Slashdot Mirror
Offshore Drilling Rigs Vulnerable To Hackers
Hugh Pickens writes "Foreign Policy magazine reports that a research team from the SINTEF Group, an independent Norwegian think tank, has warned oil companies worldwide that offshore oil rigs are highly vulnerable to hacking as they shift to unmanned robot platforms where vital operations — everything from data transmission to drilling to sophisticated navigation systems that maintain the platform's position over the wellhead — are controlled via wireless links to onshore facilities. 'The worst-case scenario, of course, is that a hacker will break in and take over control of the whole platform,' says Martin Gilje Jaatun, adding that it hasn't happened yet, but computer viruses have caused personnel injuries and production losses on North Sea platforms. The list of potential cyberattackers includes ecowarriors aiming to jack up an oil firms' production costs, extortionists drawn to oil firms' deep pockets, and foreign governments engaging in a strategic contest for ever-more-scarce global oil reserves, says Jeff Vail, a former counterterrorism and intelligence analyst with the US Interior Department. 'It's underappreciated how vulnerable some of these systems are,' says Vail. 'It is possible, if you really understood them, to cause catastrophic damage by causing safety systems to fail.'"
Now, "I got a shell account" gets a whole new meaning.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
computer viruses have caused personnel injuries and production losses on North Sea platforms
They run Windows-based control software, and don't take the most basic security precautions such as banning web browsing and operators from executing unsigned files on management consoles?
... (along with most other computer/OS manufacturers) that the OS is *NOT* to be used in situations where failure of the system may lead to injuries or loss of life. The fact that a consumer OS is being used at all, never mind one so suscpetable to malware, in a scenario wheres peoples lives may hang in the balance is frankly staggering.
So, you hack in, and then it turns out that the Patriots have released nanomachines to control the flow of phonemes as part of the S5 program to eliminate the meal of breakfast in collaboration with the reverse vampires.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Before "Therac-25" becomes a verb in general use?
"What happened to Bob?"
"He was Therac-25ed by the drillbot when the control system went down."
I smell the makings of a new Michael Bay movie! A group of terrorists from (insert nation/region here) systematically take over all the robotic oil rigs and hold the world's oil supply hostage. And only one man can take them on to save the world!
This guy's the limit!
I hope nobody finds the old Davinci Virus which was written about 25 years ago...
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
Either the reporter doesn't get it, or it's FUD. Wikipedia lists two open source versions: OpenSCADA and FreeSCADA, but mentions that the original versions (presumably "decades-old") were on Unix or VMS and proprietary; hardly open source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA)
The "Astounding" post above says "They run Windows-based control software". That *is* astounding, and should be considered criminally negligent.
SINTEF is not a think tank, it is a major applied-research institution. It is similar (with due proportions) to the Fraunhofer Institute in Germany.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
The SINTEF-report can be found here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/8v34n016j3648872/
and the base report for a successful attack is here:
http://sislab.no/redteam.pdf
Disclaimer: My first job after graduation was with SINTEF, next I worked 24 years for Hydro/StatoilHydro (Norway's largest offshore oil operator), where I (among many other things) specified how the production and admin networks should be separated on each platform.
First of all: Most North Sea platforms use fiber links these days, microwave is only there as a backup in case something cuts the fiber, which means that if you want to use the radio link as your attack point, you must first locate and disable the fiber(s).
Second, the production networks, which is the only part which can directly affect platform infrastructure has significantly better security than the office/admin net.
I.e. you would first have to hack into the regular StatoilHydro network, then find a way to pass through the admin/process firewall before you could even start to try to take over one or more control computers. (And afaik none of these run any form of open source SCADA sw.)
Finally, the 'integrated operations' mentioned in the article consists of special on-shore operations rooms which have strict physical security checks: The computers inside these rooms are indeed part of the production network, they have no direct links at all to the office/admin net and/or the Internet.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
These days everybody runs on Windows XP. No problem there; XP machines can be made secure. The real problem is this quote from the report: "We have performed penetration testing on OPC, which is a central component in process control systems on oil installations.". OPC protocol is based on DCOM. And most people want to do DCOM via a network to remote platforms. That is where the problems start. DCOM is horrible. There are solutions: Matrikon makes a good tunneler program for example, other SCADA and DCS vendors also do tunneling of OPC via safer methods than DCOM over a wide area network.
Conclusion: the report has some good points, the summary in the above link is FUD.
Disclaimer: I work with DCS's (also on remote oil platforms) for a living...
...pay a few real live human beings to stay on those rigs to provide some degree of security. In the end I trust people way more than tech or code no matter how advanced it is. Automation is fine and more efficient but if things go balls up it's nice to have a guy on site that can pull the plug or push a button and shut it all down before millions of gallons of crude go pouring into the ocean.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
... does it say they used Windows? At a recent conference on software safety and security, I heard a presentation on this topic that indicated that a lot of these incidents are like the one quoted in the article - a disgruntled employee or ex-employee with knowledge of how the system works, hacks into the wireless control network, and causes damage by incorrectly operating valves or altering sensor readings, causing an inappropriate reaction by the system. The example quoted was a water treatment facility that was part of a resort complex in Australia. Like this example, one of the contractors that installed the wirelessly operated system was disgruntled over not getting a permanent job. So he showed up outside the facility with a wireless equipped laptop, gained access to the system, and caused raw sewage to be discharged into the environment. He did this repeatedly before being caught. But this had nothing whatsoever to do with Windows.
Given that the article provides no examples, I take the line about "computer viruses causing injuries and production losses" with a huge grain of salt. I'd bet the mortgage payment that what really happened is that computer viruses in non-essential, but Windows based systems caused economic damages by deleting or altering financially significant data.
There are a couple of "iffy" items in the article. First, how can an oil leak detector cause oil leaks (let alone spills)?
If you're an attacked were to determine there was an existing leak, then disable the leak monitor, then command a pump to increase pressure, you could cause damage depending on the pressure rating of the pipes/fittings in question. Other than that, I agree that it would be difficult to cause damage with simply a sensor alone (unless it's a critical sensor in an industrial process).
You assume that the choices are:
A) Microsoft OS (which specifically states that it is NOT FOR USE WHERE PEOPLE MAY DIE)
B) Some fucking idiot with 3 days of C programming classes making a custom operating system.
Alright, I guess I have to explain this to you.
It is possible to hire experienced, knowledgeable people to develop custom operating systems. It is also possible to have that code thoroughly reviewed, tested, etc. to make sure it won't fail in such a way that people die.
Yes, it's more expensive to create/maintain/fix. But on the other hand, people won't die this way.
Seriously, do you use carabiners that say "not for climbing" when you go climbing because they're "cheaper" and "easier to replace"? If not, then you probably should so that you may rid us of your misguided thought that devices that say "NOT FOR USE WHERE PEOPLE MAY DIE" are perfectly suited to things where people may die.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.