Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mitsubishi Hack Stole Nuclear, Defense Data

Posted by Soulskill on from the nothing-important-just-some-stuff dept.

judgecorp writes "When Mitsubishi announced in September it had been hacked in August it was criticized for keeping quiet for a month. Now it appears that the attackers got nuclear power plant and military aircraft details according to sources quoted in the Japanese media."

47 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know much about military stuff, but "Nuclear power plant design and safety plans" probably aren't all that secret or even very interesting. Pressurized Water Reactors aren't exactly cutting edge technology and stealing their plans doesn't really enable you to do anything you couldn't otherwise do.

    1. Re:Yawn... by meow27 · · Score: 1

      Mitsubishi has plans for making the f-16 and the f4-phantom from the united states. they have legal liscenses for this.

      chances are, they also have the plans for the f-35. and if thats the case.... well dont expect america's allys to have the edge against their adversaries.

    2. Re:Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      well dont expect america's allys to have the edge against their adversaries

      Don't worry, I'm pretty sure we'll continue to have the edge against third-world dirt farms that pose no threat whatsoever to our nation's security.

    3. Re:Yawn... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      From here it looks like attacking third world dirt farms seems to have caused us at least as much harm as it has them. I'd say it's a draw at best.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Yawn... by AzariahK · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it could save you the cost of developing it for yourself. It's a long way from a wikipedia article on a reactor to a floor plan.

    5. Re:Yawn... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      If there goal was to make a reactor, you're right, those plans would be useless. If their goal were to attack an existing reactor, the plans become a lot more useful.

    6. Re:Yawn... by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station. Only a precise hit will set up a chain reaction.

    7. Re:Yawn... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The f-35 for export? The US is gifting stealth, agile antennae technologies and the engine to make the deal.
      Interesting how the US got Japan to drop the Eurofighter Typhoon :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:Yawn... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      the opposite is true.

      engineering diagrams are unlikely to include security systems, deployments or proceedures.

      anyone looking to build a reactor could sure use a complete set of plans to save a lot of money on design and testing, espeicially if they can examine public records on the real world performance of the design they stole to confirm before the first shovel hits dirt that the design is a sound and worthy design

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Yawn... by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm, this sounds suspiciously like a trap.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    10. Re:Yawn... by khallow · · Score: 2

      this rough WWII quote still seems to hold true according to (old) news of friendly fire in Iraq. It seems like the U.S. has a lot of war technology, but ill-trained troops. against a well trained army of most sizes, I would place my bets on the well trained army.

      I'll just point out that last time that happened, the "well-trained" army got crushed like a bug. The thing to keep in mind here is that friendly fire reports are a major case of observer bias. You're not going to hear about corresponding cases from other countries because either, they don't do anything risky or they don't report it to the media.

      The link above is to the Persian Gulf War, the last time someone of serious military power attempted to fight a pitched battle with a US-led army. In that case, 24% of all casualties from the US were friendly fire. Iraq lost about two orders of magnitude more people than the whole coalition did.

      I suppose we could say that the Iraqi army wasn't "well-trained". But in that case where the Iraqi army was considered the fourth largest at the time and seasoned from a recent war with Iran, who is? You'd probably be able to count on one hand with some fingers left over. I'd say Russians, Brits, Israelis, and maybe an EU coalition.

      I'm not going to make claims about the future of the US military. They got the dominant military right now, but they aren't taking the steps to keep it in shape IMHO.

    11. Re:Yawn... by justforgetme · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that most, if not all, attacks against Your country were so low tech in their conception and execution that they could be attributed to another geologic era...

      --
      -- no sig today
    12. Re:Yawn... by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't. They're not in that league yet. In twenty years, there's a good chance they'll have a world class military, but they're far from that right now.

    13. Re:Yawn... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>"Nuclear power plant design and safety plans" probably aren't all that secret or even very interesting

      Heh. Right now, terrorists building rogue nuclear power plants is probably the only way we'll ever see a Gen IV reactor in the States.

    14. Re:Yawn... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Turn the Gulf war around and you have China vs. US. Yes, the US has more experience, but China simply tosses more material behind it. Old joke: US vs. China war. First week, a million Chinese war prisoners. Second week, two million Chinese war prisoners. Third week, three million Chinese war prisoners. Fourth week, telegram from Beijing to Washington: "Now what, do you surrender or do we have to continue?"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Yawn... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Turn the Gulf war around and you have China vs. US. Yes, the US has more experience, but China simply tosses more material behind it. Old joke: US vs. China war. First week, a million Chinese war prisoners. Second week, two million Chinese war prisoners. Third week, three million Chinese war prisoners. Fourth week, telegram from Beijing to Washington: "Now what, do you surrender or do we have to continue?"

      Do you really believe that tripe, or are you just joking?

    16. Re:Yawn... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Have the rats near Fukushima gotten that big yet?

  2. Re:Some group in China is happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    My assumptions and bullshit reasoning points to the US Government so your bullshit reasoning is obviously wrong.

  3. Re:Some group in China is happy by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Recall how the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Kfir was made? Plans for the Mirage III where "found" in Switzerland.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Re:Some group in China is happy by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What we are seeing is that, as the LulzSec hackings proved, is that information is more important than profit.

    Be a big corporation negligent of retention of customer data. Blame your negligence on somebody else. Convince the dumb bullies in charge of America's security cyberinfrastructure (there are a lot of spoiled rich kids who play those games, after all) that terrorists are breaking the whole thing down. It's the invisible manufactured terror-pedos' fault, not the blatant negligence of the card-holders.

    Bu who believes America's mouthpiece nowadays? Who is the bigger threat to national security? The corporations selling data to the theives, or the data owners who try to protect their own livelihoods?

  5. I Just Can't Understand It by Zamphatta · · Score: 1

    How are the biggest secrets, the least secured? Man, my laptop would be a more secure place for things that the servers of the corp's the gov't has deals with.

    1. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by jimpop · · Score: 1

      Because nothing secret has any value unless ut can be shared. Sharing data is where the fun begins.

    2. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can speak from a little bit (and I stress 'little bit') of inside information on this particular topic in that MHI spends far less on IT than you could possibly imagine. What's more, their reliance on outside sources for their services and support is frightening.

      At the end of the day, we live in the information age and the most precious things we have is information. And to spend as little as they do protecting it, one has to think they are doing it wrong and suffer from some really bad or old ideas.

      But you know, Japan is pretty bad about that in general. They are still largely a "job for life" company which means their business culture doesn't vary much. They don't see or understand how others do it. So whatever service and support they get, it's "normal" to them. And new ideas are foreign ideas... and we already know how they are about foreign ideas.

      It actually kinda makes me angry that they sat on the information the way they did... same as the way TEPCO sat on critical data and information surrounding the Fukushima disaster. And I have to say that it was "confirmed" in August that it happened. Do you have any idea how long it takes for them to "confirm" something like this? In my experience, they first got the hint probably a month prior or even more. Their notion of proof requires a LOT of evidence -- they are very thorough, detailed and complete in this way.

      TEPCO and MHI were and are very slow to respond to emergencies and care more for their "face saving" than resolving problems. Perhaps I am just an American judging them by American standards and ideals. But I have to say I believe resolving the problems and learning important lessons would come first with me and it doesn't seem to come first with them.

    3. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can speak from a little bit (and I stress 'little bit') of inside information on this particular topic in that MHI spends far less on IT than you could possibly imagine. What's more, their reliance on outside sources for their services and support is frightening

      That's true for much of the corporate world. IT is seen as a cost-center that is a necessary evil rather than an asset to the company.

      Systems won't get secured because it costs too much. Same with upgrading to the next release of software (since the current version is going out of support).

      My current job has forced me to deploy a couple of Solaris 8 servers to the Internet. Of course I yelled and screamed that this is bad because Oracle doesn't patch Solaris 8 anymore (unless you pay for a hella expensive vintage patch service agreement, which we don't). But it was deemed that business operations and cost savings trumped any security concerns. They wouldn't even let me move the servers to isolated subnets since that'd incur downtimes and possible unacceptable risks of further outages.

      It's not until a company gets cracked and has it's source code (or customer database /w financial info) stolen, or worse (think of data being deleted forcing lots of lengthy and often untested disaster recovery procedures to activated) that they do something. But when that happens, they blame the IT staff for being incompetent (even though you raised the alarm bells months ago) and fire them and then bring in outside consultants who may or may not be competent and put effective policies into place.

    4. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by Seventh+Magpie · · Score: 1

      erroneus, I think you hit it spot on with your points. I spent some time working in Japan and concerning the cultural aspects, I made the same observations that you mentioned. Although strong in technical diversity and innovation, perhaps Japan needs to expand its diversity and innovation in the area of business culture.

    5. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Oh man, let me tell you about that whole saving-face thing. It's not strictly Japanese. That attitude is more or less a common theme among most of the Eastern world. I'm not sure if Indian culture is this way or not though.But anyways, ya. The Chinese and Korean are all about that saving-face thing. As American, I could care less about that concept. But to my native Chinese wife, it's a very serious thing. I suppose this attitude centers around protecting the family first and foremost. But perhaps someone else from the East could is explain it better and with more clarity here on slashdot.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by Iron+(III)+Chloride · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I grew up in the States but am east Asian by ethnicity/heritage and have some knowledge of east Asian culture (though obviously my parents didn't think too highly of it, otherwise they probably would've made a more concerted effort to educate/indoctrinate me about it).

      The concept is quite simple, it's primarily about bolstering external perception in order to promote the reputation of a group that one self-identities with - be that the family, the company, or the country. You define an in-group and an out-group, and within the in-group honesty and transparency is permitted (at least with respect to the domain of the in-group, you're not going to be sharing family secrets with your co-workers, for example). However, when it comes to the out-group, every effort is made to give the appearance that activities within the in-group are efficient, successful, "harmonious" (i.e. lack of conflict between members of the in-group) - in other words, bury all dirty secrets and make everything look utopian, even if it isn't. Transparency is discouraged because it is bad PR, and members of the out-group (i.e. the rest of society) are expected to have lower expectations as to the amount of information that is provided through "official" channels. So in order to obtain such information, members of the out-group turn to gossip, espionage, etc.

      I wouldn't say that "Western" culture (I hate that term because I reject the existence of that distinction as philosophically valid) doesn't practice "face-saving" to some degree, it just isn't taken to the extremes that it is in east Asia because of societal expectations regarding transparency and accountability. I for one think that this is one area where people in China, Korea, and Japan can learn a lot from "Western" countries. After all, face-saving is simply an aspect of tribalism, institutionalized.

      --
      Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
    7. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by rapidreload · · Score: 1

      You can distill it down to a very simple observation:

      The Japanese (and most Asian people) are a proud sort and don't like admitting failure. Admitting failure is a gross sign of weakness, second only to the failure itself. This seems rather counter-productive to me but it's a societal and cultural thing, so I have no avenue to judge.

      --
      To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
    8. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      TEPCO and MHI were and are very slow to respond to emergencies and care more for their "face saving" than resolving problems. Perhaps I am just an American judging them by American standards and ideals. But I have to say I believe resolving the problems and learning important lessons would come first with me and it doesn't seem to come first with them.

      Isn't that the opposite of the American business way? From my understanding of the two cultures, a Japanese business would work on resolving the immediate crisis and then work out who was responsible for it later. Whereas a Western company would focus on who was responsible first, and then what to do about it after that.

    9. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by Iron+(III)+Chloride · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference is that Western corporations do it out of self-interest (as in protecting the individual), whereas corporations in east Asia do it to protect the individual _and_ to "protect the group." That's two hurdles to transparency and accountability as opposed to one. I am not qualified to comment on the normalized (say, by economic influence) magnitudes of transparency and accountability violations in different countries (an empirical question), but at least in terms of underlying psychological motivation, that's one more mental barrier that needs to be overcome.

      So no need to get all riled up about the follies of Western corporations because I am well aware of those - I am simply stating that from the perspective of culturally ingrained notions, east Asians tend to have even more misplaced loyalty than Westerners (who are already bad enough).

      --
      Cogito, ergo sum, fosho!
    10. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by shentino · · Score: 2

      In america you save your own face.

      In japan you save someone else's.

    11. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The secrets about Japanese nuclear reactors are about as well secured as the reactors themselves.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:I Just Can't Understand It by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      In america you save your own face.
      In japan you save someone else's.

      If you're smart, you'll save your Boss's face.
      That holds in the US, Japan, EU, Russia and probably anywhere else.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  6. Re:Some group in China is happy by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    That's what military Keynesianism is too, for that matter. But it's somewhat beside the point.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  7. Largest Defence Contractor... by Commontwist · · Score: 1

    ...except in cyber-warfare, obviously. If I were them, I'd be planning mock 'hacking raids' on their facilities every second week with external and internal software. Two teams alternating attacking and defending with random member swaps after every cycle and in depth discussions on what both sides did after each 'battle'.

    Someone else obviously did something similar.

  8. Re:With the DoD's annual budget.. by AzariahK · · Score: 1

    Good point. Seems like during WWII, the Germans always had better tech than we had. Not that we should play it that way deliberately, but other factors do weigh in the equation. Ever read Arthur Clarke's short story, "Superiority"?

  9. Mitsubishi Cars/Trucks, similar problems? by acidradio · · Score: 1

    Mitsubishi has kept things "quiet" in the past.

    Years ago Mitsubishi got in trouble for hiding complaints by truck drivers and other owners/operators. Among other defects the wheels would fall off and injure/kill people or the axles would break. Frustrated owners/operators would document this and send the complaints to Mitsubishi. In some attempt to pretend they never received the complaints someone decided to secretly hide these letters and forms in a LOCKER in the MEN'S LOCKER ROOM.

    http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000823/NEWS/308239997

    1. Re:Mitsubishi Cars/Trucks, similar problems? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not only that, Mitsubishi was also responsible for hiding the defective fuel tank of its A6M aircraft from the American public. It was only discovered after examining the wreckage of the plane that went down in the Aleutian islands that we finally learned the truth: that it was unarmored, non-self-sealing, and prone to exploding when hit by gunfire. Mitsubishi never owned up to it, nor take the necessary steps to remedy the problem.

    2. Re:Mitsubishi Cars/Trucks, similar problems? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      I assume you do not know what an A6M is......

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Mitsubishi Cars/Trucks, similar problems? by fnj · · Score: 2

      Absurd. Jesus Christ, ALL aircraft fuel tanks were unarmored in WW-II. An aircraft has to be light. Armor is incredibly heavy; they hadn't any kevlar. Armor was used very judiciously, mostly confined to small slabs around the pilot. I think what you're looking for is the fact they were not self-sealing. They didn't have any armor for the pilot, or fire extinguishers either. None of this was a "defect." It was not a matter of stupidity or incompetence. They made a deliberate decision to value speed, maneuverability, and range over protection. The plane that doesn't get hit is the one that survives, and the Zero was superbly maneuverable, and they ripped the opposition to shreds early in the war.

      The A6M5b of 1944 finally did have an "armored" glass windscreen and fire extinguishers, but it was lack of infrastructure for pilot training, and lack of numbers that continued to give them the disadvantage.

    4. Re:Mitsubishi Cars/Trucks, similar problems? by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      not only that, Mitsubishi was also responsible for hiding the defective fuel tank of its A6M aircraft from the American public.

      Er, why would Mitsubishi be obliged to disclose the shortcomings of the Zero to the American public during WW2?

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  10. Still disappointed by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    No bipedal mecha R&D or anything? Come on, you KNOW they have them! Guess you gotta breach a different Japanese conglomerate... :3

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Still disappointed by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If Mitsubishi doesn't have them, it's got to be Fuji. Or possibly Honda, they would be a relative upstart but they do have some pretty snazzy robotics tech.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Rice anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In regards to nuclear threats, I would be more concerned about current Japanese management practices at their nuclear facilities than any threats posed by terrorists.

  12. Re:Some group in China is happy by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Yes, China definitely doesn't have its own nuclear power plant or aircraft carrier designs...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  13. Re:With the DoD's annual budget.. by fnj · · Score: 1

    They didn't have better tech in general; they mostly had a lot of flashy tech of questionable value and negligible quantity. In one widely used item they were hugely ahead: the MG-42 machine gun. It replaced a host of varied automatic weapons carried by the Allies, and was far, far superior to any of them.

    The V-1 and V-2 were vast wastes of resources which they only undertook because they couldn't field a competitive air force after a couple of years outside their own territory, or even over their own territory later in the war. They could meet any two of fighter characteristics: speed, maneuverability, and range, but the P-51 had all three.

    The Allies had better radar, a better all-around fighter (the P-51), better bombers by far, a jeep better than the Kübelwagen, a better battle rifle, proximity-fused artillery far superior to the time fuzes the Germans had to be content with, tanks that didn't break down continually. Lots of better tech that actually mattered. We had jet fighters (not a well-known fact) but chose not to deploy them because we were content to use ordinary piston-engine fighters to pick off their jets like a shooting gallery while they were in their landing pattern.

  14. Even their elite wasn't much by Quila · · Score: 1

    We rolled right over the Republican Guard. Sometimes literally when we couldn't be bothered to slow down to fight them.