Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Defense Secretary Warns of a Possible 'Cyber-Pearl Harbor'

SpzToid writes "U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has warned that the country is 'facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" and [is] increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation's power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government.' Countries such as Iran, China, and Russia are claimed to be motivated to conduct such attacks (though in at least Iran's case, it could be retaliation). Perhaps this is old news around here, even though Panetta is requesting new legislation from Congress. I think the following message from Richard Bejtlich is more wise and current: 'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.' Times do changes, even in the technology sector. Currently Congress is preoccupied with the failure of U.S. security threats in Benghazi, while maybe Leon isn't getting the press his recent message deserves?"

190 comments

  1. translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Haliburton now has a kompootar division that needs money.

    1. Re:translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Haliburton now has a kompootar division that needs money.

      Microsoft?

  2. you mean they could have spent less money spying.. by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean, the US could spent less money on fearmongering, sting operations to trick poor and socially outcast citizens into conducting fake terrorist attacks for TV. Far flung surviallence systems, which don't work.

    Instead of this crazy cloak and dagger shit, they could have invested in systems that were secure by default, and well coded that would resist cyber assault. In fact with the money spent, I'm sure they could simply paid many many many programers to do nothing but check and re-double check code, fuzz, and re-fuzz a bunch of apps until cyber breakins were not feasaible.

    I am sure they could have done the same with all routers, and in the case of a massive foriegn DDoS, simply firewalled it.

  3. What a shocking declaration! by mekkab · · Score: 4, Funny

    Honestly... does this come as any surprise to anyone on /.? When I heard about Flame and Stuxnet it was as if every cyberfiction story I read in the 80's had finally come true. Mentally, I'm already prepared.

    Bring on the onslaught of Jihadist Erectile Dysfunction Spam!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:What a shocking declaration! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, erectile dysfunction is especially bad for jihadists. Imagine you get your 72 virgins, and then you can't get it up.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:What a shocking declaration! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, that's the Muslim version of hell. Both groups get sent to the same place (which reduces maintenance costs, mind you!) and the ones with erectile dysfunction are simply forced to watch the unafflicted ones.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:What a shocking declaration! by BeanThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been reading these overblown scare stories with regularity since I've been reading /. ... it just means it's budget allocation time again for the 'cybersecurity divisions' and these types of reports are just a way of trying to justify oversized budgets for ever-larger 'departments' to push paper around while pretending to protect you from something.

    4. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that is why there is some confusion to the actual amount of virgins? it depends on how many are in heaven and how many are in hell?

    5. Re:What a shocking declaration! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Imagine you get your 72 virgins, and then you can't get it up."

      They might be MALE virgins, and you won't need to get yours up.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Shoten · · Score: 1

      I thought the Muslim version of hell was that they get their 72 virgins...and they're all ugly overweight male otaku.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    7. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not overblown. The threat is very real. It is just that, as anonymous said above, "There is no such thing as secure by default (except maybe for a brick), and no theoretical possibility of such a thing.". On the other hand, we should at least have some sort of idea what we can and cannot do in such a scenario. That takes funding.

    8. Re:What a shocking declaration! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

      If they are MALE virgins, you need to be worried about getting it up yours.

      FTFY

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    9. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, erectile dysfunction is especially bad for jihadists. Imagine you get your 72 virgins, and then you can't get it up.

      Or worse yet, erectile dysfunction of the other sort and you get a 7'2" Persian and an eternal erection.

    10. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The risk is idiots making everything be run by computers. An off by one programming error poses just as much risk as a "cyber attack". Heck, how much did the iPhone's alarm bugs cost economies, thousands of people going into work an hour late (or not at all). None of this is even remotely as dangerous as the huge number of people running around with a set of irrational views they hold on the basis of the fact that an authority figure told them they were true. I live in hope that one day my karma will run over your dogma though.

    11. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now I know where /. virgins go when they die. Looks like the last laugh is on you.

    12. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous= Who put alqueada online? ... Now we have pretext to launch a Cyber Patriot-Act...

      - Bill Landen

    13. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Larryish · · Score: 1

      They ARE male virgins.

      Do some research into Islamic culture.

    14. Re:What a shocking declaration! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not *sure* this is the only good thing Uwe Boll ever did, but it's pretty fucking funny:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY

    15. Re:What a shocking declaration! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Good point. When we deployed to KSA years ago and visited Bahrain, the Bahrainis kept coming on to our young male Airmen and offered to pay for some butt.

      Our suggestions that he "take one for the beer fund" didn't go over well!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  4. Translation: We need more Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And of course, they convince us that we need to be protected and kept secure. They'll always have something to worry about, and something to make us fear, just so they can make us more money.

    Of course they never mention their own operatives, because well, that's clearly not part of their agenda.

    Not that actual security is either, they'd just prefer sinecures for the technology sector.

  5. Easy solution by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just have to make all U.S. routers drop packets with the Evil bit set. Problem solved.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    1. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've never heard that joke before!

      You must be delightful at parties.

    2. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just have to make all U.S. routers drop packets with the Evil bit set. Problem solved.

      But we can't check the evil bit if there's a Do-Not-Track. Check, and Mate.

    3. Re:Easy solution by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      That would get in the way of government and corporate operations. I don't see it happening.

    4. Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably more delightful than the boring idiot in the OP...

  6. And just how easy can this be .... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ... fabricated by the same people making the claim?

    1. Re:And just how easy can this be .... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that the general public won't even know the difference between a genuine attack and just turning off the power grid? Pretty damn easily! (But, of course, for extra convincingness points, they can always use the years of detailed forensic work done by security analysts on viruses like Stuxnet to fabricate the fingerprint of their attacking nation of choice.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:And just how easy can this be .... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Biology question: how do I throw a zinger about "consporacy theories" at a biologist? Possibly rich in references to natural selection &c. I couldn't come up with anything...

      But in honesty I agree and like where you're going with that.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:And just how easy can this be .... by tqk · · Score: 2

      Biology question: how do I throw a zinger about "consporacy theories" at a biologist?

      Ahhh, you're not trying hard enough. One word: Anthrax!

      You don't even need the real thing. A bit of flour in an envelope stuffed into random screen door mail slots in residential neighbourhoods overnight, and you can shut an entire city down for days, maybe weeks. You can even bribe homeless winos with a bottle to do it early in the morning (tell them it's a promotional campaign for a contest and give 'em a cheap bottle of ripple to do it).

      Worked on Congress.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:And just how easy can this be .... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Consporacy theories? Sorry, I don't know much about fungi.

      I've heard a few good ideas about the evolution of creationism, but none of the resultant jokes were designed very intelligently.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  7. Really?! by cfkboyz · · Score: 1

    What the hell do they expect? They place critical computer systems online and they expect them to be safe? Why not leave them on an intranet and not worry about it.. Stop giving crackers a way to access the systems and nothing can happen... If the systems are so sensitive it seems logical right?

    1. Re:Really?! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What the hell do they expect? They place critical computer systems online and they expect them to be safe?

      Sure. Just like the best way to keep a secret is to tell it on TV. :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean we shouldn't put the nuclear plant Self-Destruct button right next to the Facebook Like button? But it's so aesthetically pleasing.

    3. Re:Really?! by ByteSlicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why not leave them on an intranet

      No! Never connect critical computer systems to an intranet (assuming you mean a general purpose internal network).
      It's just too easy for a worm infection to create a bridge with the internet, or some person connecting his laptop to his phone to read slashdot and thereby creating a bridge.
      These systems should be on their own network, and all communication should be encrypted using public-private key pairs (secure tunnels, so systems can only communicate with other systems when they're allowed to). Managing the keys/tunnels would be a hassle (making sure an authorized human is in the loop), but good security always has its costs.

    4. Re:Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because power plant operators are too lazy to actually get up and drive to work, so they want to sit at home and operate the SCADA systems on their Windows ME boxes while watching porn videos. People who say "that's just the way such plants are operated" fail to recall that power plants operated just fine for decades before the Internet. If these energy companies were serious about security, they would revert to the old air-gaped methods even if it is more expensive to their bottom line to do so. But since it would be more expensive, don't expect them to do it.

      Reason #2: It gives all the military contractors fat contracts to "fix" a problem that is easily fixed with the solution above. Most of the former DHS and NSA people work for private security contractors now (Chertoff is one example), so they want to line their pockets by coming up with "solutions." It's like NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake says: we came up with solutions internally at NSA for a few million dollars, but the NSA brass wanted to give their buddies in the private contractor sector billions to come up with a solution that didn't work as well.

      It's basically all about waste, fraud and abuse by keeping military contractors happy. You know, what the government is infamous for.

    5. Re:Really?! by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      First,
      Change the default passwords on the systems.

      Then

      Set them up on a restricted access internal DMZ with a firewall in front of them

      Then

      Setup tunnels for encrypted access.

      Then

      Set authentication (token based are ok) for any access to the systems)

    6. Re:Really?! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you know what DMZ means (aside from the acronym Demilitarize zone). It's a port on the firewall, that doesn't use the firewall. Straight pass through with no interference, but a route back to the local network. Sticking a machine on the DMZ, and then putting a firewall in front of it is one step removed from usefulness.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    7. Re:Really?! by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a network that only could be accessed by passing through a firewall inside the INTERNAL network
      so just anyone internal couldn't access the systems. (Not an IntErnet facing network)

      With the right type of firewall NextGen you can write specific application rules to reduce exposures
      like DDOS, buffer overflows, SQL injection attacks depending on how skilled your firewall people are,
      and the level of understanding people who support the servers/services.

      I'd guess/hope you can't telnet to the control systems of most nuclear reactors from a library or coffee shop.

    8. Re:Really?! by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Remind me never to hire you as a security consultant. A DMZ is designed to provide access to limited services on machines in the DMZ space, but those machines are less or untrusted by the main network deeper in.

      If your DMZ has unfettered inbound access, then you are overexposing yourself unnecessarily. Any machines in a DMZ are still properly protected, but do not pose as great a threat to the internal network if compromised as one hosted on the internal network itself.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    9. Re:Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmao, you really think that's what a DMZ is? my god, college isn't as good as it used to be.

      Yep. a DMZ is a port with special features. Wow...

    10. Re:Really?! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The power grid worked before there WAS an Internet, and coped with massive demand.

      Don't build in connectivity or exposure to Consumer operating systems.

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

      But now we have real-time buying and selling of power and we must push and pull data (schedules, meter reads, etc.) from these SCADA systems. There is no air gap possible with what we do, but we can isolate and follow best practices.

    12. Re:Really?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you... I was trying to figure out if that was a troll or a moron. The deep quandary delayed my response.

    13. Re:Really?! by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Then some smart arse drives around in a diesel van with a generator and an electro magnetic pulse generator http://www.amazing1.com/emp.htm and all your network security is for nothing. Of course now your network is 100% secure ain't no one getting in with nothing.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  8. Don't connect stuff to the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think the tech's have pointed this out, again and again. Quit connecting critical systems to open networks, even indirectly. There's just no need to send control data across a public network, and no need for an engineer to be able to control a power station and read dilbert from the same computer. So there's no need to have that system accessible, even via a firewall, by Iran etc.

    Problem solved.

    I'm more shocked by this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE&feature=related

    I'm shocker, firstly by the blatant voting fraud of it, but more shocked that nobody reported it and the first I found out about it was some comment in Slashdot. Not even an article, a single comment. If you haven't watched it, watch it, it's an eye opener.

  9. Well, that explains it by Hentes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I could never understood why America doesn't improve its cybersecurity, but if the plan is the same as with Pearl Harbor that would explain it. The US leaves their systems open and lures China to attack them to get a convincing casus belli for their counterattack, just like they did in WW2.

    1. Re:Well, that explains it by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      On its final exam each year, beginning in 1931, the Japanese Naval Academy asked its students, âoeHow would you carry out a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?â

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol you think the US 'lured' Japan into attacking Hawaii? Seriously?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Well, that explains it by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      lol you think the US 'lured' Japan into attacking Hawaii? Seriously?

      Hrm, the gp said 'lured'. The oil embargo created the conditions where Japan wanted to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. Roosevelt said this himself. Then he moved the only fleet that could stop them from San Diego to Honolulu. They had radio intel on Japanese movements and kept some of that info from the Navy by Presidential order. (see some good comments here or buy the books)

      Roosevelt wanted war and had big trouble selling it (both matters of fact) and these conditions got him an attack which got him what he wanted.

      But that doesn't mean the Japanese had to maintain their empire or that the People had to accept a Japanese attack on Hawaii as a reason to go to war in Europe. Plenty of blame to spread around, but one can't cast Roosevelt as completely surprised or ignorant of the conditions in the region.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, how about this,, next time you lure someone into attacking, make sure you are prepared with a good defense. Is that too much to ask?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Well, that explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, how about this,, next time you lure someone into attacking, make sure you are prepared with a good defense. Is that too much to ask?

      That was the problem. We had the entire fleet at the one spot they could attack. There was little more that could be added. The Japanese first assault capability was underestimated.

      Lesson: When luring someone into attacking, give them a soft, disposable target that looks somewhat strong.

    6. Re:Well, that explains it by tqk · · Score: 1

      lol you think the US 'lured' Japan into attacking Hawaii? Seriously?

      "Let's line up all the planes on the ground close right beside each other, uh, to deter saboteurs and looters, yeah."

      Meanwhile, strangle Japan's oil supply and bitch, bitch, bitch about what they're doing to the poor Chinese.

      Yeah, utterly implausible. I wonder why the carriers weren't in Pearl that day. Oh, and Midway, that was just pure great work and execution on the US' part. Uh huh.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Well, that explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, how about this,, next time you lure someone into attacking, make sure you are prepared with a good defense. Is that too much to ask?

      That was the problem. We had the entire fleet at the one spot they could attack. There was little more that could be added. The Japanese first assault capability was underestimated.

      Lesson: When luring someone into attacking, give them a soft, disposable target that looks somewhat strong.

      It wouldn't have been enough. And I might add, that no you are wrong when you say "we had the entire fleet at the one spot they could attack" - one would note that they had every aircraft carrier out of Pearl Harbor, including various support ships for them - what they left was battleships, which for the most part were already headed for obsolescence with the advent of more modern warfare.

    8. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So what, you think Roosevelt ordered the Japanese attack?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Well, that explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's pretend that the Japanese had managed to invade and capture Pearl Harbor, giving them a strategic position just a few hundred miles from the California coast. Do you think they could have taken California? What about Washington and Oregon, then Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona? That would be like England conquering the eastern USSR single-handedly by way of Luxembourg. I'm fairly sceptical of even the possibility that it could have happened.

      Let's say that they did do it, they invaded the US and took the West Coast. What, can you tell me, would that have to do with Germans? Was there a secret pact between the Japanese and Germans to take over the US together and then split it that no one but you knows about? Who do you think the Japanese would have volunteered to share their spoils halfsies with, the Wehrmacht or the Nazi Party? The Germans would have attacked from the East Coast of the US. If the Germans had failed to take the East Coast, would the Japanese have any reason to split the West Coast with them? If they had taken the East Coast, would there have been a German Occupied East Coast and a Japanese Occupied West Coast, or just a happy German-Japanese-US intermingling? I think they would not have been pleased to be asked to share their territories with only a tentative ally.

      It simply doesn't make sense that Japan would attempt an impossible invasion as part of a German plot to split US forces over another war besides the one that the US already claimed it would not participate in. Another way to view it, the US would have fought only Japan without also joining the greater WW2 if it were truly just reacting.

      So, besides all the logical reasons and evidence like statements and orders by the US president, of fucking course it was a macguffin to get into another unpopular war so soon after "the war to end all wars"; drawing lines in the sand between them and the rest of the world and then leaping across arms swinging before the other guy can first is what the US does best. It's like that internet video of those school kids where one boy flicks the ear of the one in the desk front of his, and that kid jumps out of his desk, takes off his shirt, and begins beating up a totally different kid. It was an insane, brutal, and totally maladjusted reaction, but I bet no one messes with that kid without meaning it. The difference is you can't lock a country up in juvie for disruptively aggressive, ostensibly "defensive" behaviors like you can children.

    10. Re:Well, that explains it by jkflying · · Score: 1

      No, he just saw it coming and made sure that it was successful enough to galvanise the rest of the country into action.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    11. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Successful? What? You don't think that a declaration of war by Japan would be enough to galvanise the rest of the country into action? Do you realize you are being conspiratorial, and making accusations without any real evidence?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Well, that explains it by tqk · · Score: 1

      So what, you think Roosevelt ordered the Japanese attack?

      It didn't have to be FDR. Spooks in the back rooms come up with !@#$ like this all the time. FDR was trying to drag the US out of the Depression and had been trying to figure out how to get the US into WWII for close to a year. The spooks just came up with a way for that to happen. Condolences to the navy.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Well, that explains it by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Come on, I was just trying to make a joke here. Of course I don't seriously think that the US wants a war with China, they both depend on each other. Unfortunately, Slashdot has a terrible sense of humour, I should start to use smileys :-(
      As for Pearl Harbor, it's a fact that the American elite wanted a war, but the general population was unconvinced. Tensions with Japan were rising, and the US stopped their oil exports putting Japan in a position where they couldn't continue their war on China unless they got oil from elsewhere. The battleships were stationed at Pearl Harbor, but the carriers were moved out before the attack. While it can't be said for certain that the American elite let the attack happen deliberately, it wouldn't have been the first time they pulled that trick.

    14. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol what? You think the 'american elite' let the Lusitania sink??

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The US economy had been growing for years before 1941. So you think the 'spooks' ordered Japan to attack?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:Well, that explains it by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I could never understood why America doesn't improve its cybersecurity

      As someone who has had a handful of contracts by government agencies, I can tell you the problem... Visual Basic. I'm up to VB6 for most projects, but I still have one that "requires" Visual Basic 3, because all of the workstations are antiquated Windows 3.11 (for workgroups!) machines that never get replaced. When one finally dies, it gets removed/destroyed and you have one less workstation for everyone to work with. Quite frankly, I anticipate the day when these agencies have to jump from the VB/16bit era to something "modern". It will be a good payday for me.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    17. Re:Well, that explains it by jkflying · · Score: 1

      Just trolling =) There's a line of thinking that says that the US sentiment was very much against war at the time but that the president would ignore this or attempt to manipulate the public, and would need a decisive attack from which no retaliation could be given until the US war effort was well under way. It's fairly well explained here that this isn't really true, US polls showed that the people were happy to go to war with Japan and Germany, so I don't really think the motive the conspirators are claiming is realistic.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    18. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Good link.

      There's a line of thinking that says that the US sentiment [etc]

      A lot of those people apparently are here commenting in this thread.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Well, that explains it by jkflying · · Score: 1

      From that link, it comments that a lot of it may have been influenced by Nixon's decisions. I'd like to add that it was probably furthered by GWB with his WMD wild goose chase in Iraq... these people fail to realise that there was once a time when the US/UK was actually threatened by countries which did real harm to more than a couple buildings...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    20. Re:Well, that explains it by maroci · · Score: 1

      Get psychiatric help.

    21. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Probably true, and I think there's just a general trend to be paranoid of power, kind of an echo of the hippies (don't trust anyone over 28, etc)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Well, that explains it by tqk · · Score: 1

      So you think the 'spooks' ordered Japan to attack?

      All 'm saying is, after all the things I've read recently now that some of that stuff's becoming declassified and starting to hit historians' desks, I wouldn't put it past them. Dieppe? William Stevenson (Intrepid) attempting a snatch and grab of the Nazi four rotor Enigma machine and code books. J. Edgar Hoover? Cross dresser. Hell, FDR's polio crippling was a closely guarded secret back then. Read some Vasili Mitrokhin (KGB's historian) for some really stunning stuff.

      FDR, et al, maneouvering Japan into striking first isn't all that far fetched. Think Johnson & McNamara and the Gulf of Tonkin.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Well, that explains it by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, you're dumb.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Well, that explains it by tqk · · Score: 1

      ok, you're dumb.

      Fine. Carry on. Blissfully.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Well, that explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the US only declared war on Germany after Germany declared war on them.
      Once someone declares war on you you have to declare it back.

    26. Re:Well, that explains it by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The fly in the ointment was the Japs using shallow-running aerial torpedoes and causing too much damage.

      The US public didn't have to accept Pearl as reason for war in Europe.
      Hitler promptly declared war on the US due to treaty with Japan.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:Well, that explains it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that the Dutch government at least did consider an embargo of Japan as an invitation to attack the Dutch East Indies. Japan was completely dependent on oil, rubber, and metals from the Dutch East Indies. The idea of luring the US into WWII was on the table for a long time, and the colonial administration was obviously deeply opposed to the idea of giving away their own home land in order to gain a small chance for freedom of the Netherlands in Europe. Roosevelt's actions clearly showed his intentions, and were obviously an open invitation to follow with an embargo of our own. By exposing themselves militarily, in addition to the oil embargo, the US took away all major political obstacles to attack in Japan. Japanese intelligence services would have known about large scale US defensive preparations, and US military potential was taken very seriously in Japan. The US was the only serious opposition in the region to a takeover of the Dutch East indies (with the Dutch, French, and British otherwise occupied in Europe).

      General Ter Poorten (chief of the colonial army in the Netherlands Indies, died in the sixties) was always of the opinion that Dutch Intelligence services did know that a major part of the Japanese fleet went missing on the Pacific, and did communicate about an impending attack on the US through several diplomatic channels.

  10. Just an excuse to lock down the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all part of a conspiracy to get Americans to lock down the Internet. Governments talk about freedom, but none of them actually want it.

  11. Americans and their fear of everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A nation of cowards!

  12. gee what month is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why it is National Cyber Security Awareness Month~!

  13. Now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe a dumb question, but what organization would be interested in shutting down the US power grid now?

    If it's a country, it'd be like declaring war against the US.

    If it's an organization, well good luck against the whole US who will be after you.

    1. Re:Now? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Of course the idea is to do it in a way that it cannot be traced back. Or even, so that it looks as if someone else did it. For example, hack into an Iranian computer, and attack the U.S. power grid from there. The CIA will find out that the attack came from Iran, and won't look further.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  14. Trojan Horses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    warned that the country is 'facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" and [is] increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers

    The only was I could see this happening is if the United States is dependent on foreign factories to build computer equipment and now the US has identified trojan horses. The other way to knock out the infrastructure is with a EMP to wipe out all the electronics but that is not a "cyber" attack.

  15. Why Is the Power Grid on the Internet? by edibobb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If control to the nation's power grid is accessible over the internet, then we have problems far more serious than hackers. It's almost like the head of Homeland Security doesn't even know how to use email.

    1. Re:Why Is the Power Grid on the Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The phrase "the nation's power grid" is entirely misleading. This is not one control system, but many thousands of control systems. Parts of the grid aren't even synchronous. While a hacker can do some damage, it would take much more than obtaining control over one or a few control systems to do anything significant.

      The 2003 power outage demonstrated that generator and electrical protection systems can cause a cascading fault in a large area. That's about the order of magnitude any set of hackers could achieve. While aggravating and locally dangerous, it's more FUD from our military and intelligence community than actual "cyber-Pearl Harbor" or whatever BS they want to call it.

      There are many systems such as historians connected into corporate LANs or available over VPN. They are firewalled already, but still potential attacks can develop. But then most control systems I've encountered are fairly hardened or inaccessible directly. No the US power grid is so decentralized in many ways that an attack of any magnitude would probably have to have inside help, and knowing power operators and engineers that I've worked with, they are very conservative and not prone to knowingly helping Chinese, Korean, Iranian, or other hackers. Again it's not impossible, just highly improbable.

    2. Re:Why Is the Power Grid on the Internet? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Stuxnet installed locally via USB?

    3. Re:Why Is the Power Grid on the Internet? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      In the sense that you are implying, it's not ... don't worry, calm down, sleep peacefully, the 'nation's power grid' is in no way going to be brought down by hackers. This is called 'fearmongering'.

    4. Re:Why Is the Power Grid on the Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But look at the Arizona failure and how the Western Interconnect was affected and San Diego and parts of LA went dark. That was just misoperation.

      Yes, these are isolated control systems, but the Interconnects make the grid connected.

      Dirty little secret is that most of these systems are interconnected via ICCP, at least in the Western Interconnect. If it wasn't for this, we couldn't do what we do buying and selling power.

  16. Re:Translation: We need more Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no... I'm sure that there are bills waiting ready to be put out in congress by the makers of SOPA/PIPA/COICA/ACTA just in case of a "cyber 9-11".

    And they will have fuck-all to do with actual security like requiring businesses to actually spend some capital on keeping their flies zipped.

    Will be effective against offshore attacks? Nope.

    What they will target is the same drumbeat we have been dealing with for years. More DRM, more enforced DRM, more control by a third party who wants their voice to be heard and not yours.

    In the closed environment of most devices, it would be trivial to mandate an Internet wide NAC system, where if something doesn't have a valid DRM stack, the upstream router won't allow it to connect. This stack would also disallow proxying, allow remote root access (and we know how secure those backdoors will be), and all and all, allow offshore hackers even MORE reign.

    Remember the old Counterstrike guy who yelled "terrorists win"? Same thing. bin Laden scored a victory on the US that no general since the Brits ever have done, completely depriving a country of its rights and turning a democracy into a police state. A cyber-9/11 would do the same thing, except our computers would be turned into terminals and instead of actual security, the only measures made laws would be DRM, DRM, and more DRM.

  17. Future by louzer · · Score: 0

    Great Britain and Rome did not go away because other countries attacked it. Great Britain and Rome weren't gone in a day.
    The only thing the USA needs to fear is civil war this century after people around the world stop USD. After that California will lead the secession from the union because it is the 8th largest economy in the world. It cannot afford to pay for the rest of the USA.
    Currently the world uses USD and suffers its devaluation because the world wishes to outsource war to the USA. This is the reason why QE(n) doesn't cause hyperinflation.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
  18. Not scared by OldSport · · Score: 1

    What's the chance of a person in the U.S. being killed or harmed by any sort of terrorist attack? I don't remember exactly, but I know I'm far more likely to die or get hurt every time I hop into my car, so I hope Uncle Sam will forgive me for not jumping up and shitting my pants in fear this very second.

    1. Re:Not scared by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      You are more likely to get killed or injured by hopping into bed, than by a terrorist attack.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Not scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you've met his mother too?

  19. More like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're not prepared for Coronal Mass Ejections even though we knew this was possible for a long long time so lets blame hackers.

    Similar event would be blaming hackers for controlling levys and dams for the majority of damage done by Katrina.

  20. Re:Is that so? :p by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I vote to call it Perl Harbor. You know, hackers and stuff...

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  21. Precedence... by Zemran · · Score: 2

    Given that the US is the main protagonist in this field they should be careful what precedent they set...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    1. Re:Precedence... by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      The US has been doing this since 1982. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage

      > In 2004, Reed, a former Air Force secretary of the Reagan administration, wrote that
      > they had added a Trojan horse to equipment that the Soviet Union obtained from a
      > company in Canada. When the components were deployed on a Trans-Siberian gas
      > pipeline, the Trojan horse led to a huge explosion, according to Reed. As Reed explained,
      > "The pipeline software that was to run the pumps, turbines and valves was programmed
      > to go haywire, to reset pump speeds and valve settings to produce pressures far beyond
      > those acceptable to the pipeline joints and welds. The result was the most monumental
      > non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space."

      > The explosion was so large that the White House received warning from U.S.
      > early-warning satellites of a bizarre event in a remote area of the Soviet Union. NORAD
      > had initially feared that the event was a missile launch from an area previously not
      > known to host missile launching facilities.

      > As the explosion occurred in a remote area, no casualties are known to have resulted.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  22. That comparison was almost as offensive as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the movie with Ben Affleck

    Pearl harbor was a national tragedy where a lot of good men and women died, some very nice ships sank, and we officially entered WWII. Let's not forget how many died in our response bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

    I get that a "Cyber-Pearl-Harbor" is meant to imply we'll get caught with our pants down, but then why not just say that instead of a comparison that effectively equates the deaths of the good citizens and soldiers of Pearl Harbor to a hard drive crash.

    Find a better analogy. Preferably something without the word "cyber".

    Anyone interested in an eleven year old's perspective of the real bombing of Pearl Harbor might care to read "I Survived #4: I Survived the Bombing of Pearl Harbor, 1941". When you're done reading it go ahead and imagine him saying "Dad the hard drive crashed because I opened an email attachment from an unknown sender".

    1. Re:That comparison was almost as offensive as by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      So you think you could not kill people this way? Note that the target of the attack would not be some private computers. Are you sure you cannot intentionally steer a nuclear power plant into a disaster? What about chemical factories? What about hydropower dams? I guess you could kill quite a few people by just opening the water gates.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:That comparison was almost as offensive as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not target computers in private hands? Hit the right ones and you're able to get in where you need to go.

      As for industrial systems, I'd say that many of the key ones (from a public safety perspective) are still not automated, and social engineering attacks aren't that easy unless you have experience with how those various processes are operated. Usually you're not going to have much luck calling in and asking somebody to turn a valve if the guy on the night shift doesn't recognize your voice. Those kind of places usually keep logs, have process monitoring and system checks, and a chain of command for a reason. And the primary reason for that is not to prevent attacks, but rather to stop mistakes that would cause industrial accidents to happen.

      I'd say to watch the stock market as everybody else worries about and keeps a close eye on stuff like the smart grid and industrial SCADA systems. If somebody finds the right holes in high frequency trading networks, it wouldn't be that far-fetched to be able to crash an economy which is already on the precipice. Despite laws like SOX which attempt to secure data, there isn't much in the way of systems or regulatory processes that would serve to mitigate damage if a well planned and coordinated attack were to occur. Records might be safe due to backups and such, but what protections are there covering the process of active transactions?

      I may not know much (if anything), but I still have this feeling that the most likely attacks may be fiscal rather than physical.

    3. Re:That comparison was almost as offensive as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pearl Harbor was an intentional and deliberate attack from a well defined enemy, but a virus can come from anywhere and be written by anyone. If anything a better analogy would be a "cyber-9/11".

      And the post-9/11 fear-mongering that went on is exactly what this is an extension of. Everything has a baseline threat level attached to it. Tainted milk is a threat, bad vaccinations are a threat, being in a highly populated public place poses all manned of potential threats, but the probability of anything bad happening as a result of these threats is virtually zero for the average person. You're more likely to die from a vending machine than a terrorist or rogue nation's cyber attack. The threat has always been there, the fact that no one has acted on that threat in all this time tells me that it's not a very realistic threat at all.

    4. Re:That comparison was almost as offensive as by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I get that a "Cyber-Pearl-Harbor" is meant to imply we'll get caught with our pants down

      Some dude called Gary McKinnon (note spelling, editurds) did the equivalent of flying over on December 5th and dropping eggs and flour bags on your ships.

      I doubt any of the Pentagoons grokked the lesson, mind.

      a comparison that effectively equates the deaths of the good citizens and soldiers of Pearl Harbor to a hard drive crash.

      I think if they manage to frig about with power systems, aircraft navigation & the like it might be a bit more serious than one random nerd losing his pr0n & w4r3z collection.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  23. a 'cyber' pearl harbor? what's this guy on? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 2

    persian1234: hey baby, wanna cyber?

    panetta_l: sure

    persian1234: aight, i put on my flight suit and helmet

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    1. Re:a 'cyber' pearl harbor? what's this guy on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      persian1234: hey baby, wanna cyber?

      panetta_l: sure

      persian1234: aight, i put on my flight suit and helmet

      Ya, they're killing me with this "cyber" crap.

  24. What a surprise! by mikein08 · · Score: 1

    Leave systems wide open to outside, then act surprised when said systems are attacked and scream to congress for new legislation to try to "fix" the problem. Hell, the solution is simple: close critical systems to outside access. However, this might mean that it would be necessary to spend extra money because access is now more difficult. And we surely wouldn't want any corporate or governmental entity to have to spend extra money, now would we?

  25. Re:Is that so? :p by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

    So it would be a line noise attack?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  26. Ah! another government false flag huh? by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Gee it is now common knowledge that the U.S. LET Pearl Harbor happen... Thank you Dusko Popov for exposing that in your book "Spy Counter Spy". And more and more proof is coming out about how 9/11 was also a false flag, just like the Gulf of Tolkien, lets not forget Oklahoma City, just like the nasty things outlined in "Operation Northwoods" - no tinfoil hat needed here - the facts are all out in the open and available for all to read. If this happens - we will know the government did it... Heck remember when they said "what we need is another pearl harbor event..." - hmmm what happened - OH YEAH 9/11! Now they are saying it again - keep your eyes open - they are about to do something really nasty to you - AGAIN!

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
    1. Re:Ah! another government false flag huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      a false flag, just like the Gulf of Tolkien

      Those middle-earth bastards sucked us in!

    2. Re:Ah! another government false flag huh? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

      It worked, conspiracy theorists are now two a penny. Tolkien has created whole generations of fruitbats. Why are people so prepared to believe conspiracy rather than incompetence? Because in fantasy worlds nobody ever screws up because they were on the sauce, but because of vast conspiracies.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    3. Re:Ah! another government false flag huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      starting a war is a very very very profitable business. You do know more money than your mind can imagine is made over instigated or self created attacks. And you pay for it, slave. Go cheer your master on in your election of illusion.

  27. cyber-Pearl Harbor by eexaa · · Score: 1

    ....does include cyber-Kate Beckinsale, doesn't it?

  28. What about the Cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the national power grid could be successfully targeted by cyber-spies, does this mean they could turn the Cloud to vapor?

    You'd think every techie on the web would be moved to tears by this threat, so much so that Romney, with his erudite grasping at all things dangerous and evil for the American public, would become the darling of silly-con valley.

    "Quick Paul, to the Mitt Pole!!," says our super-hero, as he dons his tights and scoops millions from his off-shore bank accounts and races to the aid of high-speed traders everywhere. "We must save the grid from the evil clutches of the Sino-cyberians! Call T-Boone, The Donald and the Buchaananites! We have work to do preserving the national intrastructure!"

    Who better to protect "The Grid" from evil than the man who champions Free Markets, Zygotic Rights, smaller government, bigger Defense and the Bushie Tax Cuts for all?

  29. Ask a cranky 'ol guy (John Dvorak) by rbrander · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410931,00.asp

    He's still good for entertainment some days. And he's got this one nailed: "Cyber War? Bring It On! : The so-called imminent threat of cyber-attack by U.S. enemies is another in a long line of fear-mongering propaganda lines."

    1. Re:Ask a cranky 'ol guy (John Dvorak) by russotto · · Score: 1

      He'd be a lot more credible if he didn't bring up the old "Y2K wasn't a problem" saw. Yeah, Y2K wasn't a disaster. That's because not only did we see it coming in time, but a lot of effort was spent fixing the problems before it was too late. I realize that it is so rare that a problem is actually anticipated and fixed before disaster happens that this seems unbelievable, but it's true.

      The physical-world equivalent is claiming that there was no problem with the Citicorp Center because it's stood up to every windstorm which has hit it since it was fixed.

  30. Isolate the networks as best you can by davidwr · · Score: 2

    Why do we expose ourseles to such risks in the first place? Because we are willing to trade efficiency and lower cost now for certain vulnerabilities, that's why.

    Nothing says we HAVE to have the power grid and other essential utilties on a non-isolated network. We do so because it's convenient and saves money in the short run.

    If it's not practical to physically isolate the electrical grid's control systems from the rest of the world, at the very least put each one in a "bubble" and make sure all traffic into that "bubble" is authenticated. Virtual private networks go a long way towards making this possible. Having said that, physically isolating the electrical grid's command and control from the "outside world" and doing the same for other key infrastructures would be ideal if cost was not a factor.

    Heck, if you even run a building or campus with things like HVAC that can be controlled by telephone or Internet, make darn sure that any request that could do actual harm (e.g. raising or lowering the temperature outside of reasonable levels, turning off power to an area without raising an alarm, disabling alarms, etc.) is authenticated, or better yet, don't allow such requests from outside of trusted physical locations, such as certain authorized computers that are on the same RELATIVELY SMALL physical network or sub-network as your HVAC's control computer, locked/secured control panels, etc. You do NOT want some guy in China turning off the heat at 2AM on a sub-freezing night, and if you can't stop them from doing it, you don't want them to turn off the alarms that will go off when the temperature of the water pipes drops close to freezing.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Isolate the networks as best you can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this day and age, how do you prove that a given control system is truly isolated from the internet, especially if it's using any sort of relatively up-to-date equipment? It may be fairly easy to verify that a single, non-connected computer is isolated, and perhaps easy to verify that a small home network is isolated, but I think that it would be very hard (i.e. time-consuming and costly) to verify the isolation of a set of heterogeneous, inter-communicated computers over a wide variety of sites is completely isolated (e.g. no wireless node hiding in a closet or wall or ceiling somewhere in one of many sites).

    2. Re:Isolate the networks as best you can by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      So how many major power grids have been brought offline by hackers so far? Ever? Has there been one even?

    3. Re:Isolate the networks as best you can by tqk · · Score: 1

      Because we are willing to trade efficiency and lower cost now for certain vulnerabilities, that's why.

      I think it's a lot simpler than all of that. Simply put, they don't trust us and don't want to have to use us if they can get away with it. They don't understand our message even when we dumb it down into words they understand. They think we're still the Priests In White Coats and all we really do is feather our nests. If we're not doing something that's going to quickly bring in short term profit, then what we do is a waste of time and money in their view.

      Short of re-education (and I can't realistically see that happening anytime soon), I see no solution. They've built the mess they're comfortable living in, and no amount of hand-wringing from us is going to change their minds.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
  31. It's cybersecurity awareness month by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats why all this ridiculous stuff is being put out.

  32. so that would be by nimbius · · Score: 1

    us declaring some kind of cyber oil and cyber food embargo against a country, and them retaliating somehow for our absurd decision to stick our cyber dicks into someone elses cyber...shesh. cant we just paraphrase the good secretary and say, "I think we need to spend more time bashing china and drumming up war with iran, while at the same time blowing through the rest of this years defence budget through government contracts to multi billion dollar corporations"

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  33. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is Cyber-Pearl ? (s)he sounds suspicious to me

  34. A Diversionary Tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leon E. Panetta and the hordes of the Un-Elected are the clear and present danger to the U.S.A. and all peoples of Earth.

    A Gallows waits for Mr. Panetta and Ms. Clintion and their 'brethren' and Masters.

  35. Need to get rid of fake caller-id too by davidwr · · Score: 1

    This reminds me about a recent news story about our telephone networks' vulnerabilities.

    In addition to fixing the security vulnerabilities in the network, it's time to fix the vunerabilities to end users:

    It's high time to stop completely falsified caller-ID. I'm fed up with calls from "U. S. Pharmacy" or "Canadian pharmacy" from numbers that are either non-existant or that belong to someone else.

    If the caller-ID information can't be authenticated by the sending caller's phone company OR the sending caller's phone company isn't trusted by the receiving caller's phone company to provide authenticated caller-id information, the called-party's phone should just show "unavailable" for the number or possibly "UNVERIFIED" followed by the alleged phone number.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  36. Timing by scosco62 · · Score: 1

    Is suspiciously suspicious. It's almost like.....it's election time, or something...

  37. So just what legislation does he want . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    It would require new standards at critical private-sector infrastructure facilities — like power plants, water treatment facilities and gas pipelines — where a computer breach could cause significant casualties or economic damage.

    In August, a cybersecurity bill that had been one of the administration’s national security priorities was blocked by a group of Republicans, led by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who took the side of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and said it would be too burdensome for corporations.

    So a new bureaucracy to create standards of questionable usefulness, and then to enforce their compliance.

    . . . then he adds:

    “We’re not interested in looking at e-mail, we’re not interested in looking at information in computers, I’m not interested in violating rights or liberties of people,” Mr. Panetta told editors and reporters at The New York Times earlier on Thursday. “But if there is a code, if there’s a worm that’s being inserted, we need to know when that’s happening.”

    Please elaborate on what exactly you are talking about there, Mr. Panetta . . . ? It sounds to me like that means more snooping . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  38. They've been whining about this for over a decade by runeghost · · Score: 1

    Like most stuff that comes out of Washington, it's pure shadow-theater. Or maybe just a bad clown show.

  39. Warnings of a possible "Analogy-Pearl Harbor"... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    ... in which a gullible public is suddenly dive-bombed - without a formal declaration of war - by inadequate but impressive-sounding metaphors comparing present-day dangers with historical military engagements.

  40. 1982 Brittle Power by Amory & Hunter Lovins by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
    "Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security is a 1982 book by Amory B. Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins, prepared originally as a Pentagon study, and re-released in 2001 following the September 11 attacks. The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy. In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current."

    We in the USA need a security strategy the emphasizes intrinsic security and mutual security over extrinsic security and unilateral security. More on that here:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  41. China? Unlikely in the near term. by Tweezak · · Score: 1

    China depends too heavily on our economy. If they bring it crashing down they are crippling their biggest consumer and they will be facing huge internal problems as a result. If we get on our feet economically in the future then it's more likely.

    Iran is much more of a loose cannon. It's hard to say, though, if they have the skillz required.

    1. Re:China? Unlikely in the near term. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. They don't. Iran is a straw man threat like Cuba. What they actually need is some serious ignoring.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  42. cyber-Pearl Harbor by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    the country is 'facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor"

    Hawaii is going to lose their internet connection and won't be able to play Ubisoft games.

  43. Re: Stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Stuxnet guys had smashed the controller they had access to, they'd have done a far better job. Those Siemens controllers were irreplaceable, since Iran could no longer get them. Likewise if an insider wanted to attack a critical pump , they'd just go attack the critical pump, they would, install a virus that users an exploit to attack a control system that changes a setting that makes the pump wear out a bit quicker.

    That would be a silly McGyver plot. See "DHS issues false cyber pump attack"
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dhs-false-water-pump-hack/

    It's not a cyber attack, if its not a remote network attack, and those come from connection stuff to public networks that your enemies are also attached to. So QUIT DOING IT!

    If you haven't watched this yet, then do.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE&feature=related
    Or this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg&feature=related

  44. Re:you mean they could have spent less money spyin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as secure by default (except maybe for a brick), and no theoretical possibility of such a thing. There is more likelihood of a million monkeys randomly typing for a million years to create one of Shakespeare's plays than for creating a truly secure OS in the manner described. And even coming close could not be done before whatever product is completely, totally irrelevant from obsolescence.

  45. Another Translation: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm guessing: The U.S. Secretary of Defense has no knowledge of computer technology whatsoever, except what he learned from his children. But he wants to be cool, seem knowledgeable, get his name in the news, and get government contracts for associates, so he put his name on a scary memo written by his staff, who also have such associates.

    That's a guess, but it seems a likely guess given the fact that technically knowledgeable people use different language and recommend examination of code for security problems and sloppiness.

    Some of those who want government corruption want continuous war because government "defense" contracts provide easy profits, and it is easy to keep corruption secret.

    If they get easy money, the corrupters don't care who is killed, what lives and property are destroyed, or how much money is wasted. For example, the book Funding the Enemy: How U.S. Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban provides a huge amount of detail about a small part of the corruption.

    Divide the cost to the U.S. taxpayer of just the war in Afghanistan ($574,624,781,538) by the population of Afghanistan (35,320,445). The U.S. taxpayer has already paid 16,268 hard-earned dollars for every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan. The results: Mostly, things are worse.

    If those who want corruption can't get the taxpayers to pay for killing other people, they want "cyber war". See, for example, Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran.

    The U.S. government has invaded or bombed 27 countries since the end of the 2nd world war.

    Constant war makes us poor.

    1. Re:Another Translation: by hoboroadie · · Score: 4, Informative

      The U.S. taxpayer has already paid 16,268 hard-earned dollars for every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan.

      I am not an anthropologist, but I heard about Afghanis from a friend who used to visit up until the Soviets gave him the boot. From what I heard, we could have bought the love of everyone in the country for much, much, less.
      Probably should have handed out AK47s and a fat purse to every man/woman/child about 18 December 2001, declared the country free, and come home.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    2. Re:Another Translation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constant war only makes us poor because we don't build the tools anymore. Historicaly, we used to make war (or peace-keeping actions) to stimulate the economy and create industrial jobs. The only jobs being created now are foreign contractors. A cyber-war will really be no different.

  46. Smart Grid / Super Grid & New Business Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the USA is really serious about terrorism at the Federal Level then all those Federal Departments would put in a strategic plan for Super Grid & Smart Grid with a new Business Model. Every roof-top should have Solar Panels & Coastal States should have Wind Turbines with ship/airplane sensors 1 mile from the coast. *The Utility companies would be able to purchase Solar Panels on roof-tops at whole sale price and resell the electricity at retail price.
      If there is a super storm that costs city/town Billions of Dollars because of lack of electricity, Super Grids/Smart(Solar Panels) Grids would save the towns from Super Storms and prevent Billions of Dollars of damage.
    *Senor(s) feature attached to the Wind Turbines would be able to detect people swimming to the coastal state(s).
    If laws was created so that every town has a start-up business for a basic fee to monitor & maintain solar panels with a maximum of 200,000 customers @ $15/month per customer => $15 x 200,000 = $3,000,000.00 Million Dollars profitability for each start-up company(if every roof-top has solar panels).
    The oil industry says that they create Billions of dollars for the city, most cities don't even get a penny from the oil industry.
    * If we do a basic conservative calculation of 50 states and 7 cities per state:
        $3,000,000(each company basic charge of $15 up to 200,000 customers) x50 States x 7 cities (I know that there is more than 7 cities in each state) =
      = $1,050,000,000 Billions of Dollars Profitability for 350 small start-up business that charges a basic monthly fee of $15 dollars to maintain and monitor solar panels on roof-tops.

  47. the power grid needs to be able to link by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    the power grid needs to be able to link the sub stations , power plants, control centers to each other.

    1. Re:the power grid needs to be able to link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did they do this before the Internet age? The truth is they don't *need* to do anything over the public Internet. Bottom line.

    2. Re:the power grid needs to be able to link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the power grid needs to be able to link the sub stations , power plants, control centers to each other.

      Because:
      1) nobody wants to leave near a power plant so people lobby hard to prevent building of new power plants
      2) it isn't profitable to build more power plants than are needed for an area's average load. Most of the time a power operator can manage by importing power from other operators, pushing customers to use less power ("go green!") or flat-out reducing the power sent out to less than what they're customers request (brown-outs, rolling black-outs).
      3) Woe unto an entire coast if too many power operators try to import power from an operator who enough to spare for one of them not for all of them. (this has happened a few times to the east coast)

      So we need the interconnected communications among the power grid components to ensure that the process of getting power from those who have it to those who want it doesn't overload any element and end up leaving lots of people with zero power instead of just less power.

      Yes, once upon a time (like back in the dial-up, non-Internet days), the reason power plant systems were placed "online" was to improve the working conditions of the operators and IT techs. Now they are online out of functional necessity.

  48. We need IT unions to make so cut cutting by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    We need IT unions to make so cut cutting does not end up being useing outsourcing as well as real hands on training and not just book based theory leaning.

  49. There's a reason why they call it that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When a bunch of people lose a bunch of money and time but no one is actually physically hurt, they call it a "Cyber 'Pearl Harbor'" referring, not to 1941, but to the Michael Bay movie.

  50. Re:Is that so? :p by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mod parent up.

    Pearl Harbor was bait. Major "oops" that the Japs used shallow-running torpedoes thus making a bigger mess, but hubris is a bitch. The British figured out how to plink ships in shallow harbors:

    http://suite101.com/article/the-battle-of-taranto---inspiration-for-pearl-harbour-a307392

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  51. cyber what? by ruir · · Score: 1

    Ho, flame is not enough, they need budget for the next virus...

  52. Re: Stuxnet by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    If the Stuxnet guys had smashed the controller they had access to, they'd have done a far better job. Those Siemens controllers were irreplaceable, since Iran could no longer get them. Likewise if an insider wanted to attack a critical pump , they'd just go attack the critical pump, they would, install a virus that users an exploit to attack a control system that changes a setting that makes the pump wear out a bit quicker.

    Yeah, because smashing a centrifuge is so less likely to be detected than planting malware.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Windows_infection:

    Stuxnet attacked Windows systems using an unprecedented four zero-day attacks (plus the CPLINK vulnerability and a vulnerability used by the Conficker worm[33]). It is initially spread using infected removable drives such as USB flash drives,[8][34] and then uses other exploits and techniques such as peer-to-peer RPC to infect and update other computers inside private networks that are not directly connected to the Internet.

  53. well what about triggering fail safe shutdowns? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    well what about triggering fail safe shutdowns? Hacks can just try to triggering one or trigger the alarms and you better hope someone is on site to handle that alarm.

  54. Re:Is that so? :p by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up.

    It'd be a waste of mod points; shills in their cubicles at Fort Meade are actually earning their salaries today! :p

  55. Big problems: power, pipelines, financial by Animats · · Score: 2

    There are three areas that need attention - electric power distribution, pipelines, and financial systems - because the impacts are high and restoration times are long.

    Power systems have Internet connections because, in the US, they are now market systems, and the bidding process between the various parties is conducted over the Internet. The seven US power grids worry a lot about this, but it's not clear if they worry enough. What needs to be done there is to insure that restoration after a failure in the high voltage network is faster. Worst case downtimes should be brought down from days (as in 2003) to hours. All plants bigger than 250MW or so should be required to have cold start capability, so they can start up and idle even if the grid is down.

    Pipelines I don't know enough about, so I won't say much about that.

    The financial system is a real worry. If the US had a week-long disruption of New York based trading, the center of the financial world would move elsewhere. In 2001, the non-US exchanges weren't big enough to take over. That's no longer the case. Of the top 5 stock exchanges, only one, the NASDAQ, is entirely in the US. London, Tokyo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong could take over.

    1. Re:Big problems: power, pipelines, financial by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      "Markets" are only trading platforms ... the businesses themselves wouldn't move. Some jobs would be lost (or rather, move overseas) that are directly related to implementing a stock exchange, but it wouldn't represent some cataclysm ... 99% of America wouldn't even notice any difference.

  56. laws by Tom · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this is old news around here, even though Panetta is requesting new legislation from Congress.

    I hope by that she means laws funding more and better security (actual security, not security theatre) and not laws making it illegal for foreign powers to attack US networks.

    If you need that explained, shoot yourself.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  57. Re:you mean they could have spent less money spyin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they have to do is to re-purpose the surveillance systems for the good instead of evil. That would be increasingly better use of the budget for such things as the probability of cyber attacks against the infrastructure increases and such attacks attain higher levels of risk compared 9/11 scenarios. Also, it would be helpful to make a good'ole Constitutional exception for creation of the National Infrastructure ADministration with the powers to regulate the collaborations across state borders, the agencies and companies. And the oversight committee, of course, for that comic relief. Constitutional exception, is there such a thing in the US? It really doesn't seem so.

  58. "Cyberwarfare" indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in a few years the USA will drop the cyber-atom-bomb? I don't like where this is headed...

  59. And draft-dodging Panetta warns..... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    So SecDef and wop draft-dodger, Leon Panetta is warning the Iranians about their cyber-retaliation, threatening to offshore yet more jobs, yet more technology, yet more investment and defense secrets, to China, and take that, you Iranian baddies, whines Panetta.
    Oh swee jaysus on a Harley, for chrissakes! Too late, Leon, AMD is already beginning their layoffs, chump! Will someone please vote for Dr. Jill Stein, the way I voted for Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader --- we've got to put an end to stooges in the White House --- and to think America has devolved to the point where a private equity leveraged buyout debt queen, like Willard Mitt Romney, born with a silver dildo in his mouth, would dare run for the presidency! (And we though McCain/Palin was nauseating....)

  60. cyber pearl harbor by Keychain · · Score: 3, Funny

    By cyber pearl harbor, does he mean that the attack will destroy obsolete equipment, leaving critical infrastructure and equipment safe while at the same time providing an excuse for the us government to start a war ?

  61. And I neglected to mention.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    ...that the Chinese botmasters may have been the ones the Iranians hired in the first place.....

  62. I believe you mean ..... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    ...reptile dysfunction????

  63. Cyber Pearl Harbor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So has the US Navy's Pacific Fleet parked all its Cyber Boats, Cyber Cruisers, Cyber Aircraft Carriers, and Cyber Destroyers in a single Cyber Harbor? Please stop using these bullshit analogies. You might as well describe it as a Cyber 9/11 times a thousand... that's right, 911,000.

    Here's an idea, if it's so fucking dangerous, why don't we make it so nothing you could do with a computer could conceivably knock the power grid offline? Eh? Like make it so the computers controlling those systems AREN'T HOOKED UP TO THE GODDAMNED FUCKING INTERNET?

    Ditto for anything else crucial, since... once again, those things don't really need to be hooked up to the internet in the first fucking place. If having the output of those systems on the net is important, here's another idea, and pay attention because it's a good one. Have any computer that produces data that it is needful or useful to have transported elsewhere in real time, have a peripheral device that pumps out a continuous stream of said data, in an output only fashion, a transmitter with no physical receiver, so you can't take that over no matter what you do, (assuming no enemy has physical access to the terminal) and then have a computer hooked up to receive these broadcasts and put THAT on the internet. Then if someone somehow hacks into the receiver, it's not actually the machine controlling the grid, the switchgear, the generators, etc. If that happens, you simply have a subsystem, (or another computer) that detects the compromise, and reboots the machine from a read-only media, and at worst, you have a temporary suspension of the output data stream, while the machine running the operation (and logging the data, incidentally) remains safely, physically sequestered from any possible internet tampering.

    All systems should be built like this, essentially an electronic/electromagnetic radiation one-way door. Solved. Next problem.

  64. Another Pearl Harbor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean we're going to yet again provoke somebody into starting a war?

  65. the delirium is under control by Penurious+Penguin · · Score: 1

    Turns out the poor bastards just got into a DARPA cookie jar and ingested a cocktail of experimental psychotropic drugs. A V-22 Osprey generously packed with raw meat and bottled water has been delivered to sedate them. Once they are too full to move, Marines will enter and secure them with electrified steel chains and muzzles. With a mixture of education and eskrima-sticks, they will be slowly rehabilitated. In the meantime, a gang of substitute paranoid schizophrenics has been hand-selected from the finest wards of America which will provide national defense until the rehabilitation process is complete.

    --
    Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
  66. yes times do changes by xpatch · · Score: 0

    *insane gir robot voice* DONT TOUCH MY SCADA

  67. could happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he means they are going to know of an attack and be able to stop it but they will instead do nothing and then they will use that as an excuse to attack the citizens, steal all their rights and shove through 20-30 laws essentially 'nuking' any rights left for the people... well wouldn't put it past them.. i am surprised they haven't done it already

  68. Keyword-Cyber by DL117 · · Score: 1

    When some says "cyber", it means they are confused and frightened about technology, and should not, under any circumstances, be taken seriously on the subject.

    1. Re:Keyword-Cyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, or they're after a stimulating experience in a chatroom.

  69. What's good for the goose by Crypto+Cavedweller · · Score: 0

    Does this make what we did to the Iranian nuclear program with malware a CyberHiroshima? At least now we know what drum the DoD is going to beat in the years ahead to justify funding that pretends that Stalin has tanks lined up on the Mexican border waiting to overrun us.

  70. City of Port Angeles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Port Angeles thinks there new city wide wireless network that is shared with the public and law enforcement is safe...

    No CALEA
    Everyone thrown behind NAT on a /20 (4096 address) subnet.
    239 bridged access points with no client isolation or encryption.
    No firewall! Yes, you can browse the network neighborhood.

    This is suppose to bring business to Port Angeles? Maybe Hackers, Spammers and pediphiles.

    A kid could drop this in 10 seconds with a misconfigured iPhone.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20121012/news/310129989/0/SEARCH

    What is wrong with this picture?

     

  71. Actually, you sad little half-wit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you sad little half-wit, Panetta served in the army as an intelligence officer.

  72. and nothing of value was lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No? What about petabytes of porn!
    - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo!!!

  73. Actually, you sad little half-wit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you sad little half-wit, Panetta served as an army intelligence officer.

  74. I don't know whether to laugh or cry by golodh · · Score: 1
    Honestly.

    Everybody and his granny knows that when you fill a country with computers and then let them manage actuators (you know: things that control real-world stuff), you introduce real-world vulnerabilities to cyberspace mayhem.

    So you'd think that every single government branch in charge of some computer-controlled actuator would take very special care that said actuators can't be accessed by unauthorised people who happen to roam about, right?

    Starting with secure routers, credible VPN connections, limited sets of clients that the routers will accept communications from, good and varied passwords (the kind that need to be written down and kept in a safe until it's time to use them), access logs being kept and checked on a regular basis, etc. Just like the physical access control such people get off on. All known stuff.

    Add to that a way of ensuring that the government (local, state, federal) has a more or less guaranteed communication backup (e.g. private fiber, special priority circuits in telephone switchboards, or simple packet radio in restricted bands). Then ensure that critical communications like banks have a reasonable level of protections too. Transcribe all that into the telecoms act, make authorities responsible for abiding by those regulations and appoint somebody to check that they do. Costs a bundle but gives you peace of mind .. and (as a nation) insurance against basic attacks.

    Except that people don't. That, incidentally, is why Gary McKinnon could stroll into various government systems: they were unprotected. Everyone knew and no-one cared. And guess what: our carefully cost-conscious government does the very same thing with the nation's actuators. Starting with traffic lights and going up all the way to the power grid.

    Well people are stupid, lazy and focused on the short term. We know that. That's why we have regulations for so many things.

    But Ok, ... if we collectively decide (for reasons of cost and convenience) to leave everything wide open, that's what we do.

    But here's Panetta who thinks we ought to do the prudent thing, against our natural tendencies. So what happens? Does he settle the issue by having a quiet word in circles of power that generates bi-partisan support for basic communications security?

    No. Of course not. People don't want to hear about reasons why anything should be added to their workload or anything should be done in anything but the cheapest, most thoughtless and most slapdash way.

    So Panetta needs to drum up public support and he goes to the press with essentially the same story (that ought to be recognised as prudent by every representative anyway) and dresses it up in lurid foam-at-the-mouth war-rethoric. Doom! Pearl Harbour! Enemies are out to get us! The Chines/Russians/Islamists [cross out whichever is not applicable] are coming for us. To Arms!

    It makes me so tired. Why can't we just secure our vital communications without raising the specter of war? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

  75. New pearl harbor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These systems are not on the internet.
    This is another fear mongering operation to enable more loss of freedom.
    Don't fall for it.

  76. US. taxpayers paid 61 years income by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The January 19, 2010 BBC article, UN Afghanistan survey points to huge scale of bribery says, "According to the UN survey, bribes averaged $160 (£98) in contrast to an average Afghan annual income of $425."

    After bribes are paid, the income is $265. But that is misleading, because people who take the bribes are included in the overall average. So the average income for those who don't get bribes is apparently much less than $265.

    Using $265 as the figure, U.S. taxpayers paid the equivalent of 61 years income for average people (16,268 per person, as mentioned above) to the rich people in Afghanistan who take bribes and participate in corruption. Numerous articles say the lives have average people haven't improved much.

  77. Cyberwar ? BS. by stooo · · Score: 1

    The US gov. should stop it's phantasm of "cyberwar", and downed power grids...
    Hey guys, nobody wants to put in the effort to down your power grid. It does not give any country an advantage, except the US themselves. Fact.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  78. Largely Self inflicted ... by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    `U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has warned that the country is 'facing the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" and [is] increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers who could dismantle the nation's power grid, transportation system, financial networks and government'.

    Assuming this is the case and not a pretext for getting a bigger budget, then it's largely self inflicted due to the excessive and compulsory use of Windows in finance, government and the DHS itself ...

    --
    AccountKiller
  79. You do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Once someone declares war on you you have to declare it back."

    Really? You do? Quick, somebody tell the French!

  80. Ex CIA Director Panetta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy's ex CIA chief. I'm sure he knows all about electronic tracking, bugging, and phrases his words perfectly to get exactly what he(they) want. If he doesn't personally know, i'm sure his deputies or consultants or whatever tell him exactly what he needs. I don't think the CIA are as 'stupid' tech wise as many think they are. It's the new battlefield after all, and i bet they are worried as fuck because now everyone can do what only THEY used to be able to do. Well maybe not everyone, but we are catching up and we can do lots of damage with cheap 'low tech' equipment. They want legislation that stops this, i'm guessing. Less power for us, more for them and the authorities. This scaremongering campaign is probably so they can get more restrictive laws passed against the people, and more power for them(as if they don't have enough already, so i'm guessing it's to keep the peasants/civilians down).

  81. If this did happen.. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Just shows you it was poorly designed in the first place and needed to be torn down.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  82. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 1

    Whatever mayhem a "cyber-atttack" might cause, it is almost inconceivable that it could rival the destruction and loss of life of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
    It is insulting to those who died to imply otherwise.

    My Grandfather served in the navy during the war, but was not at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked.
    He was, however, briefly assigned to the detail that had to help clean out the dead, bloated bodies from the ships that were sunk in the attack.

    Leon E Panetta, you are an asshole. Unless we do something insanely stupid like hooking gas valves, electrical substations, or their like directly to the Internet, the possibility of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor" is a fllat zero. Respect those who lost their lives for our freedom and temper your fucking hyperbole.

  83. Re:you mean they could have spent less money spyin by knorthern+knight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > There is more likelihood of a million monkeys randomly typing for a million years to
    > create one of Shakespeare's plays than for creating a truly secure OS in the manner
    > described. And even coming close could not be done before whatever product is
    > completely, totally irrelevant from obsolescence.

    The first question in many security cases is "WTF was the idea behind connecting it to the internet?" Many SCADA systems are controlled by Windows computers which are often net connected. Disconnect the system from the net (wired and wireless), and turn off autorun/autoplay on the machines, disable USB port access for all but authorized personnel. It may not be perfect, but it'll be a lot better than today.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  84. After TSA, comes ITSA (IT Safety Administration) by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > So a new bureaucracy to create standards of questionable usefulness, and then to enforce their compliance.

    If you like the TSA, you'll love the ITSA (IT Safety Administration). You'll have a minimum-wage "security officer" sticking their hand up your ass before you sit down in front of your computer.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  85. Big Cyber Sucks, And We Are Unprepared .. by GeekMarine72 · · Score: 1

    Security firms are right when they claim that the US infrastructure is vulnerable. Xecco Trading using Chinese developers who wrote the code that connected both to the ACH transfer network as well as the trading exchanges. Bang, $4B USD under management worth of stock dumped and the funds transferred out. Titron was thrilled when a Chinese firm offered to replace their 3 chip zigbee + meter management + crypto cheap with an all-in-one, manufactured and delivered for pennies for their smart meters.

    But the response is worse. U.S. Gov't is being influenced to award contracts to the firms that can boast 300 or more "Top Secret" cleared engineers ... i.e. M.D., etc. And their ability to deliver functional software is a joke. Further, these contracts are written for version 1.0. Want version 1.1 (with bug fixes?), U.S. has to pay the SAME PRICE as the 1.0. Indefinitely.

    But there are some trying to rectify this. Get involved people. IARPA is a nice place to start, NSA does give grants for good tech, the DOD is not blinded to the ambitions of the big firms, and CyberCON is going on, right now, that will direct these budgets.

    You can get involved!

  86. Oh really? by slick7 · · Score: 1

    Or is this the banksters way of chumming the waters for all the little fishies to swallow that all their hard earned money just simply disappeared. The sad thing is, sheeple are waking up. Lies show just how arrogant leaders have become. Humility will be restored at a cost yet dreamed of. The CON(gress)MEN have failed to realize anything, have failed to uphold the Constitution, have failed in the Stewardship of this country, have failed to divest themselves of avarice. If you are not of the LIGHT, then you cannot remain.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  87. 11 years later, inside job #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read outside the box. They are foretelling americas next great disaster. It will happen, then all your internet freedoms will be stripped as well. Moving us closer to country where everything you do an say will be used against you not in a court in a law, but in a terrorist holding camp with no due process.

    Wake up people. Your liberties are being stripped for 'Security & Freedom'. HAH!

  88. They're worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're worried that Iran will do to USA what USA has done to Iran with the Flame virus and it's kin.
    USA is much more vulnerable in this regard.

  89. The pearl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    funny they compared this to Pearl Harbour, something I heard we knew was coming and did nothing about until it was over, and using it as an excuse to use nukes

  90. Re:Remember, it will be a False Flag blamed on Ira by Suiggy · · Score: 1
  91. New Pearl Harbor? by wrc · · Score: 1

    Is this different than the Electronic Pearl Harbor? That was supposed to happen a while ago. Maybe I missed it.

    Will this one also be in Hawaii? Will Richard Clarke narrate it? He's been pushing for a new Pearl Harbor for a while.

    I guess we'll have to wait. It turns out that these craven bullshit artists *don't* actually know what they're talking about.

  92. The "why" of both Pearl Harbors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most significant contributors to the real Pearl Harbor were disorganisation, lack of coordination and complacency on the part of the defenders. Potential "cyber-Pearl Harbor" ditto. Until we actually achieve a baseline of real cyber-security (aka software that's not littered with exploitable bugs and a coherent framework of effective controls round our infrastructure), we won't need sophisticated attackers. Almost all breaches to date have been relatively trivial to accomplish - exploiting gross deficiencies in the robustness of attacked systems.

    It's time to clean up our own act - a relatively low-cost task that, however, requires a change in the way we think - rather than going on thinking in the same ineffective way and pouring squillions of dollars down the drain.