US Missile Defense Staff Told To Stop Watching Porn

An anonymous reader writes "John James Jr., director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who is responsible for the nation's missile defense system, recently sent out a one-page memo warning employees and contractors to stop using agency computers to visit pornographic Web sites. That's right; apparently they were watching the wrong type of bombshells."

Comments

Why?

[Githaron]

Why is this considered news?

Re:Why?

[Desler]

Because they were playing with the wrong type of missiles?

Re:Why?

[DickBreath]

Because watching pr0n isn't being productive like those of us who read Slashdot.

Re:Why?

[jhoegl]

The real question is, why arent these less than half a dozen getting fired?
If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.

Re:Why?

[kubernet3s]

actually, yeah, most of us would be out on our asses if our employers caught us looking at porn. The reason people tag links NSFW is because you can get fired for even accidentally clicking on non-pornographic nudity.

Re:Why?

[jank1887]

because of this tidbit in the Bloomberg article:

"Using what is called steganography, Cunningham said, a programmer can embed malicious computer code that infects computers, opens ports, steals data or gains access to networks when photos, videos or other files are downloaded."

Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...

Re:Why?

[AliasMarlowe]

actually, yeah, most of us would be out on our asses if our employers caught us looking at porn. The reason people tag links NSFW is because you can get fired for even accidentally clicking on non-pornographic nudity.

So these guys might have just been looking at Wikipedia, or perhaps at Wikipedia? Caution, some Wikipedia pages (like those two) might actually be considered NSFW in really incredibly prudish places, simply because they contain photos of human genitalia (but non-prurient photos).

Re:Why?

[ganjadude]

Why blame the network admin? He didnt make you go to those sites. Sure you could say that if it was filtered they wouldnt go to the sites but that is not the point. These are adults, working in what is a pretty important function with major security concerns. There is no one to blame but those who typed in the address and clicked enter.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, still better if only a meat-rocket goes off, instead of a minute-man. ...wait

Re:Why?

[v1]

The people who need to be fired are the network administrators who aren't filtering external traffic properly in the first place.

That doesn't really fix the problem. It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse. Most admins grow tired of being expected to have an airtight physical defense when there's no complementary policy in place.

A better response is to have the network admins place reasonably good filtering in place. Not airtight. Not filters that interfere with legitimate traffic. Filters with a zero-false-positive. Then if someone is still watching porn, it's easy to demonstrate that they're taking steps to bypass the filtering. Make it clear to the staff that deliberately bypassing the filters is a fireable offense.

This solves most of the problem all at once. No collateral damage, no borderline unfair calls, reasonable expense, and accountability where it belongs.

It also makes the perps easier to catch, since they don't have to spend hours trying to different things before they finally find the inevitable crack in the armor. They'll try basic things like proxy or direct IP etc. Those are easy to prove as deliberate while at the same time being easy to detect. If you're placing the entire onus on the net admin, the users can dig at your defenses all day long without so much as a wrist-slap, and when they finally discover another way, they've' not only beat you, you may have a difficult time noticing you've been beat. And then you are the bad guy for having "allowed" them to violate policy.

I've been in charge of cat and mouse before. I'd set something up, they'd find a way around it. I'd add another net. They'd stop for a bit and then they'd find a way around it. Rinse and repeat. All the while the manager wouldn't bother to yank one of them into the office and discuss the perils of working hard to break company policy. The filters finally got tight enough that the manager started having problems with some of his downtime, and then things really got weird. You don't want to be here.

"against company policy" needs to mean "you don't do that here", not "we're going to try to stop you from doing that here".

Re:Why?

[dgatwood]

I don't think the GP was claiming that it doesn't happen. Image formats are relatively complex, and compressed audio and video formats doubly so. If you're going to have a security hole in an OS or a browser, odds are good that it will be in a codec somewhere.

That said, what we have here is a pretty egregious misuse of the term steganography. Steganography refers to hiding data inside other data. A trojan image file that exploits a bug in your browser to load malware isn't steganography because there is no actual image. There's no hiding. It is merely the misrepresentation of one type of data as another type of data, which is a trojan horse, not steganography.

Steganography would be Chinese dissidents using image files that contained a subtle watermark in the least significant bits to send coded messages to one another, or someone embedding a piece of software in the low order bits of an MPEG stream. Those examples meet the core requirement that the enclosing data be at least ostensibly plausible data. Note that opening such a photo or MPEG stream reveals a photo or a movie. It does not execute anything, because if it did, the secret payload wouldn't be very hidden, now would it? :-)

Re:Why?

[sycodon]

Whatever...they tell me to stop looking at porn all the time too.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

be the first recorded case of premature ejaculation that made the earth move for her too

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. I just got fired.

Re:Why?

[jcadam]

Many years ago, when I was working on a large govt contract, one of the GS civilian managers got caught messing around with his secretary in one of the stairwells (security cameras? where?) and was not fired. He was instead 'promoted' into some position that, best I could tell, involved organizing social events and morale/team building activities. Since he couldn't be fired, he was placed in a slacker, low-stress position where he wouldn't be entrusted with anything that was actually important.

Re:Why?

[Tom]

It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse.

I don't only agree, I'd go a step further: The admins job is not to filter content, but to keep the network running.

Filter malware, yes. Content? Why should the admin care if that image shows a tit or a cat?

Maybe I'm too open-minded but I don't get what the fuss is all about. If I came upon a co-worker or even a subordinate watching porn, I'd be more worried that he's not working than what he is watching. Sure it's not very tasteful, but as long as his hands stay out of his trousers (or skirt, let's stop pretending only men watch porn), I don't care all that much. Maybe if our society were a little less sexually repressed, we could focus on what actually matters instead of political correctness?

Re:Why?

[ultranova]

The real question is, why arent these less than half a dozen getting fired?
If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.

There are quire a few positions where periods of activity and waiting alternate. Trying to "remove the slack" in such scenarios typically results in small savings in periods of passivity and huge disasters in periods of activity. This is especially true in scenarios like missile defense where activity periods depend on some unpredictable external factor - it's too late to hire staff when the air raid sirens start blaring, and having enough staff to handle a missile attack means that you'll have more than you need when an attack is not incoming.

But even beyond that, human beings aren't capable of giving 100% 8 hours a day. If you try to make them, those who can leave for greener pastures and those who can't concentrate on looking busy, rather than doing their job. The end result is that you'll end up with incompetent, unmotivated people trying their best to deceive the management.

But perhaps this isn't about wasted time but porn. If so, then please remember that this is a position that likely requires quite a bit of highly specialized training. Is punishing people for being impure sinners a good enough reason to justify the cost of training their replacements? Maybe, maybe not - but since this training would come out of taxpayer money, it would probably be best to not pay to enforce any moral code that doesn't absolutely have to be.

Re:Why?

[stretch0611]

Pron IS productive for these people. Aren't they trained constantly to launch their missile and have them explode. Watching porn is no more than a training video.

If we go to war and they are told to launch their missile and watch them explode, they will be ready and perform their duty well.

And if they watched enough "training videos" they will be able to control the timing of that launch and subsequent missile explosion with remarkable accuracy due to all their practice and training.

Re:Why?

[drkim]

Well put.

It's like saying, "We found that 80% of the time, the firefighters were just sitting around the fire station doing nothing. So we're going to reduce the fire department by 80%."

Re:Why?

[harrkev]

If hjfwiufiwubfqwfuwwe.com serves up porn, how am I supposed to know?

It doesn't. That domain does not even exist. Thanks for the non-existent tip.

Re:Why?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Apparently they were watching the wrong type of bombshells.

Brian: Dumb joke.
Stewie: You think it's so easy, name 12.

Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of missiles.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of payloads.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of shots.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of O-rings.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of re-entry procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of liquid coolant.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of emergency ejection.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of solid rocket.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of holding pattern.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of engine flameout.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of fire surpression system.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of throttle up.

Stewie: Name 5 more.

Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of loading the cargo bay.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of playing with the funny arm.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of rubber suit.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of trans docking.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of linkup.

Stewie: Name 6 more.

Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of system failure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of manual procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of stirring the tank.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of evacuation procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of moon rover.
  Apparently they were watching the wrong type of boot to the moon.

Stewie: (Throws guitar on the floor) F(bleep) you!

Brian:
  Apparently they were watching the wrong type of separation procedure.
  Apparently they were watching the wrong type of Weiner von Braun.
  Apparently they were watching the wrong type of 'tang.
  Apparently they were watching the wrong type of ...

Stewie: Now you die.

the right idea

[Anonymous Coward]

make love not war baby!

Re:the right idea

[DickBreath]

During a war, making love is what results in a war baby.

In wonder if...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this means our missile defense has been shooting blanks this whole time?

it became a problem

[phantomfive]

It because a problem when some of the computers started getting viruses and trojans from the porn sites.

That's what the first article says. The second article says that wasn't the reason. I guess this is why it's a waste to read the articles.

Re:it became a problem

[AaronW]

In that case I think that they should be more worried about the religious sites.

Why not?

[shaitand]

Not that this is really news worthy but who cares if they are watching porn? This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year. Being the military that is increased to maybe a few days labor worth of redundant checklists over the course of the year.

cue to the missile jokes....

[schlachter]

Johnson: [notices Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better take a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
[cut to the sky in two jets]
Jet Pilot: Dick!
Dick: Yeah?
Pilot: Take a look outta starboard.
Dick: Oh, my God! It looks like a huge--
[cut to a forest with 2 birdwatchers]
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker!
Bird-Watching Man: [raises his binoculars] Oh, where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Wait! that's not a woodpecker. It looks like someone's--
[cut to a boot camp]
Army Sergeant: PRIVATES! We have reports of an unidentified flying object! It is a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
[cut to a baseball game]
Umpire: 2 balls! [looks up from game] What is that? That looks just like an enormous--
[cut to a Chinese school]
Teacher: Wang! Pay attention!
Wang: I was distracted by that enormous flying--
[cut to a concert with Willie Nelson and another guitarist]
Musician: Willie.
Willie: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie: [looks up] Well, it looks like a giant--
[cut back to headquarters]
Colonel: Johnson!
Johnson: Yes, sir!
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this!

Overblown story

[addie]

The article says that less than half a dozen individuals were found to be accessing inappropriate material. That's out of over 8,000 individuals who work at MDA - one memo was sent out to address the problem.

This is not news.

Re:Check.

[SuricouRaven]

The only people I've seen use :> are furrys. It's the bird-smily.

Go on. Just admit it :>

Re:Check.

[poofmeisterp]

*peck*