Slashdot Mirror


US Drone Fleet Hit By Computer Virus

New submitter Golgafrinchan passes along this quote from an article at Wired: "A computer virus has infected the cockpits of America's Predator and Reaper drones, logging pilots' every keystroke as they remotely fly missions over Afghanistan and other warzones. The virus, first detected nearly two weeks ago by the military's Host-Based Security System, has not prevented pilots at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada from flying their missions overseas. Nor have there been any confirmed incidents of classified information being lost or sent to an outside source. But the virus has resisted multiple efforts to remove it from Creech's computers, network security specialists say. And the infection underscores the ongoing security risks in what has become the U.S. military's most important weapons system.'"

370 comments

  1. duh by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't run windoze on bombs!

    Or aircraft carriers!

    Will we never learn??

    1. Re:duh by Pentium100 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why? Windows crash and burn all the time, isn't that what a bomb is supposed to do?

      Also, I doubt that this virus is just a random one, it most likely was created with the target in mind, so if Linux was used then the virus would have been created for Linux.

    2. Re:duh by Mes · · Score: 2

      1. Bid for large military project
      2. Use Windows as the primary platform.
      3. Everyone Profits!

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

      In the meantime, technicians at Creech are trying to get the virus off the GCS machines. It has not been easy. At first, they followed removal instructions posted on the website of the Kaspersky security firm.

      That sounds like a common, non-targetted Windows virus to me.

    4. Re:duh by North+Korea · · Score: 1

      OS doesn't matter if someone wants to target it. In fact it can even be good thing - it's a lot easier to rootkit and hide in Linux based systems than Windows, and most people don't know how to get rid of them too. Hell, in Linux a simple rootkit can work just by editing the system commands like ls.

    5. Re:duh by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hell, in Linux a simple rootkit can work just by editing the system commands like ls.

      That is as simple to detect as installing TripWire.

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

      I'm in ur rocket..buzzin ur house LULZ!

    7. Re:duh by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Like stuxnet was ? :)

      Of course there is always the possibility that the virus was a common one, then it means that whoever is responsible for security is even more incompetent than i originally thought.

    8. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how people think that Windows is the only fallible OS. Linux fanboyism will never die.

    9. Re:duh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While your general point is valid: against targeted attackers the ratios for "desktops cracked, by platform" are pretty irrelevant"; there is more to it:

      A game console, many smartphones, tivos, etc. do checks of the OSes they run. If the signature doesn't check, the device doesn't boot. Better implemenations(newer xbox360s, for instance, pretty much have to be voltage glitched to get past that.

      If you are going to be strapping some hellfire missiles to something, you really, really shouldn't be running an OS/architecture so stock that desktop or corporate penetration and bug numbers are terribly relevant...

    10. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone go caption a lolcat: "I maded you a guidance system in visual basic. Hope it doesn't get infecshuns!"

    11. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until Anonymous roots one of these things and starts blowing up Scientology buildings, spying on nude beaches, and finally buzzeing the Pentagon for epic lulz when the fuel runs low...RIP, Predobair, you served us well before getting b& from meatspace.

    12. Re:duh by tgd · · Score: 1

      And its equally easy to detect in Windows. In real-time, not in a scheduled scan.

      So what is your point?

    13. Re:duh by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hell, in Linux a simple rootkit can work just by editing the system commands like ls.

      That is as simple to detect as installing TripWire.

      And keeping your checksum values on non-writable disks (like CDs), and using another computer to regularly scan your computer offline, and maybe throw some known changes in occasionally. Because if tripwire is replaced with a program that just says "yup, checksum's good. no need to worry", then it's no better than a sleeping security guard.

    14. Re:duh by mortonda · · Score: 2

      Hell, in Linux a simple rootkit can work just by editing the system commands like ls.

      That is as simple to detect as installing TripWire.

      If it is a kernel rootkit, tripwire won't find it unless your boot to a readonly medium to run the scan...

    15. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gawd - why do you do this? Who said it's a WIndows system anyway. I'm one of those idiots that think Windows is a great system. I've been running Windows 7 since it came out. I have Windows Security Essentials installed and as a developer I visit a lot of places where a virus might lurk but I've NEVER been infected. I don't trust ANYTHING that's the product of many little unpaid hands!!! Like Linux et all...

    16. Re:duh by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

      Are we sure they are even using windows? I mean in all likelihood they are but I couldn't find anything in the article (including the picture) to confirm.

    17. Re:duh by Megane · · Score: 1

      It'll probably be like that episode of American Dad.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    18. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that removal instructions were posted on Kaspersky's website shows that the virus was a common one.

    19. Re:duh by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Lol my backup system takes care of that. I want to see a virus that can infect the system and a san at the same time though a VM barrier. A real hacker sure but some script kiddie not so much.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    20. Re:duh by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      And keeping your checksum values on non-writable disks (like CDs)...

      Not just the checksum, but statically compiled commands used to run the Tripwire-like program. If the detection program uses, for example, the 'find' command to find all of the files on the system* then a competent attacker could always corrupt the 'find' program to ignore '/usr/local/bin/.myHiddenRootkitDirectory/*' and you'll be none the wiser.

      *You don't want to limit your search to files that have already been checksummed, because one of the things that you can find is that new, compromised files have been added to your system. Consider this classic attack: your path is edited to contain './' (the current directory), and a compromised 'ls', 'find', 'cd' or other common tool is written to your home directory. Guess which file you run when you log in -- the compromised file or the one supplied with your system? If you find all of the files on the system, then verify that 1) you have a checksum for the file, and 2) verify that the checksum is correct, you minimize the danger of this kind of attack.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    21. Re:duh by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, its really not. A rootkit would make TripWire thing the binaries had not been modified. Thats what rootkits do, they hide every trace of themselves so that they are undetectable. Or at least thats the theory, theres always a way to detect them but it usually (for good ones) requires scanning the data in a known clean machine.

      IDS systems don't work with the kernel tells the IDS that the file is the original and even delivers the original bytes to the IDS in order to fool it. The kernel returns the original data for any read of the file, any memory mapping attempt, anything you try to do to get it at the data other than what the rootkit wants you to do.

      Root kits make the kernel lie to an IDS, making it useless. You can't scan an infected machine by asking it for data (local app or network share, doesn't matter). You have to ask another known clean machine to do the scanning on the data directly without any other untrusted code in the process.

      Finally, the rootkit can also just make tripwire pretend to return ALL GOOD MASTER!.

      Please don't ever claim you know about security.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:duh by Pence128 · · Score: 2

      Check the lower right monitor, it's XP.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    23. Re:duh by bberens · · Score: 1

      Not that it directly relates to your post which was kind of participating in a threadjack.. but I think it's safe to assume the types of people who might be putting viruses on US predator drones are not script kiddies.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    24. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Government is taking BSOD beyond their borders, so the talibans surrender.

      =P

    25. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, I doubt that this virus is just a random one, it most likely was created with the target in mind, so if Linux was used then the virus would have been created for Linux.

      Because it's just not exploitable on Linux. You would need root privileges to capture input like a keylogger would. Windows on the other hand happily lets your applications capture all input that's not isolated in another user session. The secure desktop thing on Windows UAC is a countermeasure to just that.

    26. Re:duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I remember when my ex-gf was working at TripWire and they were having all sorts of problems due to "alternate data streams" that were difficult for the software to find, because windows would hide them.

    27. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman argument.
      If it works by replacing ls, it is not a kernel rootkit.

    28. Re:duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A rootkit would make TripWire thing the binaries had not been modified.

      Easy to say. Another thing that is easy to say, I'm going to ride off on magic flying unicorn that can make any two files have the same hash (any type!) just by touching them both with its horn.

    29. Re:duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that I was talking about protecting against obvious attacks like replacing ls(1), lets consider the broader point anyways.

      You simply have an extra ROM with tripwire that is loaded at power up before removable devices which runs the tripwire check (among others) and then passes back to the BIOS if it is successful. Like an extra step in the POST.

      This is exactly the sort of thing any thing any *nix admin is going to think of right away when designing this sort of system. Surely these craft are more finely engineered than that already, I doubt it would even change the cost... as long as they had the unix guys from the start, that is. Obviously it would be expensive to go back and add it later.

      There are real solutions to security threats, especially when you have 100% control over all the software and hardware in use. "It's all bad so nobody could do better" just doesn't cut it.

    30. Re:duh by Bahamut_Omega · · Score: 0

      Why do I have the odd suspicion of War Games rolled up into Terminator or Ghost in the Shell? On the other hand Runaway looks like a possible runner up for life imitating art.

    31. Re:duh by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

      Well, considering the drone comms were unencrypted for a long time it is no suprise. Iraqi insurgents and later the Afghan Taliban were apparently able to get cheap equipment to tap into the unencrypted feeds. A ridiculous design decision if you ask me to not encrypt (didn't they even imagine going up against an opponent with with dedicated Electronic Warfare units either?).

    32. Re:duh by lgw · · Score: 1

      "Alternate data streams" aren't hidden at all. They've always been part of the NTFS spec, and you can edit them with Notepad (notepad filename.foo:streamname). Unless by "hidden" you mean "not explicity shown in Windows explorer" - no argument that that has become a piece of crap.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:duh by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'd guess the "host based security" mentioned in TFS is just that: scan a VM from the host. As long as we don't see VM escapes in the wild, that method will find all rootkits all the time. Checksum compares can fail vs clever rootkits (Tripwire's reads just need to be redirected to the real file, while the infested file get loaded for execution) if done on th same system. Booting from non-writable disk is your best bet these days if you can't do host-based scanning.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    34. Re:duh by lgw · · Score: 1

      Easy to do: when tripwaire reads the file, it gets the uninfected bots. When the system runs the file, it gets the infected bits. Once the kernel is owned, you've lost the battle from within that system, and can only meaningfully scan the drive from a different system.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    35. Re:duh by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      A lot of set-top boxes and ISP modems/routers actually re-download the entire firmware and re-flash themselves at each boot. This is to A) Keep them updated B) Make the "please reboot your modem" statement actually useful C) prevent people from "modding" them for what-ever purposes.

    36. Re:duh by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wow, I really can't type today. Perhaps we can get post-editing in a post-Taco world?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:duh by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you were serious about platform security, you wouldn't be running on an OS at all. You'd have one single application that included its own device drivers. Costly, yes -- but also very secure if you write the lot yourself. Just don't open any doors at all.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    38. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told them to use Linux - & they could have. But they didn't, all sure of themselves. The first price they paid was, a new batch of computers came in & their carefully ghosted image wouldn't work on them.

    39. Re:duh by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      It is running Winsows XP, stupid. Read the article.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    40. Re:duh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is obvious from my comment that it was senior software engineers having problems with it.

      Even NTFS, one of MS's best technologies, is a vast swampland with all sorts of bizarre pitfalls and edge cases... many of which impact security in subtle ways.

    41. Re:duh by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The reason for not encrypting is that distributing the keys was too difficult. If a random group of soldiers is attacked and asks for a drone to come in and give them an aerial view it is better to just transmit unencrypted video than to worry about having the right access card or key, and it also reduces the complexity, cost and weight of the equipment needed to view. Even if your opponent can see the video the camera will be pointed at them and not give much useful info on the other side.

      You can think of it like sending up a flair at night. The light aids both sides, but the guys sending it up will position it to be far more useful to them than their opponents. Similarly smoke hides your movements but also makes it impossible to see the enemy, but the tactical trade-off is worth it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    42. Re:duh by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Gawd - why do you do this?

      To save you. To save you.

      Who said it's a WIndows system anyway.

      You can see it in the picture attached to the article.

      I'm one of those idiots that think Windows is a great system. I've been running Windows 7 since it came out.

      we can tell.

      I have Windows Security Essentials installed and as a developer I visit a lot of places where a virus might lurk but I've NEVER been infected.

      That you know of.

      I don't trust ANYTHING that's the product of many little unpaid hands!!! Like Linux et all...

      Ah, then I know why your windows machine is secure. You don't want to connect to a network for fear that your BSD written networking tools. You have authentication turned off to avoid using Kerberos and then you keep your computer safely locked away in your mother's basement. Still, the only thing I find disturbing is where you go to get your viruses if they aren't computer viruses.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    43. Re:duh by lgw · · Score: 1

      If so, I doubt the competence of those "senior software engineers" (or more likely the problem was somehting more interesting) - seriously: notepad. Or msdn. This ain't rocket surgery.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    44. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read something about a government using computers: It was definitely Windows.

    45. Re:duh by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      **but I've NEVER been infected.**

      That you know of. For all you know, your PC has been sending every keystroke that you enter to some dude in Kiev for the last five years.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    46. Re:duh by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      I like how people think that Windows is the only fallible OS. Linux fanboyism will never die.

      The grandparent post never mentioned anything about Linux, yet suddenly we have a load of AC roaches crawling out from behind the cupboard accusing him of being a Linux fanboy. Has it ever occured to you that neither Windows nor Ubuntu are suitable for this task since they are consumer targeted low security operating systems. A hardened install of RedHat or a Trusted Solaris install might begin to be suitable with additional measures, however for a weapon system use they should be using a proper secure operating system.

      This use, as with many other Windows installs, was a wrong use of Windows, and you people should just give it up and say so. The people who put Windows into this position without adequate mitigating protection should be fired.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    47. Re:duh by Pence128 · · Score: 2

      The random group of soldiers already has encrypted radios to do the asking. How much harder could it be?

      --
      404: sig not found.
    48. Re:duh by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Root users have root. More at 11.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    49. Re:duh by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's private key type of encryption and every unit uses a different private key so if one key is compromised, the other keys remain secure. A drone might have to send video to a army line unit, the line unit's first and second echelon commands as well as back to the Air Force at Creech AFB and the obvious common language is unencrypted.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    50. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh - wipe and repartition the disk including overwriting the mbr and install a clean system and check shares etc for the virus from a known clean machine. Of course if this is CPU embedded malware, well CPU manufacturing IS now overseas including in China, not that I'm saying anything....

    51. Re:duh by daem0n1x · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, what's the effect of this virus? Are the drones actually bombing some enemy's army, instead of the usual innocent civilians in wedding parties in Pakistan?

    52. Re:duh by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Check the lower right monitor, it's XP.

      Which is not the system that is actually running the Predator. Some aux info system, probably. But not actually flying the aircraft.

    53. Re:duh by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Ok, Plug your radio into a laptop with a satellite tuner and download the latest key.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    54. Re:duh by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I think it's safe to assume the types of people who might be putting viruses on US predator drones are not script kiddies.

      The evidence in TFA suggests it is just an ordinary random infestation, like most other Windows malware infection.

      The most likely consequence is that Predator drones end up with enlarged penises or sending money to free Nigerian dignitaries.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    55. Re:duh by Dr+Max · · Score: 2

      Also when these drones become self aware I'll sleep a lot better knowing i have the arsenal of windows malware at my side, and for once in your life you might be grateful for a blue screen of death.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    56. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make assumptions that are probably wrong. Assuming it runs MS Windows there is a high chance of infection without any action by the user. Less so for GNU/Linux. Can anybody even point to a GNU/Linux virus that is in the wild impacting patched systems in recent years? The only viruses I've ever heard of were for demonstration and not really ever in the wild so I'm very doubtful someone can point to something recent. It is even questionable that these demonstration viruses would have ever worked given you had to take multiple steps to get infected. Compared to Microsoft Windows... where just existing will get you infected.

    57. Re:duh by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      Linux has small market share so there isn't much profit in making a virus for it - make a virus for Windows and it will run on more systems. Because a lot of users are behind NAT (their own router or an ISP grade NAT) usually the virus cannot go in trough the open ports (like blaster did) so they now mostly rely on user downloading and running an executable file or a bug in the browser/flash/etc. It is entirely possible to download and run a malicious file on Linux too and I doubt that Linux browsers are bug-free.

      However, if someone wanted to specifically infect those drones and computers controlling them, then they would write a virus that works on whatever OS those computers have.

    58. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why over here at Bad-Guy Labs, we do all our mission critical programming in wetware. Much harder to subvert a bumpkin from outer Kantunnerstan. And there is a virtually infinite supply...

    59. Re:duh by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Isn't this what X509 was basically born to solve?

      You want video from the drone, you transmit your public key to it, it verifies the signature against the master key and if it matches sends the data.

    60. Re:duh by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2

      I don't know what kind of soldiers, radios, or encryption YOU are talking about but in the Army I am in, comsec keys are often theatre-wide. At least division-wide. Stealing a filled radio (or ANCD, SKL) does indeed compromise EVERY unit's comms. Which is why the keys are changed often, and losing a filled device is a sad-face event for the poor sucker that does.

      Your point though, about being able to send it to dissimilar branches with dissimilar equipment types is true.

    61. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Windows crash and burn all the time, isn't that what a bomb is supposed to do?

      Also, I doubt that this virus is just a random one, it most likely was created with the target in mind, so if Linux was used then the virus would have been created for Linux.

      not necessarily, as there are clases of malware which are oblivious to the OS, either because the go to the processor core instruction set and don't care what else is running or because they'er high level environments such as Java that run on all of these OSes. If you have a buffer overrun or flaw or similar shortcoming in PDF reader, in Flash player, in any web browser.... it may well be that it doesn't matter which OS you're on

      it may, is all I'm saying.

      so it's important not only to patch the OS when available but also the various apps and plugins and utilities.

      Plus, if you want to rely on antivirus, you're better off using something that looks for more than your platform's malware, such as ESET, which detects malware on a Windows system that can target Linux, Free BSD, MacOS, Solaris, and various mobile platforms too in addition to the ones targetting the obvious, Windows. That's especially important if you have a network and file servers. The server may be Linux, and an a/v scanner on that Linux server should also scan for Windows malware, knowing that many systems accessing the file server are windows machines. Imagine for a moment that the drone's headquarters in Nevada run from Linux servers, the drones run on windows, and the a/v on the servers manage to clean the malware before it even hits the server's drives, thus preventing it from getting into the target windows systems regardless of the server's own a/v protection

    62. Re:duh by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "It is entirely possible to download and run a malicious file on Linux too"
      Without any user action??

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    63. Re:duh by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      There's ways to do it...

      eg. The video receiver boxes could have a six digit code on them. The line unit could read this code over the radio to central command. Central command then transmits the encryption key for that receiver to the drone.

      --
      No sig today...
    64. Re:duh by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Uh - wipe and repartition the disk including overwriting the mbr and install a clean system....

      ...at which point it gets reinfected via the same mechanism that infected it before.

      --
      No sig today...
    65. Re:duh by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      "These are not the drones you're looking for"

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    66. Re:duh by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Erm, how does that fix the problem? Just infect the host. How many viruses out there use device drivers to propagate? Well you can easily add device drivers to a VM whilst in user mode on the host. You would have to do a hell of a lot of system modification for that alone to not be a vulnerability, not to mention the processing power lost for running a VM.

    67. Re:duh by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      Edge cases you fool, like when there is an interrupt just before the prefs are read/ loaded into RAM, or code injection, or a host of other things that a serious 'clock by clock' assembly hacker can implement to bypass security just long enough to change a couple a bytes somewhere vital.

    68. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the article and it doesn't say that anywhere. Did I miss it?

    69. Re:duh by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      The article states they are using instructions from Kaspersky's website to remove the virus. My guess those are for Windows as they are mostly, although not exclusively, a Windows shop.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    70. Re:duh by slick7 · · Score: 1

      1. Bid for large military project
      2. Use Windows as the primary platform.
      3. Everyone Profits!

      Especially Lord Darth Gates.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    71. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The evidence in TFA suggests it is just an ordinary random infestation, like most other Windows malware infection. The most likely consequence is that Predator drones end up with enlarged penises or sending money to free Nigerian dignitaries.

      You just made me imagine a predator drone with a pair of those chrome "dangle balls" that have been showing up on trucks lately.

  2. Iran Payback ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think so ...

    1. Re:Iran Payback ? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Doubt it, Israel is more likely. Even if they are one of our allies, I don't believe they are an ally we should trust completely, much like how we view China.

      Besides, I doubt that Iran can get good quality help with something like this, especially since they would most likely have to know a good amount of how the internal security is set up. Russia isn't stupid enough to help them with something like this, neither is China.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Iran Payback ? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I doubt that Iran can get good quality help with something like this

      Really? You don't think with the resources of an oil rich country that they couldn't buy someone domestic or foreign to do it for them? Are you retarded or just still asleep or something?

      I'm not saying they did it, but you can't think that way about countries of any size at all, at that level all of them have enough resources to buy someone capable of doing it, or just kidnapping them and forcing them to do it without money. Most of the guys who write botnet software would more than likely be all over this opportunity, they clearly don't mind the moral implications.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Iran Payback ? by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure it matters who it is. What matters is that if you can intercept a keystroke, you can inject one, and that if you log sequences you know command sequences. That knowledge never needs to go anywhere outside the virus - if the virus catalogs how to do X, Y and Z then an unauthorized user merely needs to tell the virus that it is to replay the sequence to do X, Y or Z. The user doesn't need to know anything other than what macro does what.

      For most nations, it just doesn't make sense to do this with any current mission - that we know of, at least. Scripting a drone attack only makes sense if the drone has attacked a point that the person who wrote the virus will want to attack in the future. This is great if you're a nation defending against an attacker overrunning your positions, since you can get the attacker's weapons to attack the attacker. But no current target nation has the capacity for such a strategy and even if they did it would be pointless. It wouldn't be useful at all in Libya, for example, and the draw-down in Afghanistan means the probability of there ever being a meaningful target is next to zero.

      Israel is a remote possibility - they've the knowledge - and there are doubtless drone surveillance missions that the Israelies could turn into attacks and keep plausible denial. However, it's exceedingly remote. Most of their threats don't distinguish between the US and Israel, so plausible denial is pointless, and they've enough support to be able to obtain all the US-made drones they want. There's no obvious added value.

      The Mexican drug cartels are hampered by drones, but not usually by the high-end military ones, and being able to launch a replay would be absolutely pointless. If they were to have the kind of savvy needed, it would more likely go into a logic bomb that would cripple the drone. It's just possible they'd want to divert a drone to some site of theirs so that they could use it for their own purposes, but you'd not want a logger for that. Makes no sense. Besides which, if they had that kind of skill, they wouldn't need cheap cop drones.

      China? Maybe, but again if they wanted a Predator they'd be better off with a logic bomb that disabled the radios and landed the UAV somewhere they could pick it up from. They wouldn't use loggers because there'd be nothing worth logging.

      This isn't making sense. The story so far is too illogical. Those with the skills would be doing something different, those who want to do what is claimed don't have the skills.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Iran Payback ? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they did it, but you can't think that way about countries of any size at all

      I am sure the Vatican would have no issues infiltrating US Military security, North Korea or Iran, not so much.

      Iran can pay all the coders they like, but if they do not know how the security is set up and what precautions to take then they will not be effective. That requires inside intel, which is something I don't think Iran will get on it's own. Yes, China has proven again and again that they can get inside the US Military networks, Iran on the other hand still hasn't figured out how to get Stuxnet off their own computers.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    5. Re:Iran Payback ? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It's always possible that this isn't a deliberate targeted attack at all; it could even just be that someone inadvertently used a removable drive that already happened to have a keylogger on it. This would probably be the best case scenario of course. I find it a little odd is that they're having trouble removing it though.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:Iran Payback ? by jd · · Score: 2

      Military drones would presumably use something like Windows CE. (Non-classified drones do, from what little experience I have in the field.) Which, to be fair, would likely run a reasonable range of Windows programs. However, it's not fully compatible and cross-compilers are something of a necessity. It's possible it could be a generic binary but I'm going to guess that a custom build is the more likely.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:Iran Payback ? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      **It's always possible that this isn't a deliberate targeted attack at all;**

      I'm thinking that you are correct.. I doubt that drone control is done through the Comcast or Verizon at Area 54 and thence to the Internet. More likely communications are through secure satellite links. Injecting a virus via such a link is likely to be something of a challenge. It's possible that some governments could do that, but why would they go to all that trouble to load a common virus? OTOH accidentally loading a virus from a flash drive seems pretty straightforward. Who knows, it could have come from another secure facility -- secret software, and -- as a bonus -- a rootkit.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    8. Re:Iran Payback ? by tqk · · Score: 1

      This isn't making sense. The story so far is too illogical.

      I think you need to get out more. Perhaps, go see a movie. I'd suggest that one that's based on a Tom Clancy novel about some Palestinians digging up an Israeli "Broken Arrow" nuke, who then sell it to a mercenary arms dealer, who then sells it to a megolomaniac Russian ...

      Get the idea? !@#$ like this doesn't make sense in the first place. Strapping Hellfire missiles onto UAVs whose comm channels are transmitted in the clear? Who comes up with !@#$ like that, outside Hollywood? Well, apparently, DoD contractors!

      Honestly, I've seriously considered far less plausible courses of action in my time, even pulled off a couple. Thankfully, my stuff doesn't kill people.

      Then again, I may be fixating a bit too much on that comment above mentioning something about morality. I don't think morality has anything to do with this discussion. Once you're strapping bombs to flying robots running unprotected software, that kind of goes out the window, no pun intended.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:Iran Payback ? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Doubt it, Israel is more likely. Even if they are one of our allies, I don't believe they are an ally we should trust completely, much like how we view China.

      Yeah, it's not like they have spied on us before.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  3. How do they know it's a virus? by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    This could just be the drones following their human pilots for when the drones start flying themselves. #skynet

    1. Re:How do they know it's a virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This could just be the drones following their human pilots for when the drones start flying themselves. #skynet

      Yeah, where's the skynet tag on this article? If one was ever begging for it, this is the one.

  4. The terrorists have won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Al-Azawi (or whatever his name is), probably put the virus there to fake his death via drones.

    He is probably sitting sipping tea with the Pakistani PM having a good laugh as we read this.

  5. No anti-virus? by Jeng · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, so I understand that these computers are to never be connected to the internet, but why does that mean that they don't put security software on them?

    Yes, they would have to do updates manually, and it's a low risk situation, but it is a prime target for foreign adversaries and allies alike.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    1. Re:No anti-virus? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Who said there isn't anti-virus software on these computers? If keeping a Windows machine sterile was as easy as installing and keeping update AV software the world would be a slightly better, or at least less stressful, place.

    2. Re:No anti-virus? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, so I understand that these computers are to never be connected to the internet, but why does that mean that they don't put security software on them?

      If these computers are never connected to the Internet, then how are they sending out the results of their logging?

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    3. Re:No anti-virus? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless someone really screwed the pooch, the results are never getting back to the virus writers. These computers are classified, that means no connection to the net, no writable media drives, many places even epoxy the USB ports so at least it's obvious if someone tries to use it. Specific steps are taken when moving data off them to prevent any data except what was requested is removed. At least, that is how it is in the private world working on classified material. Cases like Manning being able to get a dump of the entire international cable DB would indicate that the government holds itself to a much lower standard than it holds contractors.

    4. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HBSS is just mcafee antivirus and other limiting software.

    5. Re:No anti-virus? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I'd reply with a copy and paste from the TFA, but that would be around half the article, just read the TFA and it is explained there.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    6. Re:No anti-virus? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/463/

    7. Re:No anti-virus? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they running off of livecds? Then every time they reboot, yay fresh system.

      Unless the system that is making the CDs is infected, but then you've just got one system to clean.

    8. Re:No anti-virus? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Unless someone really screwed the pooch, the results are never getting back to the virus writers

      Unless of course the guy/girl who planted the virus is internal ... which of course is a safe assumption since you know, the virus clearly IS there, so it had to be brought in by someone internal ... unless it was connected to the internet.

      So either way, if a virus can be placed on the systems, the data can be snuck off the systems using likely the same method. Maybe not real time, but none the less it could come off.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    9. Re:No anti-virus? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Who said there isn't anti-virus software on these computers? If keeping a Windows machine sterile was as easy as installing and keeping update AV software the world would be a slightly better, or at least less stressful, place.

      Where does it say these machines are even windows machines? Other than in the comments (much like here) I don't see any reference to windows in TFA. Didn't see anything about OS on the wikipedia entry for them.

    10. Re:No anti-virus? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They are supposed to have a procedure whereby everything that could be loaded anywhere gets scanned for possible infection. Standard practice for that sort of operation, in the military, government, or (competently configuration-managed) business.

      Clearly, someone wasn't following the procedure, or their scan didn't know about this bug, or the bug came in out-of-band.

    11. Re:No anti-virus? by mspohr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If there's a virus, it must be Windows.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    12. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cases like Manning being able to get a dump of the entire international cable DB would indicate that the government holds itself to a much lower standard than it holds contractors.

      Because contractors never lose classified information. 'The government is incompetent while private enterprise does things so much better' is such an ignorant meme don't you think?

    13. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, through a computer on the network that has Internet access...

    14. Re:No anti-virus? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And 10,000 new CDs to make...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the computers are classified and have no connection to the net then how did they get the virus to begin with?

    16. Re:No anti-virus? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      If there's a virus, it must be Windows.

      That's an invalid assumption, assuming it wasn't a troll. Here's a list with some for linux: http://us.norton.com/security_response/threatexplorer/azlisting.jsp?azid=L

      Here's some for osx: http://us.norton.com/security_response/threatexplorer/azlisting.jsp?azid=O
      There's fewer viruses for other OS's, most likely owing to the lower install base of the same. Even black hats are interested in ROI.

    17. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asynchronous Transfer Mode.

      I'd imagine the Seimens Controllers in Iran probably weren't directly connected to The Internet either, but somehow, Stuxnet got to them.

    18. Re:No anti-virus? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The drones have to get information somehow to (and from) their controllers, or else we'd never get images back or be able to control them. Presumably someone snooped the communications (radio) and figured out how to compromise it. Scary stuff.

    19. Re:No anti-virus? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      If they could hack the signal it would be easier to gain control of the drones than it would be to install a computer virus on a computer half a world away, also more productive.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    20. Re:No anti-virus? by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      These computers are classified, that means no connection to the net, no writable media drives...

      Classified computers have writable media drives.

      And just because it's classified, doesn't mean data can't get onto the 'net. It's the same wires, and if it's SIPR, that's already been done. During my Iraq tour NIC's were sending usage information back to the manufacturer, the computers were on SIPR, the manufacturer wasn't. The manufacturer was getting the information...

      Specific steps are taken when moving data off them to prevent any data except what was requested is removed.

      Yes, that is how it is SUPPOSED to be. But that's not how it IS.

      There really is no surprise here.

    21. Re:No anti-virus? by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Host-Based Security System (HBSS) is McAfee's suite of products which includes antivirus, firewall, host intrusion, app locking, etc.

      These systems are not on the internet. Most likely the infection path was a thumb drive.

    22. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but do these drones have the capability to transmit? Is the transmitted content in any way determined or influenced by the infected parts? If so, there are lots of subtle ways the information could be broadcast to interested listeners.

    23. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what, there's a really, really long cable it's dragging behind it?

      It's sending signals and receiving signals through some wireless method. If it's a wireless connection, it can be seen, and tampered with.

    24. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they did have. A/V is a standard part of HBSS installs.

    25. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. you do know that the Internet isn't the ONLY network is use, don't you?

    26. Re:No anti-virus? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Unless someone really screwed the pooch, the results are never getting back to the virus writers

      The black hats can just order the drones to transmit the signal using Morse Code.

      Waggling your wings is a dash.

      Firing upon infidels is a dot.

    27. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that whoever is targeting this system is writing an attack directly against that system, and therefore any virus checkers would not find any signatures.

    28. Re:No anti-virus? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They've already done one incredibly stupid thing, why not a few more? They've messed up so badly that they've got infected machines so how can we trust that they've designed for one way transport and not two?
      You wouldn't be sane to suggest an off the shelf linux distro for mission critical systems like this with deadly consequences of failure - who the fuck suggested putting MS Windows on there and why do they still have a job? The consequences here could be that some random script kiddies could have the details of how to control drones and sell them to the highest bidding criminal.

    29. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think there are 10k drone control systems? So that's where the money went.

    30. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from what i've heard about their operations in nevada they stop just short of strip searching the operators before they are allowed into the op room. metal detectors, no cell phones, etc...

      It could have been introduced in the software development cycle at any point, but i would imagine that there are audits in place to prevent this.

      now, i would imagine that if this was installed after the factory, the most likely point of infection would be in the theater. Launching and retrieval are handled by people in Iraq and afghanistan, I have no idea what their physical security is "on the ground". Doesn't take much of an imagination to envision some private being offered alot of money to just "plug this little thing in".

    31. Re:No anti-virus? by catmistake · · Score: 2

      Its undeniable that for all practical puposes, GP is correct. Sure... talk about exceptions... but lets have a parade when a real person in the real world, and not some security researcher, gets a virus on their linux/os x/bsd box. Take 10K Windows users with user-level security consciousness, and 10K linux and 10K OS X users oblivious to security issues... put them in a room with the Internet, and take a look a month or a year later... and what you have is 20K users oblivious to security, with no issues, and most if not all of the Windows users will have had virus run-ins, many will have damaged systems, some will still have viruses, and all of them will be creeping along from the built-in rot (MS code for: time to buy new Windows version licenses!).

      Trying to defend Windows in the way you are doing is fruitless. Trying to make a point about all systems being vulnerable is pedantic. The fact of the matter is: had the military chose linux, the drones would not be infected. Period. Not that they couldn't... not an impossibility, just an extreme unlikelyhood to the point that if you attempt the "but but but all systems are just as vulerable as Windows"-bullshit argument, you are justifiably ignored.

    32. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BIG question is if windows so prone to virus's (as we see clearly here) why are they running it a super critical application like this?
      Hint: The pc weenies have a blind eye when it comes to any MS product.
      What should have been done if there were any brains left at the DOD was to only allow LINUX or some variant of UNIX.
      The IDIOT Pentagon is brain dead when it comes to computers just like a lot of other decisions.
      The #1 budget reduction plan should include disbanding of the Pentagon and retiring of all the officers there in and no exemptions.

    33. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these systems have to be connected to some sort of global communications system in order to talk to the drones themselves. therefore there are weak spots.

    34. Re:No anti-virus? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Obviously, somebody DID screw the pooch. Otherwise, how did the keylogger get on these machines in the first place. If there was a route for the virus to get on them, there is likely a route for the logged data to get off of them.

    35. Re:No anti-virus? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They still should not be running Windows. Logical reasons do not exist for military command and controls systems to run Windows, at all, ever.

      "Cases like Manning being able to get a dump of the entire international cable DB would indicate that the government holds itself to a much lower standard than it holds contractors"

      Government end-users are mostly appliance operators who have no fucking idea about security outside their annual AFCERT Powerpoint training. NO IDEA. They may be great at whatever their main specialty is, but that is different.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    36. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, me thinks the pilots are browsing the web while they are doing bombing runs. "Hey, do you think my wife will like this sweater for her birthday?"

      I was always amazed at the whole Manning thing. Just cause the PFC had clearance does not mean he should have had access, in the field in IRAQ, to all the communications of the State and Defense dept. Plus access to a removable media drive. Talk about a WTF situation.

    37. Re:No anti-virus? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      And how do you get the virusscanner updates? From the internet.

      The problem seems to be that these computers are disconnected, but need updates to maps and such from computers that are connected. This is done with portable harddisks and USB sticks, which apparently do get infected.

      IT all sounded very messy.

      Personally I would use something obscure to run systems like this, like maybe BeOS, and certainly not Windows.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    38. Re:No anti-virus? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      The real reason they're running Windows might be 3D performance though. They might have some hefty graphics card usage needs in there. I don't know, but it could be a reason. As it seems they are running XP, it could be that the system has been in development for a long time, and then Windows has probably been your best bet for good graphics card drivers, even if you don't use DirectX.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    39. Re:No anti-virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HBSS = antivirus, firewall, policy auditing, etc.

    40. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Where does it say these machines are even windows machines? Other than in the comments (much like here) I don't see any reference to windows in TFA. Didn't see anything about OS on the wikipedia entry for them.

      When they said they used instructions from Kaspersky's website to remove the virus.

      2 + 2 = ?

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    41. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      These computers are classified, that means no connection to the net, no writable media drives, many places even epoxy the USB ports so at least it's obvious if someone tries to use it. Specific steps are taken when moving data off them to prevent any data except what was requested is removed. At least, that is how it is in the private world working on classified material. Cases like Manning being able to get a dump of the entire international cable DB would indicate that the government holds itself to a much lower standard than it holds contractors.

      RTFA, they use USB for updates.

      "Use of the drives is now severely restricted throughout the military. But the base at Creech was one of the exceptions, until the virus hit. Predator and Reaper crews use removable hard drives to load map updates and transport mission videos from one computer to another. The virus is believed to have spread through these removable drives. Drone units at other Air Force bases worldwide have now been ordered to stop their use."

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    42. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      The drones have to get information somehow to (and from) their controllers, or else we'd never get images back or be able to control them. Presumably someone snooped the communications (radio) and figured out how to compromise it. Scary stuff.

      No, they didn't. You are pulling two different stories out yer ass.

      1) Data streams from the drones are not encrypted and insurgents had copies of streams on their computers

      2) Drone computers are updated via USB and removable drive to receive new maps and updates.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    43. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Obviously, somebody DID screw the pooch. Otherwise, how did the keylogger get on these machines in the first place. If there was a route for the virus to get on them, there is likely a route for the logged data to get off of them.

      RTFA, please

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    44. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Why aren't they running off of livecds? Then every time they reboot, yay fresh system.

      Unless the system that is making the CDs is infected, but then you've just got one system to clean.

      Even tho this is obviously a troll...

      you do realize that a CD is sooooooo slow...

      ah never mind.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    45. Re:No anti-virus? by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they wanted to use MORE THAN ONE FUCKING MONITOR!

      Jesus christ for Linux to have such a huge geek following, you'd think there
      would be a PROPER IMPLEMENTATION TO MULTIPLE FUCKING MONITORS.

      Seriously, that made Linux a non-viable OS for me.

      And wtf is up with 10.x Ubuntu not being able to put the task bar on the
      fucking left side. And then 11.x making it entirely impossible to have a
      work-usable interface.

      Sure, sure I know these are the X renders I'm complaining about... but Windows
      works 'out of the box' with everything I need to use on a daily basis, without
      wasting extra time to figure out "workarounds".

      You know... like devoting a half a day to getting a gd wifi card to work.

      Simple things like that... is why I begrudgingly went back to Win 7.

      Someday Linux will be usable in a production environment. Can't wait.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    46. Re:No anti-virus? by sjames · · Score: 1

      I did, got any point there or was this a PSA?

  6. On Chip by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    The operating system should be embedded on a read only chip in these things. It's ridiculous to leave something like this vulnerable to a virus. It's aggravating to have to change the chip every time you want to upgrade but it's the best way of being sure it's secure. The system should be read only.

    1. Re:On Chip by Jeng · · Score: 2

      The virus may be being spread by detachable hard drives that contain map information, they need to be updated frequently.

      Yes, it would be nice if the OS itself didn't get infected, but you still need to dis-infect the drives that you plug into it either way.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about the control cockpits in the US. We're talking complex, inter-networked devices. Any kind of permanent "read only", when applied to all sub-systems, probably isn't feasible.

    3. Re:On Chip by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      detachable hard drives

      This is, in and of itself, concerning to me. Where I work you will be reprimanded for plugging writable media into a classified computer (and that's assuming you can dig all the epoxy out of the port in the first place), the idea that it's standard practice doesn't bode well for their security quite frankly.

    4. Re:On Chip by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      THIS

      I don't know what's scarier, the fact that these things run Windows, the fact that the ports weren't sealed off or the fact that some doofus who doesn't know how to check for Autorun viruses and/or wasn't a computer professional didn't see a problem with plugging a flash drive in there.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    5. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So how do you get the latest imaging onto the system? Either you need to plug it into a network or some sort of portable media! Which one do you consider safer? Or do you believe that there should be no way to update the system to perform its mission?

      dom

    6. Re:On Chip by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to update maps or download mission data, then? If it's got the ability to transmit and receive information in any form whatsoever, then it's got the ability to be hacked, and without the ability to transmit or receive data in some form, a Predator or Reaper drone is less useful than my Air Hogs Hawk Eye helicopter...which for anything beyond goofing off inside my house, is pretty useless.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    7. Re:On Chip by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      You use non-writable media. Burned DVD-R is generally the preferred method. Yes, you can get a virus onto a system using a DVD, but you cannot get data off from it which is where the real fear lies.

    8. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a guy who works with these kinds of systems on the daily, this is no surprise.

      The DoD contracts these types of systems to some random company who decides to develop it on windows NT (Yes NT) or some other out of date version of windows. You might laugh but with the way things work we pay top dollar for 1998 junk.

      They push it on us to use, demanding we never update it or modify it in any way. When Joe gets bored and discovers he can hook up external media he decides watch a skin flick, movie or play some random game (IE PvZ). Guess who had a stupid auto run virus on there home computer... you guessed it, Joe. FFS people, the DoD gives away free lifetime antivirus to all of its people (mac and windows :: Symantec and McAfee)

      Most of these never do anything other than cause a little mayham on the local machine. Being that these systems are on a proprietary network not linked in to the true internet. I don't see much overall harm. Machine gets re imaged and the dude goes back to work with a scolding or some written counseling and an Information assurance re test.

    9. Re:On Chip by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      If you're running something from rom for security, the fist step is to make it physically impossible to run anything that isn't in rom.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    10. Re:On Chip by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Please. It's a glorified RC plane remote.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    11. Re:On Chip by stinkytoe · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to make a setup that would boot Windows off of a prom or CD/DVD (something with no possibility of writing to from the kernel even if it is exploited), and mount a read/write, no execute permission volume for the 'My Documents' folder? ( or equivalent?)

      This would be trivial in a modern *nix, but for some reason most of the UAS companies prefer to use windows. Some even use Windows CE on the actual bird. I can't fathom why personally, but they do.

    12. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operating system should be embedded on a read only chip in these things. It's ridiculous to leave something like this vulnerable to a virus. It's aggravating to have to change the chip every time you want to upgrade but it's the best way of being sure it's secure. The system should be read only.

      Like the C=64. Oh, crap.

    13. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The operating system should be embedded on a read only chip in these things. It's ridiculous to leave something like this vulnerable to a virus. It's aggravating to have to change the chip every time you want to upgrade but it's the best way of being sure it's secure. The system should be read only.

      Windows 8 to the rescue. Windows 8 certified systems will make it either more difficult or impossible to install viruses.

    14. Re:On Chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS

      I don't know what's scarier, the fact that these things run Windows, the fact that the ports weren't sealed off or the fact that some doofus who doesn't know how to check for Autorun viruses and/or wasn't a computer professional didn't see a problem with plugging a flash drive in there.

      Tell ya what... come up with a Linux implementation that is capable
      of blazing fast 3d with commodity hardware that is able to support
      multiple monitors, PROPERLY..., receive updates OTA and sell it
      to the government and become rich.

      Until then, shut your armchair IT management mouth up. Doofus.

      -@|

    15. Re:On Chip by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So, one of many desktop Linux distros? Hmm, if I fork it what's the policy on selling... :D

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  7. iBomb by vaene · · Score: 1

    Look for Apple's iBomb to be delivered in time for Christmas to address these concerns.

    1. Re:iBomb by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      That would be against the apple developer's agreement. :)

      I mean jeeze, you aren't even allowed to make porn on idevices, and wmds are straight out.

    2. Re:iBomb by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Look for Apple's iBomb to be delivered in time for Christmas to address these concerns.

      I expect the 4GS to arrive well before Christmas. Oh...wait.. you literally meant a bomb.

      In that case "Remind me to drop a bomb next time I'm in Tora Bora".

    3. Re:iBomb by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2

      Soon our enemies will fear sleek white plastic with rounded corners falling from the sky.

    4. Re:iBomb by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Soon our enemies will fear sleek white plastic with rounded corners falling from the sky.

      What is the terminal velocity of an unladen iPhone?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:iBomb by arazor · · Score: 1

      That would be against the apple developer's agreement. :)

      I mean jeeze, you aren't even allowed to make porn on idevices, and wmds are straight out.

      Steve Jobs aint here anymore...

    6. Re:iBomb by phil_aychio · · Score: 1

      9.8m/s(squared)...same as any smartphone

      --
      obvious redundancy is obvious
    7. Re:iBomb by Pence128 · · Score: 1
      --
      404: sig not found.
    8. Re:iBomb by CaptainDefragged · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? An African or European iPhone?

      --
      Don't tailgate - the end is near!
    9. Re:iBomb by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Wow... lol... you FAILED that TWICE!

      Good job!

      I say this for everyone ELSE'S benefit, that would potentially,
      ignorantly quote you sometime in the future. Not yours.

      1) Velocity, expressed in units of distance per time is much different than acceleration which is expressed as units of distance per time, SQUARED and is a measure of velocity CHANGE over TIME, thus the squaring. [MIND YOUR UNITS]

      2) GRAVITY (9.8m/s^2) is ACCELERATION

      3) Wind resistance calculates into TERMINAL VELOCITY, thus the need of ADDING THE WORD, TERMINAL to VELOCITY. Thus the TERMINAL VELOCITY of "ANY" object cannot be calculated without knowing quite a bit of the flow of the air stream around said object.

      And that is why, it is common to say... "I wonder what the terminal velocity of 'widget A' is"

      Notably in this case, an iPhone would have a complex terminal velocity calculation due to the fact it can present many different cross-sections to the wind. Something as simple as adding a tail, fin, trailer, etc to it, (like a neck or wrist strap) would significantly increase its terminal velocity compared to a non trailing version.

      "A free-falling object achieves its terminal velocity when the downward force of gravity (Fg) equals the upward force of drag (Fd). This causes the net force on the object to be zero, resulting in an acceleration of zero."

      TERMINAL FAIL. Stay in School! Or go back or something...

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
  8. Talk about clueless IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”

    If someone this incompetent was running a corporate network they'd have their ass on the street faster than they could say "network traffic analysis."

    1. Re:Talk about clueless IT by localman57 · · Score: 1

      If someone this incompetent was running a corporate network they'd have their ass on the street faster than they could say "network traffic analysis."

      You don't know that. They're not Bank Of America. They may not be able to decide to take everything offline at once, or sufficiently partition the system to prevent reinfection. If the damage done by the virus is less important than keeping the systems online and keeping the drones flying, you keep them online, while you figure it out, even if it means you have to backtrack. Remember that Stuxnet was infecting computers from the PLC boxes outward. Not a typical infection vector.

    2. Re:Talk about clueless IT by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Let's assume for a second that the guy is indeed competent (I know, it's a huge assumption on my part, but bear with me for a moment).

      What else could be happening? If it keeps on coming back, may be the virus (or a slightly different version of the virus) is already part of the back up that's being restored. May be, it was part of the original hardware all along, or part of the original image on the installation disks? Or may be, there is someone with access that keeps on infecting those computers over and over again?

      In any case, you're probably right. The guy probably doesn't know what he's doing. That's the most likely explanation, but I just like to play devil's advocate once in a while.

    3. Re:Talk about clueless IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes, the free market will save us from everything. Run along now, Mr Paul needs a donation and somewhere an old white lady needs a new tricorn.

    4. Re:Talk about clueless IT by couchslug · · Score: 2

      The whole idea of "wiping it off" is silly. Destroy suspect hard disks instead of trying to save them. The cost is trivial.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:Talk about clueless IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but that's funny. The restrictions on corporate America availability are far stricter than this tiny isolated government network. Their security hacks would struggle keeping a job in the private sector. If there wasn't a law against it I would publish the interview entry test scores and show you how incompetent they are on average when compared with private sector only worker applicants.

    6. Re:Talk about clueless IT by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      First, you're assuming the article is quoting someone other than the end-user who is simply following a procedure. Second why destroy hardware? They tried a standard response for this virus, it didn't work, so they bc-wiped the drive and reinstalled from the standard install image. Where is the problem? How is this any different than what you, I, or any typical corporate environment would do?

    7. Re:Talk about clueless IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. They are probably told they cannot do a complete wipe and reinstall. So if you remove the visible infection and it comes back, whaddya gonna do? My solution would be to NOT RUN WINDOWS on a system like this to begin with. And, Ubuntu for instance has a proper package manager, so it really is feasible to find any executable that doesn't match what is supposed to be there and elminiate it (if in theory it got some virus to beign with, which is much less likely since stuff on Ubuntu doesn't autorun.)

    8. Re:Talk about clueless IT by ICLKennyG · · Score: 1

      If Corporate IT got paid what these guys get paid, they'd be at another IT shop faster than you could say "Federal Pay Freeze"

      Everyone bitches that Federal Civilians are paid too much, but this is the reality of a compensation system that is 15-30%+ below the prevailing market rate (by their own employer's standards). http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2010/PayDisparities.asp Imagine if your employer put out a report that said you got paid 35% less than you were worth and then asked you to take a pay freeze while campaigning on further reducing your compensation so they can get reelected. It becomes hard to attract and retain talent.

  9. What, no skynet reference yet? by Marrow · · Score: 0

    How else would an emergent intelligence learn to take over our weapons so it could use them against us. It has to watch!

  10. Just to clarify by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Informative

    When they say the drones were infected, what they mean is that the computers controlling the drones (located in the US and which are, apparently, running Windows...) were infected with a keylogger, probably spread through flash drives. Whether this actually compromises security at all is unknown (keyloggers generally assume you are connected to the Internet, which these computers aren't.) They don't have much security on the drone computers because they aren't hooked up to the Internet, and they would (apparently) rather educate their users than bother with antivirus, for whatever reason (although they do have a security system on the network which detected the virus. I would imagine it also should have stopped the virus).

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    1. Re:Just to clarify by Locutus · · Score: 1

      I would think that such a system would be considered a "critical system" and therefore not allow any type of direct external data input unless through a secure and protected means. Oh wait, we're talking about US DoD contracts and back room deals so design is secondary and they think using Windows is using advanced technology.

      As the drones start dropping from the sky almost killing the ground soldiers, one soldier says pointing to the little girl, "Great! That's just great! Put her in charge then."

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +10 million internets for the Aliens reference.

    3. Re:Just to clarify by webheaded · · Score: 1

      Is this Soulskill guy new or something? This is the second article in the row where the summary has completely missed the point. I don't normally complain much about that but then they aren't usually THAT far off base. o_O

      Thanks for clarifying...this makes much more sense. I hadn't read the article yet (I'm reading it now) because I generally read a few comments first and it kind of makes me laugh I got this far down without someone else mentioning this. :p

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    4. Re:Just to clarify by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Once again, these computers did have antivirus. It was even mentioned in the ./ post that they were running McAfee HBSS.

    5. Re:Just to clarify by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Note that a system-wide keylogger pretty much has to work at a level low enough that it can inject input instead of intercepting it. So if they've got that kind of thing, they really got pwned - and next payload coming their way may be less inclined to play nice.

    6. Re:Just to clarify by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      This seems possible (it was actually what I was thinking might be happening when I saw the headline), but it would be challenging, to say the least. The computers that control the drones are air-gapped from the Internet, meaning you couldn't control the system in real time, unless you could gain direct control over the drone itself (which might also be possible, but I hope not). Far more likely, you could mess up the drones, by for instance making them crash, but then we just stop flying them and rebuild our systems.

      And this is assuming they can get the technical information required to influence the drones and not just load up a game of solitary. Something like Stuxnet takes a lot of work and access to equipment and technical manuals. So, someone like the Chinese or Russians could possibly do it, if we ever go to war, but I doubt very much the Afghans or others we are actually using the drones on have the ability to pull something like that off. And in full-scale war (such as against the Chinese) drones won't be nearly as effective. They're pretty easy to shoot down. So while obviously the US needs to beef up it's security, I doubt this problem will effect their ability to control the drones.

      Much worse IMO is how many of the drones send video feed to ground soldiers unencrypted. And yes, the terrorists did intercept it. Absolute mind-fuckingly stupid. People who made the decision not to encrypt that should never be allowed near a weapon design again. I realize it adds technical difficulty... but you deal with that, you don't do really really stupid shit like that.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    7. Re:Just to clarify by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      HBSS isn't an antivirus program, it is a network security suite that has virus scanners as an optional component (looking at Wikipedia) and is the security system I mentioned in my post. They may or may not have had antivirus software running on the individual computers. My guess is they didn't, but TFA doesn't say and I might be wrong. Generally, antivirus shouldn't have been needed on the computers, and would drain resources and/or may cause technical problems, which is why I say they probably didn't. Or the virus might not be in their signatures, which would explain the infection.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:Just to clarify by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      HBSS isn't an antivirus program, it is a network security suite that has virus scanners as an optional component (looking at Wikipedia) and is the security system I mentioned in my post. They may or may not have had antivirus software running on the individual computers. My guess is they didn't, but TFA doesn't say and I might be wrong. Generally, antivirus shouldn't have been needed on the computers, and would drain resources and/or may cause technical problems, which is why I say they probably didn't. Or the virus might not be in their signatures, which would explain the infection.

      The article did say that HBSS detected it, so it is natural to assume that it was the a/v component. But you are right, technically you can run HBSS with just the other components like HIPS and run a different a/v suite. NMCI for example is using Symantec antivirus, and HBSS with HIPS for the firewalling and app locking NMCI is working towards shifting over to the McAfee a/v suite though, since the promised support for Symantec within HBSS never materialized.

      The use of HBSS is mandatory on all computers that are connected to DOD enterprise networks. It's optional, but encouraged for isolated enclaves.. Since they are running HBSS, then it safe to assume all those systems are probably networked together as the only feasible way to run HBSS framework is using the central management server.

    9. Re:Just to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (located in the US

      *cough* Bungendore *cough* isn't actually part of USA. Yet.

  11. This is potentially disastrous by ericloewe · · Score: 1

    A virus on those computers is one step away from assuming control, assuming someone writes such a virus. Think stuxnet but with drones instead of centrifuges. Drones loaded with air-to-ground missiles, that is...

    1. Re:This is potentially disastrous by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Should be good for the Lulz.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:This is potentially disastrous by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Except that because they are Windows based computers, the probability is very high that these are infected with your standard Windows virus instead of a custom one designed specifically to get into these computers. Therefore, it's unlikely there's any threat.

      Probably some pilot got bored during down time and wanted to show his buds his pics of his girlfriend.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    3. Re:This is potentially disastrous by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      Therefore, it's unlikely there's any threat.

      This time. Now that the world know these machines can hijacked accidentally, how long until people start trying to do it on purpose?

      --
      404: sig not found.
    4. Re:This is potentially disastrous by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

      Where did you see that these are Windows based computers? I don't have experience with the Predator system but I do with other military drones and to be honest, I would be shocked if the flight computers run windows.

  12. Should have used a Mac... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Virus? Should have used a Mac... although of course then it would have cost the military twice as much and they'd be forced to buy their ammunition from Apple.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Should have used a Mac... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Virus? Should have used a Mac... although of course then it would have cost the military twice as much and they'd be forced to buy their ammunition from Apple.

      But the weapons would be more effective because when they arrive, the enemy would be so stunned at the design that they would forget fighting them.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Should have used a Mac... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that Apple computers are the only available defense against aliens. You don't want to use these weapons for mere earthlings.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  13. They should be Closed Systems by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    That is, no one should be allowed to load any program that is not vetted by the manufacturer.

    So I am betting that the manufacturer got hit, and had the virus infect them at the factory, possibly installing itself as an 'update'.

    It should not be that hard to remove - wipe and revert to an earlier version.

    Unless of course they lost the earlier versiosn.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:They should be Closed Systems by localman57 · · Score: 1

      Or if the drones can't talk to the earlier version. It's common with embedded systems to upgrade the remote firmware and PC software at the same time as your protocols change.

  14. You don't understand! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Skynet IS the virus!

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:You don't understand! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      SkyBSB is the virus.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:You don't understand! by Nanosphere · · Score: 1

      Thats right it was all Skynets fault, pay no attention to the Basestars orbiting overhead. - By your command, Number Six

    3. Re:You don't understand! by Megane · · Score: 1

      By your command, Number Six

      I am not a number, I am a free Cylon!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  15. Wow by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

    Ok, so you get some interns in a room and ask them to draw on the whiteboard the things to consider when designing a remote controlled killer robot.

    What do you suppose the FIRST thing any intern is going to write up there in terms of things you need to worry about?

    Make SURE the enemy can't hack your robots and turn them against you!

    Well, when you start writing up how to accomplish that, you would want
                1. A completely secure system for authenticating commands sent from the control system. The only form of encryption that is completely secure is one time pad.
                2. NO POSSIBLE WAY for someone to load viruses or gain access to the control system!!! That means NO network access to anything but the systems that send and receive signals from the drone! And one heck of a hardware filter on those information packets!

    1. Re:Wow by foma84 · · Score: 1

      TFA is rather clear about these two points:
      1. The intercepted communications were videos FROM the drone TO the cq.
      2. The system is off the net, they need to plug external hard drives to tranfer said videos and other data.

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

      And then you put the whole system out for tender and pick the lowest bidder whom ignores all those minor details in order to save enough money to have the lowest price and get the work. Welcome to the world of competitive tender bidding.

      Ok, so you get some interns in a room and ask them to draw on the whiteboard the things to consider when designing a remote controlled killer robot.

      What do you suppose the FIRST thing any intern is going to write up there in terms of things you need to worry about?

      Make SURE the enemy can't hack your robots and turn them against you!

      Well, when you start writing up how to accomplish that, you would want

                  1. A completely secure system for authenticating commands sent from the control system. The only form of encryption that is completely secure is one time pad.

                  2. NO POSSIBLE WAY for someone to load viruses or gain access to the control system!!! That means NO network access to anything but the systems that send and receive signals from the drone! And one heck of a hardware filter on those information packets!

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

      You failed. Twice. You forgot that encryption and authentication are two separate items. Assume we use a one time pad to secure communications with the robot. That doesn't authenticate the orders, so we send random data at the robot until it happens to decrypt as an order that causes it to do something (no idea what but probably not a good thing). Ooops. Also "NO POSSIBLE WAY" to upload viruses, and yet you want to exchange information with it. Good luck.

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

      . . . or you could PRETEND that you're being hacked to justify more spending. ;)

      That's the racket with government. The worse of a job they do, the more money they get. . . so they just fuck up on purpose and they rake in more and more money. If they did a good job, their budgets would be cut.

    5. Re:Wow by omni123 · · Score: 1

      I don't really know why I picked this one instead of any of the other stupid ones, but this one had a lot of hilarity.

      1. A completely secure system for authenticating commands sent from the control system. The only form of encryption that is completely secure is one time pad.

      Okay... so they use a one time pad with a human at one end and a mechanical arm on the drone pulling out the pad and lining up the numbers? If only cryptography was this easy we would never have any problems of security anywhere. Everywhere. For the record a one time pad provides no message authentication, which is security failure 101 (the interns you hired could probably tell you, by the way).

      2. NO POSSIBLE WAY for someone to load viruses or gain access to the control system!!! That means NO network access to anything but the systems that send and receive signals from the drone!

      Uh, okay. Can you implement the method the interns come up for this on every bank in the world? Oh, wait, every computer in the world. Lets just put a stop to these silly little viruses and security problems. Let me know what you come up with; I'm sure the US Military would love to hear the actual method you come up for this.

      And one heck of a hardware filter on those information packets!

      What on earth is a hardware filter? If this situation even involved something being transmitted over the communications channel then this might even be relevant. Except it's not. Even if it were... what the hell would it do?

      While you're solving all these problems can you put some time against world hunger and finance as well please? We really some genius like you over there. I was thinking that to fix America we should:

      1. Make sure everyone has enough money to buy anything they want
      2. Stop all crime so we dont have to waste money on courts

      What do you think?

    6. Re:Wow by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea what these things are.

      1. A one time pad is a a data file that stores a string a random numbers taken from a hardware random number generator. At a central location, exactly 2 devices are created with the same data file. Each "device" has a microcontroller front end that blocks the pad from ever being copied off of the device, written onto the same silicon wafer as the portion containing the flash. One device is installed inside the drone, the other one is the key to access the drone and is inserted into the control console when you are ready to use the drone. All control data packets are XORed against this pad when they leave the control console and XORed again when they are received by the drone. Only valid packets that match an md5 of the same packet that is appended at the end of the packet are executed by the drone.

      If you are at all knowledgable about computing, you will see how this both makes interception and decryption of the control packets impossible as well as ensures that no one can insert unauthorized commands with more than an infitesimal chance of success (without physical access to one or other pad and the technical means to copy them, which is made as difficult as possible).

      2. If the control system is run on read-only media, and the part that handles uploads of data to external drives is a separate computer system without a 2 way communication link to the control system, then uploading a virus is by definition impossible as there is no path for such an upload to take.

      3. A hardware filter is a microcontroller or small embedded computer running a separate OS from the main computer that inspects each data packet coming and and leaving and ensures that it meets certain criteria. (such as no strings longer than the allowed buffer size, etc valid checksums, etc)

    7. Re:Wow by omni123 · · Score: 1

      A one time pad is a a data file ...

      I was being facetious--if you knew the origins of the concept of a one time pad I thought that would have been immediately obvious. The main problem with what you are suggesting, aside from lack of message authenticity, is that it would tie one terminal to one drone. You could obviously address this by having a central system responsible for forwarding interactions between operators and the drones but this reduces the effectiveness of the suggested crypto and introduces the point of failure that this article is actually talking about; the drone control terminal.

      You have yet to solve this particular problem but don't let practicality get in the way of a good hardware engineers response. Lets not even talk about the cost and difficulty involved of expanding/replacing the key list over time (because eventually key reuse would pose a problem as many of these drones are years old). Realistically a modern key negotiation protocol and cryptosystem would be more than sufficient for this... but again, this is not the actual problem or the situation posed in the article. Someone plugged an infected thumb drive in to the operator terminal; the encrypted control channel used by the drones remains protected.

      2. If the control system is run on read-only media, and the part that handles uploads of data to external drives is a separate computer system without a 2 way communication link to the control system, then uploading a virus is by definition impossible as there is no path for such an upload to take.

      This is yet another suggestion that throws cost and practicality to the wayside. How do you suggest that mapping data gets to the drone or the operator terminal (since I suspect you didn't actually bother reading the article, uploading of mapping data is the suspected attack vector)? I suppose the operator terminal could run a read only operating system and be replaced with newer versions of the ROM when the mapping data needs updating and even if we ignore the cost of replacing a ROM on potentially hundreds of operator terminals in tens of locations worldwide then we still have a central location to insert a virus: the mapping data server.

      3. A hardware filter is a microcontroller or small embedded computer running a separate OS from the main computer that inspects each data packet coming and and leaving and ensures that it meets certain criteria. (such as no strings longer than the allowed buffer size, etc valid checksums, etc)

      Yes, I understand the concept, but this is purely an engineers pipe dream and not something you will realistically see in practise in large scale systems like this. The criteria would need to be immensely relaxed to allow for the possibility of software and capability upgrades without physically replacing a device on all several thousand drones they may have in operation.

      I'm not saying that your ideas aren't technically feasible but they are very much disconnected from the reality. You may as well have posted and told them to keep them on the ground in a safe suspended above a volcano--they would have about the same use and capability as with the 'upgrades' you have suggested (and still have not addresses the problem of a keylogger on an operator terminal that reveals: W W W A A S D W A S D W)

    8. Re:Wow by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Well, you didn't have to insult me if you knew what I was talking about. As I just mentioned, the one time pad is a removable module. If you ever run out of keyspace, the avionics in the drone will refuse to allow a flight (they will keep functioning until the end of the current flight by looping back to the beginning of the pad but no further) until the module containing the pad is replaced.

      And just think about it for a minute. How large are these control packets going to be? A few hundred bytes each? The major user of bandwidth for a drone is going to be the video streams, which can be encrypted with more conventional public/private key methods. While it would be entirely practical to give a 10 million dollar drone a 1 terrabyte or more long pad, exceeding any plausible lifespan for the drone.

      The key to use the drone is a module with the drone's serial number that is stored in a vault. I sort of imagine it made of red plastic for the module that allows the drone to use it's weapon systems. Any command console can accept the key to any drone. Perhaps there might be two-three identical keys per drone.

      These drone aircraft are at least 10 million dollars each. None of the things I have described are all that difficult or expensive to implement, and would use commodity parts. It wouldn't add a significant amount to the cost.

  16. We're finally getting requests for Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from our DOD clients because of this happy horse***t. We had one site where someone was
    tired of waiting for files to transfer, pulled the screwed-on cover over the usb ports, and infected
    the entire room of um- pcs with a virus. We just installed our first Linux server for the product
    line this week. Luckily most of it is implemented in java, so except for wrapping it up in an
    rpm and getting the init.d scripts squared away there's not much to do.

    1. Re:We're finally getting requests for Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the same Linux whose own developers were rooted for at minimum numerous months before ever noticing? That one?

  17. FPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the operators are hosting a Deathmatch league.

    You'd think they'd have enough with the day job!

  18. Best comment in TFA by arielCo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The big problem is that the drones keep ordering refueling boom enlargement kits, and four of them tried to fly to Nigeria to collect on a half-million gallons of jet fuel that was left there by a former Minister of Aviation.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:Best comment in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears this is nothing more than a keylogger. So, to save the bad guys the trouble, here's the secret code for flying the UAVs:

      Up-Up-Down-Down-Left-Right-Left-Right-A-B-A-B-Select

  19. Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These drones are so vulnerable, their use in combat is totally laughable. Iraqi insurgents could intercept their communications with $26 software! Two years ago! Their shit is apparently totally unencrypted, and as such, has now been exploited to the point where they are now able to infiltrate the control software.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

    Next thing you know, these guys will turn the whole damn fleet of drones against us. Just what I wanted my tax dollars going toward, free fucking aerial suicide bombers for al Qaeda, drug cartels, and script kiddies.

    1. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are not hacking the control software, all they are doing is receiving an unencrypted video feed.

      You do not get anywhere close to being able to hack a drone just because you receive something similar to a TV station. You wouldn't be able to hack a TV station though a TV signal and you can't hack a drone though it's video feed.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      They were able to receive the video feed two years ago. The same video feed received by the controllers. This means they had access to a data line going to the controller. In two years, they were able to exploit this widely known vulnerability to install a keylogger on the control station. What will happen in two more years, with all of the information gathered from there?

      All because they are so stupid they can't even encrypt their damn signal.

      Also note that you can't hack a TV station via a TV feed because they are BROADCASTING, not receiving. However, you could probably hack an unprotected computer using a digital tuner to receive that data over the air. That is likely what happened here.

    3. Re:Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These drones are so vulnerable, their use in combat is totally laughable. Iraqi insurgents could intercept their communications with $26 software! Two years ago! Their shit is apparently totally unencrypted, and as such, has now been exploited to the point where they are now able to infiltrate the control software.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

      Next thing you know, these guys will turn the whole damn fleet of drones against us. Just what I wanted my tax dollars going toward, free fucking aerial suicide bombers for al Qaeda, drug cartels, and script kiddies.

      You were completely off base and the article you linked to proved you wrong in the first fucking sentence!

    4. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 1

      In two years, they were able to exploit this widely known vulnerability to install a keylogger on the control station

      There is a key logger on the military's computers, but the likely hood that it was reverse engineered from the unencrypted video stream is well impossible. Remember the video feed is only being broadcasted, much like a TV station. The drones use a different method entirely for control. The insurgents aren't even able to jam the signal, let alone intercept it and inject a virus into it.

      If it was that easy the insurgents wouldn't be installing key loggers on the operators computers that in a totally different country, they would be controlling the drones themselves.

      However, you could probably hack an unprotected computer using a digital tuner to receive that data over the air. That is likely what happened here.

      Can you elaborate this point better because that doesn't make sense? You can't hack something just by receiving data from, it has to be two way.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    5. Re:Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "their use in combat is totally laughable"

      I doubt very highly that anyone in the region is laughing as ordinance is raining down from the sky launched from flying robots...

    6. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      The point is that if they could intercept the video stream, they could transmit a fake one with malicious code embedded, which goes to the control system where the pilot is (NOT TO THE DRONE). If they can intercept the video stream, then they can spoof it. That is the point. All it takes is a sophisticated ally.

      And what is this nonsense about not being able to "hack" something one way? There are countless exploits that can be loaded into a poorly protected system just from receipt of data. I can't count the number of times I have read about some stupid thing or another where windows systems are owned by a .jpg or .pdf with malicious code. Once the system is rooted, they can send all the data they want over the internet, or via radio transmission (ie via the same channel they use to control the drones).

    7. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I said "combat", not "slaughter". Try using these against China or even Iran, and you will quickly see how vulnerable they are. America's hubris from it's last few wars against peasant armies will lead to massive combat losses as soon as they go up against a smart or resourceful enemy.

    8. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? This is the first sentence: Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

      How did that prove any of what I said wrong?

      Or are you just an idiot?

    9. Re:Military Intelligence by Akzo · · Score: 1

      Do they need to hack the control software to control the Drone though? If they are able to reverse engineer the signal why couldn't they just use a stronger signal to deafen the original controllers commands.

      --
      Sig is for Signature, so you don't have to manually sign every post.
    10. Re:Military Intelligence by jon3k · · Score: 1

      modded +5 insightful? wow, slashdot has really gone downhill.

    11. Re:Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like suggesting that because your TV can receive NBC, for example, you can pretend to *BE* NBC....

    12. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You don't quite get just how basic this is.

      This is not a data stream, this a VHF TV station broadcast.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    13. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Only if you are fucking retarded.

    14. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh, so you are claiming these drones broadcast an ANALOG signal, now?

      Perhaps you should spend some more time in kindergarden before talking with the grown ups?

    15. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Because A, the up and down streams don't use the same channel, and B, you can't tell anything about how the controls work from the video feed. Install a keylogger while monitoring the movements on the drone, however...

    16. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Says the guy who can't tell the difference between the numbers "4" and "5". Were you just going to make empty insults to the moderators, or actually issue some form of rebuttal?

    17. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 1

      yep, talked before doing basic research, went off something half told. I came back here to say my bad and I see you've already replied.

      Now, as to the possibility of this virus coming from a hacked video feed. Have the insurgents had any luck at all of even jamming this feed? Should be easy enough if you are to the point of being able to inject custom code for whatever computer might be on the other end. All those guys we blow up, they still don't see them coming. Are they even able to decode the transmission in real time to be able to save their own bacon? As it said in the article you linked no missions have been compromised.

      This is most probably a run of the mill mbr virus on some drive that gets plugged in every now and then.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    18. Re:Military Intelligence by omni123 · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh, so you are claiming these drones broadcast an ANALOG signal, now?

      Perhaps you should spend some more time in kindergarden before talking with the grown ups?

      Uhhhhh.... No... They have multiple communications channel; one is very low frequency and transmit video signals. One is a higher frequency (higher freq => more data, extremely basic) which is encrypted and has the actual control link. You obviously have absolutely no idea of radio-frequency communication and while not impossible sharing both video and control data on a single communication channel at a frequency that low is highly unlikely.

    19. Re:Military Intelligence by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      tmosely's point is that they don't even need to hack in to get the feed. And the feed shows what the drone is looking at, in realtime. This is extremely valuable battlefield intelligence that we absolutely should not be providing to the enemy on a silver platter.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    20. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Did a little more digging, here is an article with some pretty good information.

      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/intercepting_pr.html

      The signal they are receiving is not coming from the Predators at all. The signal they are receiving is the satellite downlink for the soldiers in the field, not the signal to the operators of the Predator. It also gives a pretty good explanation as to why it is not encrypted.

      So my arguments have been correct except for that VHS comment.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    21. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      If you actually read my comments you would see that I understand that. I never said ANYTHING about taking direct control of the drones in this way. I SAID they could use the totally unencrypted digital video stream to transmit malicious code to the RECEIVERS of the video stream, ie the workstation from which the drone is being controlled. With a good enough understanding of that console, which can be gained from keyloggers and other probes, they could figure out how to take control of the drones themselves.

    22. Re:Military Intelligence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is better, but it is still no excuse for lack of encryption.

    23. Re:Military Intelligence by Jeng · · Score: 1

      I can understand why originally it might not have had encryption, but after it was found out in the Balkans that the video feed was being intercepted they should have done something about it then, long before most of the Predators currently in use were even built.

      What I find almost criminal is that the new drones in development such as the Avenger use the same ground support infrastructure. It's one thing to have a glaring design flaw in a first run product, but when you make changes to the design to the extent they are with the Avenger you really should fix something as major as this.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    24. Re:Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Triue, but this is missing the point. That video feed is a feed of the drone's current target, and they can detect the video feed from over 30 miles away. Hacked or not, the drones lose their key advantage - being small and thus undetectable - if you have live, streaming intel about the current target. If Al Queda has walkie-talkies and a netbook, they can neutralize all drone strikes by simply watching the video feed and staying mobile.

      Taking control of the drones is a nightmare scenario, but don't let that fool you - simply avoiding them 90% of the time is problematic enough as to render them mostly useless, and they aren't cheap. At the end of the day, this is why we've spent 10 years fighting these bastards and haven't won yet. They can defeat a $2 billion program with $2,000 in walkie-talkies because Lockheed-Martin decided it would be more profitable to leave the primary targeting video feed unencryoted. Nice going, capitalism.

    25. Re:Military Intelligence by omni123 · · Score: 1

      That's not how these things work... the video stream is likely analogue and even if it were digital the exact receiving communications equipment has no support for 'malicious code', it likely simply receives and decodes video signals. This isn't CSI or The Matrix--you don't just take a video stream and jam some malicious code in there and have it executed on the workstation viewing the video.

      If you believe otherwise please provide me with a reference where this is possible.

    26. Re:Military Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might want to check again because it's back to five, dipshit. You know so little about how this works I wouldn't even know where to begin.

  20. TFA is a very nice compendium... by foma84 · · Score: 2

    ...of military security holes'n'breaches.
    It definetly deserves a read, or at least a glimpse. It's not just stuxnet and finely crafted computer warfare, it may be plain old viruses and tojans we deal with every day.

  21. Other way around by Toe,+The · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, I sincerely doubt this is some mysterious computer intelligence taking over our military.

    BUT... this is clearly the path to skynet. What we are seeing is what pretty much all of us already understood: when you have increasingly autonomous killbots, disaster becomes a question of "when" not "if."

    1. Re:Other way around by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is no more autonomous a kill bot than a human being.

    2. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be JP from Grandma's Boy... How are those metal legs working out for ya? Oh and you never did tell us how much clothes cost in the Matrix...

      For the record, animals are not machines.

    3. Re:Other way around by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      when you have increasingly autonomous killbots, disaster becomes a question of "when" not "if."

      You say this as if it's a problem. Everybody knows that each Killbot has a preset kill limit. I'll simply send wave after wave of my own men in against them until they hit their limit and then freeze in place. G'uh.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    4. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but there is just one kill bot out there not, is it, hmm?

    5. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I sincerely doubt this is some mysterious computer intelligence taking over our military.

      BUT... this is clearly the path to skynet. What we are seeing is what pretty much all of us already understood: when you have increasingly autonomous killbots, disaster becomes a question of "when" not "if."

      I'm all for this. Sure, the actual implementation of Skynet may not be as cool as "It became sentient" as opposed to "a bunch of asshats who didn't care how many people the payloads killed infected whatever they could," but I'll take whatever solution to global warming offers itself.

    6. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just make sure that your killbots don't have a preset kill limit. That way they can't be defeated by having your enemy send wave after wave of their men at them.

    7. Re:Other way around by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      Any sufficiently advanced autonomous kill bot is indistinguishable from a human.

    8. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YET.

    9. Re:Other way around by fl_litig8r · · Score: 1

      Of course, we know the solution to fighting killbots is to send wave after wave of your soldiers against them until they reach their kill limit. Thank you, Zap Brannigan!

    10. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QED

    11. Re:Other way around by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Even the autonomous ones require human confirmation.

    12. Re:Other way around by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The range is pretty pathetic, though. I mean, what is it, a couple dozen miles on one MRE - and that's pushing it?

      They really need to work on better batteries.

    13. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the worry I suppose. What happens if we continue progress in the autonomous kill bot production field to the point that your statement is no longer true?

    14. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which shows just why we already face such disasters. People who romanticize or dread future potential danger while ignoring the threats in the present are just in denial. Fear of murderous robots is understandable, but consider the murderous sentient entities that are not just future possibilities, but very real right now.

    15. Re:Other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what's more interesting, your reference to skynet or the fact that a network at Creech is actually called Skynet. ;-)

  22. Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't exactly a new attack vector. Banks don't let people plug removable drives into sensitive systems - why does the US government?

    You know what happened - either Joe private plugged his private pr0n collection into a classified computer, or else he took a classified drive home to use privately. Either was, really bad news.

    If you've just got to have removable storage, then you pay for special connectors, so they are incompatible with anything else. Then you cast the guts in epoxy, so no solder jockey can change out the connector. This is not rocket science.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was an IT worker in the reserves and our systems blocked USB drives, not only the autorun, but altogether. You couldn't use them, made it a bitch to back stuff up, but hey prevents stuff like this. Maybe the Airforce didn't follow suit.

    2. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by mclearn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, TFA believes that the vector was a removable drive by which they periodically update their map collections.

      Use of the drives is now severely restricted throughout the military. But the base at Creech was one of the exceptions, until the virus hit. Predator and Reaper crews use removable hard drives to load map updates and transport mission videos from one computer to another. The virus is believed to have spread through these removable drives. Drone units at other Air Force bases worldwide have now been ordered to stop their use.

    3. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Areed. We did the things you describe back in the eighties. (Although back then "removable" meant the drive was on a sturdy cart with wheels.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      As your system needs updates in data, it must have a system to constantly put data in it. Whatever you make it of, pen drives, network, punched cards, paper and scanner, it will be a vector for intrusion, and there is no way to turn it off.

    5. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Why on earth does plugging a flash drive into a USB port necessarily need to cause a security compromise? Just don't execute anything from the drive. It really isn't that hard.

    6. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did this imply Autorun still enabled?

    7. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you cast the guts in epoxy, so no solder jockey can change out the connector. This is not rocket science.

      Someone could still make a passthrough adapter, assuming the removable storage device uses the same pins.

    8. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth does plugging a flash drive into a USB port necessarily need to cause a security compromise? Just don't execute anything from the drive. It really isn't that hard.

      Autorun. Stock Windows will load and execute any .inf file discovered upon a removable media, be it flash drive or CD rom. It is possible to turn this "feature" off, but it doesn't always stay turned off.

    9. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      If you've just got to have removable storage, then you pay for special connectors, so they are incompatible with anything else.

      Or you just... oh I don't know .. stop using OSes which go to extra trouble to find, load, and execute code from removable drives whenever it sees one.

      When I hear fear about plugging in drives, I think that's just as amazing as people saying to not surf porn sites or be careful about what links you click on. If those activities pose the slightest risk of infection, then your computer is already "infected" with shitware, and shouldn't be used for anything important.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you know what the root of the problem is. The solution isn't to physically destroy part of the computer.

    11. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks don't let people plug removable drives into sensitive systems - why does the US government?

      Uh, wait. You mean to say a human life is equally important as couple of these beauties?

    12. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the US military didn't think to disable autorun?

    13. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      When I hear fear about plugging in drives, I think that's just as amazing as people saying to not surf porn sites or be careful about what links you click on. If those activities pose the slightest risk of infection, then your computer is already "infected" with shitware, and shouldn't be used for anything important.

      While I completely agree with the sentiment, there is one big whopping footnote to this: DMA.

      Plugging a drive into a port that supports DMA will be massively risky no matter what software you use. A microcontroller (bug) slipped into a USB flash drive will have full, hardware-level access to the entire computer when plugged-in, as if you let a tech come in and rip the system apart.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:Spread by removable drives? How hard is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My OS doesn't. I use Windows. Sometimes it asks me if I'd like to open the autorun. Usually it just does the default action which I've configured in the Control Panel, which is generally to open the folder in Windows Explorer.

  23. This is why the good lord made Eproms. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 2

    At least, that's the word on the street.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:This is why the good lord made Eproms. by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Then you just get a couple smart-ass college kids to sneak aboard and change the EPROM. Next thing you know your spiffy new house is ruined.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  24. Time to admit that security matters? by MaXintosh · · Score: 1

    It seems like there's this cultural attitude out there that cybersecurity (hate that term) is a bit of an overblown joke, and that the worst malicious agents could do is steal our nation's porn collection or some such. Really, between stuxnet and now this, I really hope that people take home the message that targeted computer security threats can do a lot of damage in the national-security sense.

    I really would be surprised if it turns out that this looks like it was developed by insert-country-that-doesn't-like-the-US-here. Iran, dicking with the US for giving them stuxnet springs to mind.

    Of course, it could have also been some service member who was adding material to the national pornstash who's responsible.

  25. Drones run Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the drones run Windows? We're SOOOO doomed.

    Doooomed!

  26. This has happened before.. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    It's easy enough to fix. All you have to do is shut down the drones, flush the systems, and then restore from the protected archives in the core!

    1. Re:This has happened before.. by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      "protected archives?"

    2. Re:This has happened before.. by ilsaloving · · Score: 1
  27. Would have never expected it... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Nope never ever would I have expected the deployment of remote controlled anything to become suseptible to tamper. I also would have never ever expect the MIC to come up with anything other than hardened systems especially when human lives are on the line. This must have been a fluke...

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  28. Tax dollars at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the meantime, technicians at Creech are trying to get the virus off the GCS machines. It has not been easy. At first, they followed removal instructions posted on the website of the Kaspersky security firm. “But the virus kept coming back,” a source familiar with the infection says. Eventually, the technicians had to use a software tool called BCWipe to completely erase the GCS’ internal hard drives."

    Sometimes we have an amazingly high-tech military. Sometimes we have 18-year-olds following virus removal steps from an AV vendor's website.

    Compare the effort put into Stuxnet to target Iranian nuclear facilities to the effort needed to infect the drone fleet.

    1. Re:Tax dollars at work by couchslug · · Score: 1

      They chased the motivated, volunteer geeks away during the 1990s because their actual AFSCs were other career fields.

      Most AF computer maintainers are essentially Admin paper-pushers at the lower levels.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  29. Re:Wait, "has resisted"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well to be fair, they called the helpdesk but some dude there told them "I am thinking you are needing to be reinstalling your windows. What version of Windows are you running?" At which point they hung up.

  30. what a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These systems should be designed read only, when operating. Every process identified and whitelisted. I mean really do you want a virus to be able to fire off a TOW missle?

    1. Re:what a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, do you want the operator to be able to fire off a TOW missile? Because they're not going to be able to do that if they're.... wait for it... fucking read only.

    2. Re:what a joke by queBurro · · Score: 1

      maybe systems areon different hw,like canbus in your car, e.g. messing with the steteo's bus doesn't set the airbags off?

      --
      sag
  31. Honeypot anyone? by Lashat · · Score: 1

    hmm..

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  32. Software Reuse by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

    They're probably using a version of MS Flight Simulator as the base for their control application.

    1. Re:Software Reuse by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Probably using the free version of FSUIPC too, the cheap bastards.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  33. Re:Wait, "has resisted"? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    My bet is the virus is on the clone image for their machines. Too many clone image makers don't do the paranoid clean-room thing.

  34. So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let's get past the pro/anti Windows bias just for a moment. Clear your mind, see operating systems just as operating systems and not religion.

    Now, if most (certainly not all, but most) computer virii were written for a particular OS, why would you use that OS in a secure surveillance or weapons application? Why would you not specify an OS that did the job, but had far fewer (or no) viruses already out in the wild? Wouldn't that go further towards avoiding infection than procedures regarding removable drives and other media that will inevitably be circumvented?

    Moreover, if said OS happened not to have support for modern codecs, wouldn't that make it less likely that operators would try to view porn, ur, contraband, um, unauthorized materials on same?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 1

      Because if they were iDrones they'd cost us 50% more, really not be any more secure from someone determined to get in, you'd have to have someone with even more special training to work on it, and you'd have to send it back to the manufacturer to get the batteries replaced.

      Course, it would *look* cooler....

    2. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not when the policy is "only buy microsoft", regardless of the price or quality. Tax payer pays a mighty bill for this privilege. Then contractors are mandated to interoperate with and use "equivalent" systems, so it's a closed shop, closed mind environment

    3. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by Espresso2xshot · · Score: 2

      No, you're not a troll. You're on point.
      I love Linux, I hate Windows.
      But it is not my religion.

      Bottom line when it is this important you develop a specifically created OS. Like you said you create it, you control its use. Nobody else can!

      Remember the days when the boys at Bell labs did stuff like that? What about the kids at Berkley?
      Make your own OS!!

      Now get off my lawn!

    4. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did exactly that when I was making war toys in the eighties. I wrote a collection of routines and a minimal OS that I could reuse in several military projects by writing different routines for it. Systems are more complicated now, but not a lot more.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by djchristensen · · Score: 1

      Why would you not specify an OS that did the job, but had far fewer (or no) viruses already out in the wild?

      While I generally agree with this sentiment, the flip side is the uproar when the project hits cost overruns that are blamed on the Military's insistence that a less-prevalent OS be used for which there are fewer developers (not saying such blame would be accurate, but when has that ever mattered?). There is no end of stories about $600 toilet seats or hammers or whatnot, with little or no understanding of the requirements that might have legitimately led to high costs for military equipment. The first instinct is to call it all wasteful spending (which is true in some or even many cases, but not all).

    6. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's funny, but we're still talking religion.

      Why does it have to be a commercial OS at all? It's been many years since I was in the war toys business, but we'd never consider using an over-the-counter OS for command and control. That just seems amazing to me. If an outsider can take over one drone, there's no theoretical reason why they couldn't take over a substantial number of them. Our own forces could then be in for a brief, nasty shock. Realistically, there's got to be people on the other side of every conflict we're involved in, that are frantically working on doing just that.

      And our side is controlling our airborne weapons using the most pwned OS in the world.

      And nobody sees anything wrong with this??

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Right, that does happen, but anyone with an ounce of foresight could predict that the potential damage caused by just one Hellfire-equipped Predator taken over by a hostile force would probably outweigh the cost overrun of a software project. Especially at today's prices.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I just now flashed back to the part in The Hurt Locker where bored GIs are buying movies on DVD from locals. One theme of the movie was that you have no way of knowing, in a civilian population, who your enemies are. Perfect attack vector.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      It might be because of graphics card drivers and 3D support. Especially if the software has started development a long time ago (the systems seem to be running XP).

      Even if they're not explicitly using DirectX, which they could very well be, then even with OpenGL your best bet still is Windows.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    10. Re:So here I go getting modded "troll"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Realistically, if your primary goal is keeping enemy forces from pwning your fire control system, I can't see how your best bet could ever be Windows. That would be like buying the locks for a high security installation at the local supermarket.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  35. I lol'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else read only " Infected cockpit of american predators"

  36. Obligatory... by JaneTheIgnorantSlut · · Score: 0

    All your drone are belong to us.

  37. Not a Windows issue by Corson · · Score: 1

    Whether or not those computers run Windows is not the issue. The issue is, how on Earth did that virus get on specialized and restricted US military control systems?

    1. Re:Not a Windows issue by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      It was most likely on a removable disk. This in itself is not a problem. The problem is one of A: There was an executable that someone decided to run without a signature. B: There was an executable that wasn't even supposed to be there that some retard decided to run. C: There was an executable that Windows decided to run for shits and giggles a la autorun.inf.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  38. Forget Schwarzenegger, think Matthew Broderick by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    So in The Terminator, humanity is destroyed when the power-mad AI "Skynet" launches nuclear missiles. That's been the popular conception of computer-driven destruction ever since.

    Here we have computers controlling flying killer robots. Said computers have been compromised by malware. This was detected weeks ago, the malware is still a threat, and they're still flying them .

    I'm starting to really believe that WarGames will be the more accurate prediction. Humanity won't be destroyed by machines which try to take our place. Humanity will be destroyed when some punk teenager hacks into a weapons system and pushes the wrong button.

    $DEITY help us.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Forget Schwarzenegger, think Matthew Broderick by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

      This. There is a clear and present danger to the American Military's most powerful weapon system - and they are continuing to use it. Who cares about the OS that was attacked? Some moron/loser/hacker/spy in the American Military found a way to infect the drone control systems with an 'exploratory virus'. Now that they know they can do it (and every military/espionage agency in the world knows too), the floodgates will open. Stuxnet will be child's play. Its just a matter of time until some teenager on /b/ drops some serious weaponry onto the Scientology HQ on American soil. No... wait... that would be a good thing. Carry on...

  39. Can't resist: by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    box of Kleenex $4

    USB key $5

    Satellite military uplink $150/hr

    Hellfire missile $68,000

    Predator MQ-1 Drone, $40 million

    Being able to rain firey death from 10,000km away onto unsuspecting Afghan targets while a the same time masturbating on the internet: priceless

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  40. Now they have an excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they have an excuse to attack anybody

  41. So what this really means is... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    They can be hacked...

  42. Speaking of "Drone" by xrayspx · · Score: 1

    Each pilot sits in a small room with a rack full of gear wheezing away all day? Eech. This is why I don't move my desk into an IDF closet.

    I remember hearing an interview on NPR not more than a few weeks ago which raised this exact issue, and in which it was brushed aside as utterly impossible, of course... "We have AIR GAPS, nothing can cross the air gaps!" Or something to that effect. I think they were talking about the video interception at the time. Meanwhile, they could ask Pfc Manning about how much information crosses the vaunted air gaps in military networks.

    1. Re:Speaking of "Drone" by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Meanwhile, they could ask Pfc Manning about how much information crosses the vaunted air gaps in military networks."

      I've been retired since 2007, but back then it would have been no problem to open a PC and make it your bitch. Pop the case, reset the chassis intrusion warning, boot off (whatever) and own the main hard disk, reassemble, done.

      Manning didn't even need to do that thanks to a multi-session CD.

      The government is so in love with COTS equipment they don't get that most of it is designed for extreme convenience, not security.

      Just changing cases and connectors, and controlling ALL removable media would do wonders for lockdown. Shitcan Windows of course, because to MOST users a different OS IS a barrier. No security is perfect, but more locks "keep honest people honest".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  43. The source must be porn. FTFA: by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection

    Unintentional pun . . . ? I think not!

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  44. Not Business As Usual by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    To be fair to the hardworking acquisition troops in DoD, the Predator and Reaper were demonstrated and fielded through a short-cut process for fielding new capabilities quickly. When the normally thorough system design process is "streamlined" (or bypassed) to rapidly field a new capability, bad stuff can and does happen. Thus, the acquisition axiom, 'When you want it real bad, that's usually how you get it." As an example, of all the recorded predator losses through 2009, only ~3% were lost to enemy action (i.e., shot down). That means that rest crashed for other reasons like design flaws, equipment failure and pilot error. Not exactly what they projected for expected losses.

    Commanders in the field are willing to accept risks to get a capability faster, but those risks are not always easy to predict, as this virus issue shows. For the GCS, the virus updates, map updates and any other software updates would have to be transferred from Internet connected systems. Media screening procedures were certainly put in place. It is a sub-opitimal solution, but not a tremendous risk given the system's isolation and controls in place. This event was, most likely, a process violation that led to an MBR infection, vice a system failure. In some cases risks are easier to predict, such as lack of logistics support for newly fielded systems that have not gone through a detailed logistics analysis and planning phase. The loggies then have to play catch up on supply chain, maintenance training, sparing levels and supportability planning.

    To be fair to the accelerated processes, they meet a very real need to improve mission capability quickly. Balancing risk vs capability must prioritize those that choose to go forth and fight the war.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
    1. Re:Not Business As Usual by Locutus · · Score: 1

      that may be true but how many years has it been now? while it may have been a process violation, systems like this are supposed to be designed so silly processes like being able to stick a USB stick directly into the system can not happen. If that is indeed what happened.

      At some point someone has to say cool, we got a system in use quickly now lets make it robust, reliable, and more maintainable.
      What do they think this is, your typical Main Street computer system?

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  45. "Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by sfled · · Score: 2

    "Infected via flash drives." "Educate the user."

    Oh bullshit! Never, _ever_ trust a user.

    Seriously, I worked IT at a call center. The first thing you did with the machines when they came in was log in to the BIOS, disable ports like COM & USB, and set a BIOS password. If the thing was shipped to us with a floppy or cd/dvd drive (they were ordered bare but sometimes Gateway f-d up), we would remove the hardware before putting them in service. They were also imaged for whatever floor they were scheduled to be on (outsourced call center - Comcast, ATT&T, Sprint, Hughes Sat.) and out they went.

    Once, a Bell South supervisor memo'd and called upper management and said he had to have USB to save and transfer reports, etc. And BOOM, a virus went through the Bell South floor like shit through a goose. That was the end of "educating the user."

    Never, ever trust a luser.

    --
    I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    1. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you think about it, it's pretty terrible that we can't give a user the ability to transfer files from one computer to another via removable media without also giving them the ability to get pwned. Why is this such a hard problem? Data is data: is it really so hard to move it from one place to another without trying to execute it?

    2. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BOOM a virus?

      Well, of course quite a lot can be said about a system/network where a local user account getting a virus can have it spread on other machines.

      Something, somewhere, is not quite right.

      Are we talking about a typical Windows network here?

      Plugging an USB device and it's good game? At least the (one year ago) apache.org expl0it and the recent kernel.org expl0it where a bit more advanced than that ; )

    3. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Geminii · · Score: 1

      This is why you get a commitment in stone from the relevant CIO or CEO that if anyone - ANYONE - asks for reinstatement of a resource which has been removed for security reasons, that request may not be approved by anyone who does not understand precisely why the resource was removed in the first place.

      Failing that, you get a commitment that anyone approving the reinstatement of the removed resource will personally cover the costs - all the costs - of any security issue (no matter what the source) arising during the resource's reinstatement.

    4. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by sfled · · Score: 1

      You will become a billionaire if you can patent that!

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    5. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by sfled · · Score: 1

      Your wisdom is unimpeachable. Sadly, corporate memory was selective and affected (infected?) by winds of corporate politics.

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
    6. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you worried about USB drives? Don't these machines have DVD drives and a network card? I don't believe you ever worked in IT.

    7. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure a shit glad you don't work for my company. You'd shut the engineering and test departments down so fast the banks would not hear the account closing!

    8. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great reading comprehension there, no these computers specifically don't have DVD drives. And it is a lot easier to control what goes through the network than it is for a USB drive.

    9. Re:"Pvt. Beetle Bailey here to educate the user!" by sfled · · Score: 1

      Lol, the CSRs on the phones were not engineers! They were $10/hr phone-support-with-script monkeys. You would not believe some of the crap we would find stuffed around, behind, under and in the computers. They would pry back the fascia that covered the floppy and CD drive bays (see my original post, we ordered the machines without these drives), and fill them with candy bar wrappers, fast food napkins and whatever else was too difficult for them to place in a wastebasket.

      --
      I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
  46. This is the first thing I thought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

    Seriously, how lame do you have to be before the group you trust for national defense can't even defeat a computer virus that's on a controlled hardware platform? That's some bush league computer science there.

  47. Maybe they are using a common windows application by supermachoman · · Score: 1

    Maybe the reason the computers run windows is because some of the software they are using is something common, like a map program, which inevitably would have been written for windows. And if they aren't connected the the public internet, an antivirus program would have been unable to download its virus DB updates. Still, this is coming off looking very very bad. They followed the how-to on the kapersky website? Seriously that was their best move? Now they can't figure out why it's coming back? Everyone involved in this has huge egg on their face. They are coming off as supremely incompetent. Geez guys, pay me your government contractor rate to clean the place up. I'll run all the windows applications through wine or virtualbox in a linux environment, lock down network access with a fake proxy server, set up automatic daily software patches, and this will never happen again.

  48. Screwed the pooch? by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    Unless someone really screwed the pooch...

    It's a weapons platform that's been compromised by mainstream malware. From that alone, the pooch is jolly well being gang-banged.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  49. Battlestar Galactica by BetaDays · · Score: 0

    Did we learn nothing from Battlestar Galactica reboot?

    --
    Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
  50. SkyNet by Zxeses · · Score: 1

    Yes, its the rise of the machines fellow resistance fighters!

  51. Surfing porn at work. by utkonos · · Score: 1

    The only explanation for this is that those drone pilots were surfing porn in another window while their drones were on their way to and on the way back from bombing runs. Everyone knows that if you don't look at porn on your computer, you'll never get viruses or malware.

  52. That is what skynet by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    ...would want you to believe ;)

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  53. Made in U.S.A? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    How many of the parts for these weapons systems have "Made in China" stamped on them? Or "made in Israel"? Or wherever. The entire world is out to infiltrate the U.S. military.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  54. Maybe it's not a virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem may not be a virus. Maybe it's just some bad code that gets executed only when the drone is at a particular set of coordinates or needs to execute an extremely rare maneuver. It's probably written in some variant of C, Java, Perl, ....

  55. This is why by geekoid · · Score: 2

    you write your own OS for military hardware.

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

      The problem might be hardware drivers. I think these guys might need some decent graphics card support, maybe even 3D. Those aren't trivial things to do, just look at the existing open source drivers for Linux.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  56. Linux? rootkits? == by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    OS doesn't matter if someone wants to target it. In fact it can even be good thing - it's a lot easier to rootkit and hide in Linux based systems than Windows, and most people don't know how to get rid of them too. Hell, in Linux a simple rootkit can work just by editing the system commands like ls.

    Then use http://www.chkrootkit.org/

    Oh, and apparently it is GPL software, too. http://www.net-security.org/software.php?id=210

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  57. Presumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The presumption here seems to be that the keylogger was not intentionally installed. Perhaps this software installation is beyond the pay grade of the tech who spilled the beans of it's presence. If it where something of serious concern, certainly a superior who administers the teams, including tech support, would have given the issue more urgency.

    So we have a keylogger that sends data to a location _not_ on the internet, rather some military location, installed on a classified computer. Certainly sounds like a special version of custom software doing something classified to me.

    The real question is: Does this particular keylogger have additional features, maybe something that permits keypresses to be introduced remotely? Who else has control of the drones?

    Normally I tend not to worry about the secrets of scary people.

  58. BCWipe by dancinfrandsen · · Score: 1

    TFA indicates that BCWipe was used to clean the infected hard drives. Although available on UNIX and Linux, most of BCWipe's features are targeted at Windows. This indicates the computers used by pilots to fly the drones are running Windows.

  59. Ballsy by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Just hoping that it doesn't insert keypresses as well as log them and start shooting at friendlies. Or fly across the border into China or Iran

  60. fire up OS from cdrom, then run tripwire/checksums by mrflash818 · · Score: 2

    A rootkit would make TripWire thing the binaries had not been modified. Thats what rootkits do, they hide every trace of themselves so that they are undetectable. Or at least thats the theory, theres always a way to detect them but it usually (for good ones) requires scanning the data in a known clean machine.

    IDS systems don't work with the kernel tells the IDS that the file is the original and even delivers the original bytes to the IDS in order to fool it. The kernel returns the original data for any read of the file, any memory mapping attempt, anything you try to do to get it at the data other than what the rootkit wants you to do.

    Root kits make the kernel lie to an IDS, making it useless. You can't scan an infected machine by asking it for data (local app or network share, doesn't matter). You have to ask another known clean machine to do the scanning on the data directly without any other untrusted code in the process.

    People may want to get into the habit of booting from a 'rescue CD' with a known-clean kernel, boot system and system binaries. Then using the 'rescue CD' to scan the computer's hard drive copies of system and boot files.

    It might also be a good idea to keep the listing of critical filenames and their checksums on remote media, too.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  61. Oh My by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

    Guess I'm not the only one that sees a lot of issues with poor security and remote controlled killing robots? If we can't even detect when people infiltrate our networks, what's to say we could figure out who uses our own weapons remotely against us?

    I don't think poor cyber security and giant killing robots goes hand in hand.

    1. Re:Oh My by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Guess I'm not the only one that sees a lot of issues with poor security and remote controlled killing robots? If we can't even detect when people infiltrate our networks, what's to say we could figure out who uses our own weapons remotely against us?

      I don't think poor cyber security and giant killing robots goes hand in hand.

      ...or might just be a pre-release of info to cover the future event of random drone misfires or failures. Blame the computers, not the Humans.

      Let's face it; this info would NOT have been released unless someone has something to gain from it.

  62. Re:So here I go getting modded "Insightful"... by Jeng · · Score: 1

    I would bet that if you did not put in the title that you were going to get modded as a troll you wouldn't have.

    I bet the mod who put you as troll just did it to fuck with you over your title. There was not a single point in your post that was troll'ish, not only that but what you said corresponds with most peoples viewpoint around here.

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  63. Re:So here I go getting modded "Insightful"... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Thanks. What I was going on is that one of the first posters said essentially the same thing (but in a more rude fashion) and did get modded troll. I thought the point was good even though the delivery was not, and decided to try the same point coaching my words more carefully than he did.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  64. replay attack! by Dahamma · · Score: 1

    Gives that term a whole new meaning...

  65. All hail... by bl968 · · Score: 1

    Skynet wants to learn to fly!

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
  66. RTFA by jfbilodeau · · Score: 1

    Take a look at the pic.

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
  67. How stupid are we by Kuruk · · Score: 1

    Why not build a weapons platform from Lego's.

    How can we not be surprised when off the shelf tech used as military attack machines are compromised. We must be still the most stupid intelligent race in the universe. When will we learn ?

    1. Re:How stupid are we by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Why not build a weapons platform from Lego's.

      How can we not be surprised when off the shelf tech used as military attack machines are compromised. We must be still the most stupid intelligent race in the universe. When will we learn ?

      When we have no choice. And I mean that in the most literal sense.

  68. Is that a fucking joke? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    They fly drones, some of them perhaps even armed, that are known to be infected witha virus? I don't believe this story. Not even the US military is that irresponsible...or are they?

    1. Re:Is that a fucking joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They fly drones, some of them perhaps even armed, that are known to be infected witha virus? I don't believe this story. Not even the US military is that irresponsible...or are they?

      Re-read the article man... it's not the DRONES that are infected. Even if they had systems onboard that ran windows, we're talking about keystroke loggers here -- without a keyboard + somebody to type, what would they log?
      As far as irresponsibility goes, our military sent thousands of people off to war without any body armor, and with completely UN-armored vehicles... you'd really have to try hard to be any less responsible than that.

  69. Who actually uses strong security systems? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

    I read Bruce Schneier's Secrets and Lies, and in one chapter, he describes different tiers of access controls, ranging from discretionary access control, as on Linux, Unix, and newer versions of Windows, to mandatory access control, based on the Bell-LaPadula model, which I can't imagine using for anything but narrowly defined tasks. In Schneier, and elsewhere I've read descriptions of the more restrictive access controls, I get the impression that there are decades of experience with implementing these systems, that sure, Linux or Windows are fine for kids playing games, but people doing anything important are using operating systems with security systems that make damned sure you're using your system only for its intended purpose.

    And yet, as people pointed out above, the article points out that the IT staff was using malware removal advice from Kaspersky's public Website, which strongly implies that the infected systems are running some version of Windows and the malware is common.

    So, if the US military isn't using strict access controls or other exceptionally strong security measures when the stakes are this high, if they're just using conventional operating systems that everyone uses, then who ever actually uses secure operating systems?

    1. Re:Who actually uses strong security systems? by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Device driver support? I'm thinking these guys need decent graphics card performance, maybe even 3D. Given how much trouble people have to get decent open source drivers for graphics under Linux, I think a smaller scale MilitaryOS would struggle.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    2. Re:Who actually uses strong security systems? by FoolishOwl · · Score: 1

      After reading more discussion of the story, I came across a lot of discussion of how it makes sense for the military to use mostly conventional operating systems, device drivers being one of those reasons. Specialized operating systems and hardware are just too difficult to support and maintain.

      At this point, I'm guessing that the accounts I've read of these tight access control systems either exist only in a handful of places -- the NSA's basement, maybe -- or else they're just proposals that keep getting cited, ghosts of systems that never existed, in another variant of "security theater".

  70. It's Skynet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The infection is beginning! Shut down the drones before it's too late!

  71. Re: Bios rootkit by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    "I don't know what's scarier, the fact that these things run Windows, the fact that the ports weren't sealed off or the fact that some doofus who doesn't know how to check for Autorun viruses and/or wasn't a computer professional didn't see a problem with plugging a flash drive in there."

    Was the server made in China? Hmm no conflict of interest there.

    When the Chinese outsourced the premier's jet to the US, they were shocked it was bugged in 17 times over by the US government. It doesn't surprise me that China would do the same back to us. In fact, Reagan infected Soviet computer systems with rootkits sold to the Soviet Union causing severe economic damage to their satellites and petrol industries.

    More than likely it has a rootkit running on the bios or video card that can't be removed. Someone mentioned the machine is not networked? If it is not networked then how does it send commands to the drones? My guess is the controller is probably carefully sending data to China or Russia as well and using a rootkit to hide it on the controller. China has the best spying agency in the world. They have been known to hack routers and systems to slowly and carefully download CAD drawings over time and then delete themselves without being noticed and being trace-less. They are very thorough and careful.

    MozeeToby said it himself these are locked down systems with no hot pluggable media. I know contractors are fucked up but they do have to pass c1 and c2 certifications before winning any top secret contract.

  72. What would it be used for? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Learning US drone tactics, in order to outsmart them?
    Learning where the drones are, in order to avoid them?
    Learning how they work, in order to help make their own (or help more advanced nations make their own) drone fleet?

    These are the things I can think of. Any other ideas?

  73. Re:Ignore my previous post by Jeng · · Score: 1

    Can someone mod that post just plain wrong for me?

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  74. wow by bouldin · · Score: 1

    This is pathetic.

  75. Counterfeit Chinese ROMs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Counterfeit Chinese ROMs.

  76. Keylogger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the information the virus is gettin looks something like this...
    "waaaaawwwwdddsssssaaawwwddd"

  77. Predator and Reaper - kinda OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously defense initiatives with cute names.

    I like how people pay for this and then try to look nice as in "we're the good guys".

    Well, not with my money, ok? Next time it will be a French car -- again, for the 5th time. Or German...

    Keep on being pro-war to see where it takes you, fools...

  78. The log file: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a combination of W A S D and SPACE keystrokes

  79. Satellite source. Iraqi's did this in 2009. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

    There was an article back in 2009 about the Iraqis being able to use the Predator Cams and GPS to track them with a $26 program because the data streams being sent to and from the Drones wasn't well encrypted. Why couldn't they send a virus downstream? It would be pretty persistent if the Predators themselves were relaying the data.

  80. Were they made in China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did some bean counter say lets produce them in China cuz they will be cheaper.

    Are they suprised at the outcome?

  81. Its oke by jirikivaari · · Score: 1

    Don't worry guys, the nukes are safe. For now.

  82. Re:So here I go getting modded "Insightful"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks. What I was going on is that one of the first posters said essentially the same thing (but in a more rude fashion) and did get modded troll. I thought the point was good even though the delivery was not, and decided to try the same point coaching my words more carefully than he did.

    Eh, don't bother. When someone's cock feels a little short, they have to pick on someone. Just say what you're gonna say. :)

  83. Manly or Not? by triso · · Score: 1

    [,,,]
    There's fewer viruses for other OS's, most likely owing to the lower install base of the same. Even black hats are interested in ROI.

    Those are all girlie-man malware. Most of them written ten years ago and none which work on any distros less than 5-yrs old.