Freddie Mac? Anyone attempting to take out this job-killing, economically destructive abomination is a patriot.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:Millions of dollars worth of damage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't read much, do you?

  36. Fannie Mae by mfh · · Score: 1

    Land it in the Hudson.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  37. Well, no, you still won't own your house by sirwired · · Score: 4, Informative

    When the deed was recorded at the local records office, the fact that the bank has a lien on it is recorded along with it. The only way to clear that lien is to get the lienholder to have a letter saying so attached to your deed, or you have to have a court do it.

    SirWired

    1. Re:Well, no, you still won't own your house by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      So if a properly forged letter showed up at the country recorder's office, and they removed the lien from your your property, you own it out right? Looks like someone hasn't though their authentication method all the way through.

    2. Re:Well, no, you still won't own your house by NiteShaed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't you think the forgery would come to light when the bank started a foreclosure on you for not paying your mortgage?
      It's not like they'd just say, "Huh, coulda sworn this guy owed us money, must've been mistaken," and walk away...

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    3. Re:Well, no, you still won't own your house by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't believe the number of times someone has paid a secured loan off (house, car, boat, motorcycle, etc) and the bank lost the records, and someone had to go digging to prove the loan had been paid off. So do I think the reverse is possible? Definitely.

    4. Re:Well, no, you still won't own your house by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    5. Re:Well, no, you still won't own your house by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the backup =)

  38. Why oh why by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    couldn't somebody at the credit company do this...and not get caught?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Why oh why by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Thats the problem, you have to trust your Engineers to do their job. Sometimes that trust is breached. To me a dirty engineer is almost as bad as a dirty cop.

    2. Re:Why oh why by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Usually "almost as bad as a dirty cop". If the engineer in question is in some way a subcontractor for any government entity, or a court case is involved, they can be "as" bad as a dirty cop. And I consider that a top level insult.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    3. Re:Why oh why by squallbsr · · Score: 1

      The first step is to NOT PISS OFF the administrator or engineer!

      I seriously do not understand why management type people do not comprehend that pissing off the people who have the keys to your castle is a BAD THING

      --
      Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
    4. Re:Why oh why by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I seriously do not understand why management type people do not comprehend that pissing off the people who have the keys to your castle is a BAD THING

      They are usually right to expect this, the twin hurdles of a) losing your income and b) landing in jail are usually pretty strong motivators.

      While the admin has the ability to wreak havoc, its the same ability that anyone with a baseball bat has to redecorate a glass house. Unless they are on the site, no one can stop you from breaking some windows.

      Civilization as we know it is primarily built on our acceptance that we do not turn around and beat the shit out of someone when they annoy us. That is usually reinforced by fear of the authorities, but really comes from the fact that just about everyone has something to lose if they stop acting as a member in good standing of a society.

      Having said that, I do wonder how many employers do realize just how how close we are at all times to complete chaos. Backups or not, if Fannie Mae had actually fallen prey to this, they'd be in a bad spot. Restoring backups is one thing, but rebuilding those hosts is something else entirely.

    5. Re:Why oh why by Bourbonium · · Score: 1

      Dirty cops are still on a different threat level than dirty engineers. Dirty cops have guns.

  39. Zero vs. Less Than Zero by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    From there, the virus would wipe out all Fannie Mae data, replacing it with zeros

    Wouldn't zero be an improvement over negative whatever?

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Zero vs. Less Than Zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From there, the virus would wipe out all Fannie Mae data, replacing it with zeros

      Wouldn't zero be an improvement over negative whatever?

      Not in binary

    2. Re:Zero vs. Less Than Zero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *mumbles something about sign bit and two's complement*

    3. Re:Zero vs. Less Than Zero by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      I suppose. I'd prefer to see the positive value of my balance becoming '0' instead.

  40. That's okay by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    They might have gone down for a few days, but surely they have recent system back-ups to restore from, and daily backups to restore the data from. ...Right? Please?

    1. Re:That's okay by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      I'm going to guess based on every company that I've ever worked for that execution of this script would have been followed by the sinking realization that the backups were for some reason or other not viable.

      Furthermore based on the level of ineptitude already displayed by Fannie Mae, I wouldn't hold out much hope that they even run backups.

      They can probably go back and get all the information off paper records though...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:That's okay by dotfile · · Score: 1

      You must have worked at a long string of shitty places. At every place I have worked in the past decade and a half we actually *test* our backups, along with our restore process, and have business continuity plans in place for all critical systems... plans which are vetted and tested. It's how professionals do things. Of course I have been working in the financial sector (brokerages & banks) for a while now.

  41. Technically yerself by starglider29a · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A) "...all of the data in a computer ***ARE*** really just a bunch..."
    B) "...just a bunch of ones ***OR*** zeros..."

    1. Re:Technically yerself by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Technically yerself by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      You are wrong on both counts (as grammar nazis often are).

      A) I am aware that "data" was originally the plural of "datum", but its use as a plural is largely antiquated. Its current most common usage is as an uncountable quantity just like "water". It sounds just as weird to say that you have "five data" as to say you have "five waters". You instead have "10GB of data" or "1L of water".

      B) Saying that your data is a bunch of ones and zeroes is absolutely correct. "The animals in the zoo are mammals and reptiles" makes more sense than "mammals or reptiles", doesn't it? " Mammals or reptiles" sounds like it's one or the other and you aren't sure which.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    3. Re:Technically yerself by kae_verens · · Score: 1

      I think you may be wrong there.

      would you say:
      a) "all of the data in a computer is crap"
      b) "all of the data in a computer are crap"

      I know that 'data' is technically a plural, but it's not treated that way by most people.

      also - "ones and zeros" is correct. If you were asked "what numbers are there in that hard-drive", you would not answer "ones or zeros"

      also, to the other replier - "zeros" and "zeroes" are both correct.
      http://www.bartleby.com/68/49/6649.html

    4. Re:Technically yerself by natebarney · · Score: 1

      Its current most common usage is as an uncountable quantity just like "water".

      I wondered for a long time if there was a term for this sort of noun. I don't remember how I discovered it, but the type of noun you're describing is called a mass noun. Its opposite is called a count noun. I'm not correcting you or anything, just passing along some info.

    5. Re:Technically yerself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A) "...all of the data in a computer ***ARE*** really just a bunch..." B) "...just a bunch of ones ***OR*** zeros..."

      A) No, the 'data' here is not the plural of 'datum', it refers to an unspecified quantity of a generic notion of data.

      B) Maybe it is a quantum computer

  42. Now check who sold FNM short by kerubi · · Score: 1

    I wonder, wouldn't this be a quite effective way to manipulate stock value?

    Is it possible to short sell FNM, there were limitations on finance companies in place at some point?

    --
    I joined two users too late.
    1. Re:Now check who sold FNM short by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Meh, considering the stock is at around $0.62 cents, there's not much money to be made shorting it. The time to do THAT was last year...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  43. I see how he did it... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They fired him. And let him have some access before he left.

    Not a good idea. Sadly, you have to be aware of the threat. If you're firing someone with admin access, you should meet with them in a room without a workstation, explain the situation, and send them back to their desk to clean it out - with a monitor to ensure their workstation stays turned off.

    While you're having the meeting, someone shuts down their workstation, disables network access, and - if not concurrently - immediately revokes their privileges. You do not finish the meeting until you receive confirmation that they no longer have access. Usually you have to let them be interviewed before you can kill their access, since some people get suspicious when they can't sign on. Forbid that the Help Desk will assist them in resetting their password. You gotta kill their privileges. The ideal scenario is letting them sign on but have no access to anything. After they are gone, then you can reset the password. Some systems need the access left in place to do forensics or establish their replacement (a sign of inadequate documentation) and thus you have to resort to the password trick.

    If in doubt, I've cut their network cable right off, or even superglued blank plugs in their office jacks while I go back over their privileges. I can replace the jacks easily.

    An unfortunate oversight. Some places have this 'exit interview' with security present. Some, Like Fannie Mae back then, don't think it through.

    Can't be too careful.

    Here, I work in a fairly secure environment. In spite of that, some of my IDs got associated with another employee with the (mostly) same name, go figure. He left at the end of the year. I've been getting access established to many systems as our security group has dutifully deleted my access as his. Too damned efficient.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:I see how he did it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If in doubt, I've cut their network cable right off, or even superglued blank plugs in their office jacks while I go back over their privileges. I can replace the jacks easily.

      This suggestion might not satisfy the paranoia in you but you could just unplug the network\power cables and take them with you... Or maybe you just need to be MODed +5 Hilarious

    2. Re:I see how he did it... by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was just coming here to post something similar to this

      Over the years, there have been numerous "ASK SLASHDOT" and otherwise categorized posts here on the subject of discharge procedures. "I got laid off, and they made me pack up my stuff in front of someone who watched me and then escorted me out of the building. It was humiliating." That kind of thing.

      Well, this event illustrates why some places decide to do it that way. FNMA didn't do it that way with this guy, and he took advantage of the time between firing and removal of access.

    3. Re:I see how he did it... by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course, the way around this would be a "deadman switch" that required input NOT to trash the system.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:I see how he did it... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      i keep a spare cable in my bag. and another in the drawer.

      i would have more trouble getting past a glued plug but it would take a moment.

      but i would actually pull his cable(s) at the switch or disable the port(s). if i had time.

      and yes, i keep superglue handy. never know who needs their drawers stuck shut.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    5. Re:I see how he did it... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Fuck off you ignorant fool. There is no problem in giving someone access after they have been fired, as long as they are not complete dicks. Just because some complete loser tries to fuck up a company, out of so many millions who haven't, should be evidence enough that this is not a good idea.

      Most people are decent, and would not do this, no matter how pissed off they are.

    6. Re:I see how he did it... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      This is the problem;

      Employee has violated policy in the past.
      The potential losses are in the $Bs.
      Legal fiduciary responsibility on your part.

      You CANNOT do anything but handle the situation assuming the worst. Remember, that contractor had a history of not following policy. Your caution is driven by the employee's behavior and the potential risk.

      ps - from your tone, I would treat you as high-risk. Less profanity would have made me much more trusting of you.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  44. Technically yerself, yerself by starglider29a · · Score: 1

    C) ***zeroes***

    Damn, copy/paste

    1. Re:Technically yerself, yerself by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong on all 3.

      a) "Bunch" is singular. That is one bunch of bananas.
      b) I shouldn't have to explain this, but in said bunch, there are ones, and there are zeros. A single bit is a one or a zero; multiple bits, each of which is either a one or a zero, provide a set of that contains both ones and zeros. (Assuming that there is at least 1 one and 1 zero in a given set. If the set were all ones or all zeros, then it would indeed be correct to call it a set of "ones or zeros.")
      c) Spellcheck should provide the insight on this one.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    2. Re:Technically yerself, yerself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong on all 3.

      a) "Bunch" is singular. That is one bunch of bananas.

      Of course it is, but a bunch of is not. You are confusing a numerative with a noun. In this case it is intended as a substitute for many and the plural form is entirely correct.

      And if you are still not convinced, a lot of people probably don't care either way.

  45. Down side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. But what is the downside to all of this?

  46. It won't erase your mortgage... but that's okay. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    Hyperinflation will do that for you.

  47. That is why by hansraj · · Score: 1

    any hacker worth his/her salt should have changed all the ones to zeros and all the zeros to ones! N00BS!!

  48. PROSECUTE PIGMEN MANAGEMENT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astonishing isn't it? If you steal an apple from a street vendor you get the billyclub. This guy will probably be punished in some way. If you wreck an economy we will probably loan you more money to "fix" the problem, and at very worst we'll send you out the door with a really fat bonus. Oh the pain, the pain....

  49. Re:IP by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Depends on the jury you get.

    --
    Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  50. Kinda wish... by jasontromm · · Score: 1

    There's a perverse side of me that kinda wishes the guy had succeeded. I'd love to see the government brought down a couple of notches.

    --
    "Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
    1. Re:Kinda wish... by dotfile · · Score: 1

      Why? So they can waste even MORE of your tax dollars, and mine, repairing the damage? Do you think this would have any lasting effect? It would cost us money -- OUR money -- to have people investigate the root cause, bring the servers back up, remediate, test extensively, restore the data and get it all back on line.

      So what's the point to be made? That we can waste money and screw ourselves? Already demonstrated quite well, thanks.

    2. Re:Kinda wish... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see the government brought down a couple of notches.

            They're doing a perfectly good job all on their own.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Kinda wish... by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the Parent lives in the US (though, mind you, there isn't any evidence to the contrary). If he doesn't live in the US, it doesn't waste a dime of his tax money, and may not hurt him a bit.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    4. Re:Kinda wish... by dotfile · · Score: 1

      A reasonable assumption, since he referred to "the government", and not "the US government". And if he doesn't live in the US, I couldn't give a rat's ass about his opinion of our government -- much like I'm sure no one outside the US would care about my opinion of their government.

  51. I have always said this is the wrong approach by csoto · · Score: 1

    The "Fight Club" style of "getting back at the Man" isn't very practical. There would be some period of disarray, but if you really want to screw things royally, you would introduce random, but very small data errors that hopefully get overlooked. Over time, these affect the balance sheets, the "business algorithms" in place, and generally make it a nightmare to figure out how to fix things. All of this "silent data corruption" would be propagated to disaster recovery systems. Your "backup tapes" would basically contain a perfect copy of bad data. Yes, eventually, you could find the point at which the "disaster" occurred and go back to that time, but if days, weeks, months have passed, how do you replay all of those transactions from that point on? The bank (market, economy, etc.) is screwed.

    Yes, this is a little like the "Superman 3 Salami Slicing Fraud" but the only reason that gets flagged is because there is a net output from the balance sheet. If everything just got twisted up internal to the bank, it would be much easier to hide.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
    1. Re:I have always said this is the wrong approach by WilyCoder · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You have won today's daily "evil bastard" award :) or should that be >;)

    2. Re:I have always said this is the wrong approach by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      Nice idea, but it has already been done, it's called "Microsoft Excel"

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    3. Re:I have always said this is the wrong approach by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      The "Fight Club" style of "getting back at the Man" isn't very practical. There would be some period of disarray, but if you really want to screw things royally, you would introduce random, but very small data errors that hopefully get overlooked.

      If they were truly random, wouldn't they cancel each other out over the long run?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:I have always said this is the wrong approach by csoto · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's the point. By effectively canceling out transactions, you don't raise any alarms, like "where'd all our money go?" Rather, you cause chaos because nobody can tell who owes what money to whom. It's really quite sinister. Considering how the uncertainty surrounding CDOs and mortgage backed securities screwed with the financials, a complete lack of trust in any balance sheet would positively destroy them.

      Anyway, if you do this, just let me know before you do it to MY banks :)

      --
      There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  52. What would TD say about this story.... by OSvsOS · · Score: 1

    Tyler Durden: You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're not an evil hacker that can take down a server farm. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.

    1. Re:What would TD say about this story.... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think taking down a server farm would be included in the "all-singing, all-dancing" part. I mean, demolishing buildings was...

  53. Could have been protected by Ninnle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has the F-M servers been running the latest NinnleBSD, they would have been inpenetrable. The new NinBuster protection suite would have been able to detect and disable the initial attack immediately thanks to its improved adaptive technology.

    1. Re:Could have been protected by Ninnle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they would have been further protected by the fact that nothing useful or important would be running on them!

  54. serious question: what is the right term? by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    it's not a worm or a virus

    its something more than a trojan

    logic bomb?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:serious question: what is the right term? by Cocoronixx · · Score: 1

      it's not a worm or a virus

      its something more than a trojan

      logic bomb?

      Malicious Program?

      --
      "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
    2. Re:serious question: what is the right term? by visible.frylock · · Score: 1

      Sabotage maybe? Doesn't that imply coming from within?

      --
      Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
    3. Re:serious question: what is the right term? by Cocoronixx · · Score: 1

      Sabotage maybe? Doesn't that imply coming from within?

      <kirk>I'm sure you mean sabataje!</kirk>

      --
      "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
  55. what I want to know is .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "a senior computer engineer discovered the virus Oct. 29. The malicious code was hidden after a blank page, and "it was only by chance" that the senior engineer scrolled down and found the virus .. An Internet Protocol address was eventually linked to Makwana's company-issued laptop"

    Why didn't the 'computer monitoring system' detect him inserting the 'malicious script' and what kind of script hides after a 'blank page'?

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  56. If you're going to be pedantic... by shiftless · · Score: 1

    ...how about actually knowing what you're talking about? The grandparent was 100% correct in his original wording. 'Data' is one of those plural nouns which is treated as singular in a grammatical context. Therefore, "is" would be the correct verb in this instance. Secondly, using the word "or" in this context would imply a different--and bizarre--meaning from what the GP intended, because it would imply exclusivity; i.e. the "bunch" is either ones, or zeroes, as opposed to "and" which says that the "bunch" contains both ones and zeroes. Try making the changes you suggested and read it aloud to yourself. It sounds stupid and unnatural, doesn't it?

  57. interesting post .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "They fired him. And let him have some access before he left"

    Interesting, if a little overkill, but why is your interesting post modded flamebait, go figure .. :)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  58. The Formal Criminal Complaint by Octorian · · Score: 5, Informative

    While reading through the article, and some of the talkback, I stumbled across this document which contains results of the actual investigation. It has lots of actual details, and is worth a read. (meanwhile, the news articles are a little too dumbed-down to be of any real value or interest).

    1. Re:The Formal Criminal Complaint by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The complaint was definitely a much better read. Now I'm just trying to figure out who Jessica Nye is.

          A girl... with a badge... and gun... that actually understands IT! I'm in love! :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:The Formal Criminal Complaint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A girl... with a badge... and gun... that actually understands IT! I'm in love! :)

      Just remember treat her right, or you'll be in many worlds of hurt, simultaneously.

    3. Re:The Formal Criminal Complaint by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I'm in love, and she has a gun... I'll always treat her right. :)

          I hope she's not short, fat, ugly, and reads Slashdot religiously. :) Two of those I can deal with. Two I can't.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  59. Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Behrooz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very true. It amazes me that middle class anarchists believe that if the current society is obliterated it will be a net gain for them because a more equitable society will replace it. Historically you're much more likely to end up with a some sort of Pol Pot style nightmare.

    Even as a hardcore liberal, that's my main argument in favor of gun ownership, a well-armed populace, with personal liberty and responsibility as our most essential civic virtues. Where guns are prohibited, the only people with guns are criminals... and the government. In Cambodia, the Khmer took the guns first, and then massacred 40% of their population.

    I just wish other people looked at history and saw the same cautionary tales. The concept that democratic societies are somehow automagically inoculated against totalitarianism strikes me as hopelessly naive. For example, I'm really creeped out at the growing state-sponsored helplessness of our our brothers and sisters in the UK.

    Just more proof that the motheaten left/right paradigm that talking heads are always blathering about hasn't been relevant since the French Revolution. We're all in this together as a society, and if you can't trust your law-abiding neighbors with guns, you need to get to know them better.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
    1. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Fjandr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sadly I used my last mod points about 5 minutes ago on another story.

      Liberal or conservative, I don't tend to lose respect for people on legitimate intellectual differences, but gun control is one of those that has so much historical backing that it should be self-evident. It is not an intellectual difference of opinion, it is the difference between ignorance and being informed and able to think critically about history. There are cons to having open access to firearms in a society, but those cons cannot ever be worse than the worst-case scenarios that have happened time and again without access to them (or when law-abiding citizens give them up voluntarily).

      The concept that democratic societies are somehow automagically inoculated against totalitarianism strikes me as hopelessly naive.

      We're all in this together as a society, and if you can't trust your law-abiding neighbors with guns, you need to get to know them better.

      Truer words have rarely been printed, but sadly there are millions of people who are that hopelessly naive and historically ignorant.

    2. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that people should have access to firearms, but your dismissal of the other view is disingenuous. It could be argued that you yourself aren't thinking critically enough about history. That's certainly the case if you can't defend an alternate interpretation of it. One of the hallmarks of true critical thinking is that you can muster good arguments for both sides, even if you evaluate one set as better than the other. If you did think critically about history, you could see how the message you think it sends it not so clear. Reasonable people can differ on the issue, and have it be due to something other than ignorance on one (or both) people's parts.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Ironica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In Cambodia, the Khmer took the guns first, and then massacred 40% of their population.

      Took the guns... from whom? And how? Did an elected body pass gun control legislation with the support of the populace, and then turn around and engage in wholesale massacre? Somehow I missed that part of the story.

      What's to keep the government from "taking the guns" from a well-armed populace? The same populace? What if the government has bigger guns? They always will, because they have bigger budgets. Your well-armed populace better have fixed anti-aircraft emplacements if someone ever really launches a successful attempt at a military dictatorship in the US.

      So, a well-armed populace cannot prevent the scenario you describe. Which leaves the question, just what *can* it accomplish? There will always be people within the population who are not armed, whether they are unwilling or unable to become so. Should they have their liberty and health threatened by the "well-armed populace?"

      Is there a role for police in your world? Wouldn't any police force that could effectively protect the rights of individuals necessarily require the ability to exert superior force?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    4. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      DEY TUK OUR JOWBZ!

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    5. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Making a compelling argument for the outcome of gun control in the short term is different from recognizing the ultimate outcome should a democratic government fall. I understand that good arguments can be made for it, but only so long as one is willing to understand the overall price that must be paid for taking a short-term view of the issue. The long-term outcome isn't really an opinion open to interpretation. It is an eventuality, just like any other cycle (obviously allowing for something drastic that destroys the particular cycle, but a defense can't be based on something that, while possible, has no prior evidentiary basis). I apologize for not making the scale I was refering to clearer.

      While someone good at argumentation and critical thought can present a decent defense of a given position, there are cases that can only be made through oversight, whether intentional or not, of certain information. One can argue reasonably about whether man greatly influences climate, but one cannot argue that the world will not ever enter another ice age, or that greenhouse gases do not affect planetary heat retention, unless a great body of evidence that points to the contrary (or depending on a "what-if" that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever) is ignored.

    6. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by oh · · Score: 1

      I realise that you are not beign a troll, but I really have to reply to that.

      You site Combodia as an example, I site Gaza. Whatever your polictical believfs are, you have to admit the presence of large numebrs of firearms, and even rockets, did little to prevent a heavily armed military from doing basically whatever they liked.

      Do you honestly think your community could stand up against the US army? Because that is what you are sugesting.

      In the 1700's both sides were armed with primitive firearms, relatively simple to make, with low range. Today, they can send a missile onto your house, bomb from high altitude, shell you from a tank, use a sniper, or even if you could get close enough you are just up against profesional traind soldiers, with bullet proof vests, and machine guns.

      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    7. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing you're forgetting about an insurrection or revolution caused chaotic environment, is that the big guns are only as effective as the logistics needed to support them. Jets and tanks are fuel-hungry equipment, not to mention the resources involved in guarding supplies and munitions. Provided the populace is non-compliant and armed sufficiently to resist being put into internment camps during an upheaval, odds are also good that resource chains will not go unmolested for very long. Places like fuel depots, large food stores, warehouses, and anything that resembles an armory would be an obvious target. Either to be looted or destroyed. Once the jets/tanks/trucks and support equipment are out of fuel, the outcome goes back to who's most willing to risk life and limb while running around with small arms. And at that point, power shifts more to who best controls the food supply.

      It's one thing if a political shizm also falls along geographical boundaries (whoever has the better resources is likely to win), but if it happens everywhere in the country in question to the point of a worst-case-scenario... Well, take a look at some of those unstable anarchistic war-torn countries in Africa. (In countries with collapsed governments, you won't see too much bigger than trucks with 50-cals, unless some outside party providing support wants one side or another to win.)

    8. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea of the number of guns possessed by the citizens of the United States? You think the government is large enough and has enough forces to take everyone's guns at once?

      They might take some of them. They'd take fire from a hell of a lot more of them.

      Police force having the ability to exert superior force? In their dreams. They work really well when they're going after one or two armed felons on the run or who've holed up and don't really want a fight. Going up against much larger armed groups that intend to kill them on sight the police would get slaughtered. They'd kill some gun owners of course but overall they'd be on the wrong side of the equation.

      There's other things to consider too. Things like who'd protect the families of police officers? Who'd protect the police officers at the end of the day? You start trying to disarm the citizens then guess what... you're not going to clock out after work and go home. You have to stay at the station. Get caught out alone and you'll be picked off. Get caught in your bed sleeping you'll wake up to find yourself dead.

      Any attempt to disarm the citizens of the United States would turn very ugly very fast but in the end the citizens would prevail. Count on it.

    9. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir are a fatalist.
      and probably not american since you've been conquered mentally alredy.

    10. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and the people flying the planes dropping the bombs, and the snipers with the bulletproof vests are your neighbors. If the cause is just enough, even the military will defect. Never underestimate society vs government.

    11. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I prefer the Swiss system : everyone makes military service, are allowed to buy their military riffle at the end. They keep it at home. They are forbidden to use it or take it out unless they receive a military order. That prevents the cowboy spirit you see in US and lets the police do its job. In case of massive upbringings, however, everyone will bypass the interdiction.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    12. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      What's to keep the government from "taking the guns" from a well-armed populace? The same populace? What if the government has bigger guns? They always will, because they have bigger budgets. Your well-armed populace better have fixed anti-aircraft emplacements if someone ever really launches a successful attempt at a military dictatorship in the US

      All security is about giving those you are securing against a higher hurdle to clear. "airtight security" has never been invented (well, ok, it was; but the people inside suffocated). The security game has always been not so much about making violation of said security impossible as to make certain that the cost of violating the security higher than the payoff to be had from successfully violating that security.

      In this context, killing 40% of your unarmed population is considerably cheaper than first disarming then massacring them. Further, disarming someone, even with overwhelming force, is a much chancier business than just murdering people who are unarmed. Witness the difficulties that the US military has faced in the recent past confronting forces with considerably less potent weaponry available than that which is available to the US military.

      Is there a role for police in your world? Wouldn't any police force that could effectively protect the rights of individuals necessarily require the ability to exert superior force?

      Police cannot directly protect the rights of individuals effectively or otherwise. Once again, security is about making the payoff from violating security smaller than the cost of doing so. What this means is that Police clean up the mess after someones rights have been violated, then they investigate the violation and ensure that the violator shows up in court (assuming he or she can be caught). In this scenario, hopefully, the cost of being caught and punished is greater than the payoff from violating someones rights*. Short of having a police officer on every street corner, and in every home (or a camera... hmmm, where have I seen that scenario before?) , Only citizens can protect their own rights and the rights of those people around them. Armed citizens do so far more effectively than unarmed citizens. Moreover, the fact that we are discussing the murder of 40% of a nations citizens by its government, not as a horrible hypothetical but as a grim reality is a clear manifestation of the need to protect citizens rights not just from each other, but from the government as well.

      *(IMO, this is why criminals tend, by and large, to be profoundly stupid: Of the people not prevented from committing crime by their own conscience, the stupid ones assess the risk/reward equation badly)

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    13. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      you have to admit the presence of large numebrs of firearms, and even rockets, did little to prevent a heavily armed military from doing basically whatever they liked.

      What the Israeli military would have liked would have been the elimination of Hamas and the prevention of future rocket/mortar/suicide attacks on the citizens of Israel.

      I don't know about the author of the gp post, but as neither objective has been accomplished, I'm not quite ready to admit much of anything just yet.

      Care to speculate on the fate of the Palestinians if they were not armed?

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    14. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Red dawn my friend, classic movie portraying how the people with guns can make a difference at keeping Americc free! Plus you get to see Patrick Swayze die...woot woot bonus!

    15. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, a well-armed populace cannot prevent the scenario you describe.

      Absolutely, 100% WRONG. See Iraq, where a group of well-armed citizens armed with only small arms and improvised explosives made life absolutely for the most powerful military on the planet. This is after repeated calls for the Iraqis to turn in their guns, snitch on their neighbors for reward, etc.

      BTW, legal gun owners AREN'T the ones "threatening the liberty and health" of those without guns -- that's what violent criminals do who simply ignore any law you pass about using guns, knives, or clubs to rob, rape, or kill someone else. From Wikipedia: "Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason." Quit restating the myth that legal gun owners pose any substantial threat to those who choose to be without guns -- there's absolutely nothing which backs up that statement, anywhere.

    16. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Those guns sure as hell keep Israel from taking over completely, don't they?

    17. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Funny how leftists claim that a well-armed populace can't defend itself against a rogue government, but at the same time claim that if the USA tries to intervene in Iraq or Afghanistan it will be another Vietnam. Both the Vietnamese and the Iraqis had some aircraft, but they were mostly obsolete models and air superiority was not a great issue. It basically comes down to competent use of small-arms, strategy, and tactics.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      I'd sure like to hear about this "cowboy spirit." Care to enlighten me?

    19. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that system works because forbidding everyone to take their rifle out unless ordered will stop a sociopath dead in his tracks.

    20. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Ironica · · Score: 1

      So, a well-armed populace cannot prevent the scenario you describe.

      Absolutely, 100% WRONG. See Iraq, where a group of well-armed citizens armed with only small arms and improvised explosives made life absolutely for the most powerful military on the planet.

      ...halfway around the world from their home base.

      When the guerrillas have the home field advantage and the invader doesn't the results are often pretty dismal for the invader. When they're both at home, though? Different story.

      BTW, legal gun owners AREN'T the ones "threatening the liberty and health" of those without guns -- that's what violent criminals do who simply ignore any law you pass about using guns, knives, or clubs to rob, rape, or kill someone else. From Wikipedia: "Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason." Quit restating the myth that legal gun owners pose any substantial threat to those who choose to be without guns -- there's absolutely nothing which backs up that statement, anywhere.

      Ok, first of all, you're citing Floriduh statistics as an example of efficiently-run government... pardon me if I'm hardly convinced. Secondly, you're saying that the government hasn't revoked permits, not that the gun owners haven't committed crimes or are less likely to commit crimes. 0.011% of permit holders have been convicted of crimes involving a firearm; how does that compare to the general population? With about 0.45% percent of the Florida population behind bars in 2000, and knowing about a third of those are likely for drug offenses (based on nationwide statistics), then you have to wonder if the number of remaining offenses, some of which are non-violent (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), which involved guns exceeds about 10% of the total. Maybe it does. I can't find those stats right now, but I'll bet they exist; if you want to prove something, you need to normalize your data somehow, so you might want to dig. (In trying to find a comparable general population statistic, I found this article which calls into question the quoted statistic on its face, btw.)

      Am I supposed to be reassured that they haven't revoked very many permits period?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    21. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Making a compelling argument for the outcome of gun control in the short term is different from recognizing the ultimate outcome should a democratic government fall. I understand that good arguments can be made for it, but only so long as one is willing to understand the overall price that must be paid for taking a short-term view of the issue.

      One argument I often heard presented to counter the claim that gun control exposes society to the risk of totalitarian takeover, is that civilians with guns are no match for a trained army with tanks and missiles, so widespread gun ownership won't be effective at preserving liberty. If we're doomed to servitude guns or no guns, then gun control looks a lot more attractive. This argument intuitively seems wrong, but I haven't quite worked out a good counter to it. Any suggestions?

    22. Re:Hence the need for a well-armed civil society. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It intuitively seems wrong because it is based on the assumption that a vastly superior force can win solely on a tactical advantage. Guerrillas have a strategic advantage that allows them to minimize the damage that tactical superiority can provide. This has been amply displayed in almost every insurgency in history. The few that have been put down were done so as a result of genocide, where a racial difference allows for instantaneous positive identification (this occurred in the US through the nearly complete annihilation of Native tribes who fought back).

      Groups that have a vast tactical disadvantage can inflict casualties far in excess of their force levels. Examples of this are Vietnam, Afghanistan (against the two largest superpowers of the modern age), Iraq, Northern Ireland, and Spain (the Basque). Without a racial element to identify the insurgency, an army must use a scorched earth policy to have the slightest hope of beating the insurgency militarily. In the case of the US, that means the army must destroy their own homeland in order to win. You can understand why that is an unlikely route to victory.

  60. Re:IP by Americano · · Score: 1

    The report is obviously not a techy. Its "IP Address"!

    Actually, the article in the DC Examiner follows generally accepted style guidelines for using initialisms and acronyms. You spell it out the first time the term is used, and follow the full term with the acronym or initialism in parentheses, e.g. "Internet Protocol (IP) address." If the initialism is used only once in a story (as it is here), it's also generally acceptable to omit the parenthetical after the full spelling.

    The reporter is obviously not a techie. It's "IP Address"!

    Given that your 10-word criticism of the reporter's story contained no less than 3 grammar & spelling mistakes, perhaps you should fix up your own glass house before you throw stones at someone else's?

  61. Hey by jav1231 · · Score: 0

    Maybe it was the same script that kept Congress from knowing what was going on there.

  62. It is easy if you are in the right position. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    At the end companies have to trust somebody to run the show.

    That somebody can do pretty much as he pleases.

    I think the only way this will be addressed is by creating supervisory accounts which require the mutual acknowledgement of several people to run a script or command.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  63. overblown by ILuvRamen · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you really think about, their idiotic top level management were still able to do more damage to the company than this virus would have. Now that's amazing!

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
  64. Re:Really? Really Easy... by Not+The+Real+Me · · Score: 1

    "A virus that can propagate through an entire enterprise's array of servers, and then wipe out all data?...Getting a program to run on all of them..."

    Here's the code to wipe-out a database.
    Generic SQL version:
    drop database fanny_mae;

    MSSQL2005 version:
    alter database fanny_mae set single_user with rollback immediate;
    go;
    drop database fanny_mae;
    go;

    Any server level triggers to block or log this would also have to be disabled prior to issuing these commands, which is pretty trivial if you've got admin access which the guy did.

  65. hope you have a fixed interest loan then! by a302b · · Score: 1

    :-) Unfortunately, if hyperinflation hits, the banks will just raise your flexible interest rate loan to 10,000% or whatever.

    --
    Unity in Diversity
    1. Re:hope you have a fixed interest loan then! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Anybody who is still on an ARM right now is nuts.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  66. I'm saddened that this was stopped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading how much time and thought was put into the scripts in question, and how awesomely they would have tore up the death star evil megalomaniac corporate satanic giant, I guess I am disappointed that it was stopped.

    I secretly hope that there are other scripts that were not detected, or that another employee will finish off where our hero was martyred.

    God Bless Freedom!

  67. Simplest of all possible exploits by mcoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From reading the actual court complaint, it seems the hacker put his malicious script at the bottom of a valid script which ran at well determined times. If that work place is anything like the work places I've haunted, then that script was probably kept in CVS. No doubt the boss in question was looking at the script because he wondered what the just fired employee would have put in the script.

  68. Re:IP by GreggBz · · Score: 1

    The court document is authored by Jessica A. Nye Science Gal.

    Perhaps that was your joke? :-)

  69. Fight Club Solution to world problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reminds me a the end a fight club when the worlds top banks all get blown up and all the credit is erased.

    HAHA NOW THERES A SOLUTION

  70. Many parties to blame in this mess. by orlanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not being able to buy conforming loans is not an option for Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The bank goes, "Here is a consolidated loan that meets the specs. Give me money." They have a little control over why types of loans and the ratio mix they currently accept, but much of the control over what is rejected is based on the conformity.

    I remember that FM in the beginning stated that due to the newly realized risk (which the banks actually restated), they would have to cut down on the number of subprime and similar loans accepted by them to reduce the over all reassessed risk of its assets. But then the government stepped in and said no, as that would adversely effect the current messed up market. A kind of "Keep doing the wrong thing, maybe it will blow over."

    There are many parties involved here well beyond FM. The largest blame goes to banks and the real estate industry which in some cases, fudged the load parameters to pass the conformity as they knew NO one else would buy that crappy $500k loan to the guy who made $30k a year. The bank always took the blunt of the liability (due to the load structure w/ FM), but they got greedy thinking the house comes with the liability, and if the house appreciates, they come out way on top. The house estimates weren't realistic as they were based on the past few years of performance and not actual market conditions (key factor: rate of increase in people's salaries). The agents enticed the home owners and sellers to buy or sell on this false home evaluation.

    China and US are also to blame as the former kept buying the securities backed by the US. China owns the majority of US debt through the securities. Normally what would have happened is that a buyer of a loan will eventually go "You got enough debt, I don't think you can afford anymore." or "I hold enough of your debt, and cash, you got to give me a far better return." Instead, China just kept regulating their currency, keeping the dollar well over valued and kept buying securities. On the flip side, the seller of the loan, not being able to make payments would have either stopped asking for crack money (reduce riskly loans) or default on many of the loans. But instead we stole money from those who still had it, to keep the lender happy and STILL asked for a shit load of loans (FM tax bailout by government via infusion of cash).

    Home owners and home builders are to blame. People don't like this idea but the majority of the owners who can't pay fall into two groups: those who were stupid, and those who saw it as a great short term investment. Both of these should have done more homework. The later deserve losing their assets and the bankruptcy. And stupidity doesn't mean you get a bailout. Instead of letting these folks fall into bankruptcy (remember, this is a viable option in the US), we want to protect them and keep them in their homes. What people don't realize is that bankruptcy gives you a clean slate, quickly resets assets to their correct values, and teaches a valuable lesson. But instead we would rather protect them from a lesson learned, keep the home price overinflated (the perpetuating cause of this mess) and require overinflated loans to continue the mess. So basically we let the idiots keep the homes, new owners (includes honest, responsible ppl) out in the cold (plus we take their money through taxes), and reward poor decisions (some of them being mistakes is irrelevant). Our HOPE is that dollar inflation (bailouts, government overspending not compensated via taxes, overvalued assets, and China floating their currency) will devalue the homes and increase salaries (not actual value) enough to make us whole again. The retarded home builders didn't think, "There are 10 skyscrapers being built in Atlanta, will there be a market for a 11th?" or "I am building 500 overpriced $500k homes here, are there that many buyers in this area?" Their business cycles are in terms of 3-5 years, yet they based their estimates AT most on the last 6?!!! If they looked further back, ins

    1. Re:Many parties to blame in this mess. by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      I wanted to upmod you, but I think you missed something. You can't blame just builders and stupid homeowners. You have to give a lot of it to the ass hats who got them into these loans. They're everywhere and they knew what they were doing. Loan officers and real estate agents have always been looking for the quick buck, and when the high risk loans became easier to use, they hopped on the money train and milked it dry in a few years looking for as many commissions as possible. Many times they'd happily forge your income saying "you'll just refinance in five years."

      These people knew that they were leveraging loans for people who could never afford them even at month one, but it was no longer their responsibility and they had their check for 1.5% of the sale. No, I wasn't foolish enough to fall into the trap, but I know plenty who did. Equal blame. If you were told by a realtor that your combined income of $2200/mo was more than enough to pay the $1500/mo mortgage, would you believe that? Did you forget about your insurance, all the rest of what is ESCROWed (that the realtor 'forgot' to include in the figures)? Oh, then there is property taxes. And utilities.. Oh, still squeaking under your $2200/mo? Great. What about food? Transport?

      Yeah, a lot of people are just dumb enough to get taken, but the thief is just as much to blame.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  71. justice by kaoshin · · Score: 1

    I'm sure an alleged cyberterrorist named Rajendrasinh Babubaha Makwana will get a swift trial in a U.S. court.

  72. Disclaimer. by orlanz · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I meant to put this disclaimer in, but forgot.

    I used to work at Fannie Mae through a contracted company. We did Regulations work. On that, I would say FM has its problems, just like all companies do, but as per their management, they were probable somewhere between a government entity and private sector.

    Also on the article, I think we are missing quite a bit of information. Knowing their systems and the external cash flow relationships, I think what is simply stated is actually quite impossible. I doubt it would have been as simple to make a virus, and get away with it.

  73. How is shutting down Fannie Mae bad? by iliketrash · · Score: 1

    Remind me--shutting down Fannie Mae is bad in what sense?

  74. Civilization relies on most people not being evil by sirwired · · Score: 1

    Yes, if you forge a Notary stamp, it is fairly trivial to get the Deeds office to record whatever you want them to record.

    However, eventually the bank will notice when you stop paying them and they attempt to foreclose. Also, this is the sort of crime the local DA usually does find time to prosecute.

    As with society, this mechanism relies on the vast majority of the populace being honest. Just like the locks on my house are no real deterrent to a determined thief, the requirement to have a Notary stamp is no real barrier to somebody who would like to commit title fraud.

    This sort of crime is also while virtually all mortgage banks require the purchase of title insurance when buying a house.

    SirWired

  75. Barney Strikes Again by banished · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) paid him?

  76. Greenish by Noctris · · Score: 1

    "Finally, the virus would shut down the servers."
    Jeeez.. even virusses go green these days..