Obama's Portrait of Cyberwar Isn't Complete Hyperbole

Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking... by acidfast7 · 2012-07-20 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

...and I can't say that about his predecessor.

Who cleans up by codepigeon · 2012-07-20 05:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

I keep wondering who will be responsible for cleaning up the thousands or millions of pc's that get infected (or re-infected) years after a "cyber" war is over. I have never heard an answer to that.

Re:Who cleans up by ethanms · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 1

I wonder who will be responsible for cleaning up the physical damage after some of these incidents? Halliburton, or other major contractors? Perhaps they'd be happy to have these things happen...
Re:Who cleans up by pr0t0 · 2012-07-20 06:08 · Score: 5, Funny

That will fall to people like you and me. Do you have what it takes? Remember, service guarantees citizenship.

--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Re:Who cleans up by jo42 · 2012-07-20 06:17 · Score: 4, Funny

Send clean up bill to:
Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-7329 USA
Re:Who cleans up by tool462 · 2012-07-20 06:26 · Score: 2

I'm going to start a company called Hackerburton and position myself to pick up all those juicy post-cyberwar reconstruction contracts. I'll hire another contractor called Blackhatter to be in charge of my team members' security.
Re:Who cleans up by camperslo · 2012-07-20 07:08 · Score: 2

I keep wondering who will be responsible for cleaning up the thousands or millions of pc's that get infected (or re-infected) years after a "cyber" war is over.
Oh, that's a simple one. No need to worry about "after", just assume it'll never be over.
The worst things can't be fixed. A restore won't make your corporate discoveries secrets again. Your system use experience might even remain as delightful as ever with you left unaware that anything has happened.
It's a bit silly to talk about maintenance issues when the real consequences are from data compromise or from the malfunction of something that matters.
We should ask if we are secure, or do we just maintain an illusion to make us feel better? If it won't work against the unknown, it doesn't work. It's best not to pretend otherwise. Really. Sometimes too late really is too late. If one bullet gets you, dodging 999 out of 1000 doesn't mean much. We functioned before there were networks. Maybe some things should still be that way.
I could be wrong, maybe you just need a newer version of Windows.
Re:Who cleans up by colinrichardday · 2012-07-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Insert Linux distro, reformat hard drive. Of course, dealing with BIOS/EFI/UEFI malware could be trickier.
Re:Who cleans up by Decker-Mage · 2012-07-20 08:37 · Score: 1

That will fall to people like you and me. Do you have what it takes? Remember, service guarantees citizenship.
Ain't that the sad and sorry truth. I do wonder how they are going to get the required removal tools updates in our hands.
BTW, already done the service, thank you.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:Who cleans up by khallow · 2012-07-20 14:09 · Score: 1

What could possibly be a mystery here? No one is going to be responsible.
Re:Who cleans up by PlusFiveTroll · 2012-07-20 18:05 · Score: 1

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
—Helen Keller

Complete, as in 100% Complete? by rot26 · 2012-07-20 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obama's Portrait of Cyberwar Isn't Complete Hyperbole

No, it's only 99.8% hyperbole. Someone has calculated the half-life of the current set of "crises", and decided that we need another urgent problem to address.

--

To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target

Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Moheeheeko · 2012-07-20 05:52 · Score: 1, Funny

I think its more along the lines of he watched the movie Hackers and thought you could actually do ANYTHING they do in that movie.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 05:54 · Score: 2

Richard Clarke would disagree with you.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because hacking never happens http://www.pcworld.com/article/257045/update_linkedin_confirms_account_passwords_hacked.html
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Moheeheeko · 2012-07-20 06:12 · Score: 1

I never said things dont get hacked, but what really happens is data gets stolen, not changing the show on the tv station you are watching or sinking an oil tanker (thats the shit they do in the movie).
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by MozeeToby · 2012-07-20 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh for crying out loud. Stuxnet managed to damage equipment and all but shut down a nuclear weapons research program, and that was attacking secured PCs that were on a closed network. Do you have any idea how poor security is at your communities local infrastructure? If a single virus, by all accounts written by no more than a half dozen people over the course of a year, can do significant damage to a secured computer network, why is it ridiculous to imagine that a foreign nation could shut down water treatment plants at dozens of places in the US? Please explain, what exactly is the difference between programming a centrifuge to spin at a rate outside it's safety margin and programming a rail switching station to reroute trains randomly?
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Cornwallis · 2012-07-20 06:14 · Score: 1

Agreed. If the Power-that-Be were truly worried about infrastructure they would spend the tens of millions (that's with an M) to harden the electrical grid. They won't because it isn't sexy - or scary like cyberwarfare.
This is simply another power grab... scaring the people.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by zlives · 2012-07-20 06:18 · Score: 1

but... but... they do that in "leverage" all the time... it must be true, just like House can fix any medical issue and ......
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by zlives · 2012-07-20 06:25 · Score: 1

"secured PCs that were on a closed network"
stuxnet was propagated by usb keys which fail the closed network test.
"security is at your communities local infrastructure"
probably pretty low, however a closed network would be designed to not allow outside connection via the net or physical media. Even then for physical media it becomes a physical sabotage scenario rather than cyberwarfare.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by geekoid · 2012-07-20 06:27 · Score: 1

SCADA systems all over the country are constantly being probed and attacked. Avery day.
IT's not hyperbole at all. This isn't physical warfare. A small team of people could attack everything he mentions at the same time.
It would be a cheap attack, it would be an effective attack, and probably very successful.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by thomasw_lrd · 2012-07-20 06:34 · Score: 1

I saw this movie. Luckily, Bruce Willis was able to drop a suburban on Lucy Liu and save the country.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Uberbah · 2012-07-20 06:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

SCADA systems all over the country are constantly being probed and attacked. Avery day.
IT's not hyperbole at all.
It's total hyperbole. If it was so easy to crash major systems it would have happened already. Then there's the fact that, as with many facets of war, the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against. Like nukes, ICBM's, and now "cyber warfare", in Iran with the stuxnet virus.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-20 07:16 · Score: 1

the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against. Like nukes, ICBM's, and now "cyber warfare", in Iran with the stuxnet virus.
ICBMs??
When did the USA use an ICBM?
Or did you mean "develop the fist ICBM (the R-7)"?
Yah, that guy we had develop the R-7, Sergei Korolyov was one smart cookie, wasn't he?
What's that you say? He was Russian?
My bad...so, we didn't use an ICBM first, we didn't develop the first one, what exactly did we do "first" with an ICBM?
Hmm, use one to launch a satellite into orbit? No, that was the R-7 too...

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by asylumx · 2012-07-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Ya! Hackers could never do something like write a virus that is engineered to seek and disable nuclear centerfuges... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet)
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by harperska · 2012-07-20 08:10 · Score: 1

Stuxnet was still cyberwarfare. Just because it used a social engineering tactic to bridge the air gap doesn't change that fact. Just like having fighter jets doesn't make the navy not a navy.
Yes, a hypothetical secure closed network could be designed to not allow connections via the net or physical media. But the point is, even if your local water treatment plant or BNSF switching yard was on a closed network, the chances of there being at least one PC on that network with a working USB port is pretty damn high.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by zlives · 2012-07-20 08:54 · Score: 1

true it could happen... in that one place where the usb is not dead by policy, the user had an infected device, the malware was specifically written for that specific control mechanism. Still this is a implementation flaw not a design flaw. This would still not result in the die-hard Obario (Obama scenario?)
it kinda feels like Professor Chaos drowning the world/
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-20 08:58 · Score: 1

Are we sure it really did that much damage? Because if it did, Iran certainly wouldn't say, and any intelligence made public by opponents of the Iranian nuclear program can't really be depended upon as they would wish to exaggerate the capabilities of their cyber-warfare programs.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Uberbah · 2012-07-20 09:43 · Score: 1

Someone just busted into an action movie showing and lit people up without them realizing what was happening this morning.
Are you under the impression that was particularly HARD until today?
Are you under the impression that bringing guns into a theater is on remotely the same scale as crashing national infrastructure?

Read your own words. Once you yourself have done something extraordinary, isn't THAT as good a time as any to prepare for "it could happen to us"?? Are you sane?
Are you in need of a sense of proportion and the ability to think logically? It's possible that you've never eaten frog legs before but could do that this weekend. It's also possible that you could be the first astronaut to land on Mars.
Of the above scenarios, is there a slight chance that one is more likely to happen, or are they equally possible because they both could "happen"?
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Uberbah · 2012-07-20 09:59 · Score: 1

What's that you say? You want to walk down the road of historical pedantry and hairsplitting? Oh, okay.
Then to be really retentive you'd be noting that the Nazi's had the first true intercontinental ballistic missile program, that early Soviet efforts focused on bombing targets in Europe, but the main issue is....the U.S. predated the R-7 with the MX-774 project, with testing, by half a decade.
So, to recap: the U.S. builds the first weapon (ICBM) then squacks and ramps up development of new, better missiles when the Soviets showed they could build and demonstrate similar toys. You were saying?
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by khallow · 2012-07-20 14:22 · Score: 1

Then there's the fact that, as with many facets of war, the United States is the first one to use the weapon it pretends it needs defense against.

So let me get this right. We have some sort of history of a) the US developing a weapon first, b) the US using that weapon successfully, demonstrating its power and capabilities, c) a military rival getting its hands on said weapon, and d) the US "pretending" a need for defense against a proven weapon in the hands of a potential foe. No offense, but you sound pretty stupid right now.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Uberbah · 2012-07-20 14:42 · Score: 1

No offense, but you sound pretty stupid right now.
No offense, but I already know you're used to making a fool out of yourself. Nuclear arms race, heard of it? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then there's the already-mentioned ICBM, which was thought up by the Nazi's but first developed and tested by....the United States. Then there's Stuxnet, the first known use of "cyber warfare", released on Iran by Israel....and the United States.
But don't let those facts get in the way of your storyline. It's never stopped you before....
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by khallow · 2012-07-20 16:37 · Score: 1

No offense, but I already know you're used to making a fool out of yourself. Nuclear arms race, heard of it? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Then there's the already-mentioned ICBM, which was thought up by the Nazi's but first developed and tested by....the United States. Then there's Stuxnet, the first known use of "cyber warfare", released on Iran by Israel....and the United States.
And as I was saying, you sound pretty stupid right now. Because the US successfully used two nuclear weapons to kill at least 150,000 people over a few days, the US didn't have a case to defend again such terribly effective nuclear weapon attacks, especially attacks that could be delivered within the hour? Idiotic.

Similarly, we have a remarkably successful cyberattack, presumably by the US and perhaps Israel, and somehow as a result the US can only "pretend" to need defense against yet another effective weapon? Here's a dunce cap for you.

But don't let those facts get in the way of your storyline.

You didn't notice, but those facts never got in the way of my "storyline" in the first place. In an arms race such as military development, advantage often goes to the first one to develop a new weapon or strategy. But it doesn't stay there. One needs to continue to improve in order to continue to stay ahead.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by ThreeDeeNut · 2012-07-24 00:06 · Score: 1

I think both of you are correct. There is a substantial amount of fear mongering occurring at the same time as the threat to physical infrastructure via virus is certainly plausible as Stuxnet has seemingly proven. There are a great number of facilities that rely upon computers to do major calculations and many of which hold peoples lives in their digital "hands". On the flip side, there is "danger" around EVERY corner. If we consistently put our resources on the table to pre-emptively combat one problem, then, we are unable to sufficiently battle another. The one irony I find is that most of these high level viruses seem to emanate outward from the US and then because we do X we have to defend from Y. Just seems to me like lately we are creating all our own problems. When you are not picking fights it's a lot easier to make friends.
Re:Complete, as in 100% Complete? by Uberbah · 2012-07-24 13:20 · Score: 1

And as I was saying, you sound pretty stupid right now. Because the US successfully used two nuclear weapons to kill at least 150,000 people over a few days, the US didn't have a case to defend again such terribly effective nuclear weapon attacks, especially attacks that could be delivered within the hour? Idiotic.
Do you still have that bandana? We detonated two nukes on Russia's eastern doorstep. Can you say with a straight face that that did not give the Russians an immediate desire to develop their own nuclear weapons ASAP? How about testing ICBM missiles capable of dropping said nukes on Russian soil in half an hour?

Similarly, we have a remarkably successful cyberattack, presumably by the US and perhaps Israel, and somehow as a result the US can only "pretend" to need defense against yet another effective weapon? Here's a dunce cap for you.
Were you dropped on the head as a child? Serious question. The entire point here is the fact that the U.S. has a long history of whining about how we need to be able to defend ourselves from Scary Weapon XYZ when were the first to develop and sometimes use Scary Weapon XYZ.
Yesterday, it was nukes and ICBM's. Today, it's "cyber-warfare" and drone attacks. And we're giving other nations an immediate and obvious incentive to obtain the same sort of weapons for themselves.
Then we hear politicians on TV whining about how we need to increase defense spending to defend ourselves from "cyber-warfare", never mentioning who let the cat out of the bag in the first place.

So it is complete hyperbole, then by medcalf · 2012-07-20 05:48 · Score: 2

I think it would be an excellent idea to harden our infrastructure and make our social and political systems for responding to change more resilient. That does not mean that spinning tales of disaster that can only be averted through legislation is anything other than hyperbole, though. I have yet to see anything about this cybersecurity bill that does not involve centralization (reducing resilience) or regulation (reducing diversity and thus making attacks more effective because more widespread), and so far nothing that really looks like it would actually harden our information infrastructure in any meaningful way.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits

Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 05:56 · Score: 1

Because corporate america doesn't want to spend money on security.
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by Calibax · 2012-07-20 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not likely that anything will be done to harden the US infrastructure without legislation. The necessary work requires money to be spent and neither public nor private organizations will do that unless there is some sort of legal requirement that they do so.
People who think the president was "over the top" have little imagination - I'm quite certain there are some very bright people in various countries working to create a series of Stuxnet type products to attack the infrastructure of Western nations. Be in no doubt, no nation has a monopoly on brains or computer technology. Access to details of of Western infrastructure is either openly available or have already been stolen. Figuring out the weak spots and how to attack them probably isn't that hard.
However, it's not obvious exactly how to solve the problem. It's not obvious that the current cybersecurity bill will help. The sad fact is that it's been written by lawyers and politicians who have no idea about the technological challenges and how to resolve them, so they are doing what they know - add bureaucracy. Until computer scientists and engineers are taking the lead nothing worthwhile will be done.
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by betterunixthanunix · 2012-07-20 06:27 · Score: 1

regulation (reducing diversity and thus making attacks more effective because more widespread),
Regulation does not necessarily lead to this. Suppose, for example, that infrastructure services were required to use systems that have been rated EAL4+ (essentially the highest level that typical commercial products receive), and that they were required to develop RBAC or MLS/MCS policies to secure their systems -- this is not a substantial loss of diversity, and it would go a long way toward security. Similarly, minimum key sizes for common crypto algorithms, and the use of cryptography could be mandated for certain things (authentication, control messages for infrastructure machines, etc.).

The real issue is that nobody is willing to commit the money needed to engage in such an effort. It would probably require enormous amounts of money to upgrade legacy systems, hire people who know how to configure security systems, get audited, train staff, etc., etc., etc. Why spend the money, when we could just buy insurance policies instead?

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 06:35 · Score: 1

Exactly. Didn't see anything in the Op-Ed about reducing threats, only responding to them.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by thomasw_lrd · 2012-07-20 06:36 · Score: 1

Does it even matter when all of the programming would be outsourced?
No matter how secure the system is, if a third party has the keys, someone else will have the money to buy the keys.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 06:37 · Score: 2

Critical infrastructure is very likely 'regulated' infrastructure. We already have all the enforcement mechanisms we need.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by couchslug · 2012-07-20 07:11 · Score: 1

"I have yet to see anything about this cybersecurity bill that does not involve centralization (reducing resilience) or regulation (reducing diversity and thus making attacks more effective because more widespread),"
Mod parent up!

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by Mister+Transistor · 2012-07-20 07:49 · Score: 1

You have a computer system that controls something potentially dangerous and that is off-limits to all but a select few. Why would you put that on the Internet?
Because if you have a several HUNDRED systems (or more) that need to be monitored/updated/maintained, and they sit at the tops of mountains or in other very inaccessible places, it's the best solution for now.
You would either need to hire a bunch of mountain-climbing computer experts, use a private radio system, or you can hook the sites up to the internet for remote control.
Getting that data by radio or some other private microwave network backbone might be prohibitively expensive or physically impossible. No mater what access method is used, a very high level of security would be required, but any lock can be picked, eventually.
There really is no good solution - physical visits are too difficult, private infrastructure access is too expensive, and internet access is too insecure.

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:So it is complete hyperbole, then by Decker-Mage · 2012-07-20 10:55 · Score: 1

Thanks for the pointer.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go

Again I ask by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 05:50 · Score: 1

Why is this sort of crap connected to the public internet?

Re:Again I ask by Nkwe · 2012-07-20 06:25 · Score: 1

Why is this sort of crap connected to the public internet?
It is not so much that critical systems are sitting on web pages that anyone on the Internet can directly get to (although it has probably happened), it is more the case that control networks share connections to machines and devices that also have connections to the Internet. If these shared machines get compromised, then there is a path from the Internet to the critical systems.

Ask yourself this question: Can I get to anything "critical" at work when I am at home? or more generally: Can I work remote? If you can, the your "critical" system at work is indirectly connected to the Internet. (Assuming that your remote connection is via your ISP and not some direct dial up or dedicated line to your company.)

"Critical" for your work might only be a financial system, but if you work for a utility company "critical" might be the power grid, the water treatment controls, gas distribution, etc. People who work for utilities and other critical infrastructure like to have remote access as well (convenience, reduced staff, lower costs, etc.) These are the kinds of systems that are the biggest risk (via indirect paths to the Internet).
Re:Again I ask by zlives · 2012-07-20 06:29 · Score: 1

its not... at least its not supposed to be. however I have seen one such instance of water treatment plant using segregated vlans (shared switch) even though the RFP (based of regs) called for separate physical network... people try to save money or don't consider the design scenario in its entirety.
Re:Again I ask by rkfig · 2012-07-20 06:59 · Score: 1

You have a point, and I am sure that is the case in a lot of situations, but why is it not acceptable to mandate that even though there are convenience and minor cost issues, these critical infrastructure systems a absolutely not allowed any outside network connections? No remote access, no checking /. or hotmail on break, nothing. Don't like it, tough shit, find another job that isn't part of a critical infrastructure.
Re:Again I ask by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-20 09:07 · Score: 1

Cost. If you already have cabling, it's cheaper to use that than to run a whole new cable. If you've got a control office and a plant office, it's cheaper to give them a VPN link than to dig up the countryside for cable or build microwave masts. More so if you've got dispersed infrastructure, like thousands of substations or water distribution control valves - that'd be a lot of cable to lay! Or you could give them all more affordable internet connections, or (very common) modules that connect to the cellphone network.

I have an answer!!!1 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny

I have an answer . . . MyCleanPC!!!1! I just installed it on my PC and I'm re++--_#*$NO CARRIER

Re:I have an answer!!!1 by game+kid · 2012-07-20 06:07 · Score: 3, Funny

Sadly, merely blocking that Voldemortian name from Slashdot won't help anymore--I saw fairly slick commercials for it on the Science Channel.
The demon breeds!

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:I have an answer!!!1 by RobertLTux · 2012-07-20 08:46 · Score: 1

is there any kind of self booting (and updated) "fix" disc that does not require paying for %security_product%??
My "dream" setup
0 Windows install set (unkeyed just the files and setup)
1 Windows Patch Loader (similar to WSUSOffline)
2 Applications Loader (like Ninite)
3 a Strong and Fast Anti-[redacted]ware program
4 a decent backup program (grabs the files and maybe settings)
even if you had to provide parts (to prove you had a proper license) being able to make the disc would help a lot

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

What it really means by gmuslera · 2012-07-20 05:53 · Score: 1, Flamebait

you don't understand the current important cyberthreats, and we don't care about them neither, but lets paint an improbable/impractical scenario with big explosions and use that excuse steal even more privacy/control from all of you to benefit our sponsors.

Re:What it really means by gweihir · 2012-07-20 06:02 · Score: 1

Indeed. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is going on.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:What it really means by thomasw_lrd · 2012-07-20 06:38 · Score: 1

And new taxes, that will inevitably be passed on to the middle class.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man

wow by phantomfive · 2012-07-20 05:54 · Score: 1

'Across the country trains had derailed, including one carrying industrial chemicals that exploded into a toxic cloud,' Obama wrote, describing a nightmare scenario of a cyber attack. 'Water treatment plants in several states had shut down, contaminating drinking water and causing Americans to fall ill.' All because of hackers!"

That's like a hacker's day-dream from the 80s.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:wow by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 05:57 · Score: 4, Informative

In the '80s the United States sent oil pipeline controls with a trojan in it to the Soviet Union....it's not far fetched.
Re:wow by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-20 06:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stuxnet is one example of what is possible. Stuxnet however was designed to be highly targeted and controlled. Most security experts believe it was designed against Iran's nuclear program. It also was designed to delete itself after a while. Yet this highly focused attack was able to damage an estimated 1100 centrifuges. Image what an indiscriminate attack would do.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:wow by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-20 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, look what a disaster that Y2K thing turned out to be.
How much effort went into preventing it?
I wrote a memo in the early 90s telling management that they should develop a policy of fixing YY code any time a program came up for a bug fix.
Of course they didn't listen. Thank all the gods, I was gone before the panic set in.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:wow by Chris+Mattern · 2012-07-20 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Y2K wasn't a disaster because a lot of people put in a lot of effort to prevent from being one. I put in hundreds of hours on it, and I was just one average systems guy in one IT department.
Re:wow by phantomfive · 2012-07-20 06:13 · Score: 1

An indiscriminate attack would not be able to do anything.

Have you looked at Stuxnet at all? It required tailoring for the setup of the Iranians, if you'd wanted to attack their train system, you'd have needed to create a separate attack for that. You can't just make a hack and hope it will destroy everything it comes across, these are specialized controllers.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:wow by MozeeToby · 2012-07-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yep, lets ignore the millions of dollars spent on prevention and just focus on the fact that nothing bad happened. That's like if they upgraded the levies 2 months before Katrina and then flooding didn't happen and everyone said "what a waste of money those levies were!".
Re:wow by daem0n1x · 2012-07-20 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe you were scratching yourself at that time, but I spent many hours fixing applications because of the Y2K bug. If it wasn't for the effort of thousands of geeks all around the world, instead of a few systems failing here and there we could have had a huge problem worldwide.
What are you doing in a nerds website? Comments like yours usually come from laypeople who have no idea what had to be done because of Y2K.
If the world's IT systems have had a meltdown, every body would be blaming the geeks for not having done anything. Because the geeks made a great job, guess what, nothing happened. Then people blamed the geeks for having been alarmist, instead of thanking them.
That's a big problem with us, geeks. When you do a great job, nobody notices it because things go smooth. If you fuck up, everybody notices you.
Re:wow by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-07-20 06:33 · Score: 4, Informative

In the '80s the United States sent oil pipeline controls with a trojan in it to the Soviet Union....it's not far fetched.
Subtle but important difference - the story is that the russians were known to be stealing control software so the CIA arranged for the copy that they stole to contain sabotaged code.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:wow by zlives · 2012-07-20 06:38 · Score: 1

yes but didn't some once hack the alien ship with a mac... in a couple of minutes...
Re:wow by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 06:40 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, "Independence Day" showed you can hack alien super ships with a quick virus. Duh ;-)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:wow by hoggoth · 2012-07-20 06:40 · Score: 2

So at this point there have been two real world examples of government sponsored hackers targeting a specific foreign government's infrastructure via trojans and viruses.
1) The United States attacked Soviet oil pipeline controls.
2) The United States and Israel attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.
Hmm... there seems to be a common element...
I'm not saying it was a bad thing to stop the Iranians; But it is an interesting fact to note that in CyberWar just as in Nuclear War there is only one nation that has ever actually used these methods.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Re:wow by UnknowingFool · 2012-07-20 06:56 · Score: 1

Stuxnet took advantage of a flaw/setup for a Siemens PLC controller. Even then it searched for the exact configuration that the Iranian centrifuges had. Stuxnet sent commands to ramp up the centrifuge speeds past safety limits and send out false readings to the control consoles. Siemens PLC controllers are in many, many places running many, many motors. Mimicking the same behavior but removing the check for Iranian centrifuges would make it dangerous.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:wow by Mister+Transistor · 2012-07-20 07:58 · Score: 1

As my Zen Master once said:
One "Oh Shit" Cancels a Thousand "Attaboys".

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:wow by harperska · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 1

However, with Nuclear War, there was at least one other party who had the capability of using those methods, and quite possibly would have if it weren't for several decades of complex political maneuvering to prevent it. It would be foolish to suggest that there is no possibility that anybody else anywhere in the world would be pursuing the capability for cyberwarfare simply because only the US (and an ally) have historically done so.
Also, 'only one nation' is not accurate, unless you consider The United States and Israel to be a single country.
Unless your argument is that the US is being hypocritical, in that it uses cyberwarfare to promote its interests around the world, yet seeks to prevent others from doing so. In which case, you would have a point.
Re:wow by hoggoth · 2012-07-20 08:40 · Score: 1

That is in fact my argument. As a citizen of the USA I have enjoyed the benefits of 50 years of dominating the world economically, politically and militarily. I recognize that and realize I have benefited from that, but I am realistic and not so hypocritical as to pretend we don't get our hands dirty to achieve this state.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Re:wow by Agent0013 · 2012-07-20 09:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, look what a disaster that Y2K thing turned out to be.
I don't know where you were during Y2K, but I saw the disaster first hand. The bar I was at in LA lost all the power just after midnight and we were in pitch black darkness. When the lights came back on none of the cash registers booted up again and the bar tenders had to sell drinks manually with a pile of bills on the back wall near the bottles. Y2K did cause some problems and I'm sure it would have been worse if lots of people didn't put in lots of time to fix things before hand.

--

-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Re:wow by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-20 09:09 · Score: 1

I only heard of one real occurance of the y2k bug, on a coastguard radio network. The radios still worked fine, they just started displaying the wrong date.
Re:wow by Nkwe · 2012-07-20 10:35 · Score: 1

Politics aside, Siemens deserved to be hacked for being so braindead stupid as to actually be using windows as the OS on their controller.
Wow indeed. The controller is an embedded device that doesn't run Windows. It has realtime and footprint requirements that Windows doesn't meet.

Windows can however be the OS used on the administrative computers that send the configuration to the controllers.

Bankers are worse than hackers. by Hatta · 2012-07-20 05:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bankers have already pulled off a caper far worse than the unlikely scenario described here. Obama can direct his justice department to hold these bankers responsible under laws that already exist. How serious can he be about protecting America when he refuses to prosecute criminals who have damaged our national security so thoroughly?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 05:58 · Score: 1, Funny

Somewhere in there there's a coherent thought...you just need to work on it a little.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by Hatta · 2012-07-20 06:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

Obama wants new laws to protect us against a hypothetical threat. But he has failed to use the laws he already has against those who have already damaged this country more than a foreign enemy could hope to. The only explanation is that Obama is not concerned about protecting America at all.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by miknix · 2012-07-20 06:04 · Score: 1

THIS!
The scenario was much worse because it didn't touch only America but also the rest of the world.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by game+kid · 2012-07-20 06:11 · Score: 1

Right back atcha. His comment was sensible with a side of correct.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by operagost · 2012-07-20 06:12 · Score: 1

This scenario wasn't as bad because no one died.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by spagthorpe · 2012-07-20 06:20 · Score: 1

True, but hackers aren't giving campaign money to politicians.

--
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by Hatta · 2012-07-20 06:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Recessions kill. How many people lost their jobs and homes due to no fault of their own in the recession? How many were so demoralized they turned to suicide? How many turned to crime themselves? We may never know, but it's certain that this is no mere property crime.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by Hatta · 2012-07-20 06:43 · Score: 2

There is no political will to take on the Financial Services Industry. It's not simply the President, it's Congress as well.
You shouldn't need political will to enforce the law. It's the law, it's his job, he took an oath to faithfully execute the laws and he has broken that oath.
And, when there is no political will to enforce the law, those responsible for enforcing it should be publically shamed for it at every opportunity. That's what I'm doing. When you get Obama supporters canvassing your neighborhood this fall, make sure you remind them of this. Obama's failure to prosecute bankers for their very well known and undisputed crimes have proven him to be every bit as corrupt as everyone else in Washington. No change, no hope.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by Hatta · 2012-07-20 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not simply the President, it's Congress as well.
Also, you can't blame Congress for the lack of prosecution of bankers. Obama controlls the justice department. RICO is already law, and more than sufficient to prosecute banking executives for their fraudulent business practices. Congress has no say in the matter.
Somehow his justice department has time to prosecute people who legally dispense medical marijuana to sick people, but when it comes to wide spread perjury for profit, his justice department pressures state AGs to settle?
Can any Obama supporter tell me why we are supposed to be OK with this? How can any decent human being be OK with this?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by fredrated · 2012-07-20 06:59 · Score: 1

Protecting the wealthy, the influential and campaign contributers is a major, unsung component of protecting America.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by Darby · 2012-07-20 08:27 · Score: 1

You shouldn't need political will to enforce the law. It's the law, it's his job, he took an oath to faithfully execute the laws and he has broken that oath.
Of course, prior to the election he came out in support of unconstitutional warrantless wire tapping of Americans so, at least he was honest about the fact that he had no intention whatsoever of keeping his oath of office. That puts a healthy chunk of blame squarely on anybody who voted for any of the candidates in that election as they had all sworn to break the oath of office prior to taking it.
Re:Bankers are worse than hackers. by khallow · 2012-07-21 00:26 · Score: 1

Bankers have already pulled off a caper far worse than the unlikely scenario described here. Obama can direct his justice department to hold these bankers responsible under laws that already exist. How serious can he be about protecting America when he refuses to prosecute criminals who have damaged our national security so thoroughly?
It has to be illegal first in order for it to be criminal. And for whoever generates the next financial crisis, they'll make sure they have legal cover once again. My view is that it's better to contain the inevitable damage by restricting how much leverage a business or person can have.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 05:59 · Score: 1

you mispelled "Rethuglican"

Really, know your audience.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 05:59 · Score: 1

That's because it likely would be. When you don't cry wolf very often, people take you much more seriously when you do.

Mind control by cyberspittle · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 1

I'm more worried about subliminal (hidden) messages flashing on my monitor telling me what to buy, eat, etc.

Re:Mind control by Fatch+Racall · 2012-07-20 06:06 · Score: 1

buy a terrible LCD, that way the ghosting will be so bad you won't even see the subliminal messages.

--
#include <disclaimer.h>

Live by the CLI, die by the CLI by percy69 · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 1

To wit: Stuxnet

"not completely" = "pretty much is" by gweihir · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 1

These scenarios are pure fantasy as related to "cyberwar". The "cyberwar" term is only used to create fear and get more money. Sure, if IT security in critical infrastructure is really on an utterly pathetic level (and some is), somebody could cause a lot of damage. But that is more an individual, like a disgruntled ex-employee, not any kind of military term on the other side.

The fix is not to have another dysfunctional military buildup, the fix is to make those responsible for critical infrastructure, dangerous plants, etc. at least minimally responsible to have good IT security. As in operating a dangerous chemical facility without reasonable IT security does actually get notices, causes the plant to be shut down, causes the ones responsible to go to jail for a long time and causes any and all profits gained form the lousy security to be taken away, including triple damages. Maybe then IT security would finally get better. All this "cyberwar" nonsense is not going to accomplish anything except wasting huge amounts of money better spent elsewhere.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:"not completely" = "pretty much is" by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-07-20 06:06 · Score: 1

Because the United States does so well at punishing corporations....."0.0025 percent of corporate revenue on average is spent on information-technology security"

We have a problem. It's not hyperbole. It's something that needs to be taken seriously. Agreed we don't need to exponentially increase the defense budget in the name of cyber security but we do need to make it a priority and we do need to get corporations that control our infrastructure to invest in security.
Re:"not completely" = "pretty much is" by gweihir · 2012-07-20 06:16 · Score: 1

Just what I am saying. However, calling it "cyberwar" is counterproductive, as with this term all the money will go to the military and none of it will actually improve IT security anywhere.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Obama does a good job of facilitating thinking..."

And I can't say that. At all. I'd be lying.

This is nothing but fear-mongering to sucker people into increasing the power of the federal gov't. "Oh but it won't be used in that way"... since when has that EVER been true?

It's time to strengthen our defenses by Nkwe · 2012-07-20 06:02 · Score: 2

"It's time to strengthen our defenses against this growing danger" is how the op-ed ends. I agree. I would assume that most would also agree as well.

The challenge of course is agreeing in what does "strengthen our defenses" mean. To me it means disconnecting critical systems from the Internet. Yes, that means that it will take more people to operate those systems and it means less centralization. These things will make it cost more; but security has always (and will always) have a cost in terms of money / resources and convenience. In the case of critical infrastructure, these costs are worth it.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by sl4shd0rk · 2012-07-20 06:02 · Score: 3, Funny

and I can't say that about his predecessor.

His predecessor invoked much thinking as well however much of it prefixed, or suffixed with, "wtf?", "lol" and "lmao"

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by acidfast7 · 2012-07-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't say that I agree with his content, but Obama does get Joe SixPack to realize that power plants and trains switches can be inadvertently connected to the internet (and to wonder what else it connected.) Hyperbole it is, but it's useful for the non-specialist.

Who watches the watchdogs? by ethanms · 2012-07-20 06:06 · Score: 2

A straight-forward set of solutions to some of these potential problems:

- A human being with a brain is left still ultimately responsible for the operation of trains, planes, etc... "the computer gone haywire" scenario becomes one of inconvenience and slow-downs vs. disaster and death

- Double checking of automated processes... the treatment plant is not a "set and forget" operation, humans should be monitoring the quality of the drinking water and the output of the treatment plants using manual devices--these are double checks for any automatic monitoring

- Disconnect critical systems from public (and sometime even private) networks. There is no reason to allow remote operation of many of these plants and facilities, so that's first and foremost (if it doesn't NEED to be remote controlled, then don't allow it). Second, for many of these systems simply making sure that they are connected only to secure and private networks would do wonders for preventing outside hacking, and while you're at it eliminate gateways between public and private networks.

At the end of the day it comes down to the human factor. Keep human's located at the equipment, and properly trained in it's operation (and recognition of malfunction) and these disasters will be easily averted.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:07 · Score: 1, Funny

You forgot to whine a few words: "Know your lib'rul, socialist audience!"

It's just like regular warfare :) by davidwr · 2012-07-20 06:09 · Score: 1

only with tubes.

A series of them.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:It's just like regular warfare :) by Antipater · 2012-07-20 06:25 · Score: 1

The internet is a Nebelwurfer?

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.

On thing's for sure by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-20 06:10 · Score: 1

Any substantial cyberwar will turn into a substantial shooting war within a matter of days.

Put that in your policy think tank and smoke it.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by operagost · 2012-07-20 06:11 · Score: 1

Hyperbole like this facilitates thinking that everyone who knows how to defrag a hard disk is a dangerous black hat and potential terrorist.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

How about we all by phorm · 2012-07-20 06:11 · Score: 1

Stop being cheap/lazy about critical infrastructure?
There are rules and frameworks for the medical industry (HIPAA etc). Ditto for the construction industry.
Perhaps they need something similar for critical IT infrastructure, especially regarding firewalls, air-gaps, passwords, encryption, patching, and upgrading.

How about we start with:
* Control of any critical system that does not need to be online shall not be accessible online (air-gap)
* Information that is needed in a read-only capacity should be configured through a non-writable medium

If you want reports from your water treatment plant, then have something send data through a one-way medium. Remote access is great and all, but if what's standing between you and a possible hack harming thousands or millions is a few on-site personnel rather than remote access... stop being cheap about it and put people on-site.

Pretty scenario, but how high is the actually risk by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:16 · Score: 1

How high is the actually risk of that nightmare scenario? nightmare scenarios are easy to make in regards to anything. What about a nightmare scenario where someone buys a load of heavy metal and dump it a lake near a large city, overload any water filters the city have. Do that mean we have a heavy metal war that is important to take care of?

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 06:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Obama does a good job of scaring the shit out of people and saying, "Let the government be the solution. Let us spy on your web habits via your ISP, and your cellphone via tracking. And oh yeah, we've decided to expand the TSA's mission to busstops, train stations, along highways, and at pulic facilties like malls and hotels."

In that respect he's a hell-of-lot-smarter than George "duh" Bush but ultimately it's the same fucked-up destination. Let both the (D) and (R) president burn in hell.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

It's an easy problem to solve by MikeRT · 2012-07-20 06:19 · Score: 2

1. Give them 2 years to hire or retain by contract people who can repair or do maintenance on site.
2. Make it a class six felony to knowingly connect an industrial system to the public internet for any reason other than an exigent circumstance for which a reasonable practitioner would not regard the on-site staff as capable of handling or for which there is insufficient time to fly out a practitioner capable of performing the work.
3. In the event of loss to limb or property, make trebble damages built-in to the civil site.
4. In the even of loss of life, make elevation to felony murder mandatory with execution mandatory for all parties involved in the event that the death toll goes beyond a few people.

That's how you wake them up and institute change post haste.

Re:Take The EASY Solution by Kadagan+AU · 2012-07-20 06:21 · Score: 2

I work for a company that does networking for many railroads, and on every project that we've done the entire train control network is isolated from the rest of the world. That's one of our basic rules, it should never touch the internet. I can't speak for our competitors, but it seems like they would do the same.

--
This space for rent, inquire within.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by geekoid · 2012-07-20 06:22 · Score: 1

It's not Hyperbole. Those events can happen, and there have been SCADA compromises.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Take The EASY Solution by Kadagan+AU · 2012-07-20 06:22 · Score: 2

On the other hand, if someone malicious were to get physical access to the network, it may be a different situation.

--
This space for rent, inquire within.

Not Possible: Across the country trains derailed. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:23 · Score: 1

I wrote software which manages trains and the railway network and I can tell you that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to derail a train or cause an accident with a "cyber attack". I might believe Water treatment plants because of their use of SCADA but not railroads.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 06:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

It does make you think. If Bush and the GOP think that Dems are government solution crazy....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place. Did they not think the Dems would 'improve' upon them?

I fully believe if Bush hadn't started this dive into moral failure the Dems wouldn't have done it on their own, if only because the GOP would have, rightly, decried the invasions of privacy. But because of 'terrerism' somehow it was ok...

Bush's fault for starting it, Dems and Obama's for continuing.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:26 · Score: 1

Did it ever occur to you that maybe security is so bad than anyone who knows how to defrag a hard drive has the technical skills necessary to be a potential terrorist?

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 06:29 · Score: 5, Informative

>>>Strawman. Stop using them.

There's no strawman. Obama really has expanded the TSA to busstops, train depots, post offices, et cetera. It's not my fault you don't keep-up with the news and remain unaware of that fact.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

There is more than one way to kill. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:29 · Score: 1

With the cost of healthcare and the number of retirees that lost most or all of their savings, I doubt it.

Re:Live Free... by zlives · 2012-07-20 06:31 · Score: 1

even more savings when you can outsource the management of such systems to remote support via public net. all kinds of savings can be had rather than have a physical presence.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 06:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

>>>If Bush and the GOP think that Dems are government solution crazy....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place.

Exactly.
I'm happy to say I never voted for Warmonger Bush.
Nor Obama the insurance megacorps' best friend.
Or Romney the corporate prostitute AND warmonger.
(We just keep getting one lousy president after another.)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

War is a racket. by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-20 06:34 · Score: 2

Is it like regular warfare, where two sides armed with arsenals of deadly weapons open fire on each other and hope for total destruction?

Not even regular is like that. Regular was is two or several sides having people who are armed and those who get to pay and suffer.

Let's say for example, China and America had an all out war: in that case the common American citizen and the common Chinese citizen have a LOT more in common than the common American or Chinese citizen have in common with their leaders.

The whole thing of equating the policy of war profiteers with the people in a country is fascist bullshit. It's usually, and certainly often when America is involved, not "country A fighting country B", it's "group X (elites in countries A and B) fighting group Y (the people in countries A and B)".

Seriously, pay some fucking attention already.

Likely gvmnt response - less freedom for everyone by ravenscar · 2012-07-20 06:42 · Score: 2

The real question is how government will respond to this perceived threat. They could push for better software and system security. Instead, they'll likely use the fear of this threat to increase their size and find yet another way to restrict people's freedoms.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by u38cg · 2012-07-20 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the hell was a shipment of toxic chemicals that couldn't withstand a train crash doing on a train? Why wasn't the water treatment plant shut down manually when the control systems failed?

Cyber "war" is just applied mathematics. Get it right, and you're untouchable. Its impact is unreliable and the expenditure is out of all proportion to its impact. Give me what was spent on Stuxnet and I could do far more damage to infrastructure than that ever did.

--
[FUCK BETA]

BS! Not because of Hackers by stox · 2012-07-20 06:44 · Score: 1

Try because of extreme negligence. How many supposed hacks are because the admin password was 'password' or equivalent? When are we going to demand that due diligence is required when it comes to computer systems? Oh wait, never mind, that might cut into corporate profits, we can't have any of that.

--
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by roc97007 · 2012-07-20 06:44 · Score: 1

...or whomever wrote it for him did.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-20 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny

I should really make a locked-down *nix appliance that secures devices behind a keyfile-secured VPN or SSH tunnel and requires cryptknock before allowing access, and a software suite (like PuTTy and some scripts) to make connecting easy from a Windows computer, and then sell the setup for a ridiculously high price calling them "unbreakable infrastructure security terminals."

If that big dumb idiot who ran HBGary can be a rich executive, why not me?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 06:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

And why? What the president is saying isn't 100% bullshit, which is a difficult thing to swallow - for me, too, and I voted for him. Of course it isn't nearly the truth, either. The truth lies somewhere in between "nothing will happen" and "The only way to be sure is to nuke it from orbit" and it shifts.

I will tell you this, not long ago there were some oil pipeline explosions in Russia (not the USSR). The explosions happened just as Russia was starting to make a big dent in middle east oil production and, coincidentally, just as American oil interests were turned away from investment in Russia's oil industry. There was a massive pipeline explosion. It took Russia years to recover fully and by then the Middle Eastern oil situation had stabilized and they were able to over supply Europe once again. The explosion gave the US interests breathing room.

It was caused by code put into the valves by US firms that effectively reversed the oil flow.

Yeah, we did it, and the message was that either Russia does it themselves or they play nice with the US. And now China did the same thing to us.

Serves us right.

The war is here, son. Strap on your slide-rule and tape up your glasses. Uncle Same wants you.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-20 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

How so? Obama came into office on "hope" & "change", and he just helped consolidate the police state Bush kicked off even more. Oh, and he went from torture to "kill lists", and he payed banks for being too greedy for their own good. He didn't change a fucking thing, he just lubed it up for you, all nice and sophisticated and bullshit-y.

No, all he (well, his handlers) did was pulling one on you, and you just sit there and celebrate it with empty phrases like "he facilitated thinking". For fucks sake? What does that even mean? Your BRAIN would facilitate thinking, IF you had one.

I'm pretty sure they simply implemented the same policies that are chugging along all the time, anyway, and this time with the diction of Tuvok instead of dumb smirks.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-20 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, you could say they merely applied a different CSS file to the exact same fucking HTML.

OH LOOK, IT'S A NEW WEBSITE I NEVER SAW BEFORE!

Gah...

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by jason.sweet · 2012-07-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Obama's predecessor could even spell "hypotheticals".
Though I suspect he wouldn't have any problem using an adjective as a noun.

outsourcing leads to stuff like being on line by Joe_Dragon · 2012-07-20 07:04 · Score: 1

outsourcing leads to stuff like being on line so it can be controlled remotely

Re:Caused by a government mandate by couchslug · 2012-07-20 07:12 · Score: 1

Better yet, just keep them off the internet. Not everything should be on the internet.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 07:15 · Score: 3

Only kibbitz I have is Obama made a calculated decision to go with Mandate vs Gov't Single Payer in order to try and get some GOP support.

In a world without political calculations (& Unicorns!) I think he'd have done away with said insurance megacorps...

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by jpapon · 2012-07-20 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Give me what was spent on Stuxnet and I could do far more damage to infrastructure than that ever did.

Woh there, cowboy... put your gun back in its holster. The reason for the expense is that Stuxnet was a subtle, precise strike. The main advantage of which is that it didn't give Iran a clear Casus Belli against Israel. No kidding it would have been cheaper and far less complicated to just drop some bombs on Iran's centrifuges... but that could have led to pretty brutal regional conflict. Why use a baseball bat when you can use a scalpel?

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain

It's a fire sale, dude by Iniamyen · 2012-07-20 07:24 · Score: 1

It's a fire sale dude. Better get Bruce Willis on the job. Oh and buy Apple!

Re:Of course, this could never happen . . . by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-20 07:25 · Score: 1

There is almost no reason to bring up such dire straits during an election campaign, unless he knows it's coming soon.

Of course there's a reason to bring it up during a campaign!

Hint: it's because scaring the crap out of voters helps to convince them to make the "safe" choice in an election - the safe choice being the guy who is telling them "evil things are happening, but elect me, and I'll make sure they don't"....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Worried about this. by Animats · 2012-07-20 07:36 · Score: 1

I'm worried about this. We're seeing too many attacks and persistent threats that seem to be laying the groundwork for something. Viruses and worms used to do something actively hostile. Now, there are ones that just slowly take over machines and wait for further instructions.

There's a lot of infrastructure which used to have big maintenance forces, but no longer does. Water systems, pumping stations, power substations, cell sites, air conditioning, and railroad signalling are all remotely controlled, and some of the links do go over the Internet. The power and railroad people take reasonable precautions, but the others, not so much. Few companies have the armies of maintenance people they used to. This is becoming a big problem in the power industry, where recovery from storms is taking weeks instead of days.

I'd worry about an attack on the financial services sector. If someone took down the NYSE or the NASDAQ or the CBOT, or the links between them, for a week, the financial center of the world would no longer be in the US, even after the systems came back up. That's a very attractive target. Back in 2001, the markets outside the US weren't ready to take over. Now they are.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by nazsco · 2012-07-20 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can't say that I agree with his content, but Obama does get Joe SixPack to realize that power plants and trains switches can be inadvertently connected to the internet (and to wonder what else it connected.) Hyperbole it is, but it's useful for the non-specialist.

yeah, but it's not because Americans has too much freedom on the internet. It's because goverment contractors are incopetent with basic security.

That's the 100% false hyperbole that The Man is shoving down your troat.

He is not saying the truth, it would be "hi citzens, we screwed up wasting all your tax dollars on systems a 5yr old could misuse and then we added insult to the injury by connecting them online. now we are going to prosecute all the bad contracts we made and fix it with secure applications"

instead he is saying "the internet is dangerous, we will collect information from everyone everywhere and will violate all your privacy, because the internet is dangerous"

How the hell can i use my mod points on the article? it's clearly flamebait.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-20 08:01 · Score: 2

Because to be that type of success, you need considerably salesmanship talent, connections in the right places and a fair bit of luck.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 08:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cyber "war" is just applied mathematics. Get it right, and you're untouchable.

This is completely backward. Infosec is actually applied anthropology. Humans will get the math wrong. They will get the design, the implementation, the policies, the procedures, the operation wrong. Security is about assuming mistakes will be made and overlapping protections to the extent that the impact of those inevitable fuck-ups is minimized.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by marcello_dl · 2012-07-20 08:13 · Score: 1

I think the plan is:
1 put vitally important control systems, that only a retarded flea on acid would put on the net, on the net.
2 wait
3 crackers hack them for the lulz or for profit
4 claim you need total control of every aspect of the internet to secure it
5 control whatever aspect you wanted to control in the first place
6 profit!

Or, I launch some pennies over into the neighbour's house, so I can look for them, when the search becomes tiring I'll have a swim in his pool.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by techno-vampire · 2012-07-20 08:24 · Score: 1, Troll

He didn't change a fucking thing,

Actually, he did. There's been a lot of change in the last three years: all for the worse. Three years ago, he told us that if he didn't get the economy moving again and people back to work he'd not be re-elected. All I have to say now is, "From his mouth to God's ears!"

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by cpu6502 · 2012-07-20 08:36 · Score: 1

>>>In a world without political calculations (& Unicorns!) I think he'd have done away with said insurance megacorps...

And then we'd have an insurance monopoly run by government. I would have to rely on them to take care of me if I got some expensive illness that I could not pay for. That would be even worse. Nothing is as horrible as being trapped in a monopoly. It's basically anti-choice and anti-liberty.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Take The EASY Solution by harperska · 2012-07-20 08:39 · Score: 1

Iran's centrifuge controllers were isolated from the internet as well. Do all of the PCs on the entire train control network have their USB ports disabled and their CD trays glued shut to prevent social engineering tactics? For that matter, do all of the PCs have their ethernet cords soldered in to prevent malicious hackers from attaching their own infected hardware to the network? (God forbid should the network use wi-fi anywhere)

So far... by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-07-20 08:47 · Score: 1

To date, most if not all remotely warfare-like "cyber" actions have been performed by government, or with their support. Generally, when civilians wage hostile actions, they are much smaller and considered in the category of crime. When the military wages hostile actions, it is usually bigger and considered warfare. So their whole "Cyber War" is pretty much an inevitable course of military nature, a self-imposed -- or at least accelerated -- state of affairs, as they rarely, if ever, fail to weaponize anything with "good" potential. It would brighten my day, however, if their talking heads and those that listen to them could begin intelligently distinguishing the vast difference between cyberwar and cybercrime, hence using the DHS to issue DMCA takedowns for torrenting popstar trash.
But they really shouldn't be given too much credit; they are certainly guilty of hyperbole and grubbing viciously for more money and power and control. When we build sky-scrapers, we try to our best and do so methodically. They contain great potential energy and are very pervasive. Is there a Construction-War? Certainly we could try this with IT? And call me naive, but would it hurt us beyond repair to bring some manufacturing back to America? Big Gub's credibility will only grow if our hardware and skillsets continue to be imported from high-risk sources - at least without uncanny oversight.
Depending on virtual things, I suppose, does have its risks. But so does depending on overly ambitious criminals in government. If they've clearly illustrated one thing about war, it's that they have a far greater interest in it than the rest of the world, and especially many sensible Americans.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

true security is Hard and not PC by RobertLTux · 2012-07-20 08:50 · Score: 1

if you have
1 Educated Users
2 a BOFH with a baseball bat (and the authority to use it)
then most of your problems will go away

but then in 99.99999% of the time you can't make Stupid That Painful

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-20 08:54 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

(My own reference to a fallacy is, naturally, close but incorrect)

Re:Pretty scenario, but how high is the actually r by harperska · 2012-07-20 08:54 · Score: 1

I am not sure why this comment was modded down as there is a valid point here, though you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between doing the wrong thing (war on heavy metals) vs. doing nothing (ignoring potential threats to a city's water supply). For every threat response, there needs to be a risk vs. reward analysis, lest the cure be worse than the disease. Yes, terrorism was a problem that needed to be addressed. The proper response was bolting cockpit doors shut, CIA investigation of terrorist cells, and political diplomacy with states known to harbor terrorists. (It is debatable whether that last one was done correctly or not.) The wrong response was security theater such as the TSA checkpoints. However, an even more wrong response would have been to blow off the problem and do nothing. Cyberwarfare is a definite potential threat that would be foolish to ignore. The question then, is not if to do something but what to do. I don't know any details of this legislation, so I don't know if it is more like a cockpit door lock or more like a TSA naked-scanner. But Obama is right, in that doing nothing is the wrong answer.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-20 09:15 · Score: 1

The patriot act was already written months before 9/11, just waiting for an excuse to be proposed. The megacorps and their lackeys saw another opportunity to bleed the taxpayer in the name of "safety and security". Would have played out the same with a dem in power.

Wrong Way to Look at the Issue by mettle · 2012-07-20 09:19 · Score: 1

Saying we need to create a 'cyberwarfare' program because our physical infastructure is an unreasonable idea. It is a SECURITY problem that our physical infastrucutre is vulnerable to network attacks. Solving this problem requires that we review and create strict policies on all inputs to these systems. This security problem can be solved without even violating civil rights or the privacy of citizens so it shouldn't even be a debate. Creating an offsenive 'cyber' program has nothing to do with these threats and will not do anything to improve our security.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by slimjim8094 · 2012-07-20 09:53 · Score: 2

That was the thing about Stuxnet that people don't seem to get. It's a brilliant chess move; if you accept the premise that those centrifuges need to go (which frankly I did, but it's up to you), it's hard to argue that the "strike" that destroys every centrifuge without so much as an injury is inferior in any respect to a bomb which is almost certain to kill people.

But the real thing is that the evidence that it was US/Israel that wrote Stuxnet/Flame only rises to the level of "likely, but rumor", and Iran would have a very hard time starting a war over that. Bombs are a lot easier to justify in that respect - "they invaded our sovereignty and bombed us" vs "they set us back a few months and made us spend money".

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.

Obligatory Penny Arcade by Ambitwistor · 2012-07-20 10:16 · Score: 1

Link

all because of IT IDIOTS by swschrad · 2012-07-20 11:03 · Score: 1

who opened critical networks to the Wacky Wacky Webbiepoo.

you don't do that, you don't allow machines that connect to the Webbiepoo to connect to your critical network, you don't get hacked.

this is really simple.

too simple for too many CIOs and IT idiots everywhere, who want to tweak things when they are not at their desks.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:Take The EASY Solution by Decker-Mage · 2012-07-20 11:19 · Score: 1

On the other hand, if someone malicious were to get physical access to the network, it may be a different situation.

Fundamental Rule of Security: Once the attacker has physical access, your IT security policy is dead. Period.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go

Regular warfare =/= Total Destruction by Svartormr · 2012-07-20 12:34 · Score: 1

Regular warfare is about defeating an opponent with force. Defeating means they mostly cease to resist in some areas and somewhat give into what the victor wants. Few wars are as complete unconditional surrenders as World War 2 was.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-20 12:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nothing is as horrible as being trapped in a monopoly.

Sort like before HCR? Employer provided health-care is it's own monopoly, meaning you can't switch jobs if you have a pre-existing condition.

I really don't understand why people distrust a government program 'that they have actual say in' versus a corporation that they have ZERO say in how it's run. You don't get to vote for who runs it, you don't get to vote for what you want it to do.

before HCR reform Insurance companies were perfectly allowed to cancel your coverage because you cost them too much money. You really want that as your health care system?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by khallow · 2012-07-20 13:24 · Score: 1

Sort like before HCR?

No. Because there wasn't a monopoly then. "Monopoly" doesn't mean "things I don't like".

Employer provided health-care is it's own monopoly, meaning you can't switch jobs if you have a pre-existing condition.

Sure you can switch. You have to carry the old health insurance though which frankly is not that much of a burden, if you've got an expensive health problem. It just goes to show that employer provided health care was not the best of ideas.

I really don't understand why people distrust a government program 'that they have actual say in' versus a corporation that they have ZERO say in how it's run. You don't get to vote for who runs it, you don't get to vote for what you want it to do.

Because a) businesses not just corporations are far less powerful and more easily defeated than governments of comparable size, b) businesses are narrow focus and narrow extent, for the most part, you don't have to care what a corporation does, c) government has more leeway to renege on health benefits than a business does, and d) business's health benefits are usually contracts with independent third parties, so there's less conflicts of interest than with government-based health benefits.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by khallow · 2012-07-20 13:27 · Score: 1

Only kibbitz I have is Obama made a calculated decision to go with Mandate vs Gov't Single Payer in order to try and get some GOP support.

Only the "GOP support" in his own party. It's interesting how many people rationalize this so wrong.

Buh? by Yobgod+Ababua · 2012-07-20 14:33 · Score: 1

Ok... are you not reading the same news and economic reports I have that say very clearly that the economy has improved considerably since he took office?

Maybe you're confused by the -polls- on the "news" lately that say that most Average Joes don't *think* the economy is improving.

I'll take the economists, thank you... they may deal in filthy lying statistics, but at least they base their opinion on something real.

Re:Buh? by techno-vampire · 2012-07-20 19:35 · Score: 1

There were two parts to his statement. Do the words "jobless recovery" mean anything to you?

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:Buh? by khallow · 2012-07-21 00:17 · Score: 1

Ok... are you not reading the same news and economic reports I have that say very clearly that the economy has improved considerably since he took office?
I guess not. It's worth remembering here that the economy probably would have recovered faster, if all Obama did was golf for the last three years. We have plenty of data from previous recessions and this one is unusual for its duration. One obvious explanation is that Obama with his business-hostile administration and pseudo-Keynesian stimulus made things worse than they'd otherwise be.
Re:Buh? by DarkOx · 2012-07-21 00:57 · Score: 1

Yes we are reading the same news. Obama has 'improved the economy with the credit card', the huge national debt increase has bought some nice things. The friendly policy toward the Fed Chairman and his idiocy with QE has made the stock market numbers look nice. In the mean time my grocery, water, sewer, electric, and gas bills keep going up on a per unit basis, but its okay because they tell me there is not inflation. That might even be technically true, wages are not rising and housing is flat, falling, or barely growing depending on where you live.
Obama has done nothing for the real underlying health of the economy. Its an elaborate shell game of debt, and some day the bill will come due. Just look at the municipal pension situation and all of California's bankruptcies in the past few months.
I expect I could go take at a loan run up the credit cards too, this would put a new car in the drive way, a coat of paint on the house and some fancy new electronics in the house and on my person. Still I don't think anyone would argue this was a real improvement to my personal fiscal situation. Its not different for our nation.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Self booting "fixes" by Yobgod+Ababua · 2012-07-20 14:34 · Score: 1

Fedora.
Ubuntu.

Byline by Kwesadilo · 2012-07-20 15:17 · Score: 1

Mr. Obama is president of the United States.

Is this really necessary? I mean, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't know who he is, but how many of those people read to the end of Wall Street Journal articles about cybersecurity?

--
This space reserved for administrative use.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by bryan1945 · 2012-07-20 15:52 · Score: 2

And very few morals.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by cold+fjord · 2012-07-20 20:27 · Score: 1

....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place. Did they not think the Dems would 'improve' upon them?

Hard to say, . . . I guess it will be an eternal mystery.

Horror at Fort Hood: Gunman Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13, wounds 31 in rampage on Texas Army base

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 17, 2012

Detroit: ‘Underwear Bomber’ Sentenced to Life in Prison for Attempted Christmas Day Attack
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called “underwear bomber,” was sentenced to life in prison as a result of his guilty plea to all eight counts of a federal indictment charging him for his role in the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 10, 2012

Minneapolis: Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Somali-Based Terror Group
Ahmed Hussein Mahamud pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to al Shabaab, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, in its fight against the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) and the Ethiopian military, which supports the TFG.
Chicago: Chicago Man Pleads Guilty to Attempting to Provide Funds to Support al Qaeda in Pakistan
Raja Lahrasib Khan, a Chicago taxi driver and native of Pakistan who personally provided hundreds of dollars to an alleged terrorist leader with whom he had met in his native Pakistan, pled guilty to attempting to provide additional funds to the same individual after learning he was working with al Qaeda.
Washington Field: Revolution Muslim Leader Guilty of Soliciting Murder, Promoting Extremism
Jesse Curtis Morton, aka Younus Abdullah Muhammed, pled guilty to using his position as a leader of Revolution Muslim Organization’s Internet sites to conspire to solicit murder, make threatening communications, and use the Internet to place others in fear.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending February 3, 2012

Tampa: Florida Man Indicted for Attempting to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction
Sami Osmakac, of Pinellas Park, Florida, was charged with attempting to use weapons of mass destruction against persons and property in the U.S., as well as possessing an unregistered machine gun

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization
Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization.
Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center
U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland.
Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by azery · 2012-07-20 20:36 · Score: 1

No, what you describe is safety: protecting against everything that can go unintentionally wrong.
Security is protection against someone intentionally wanting to do you harm.

WTF... by TaoJones · 2012-07-20 21:39 · Score: 1

Why the fuck is serious infrastructure wired to the 'net at all? Complete batshit insanity.

--
"Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by khallow · 2012-07-21 00:05 · Score: 1

Another place that Obama doesn't exactly shine.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by khallow · 2012-07-21 00:12 · Score: 1

If Bush and the GOP think that Dems are government solution crazy....why in the hell did they start the massive gov't surveillance programs in the first place. Did they not think the Dems would 'improve' upon them?

One of the many problems with this sort of thing is that such advocates never seem to think of what happens when their buddy is no longer in office. Then it's some scary person with all that power. It's pretty short term thinking even for today's society.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by JackieBrown · 2012-07-21 01:16 · Score: 1

I was going to post this but then hit the back button on my browser.

People should be concerned about ObamaCare due to the power that it gives the president over our health. Even if you believe that Obama has your best interests at heart, what about the next president or the one after that?

That was the glaring problem with the patriot act. Even if you trusted Bush, you didn't know who would be the next president.

Both partes have their share of being on the wrong side of civil rights. As much as democrats like to rewrite history and act like all the southern democrats were really repulicans, there is still the treatement that Roosevelt authroized against the japenese during world war ii. Hell, for all the talk of war mongering in this tread, only one party has actually used a nuclear bomb against another country (and I am not moralizing or demoralizing that choice.)

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-21 02:46 · Score: 1

So I get modded insightful, you're a troll - WTF? Maybe you should cuss more, it seems to work for me :P

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by AssholeMcGee+ · 2012-07-21 23:16 · Score: 1

You can say that?? Neither is better then the other.. The propaganda both pulled off to get there ideas passed leads to the same thing. I love this... The idiots that are "Conservative" insist on stopping the progress of the human race. The Progressive party wants to censor/control everything... And people keep voting for this crap.

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by u38cg · 2012-07-24 09:18 · Score: 1

I don't disagree that Stuxnet was a smart move. However, it did no long term damage and can't be repeated. You can't fight a war with weapons that cost millions a time and can only be fired once. To fight a war is to compel someone to do your will, and I don't see cyberwar doing that any time soon.

--
[FUCK BETA]

Re:Obama does of good job of faciliting thinking.. by u38cg · 2012-07-24 09:24 · Score: 1

Yes, but once you've fixed everything that can go wrong...you're done. It's Star Wars, except this time it works.

--
[FUCK BETA]

Slashdot Mirror

Obama's Portrait of Cyberwar Isn't Complete Hyperbole

175 of 240 comments (clear)