Slashdot Mirror


Hackers Breached US Army Servers

An anonymous reader writes "A Turkish hacking ring has broken into 2 sensitive US Army servers, according to a new investigation uncovered by InformationWeek. The hackers, who go by the name 'm0sted' and are based in Turkey, penetrated servers at the Army's McAlester Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma in January. Users attempting to access the site were redirected to a page featuring a climate-change protest. In Sept, 2007, the hackers breached Army Corps of Engineers servers. That hack sent users to a page containing anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric. The hackers used simple SQL Server injection techniques to gain access. That's troubling because it shows a major Army security lapse, and also the ability to bypass supposedly sophisticated Defense Department tools and procedures designed to prevent such breaches."

10 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. Re:wood for the trees by dk90406 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are wrong on so many levels. If you can't even bother to protect against simple things as SQL injection, I have a nasty feeling about the overall security.
    Why aren't classified information on a separate network, not connected to the Net? Please: this is not 1980 anymore - protect critical information seriously.

  2. I thought Information Week was sensible. by goldaryn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So much for Information Week being reasoned and sensible.

    "Equally troubling is the fact that the hacks appear to have originated outside the United States. Turkey is known to harbor significant elements of the al-Qaida network. It was not clear if "m0sted" has links to the terrorist group."

    Hooray for sensationalism!

  3. Hyperbole? by mpapet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I didn't bother to RTFA, but summary is inflamatory at best.

    A public-facing, high-profile (perception) server gets compromised? That's not news.

    Let's say it is news for a minute. What was the budget for this public-facing project? This is not a "major Army security lapse" by any stretch of the imagination.

    Of course, my line of thinking wouldn't be widely accepted because it ignores the emotional response that the summary probably provokes in most people.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  4. Re:wood for the trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do you know that classified intelligence was even obtained? Why are you even assuming that the security of these servers, an ammunition plant and the Army Corps of Engineers no less, will have the same security as that of the Pentagon? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the Army would appropriate security based on how vital their assets are?

  5. Re:wood for the trees by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why aren't classified information on a separate network, not connected to the Net

    It is, in fact there are multiple, separate networks.

    Other than the author repeating the word "sensitive" over and over again, there wasn't anything concrete in the article about whether the information was actually classified. I suspect it wasn't.

  6. Re:Amazing. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you know the code was recently written? More likely, the app was written years ago, before the phrase "sql injection" was even coined.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  7. Again????? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Again?

    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

    It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'.

    Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

    So, what do I need to do, type really really slow?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  8. Re:wood for the trees by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, I'd say that any website from a personal website with nothing terribly important on it to the system used to launch nuclear weapons should guard against something as simple as SQL injection. Now, you might not want to have passwords 468000 characters long for a lower security website, but surely blocking SQL injection is something all websites should guard against.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  9. Ho hum by bartwol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Web server page redirection? Should that scare me? I mean, it's not quite as if somebody smuggled munitions or fired a weapon.
    "Oh...but the breach reveals the military's vulnerability."
    Does it? To what?
    Answer: To webserver page redirection.
    Might there be greater risk here? Perhaps. But no evidence was presented to indicate that. Get back to me when you've identified a MATERIAL RISK, not merely a TECHNICAL VULNERABILITY.
    As for those of you who have hopes and expectations that ALL THINGS MILITARY will be secure...WTF?

  10. SQL Injection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm hardly one to defend MS products, but come on.

    SQL injection is hardly "a security vulnerability in Microsoft's SQL Server database." SQL injection is a result of badly written code. Nothing more. There is never an excuse for that to occur, even in environments where security isn't the top priority.

    The whole article feels a bit off to me. I get the sense it was written by somebody with little technical cluefulness. I particularly like the line about "sophisticated Defense Department tools and procedures designed to prevent such breaches" followed by a sentence identifying AV software. Written by a dummy, for similarly intelligent people, perhaps?