Slashdot Mirror


HP Keeps Installing Secret Backdoors In Enterprise Storage

Nerval's Lobster writes "For the second time in a month, Hewlett-Packard has been forced to admit it built secret backdoors into its enterprise storage products. The admission, in a security bulletin posted July 9, confirms reports from the blogger Technion, who flagged the security issue in HP's StoreOnce systems in June, before finding more backdoors in other HP storage and SAN products. The most recent statement from HP, following another warning from Technion, admitted that 'all HP StoreVirtual Storage systems are equipped with a mechanism that allows HP support to access the underlying operating system if permission and access is provided by the customer.' While HP describes the backdoors as being usable only with permission of the customer, that restriction is part of HP's own customer-service rules—not a limitation built in to limit use of backdoors. The entry points consist of a hidden administrator account with root access to StoreVirtual systems and software, and a separate copy of the LeftHand OS, the software that runs HP's StoreVirtual and HP P4000 products. Even with root access, the secret admin account does not give support techs or hackers access to data stored on the HP machines, according to the company. But it does provide enough access and control over the hardware in a storage cluster to reboot specific nodes, which would 'cripple the cluster,' according to information provided to The Register by an unnamed source. The account also provides access to a factory-reset control that would allow intruders to destroy much of the data and configurations of a network of HP storage products. And it's not hard to find: 'Open up your favourite SSH client, key in the IP of an HP D2D unit. Enter in yourself the username HPSupport, and the password which has a SHA1 of 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50. Say hello to an administrative account you didn't know existed,' according to Technion, who claims to have attempted to notify HP for weeks with no result before deciding to go public."

193 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Yet another company to boycott by ikhider · · Score: 2

    Besides Apple, Intel, and every social networking site and cloud service provider.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    1. Re:Yet another company to boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Yet another company to boycott by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Nah. It's not worth it. All of these big companies come up with something nasty every now and then. The best option is just to not buy the particular equipment which has the backdoor account.

    3. Re:Yet another company to boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of them. Because if they don't have it now, they certainly will soon...

  3. HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Years ago I worked on HP3000 servers and there was an hpsupport user on those systems as well. But on the 3000 series it was documented and every sysadmin was aware of it and could change the password if desired. Looks like HP still cares about customer service, but no longer cares about ethics. Sad. They were once a really great company.

  4. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rainbow Tables: enabling ontopic first posts since 2013.

  5. Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when does the DOJ prosecute the CEO of the corporation under the computer fraud and abuse act for unauthorized access of a computer system. Oh, I forget, like all corporations they are "too big to jail".

    1. Re:Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that the DOJ isn't the one that insisted it be put in place.

    2. Re:Consequences? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. The DOJ uses a HP system.

    3. Re:Consequences? by shentino · · Score: 2

      If the computer belongs to the corporation the CEO works for then chances are he already has authorization.

    4. Re:Consequences? by anagama · · Score: 1

      The Feds probably paid for the backdoor.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    5. Re:Consequences? by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      It's probably buried in the TOS that you implicitly agreed to when you opened the box, so they're covered.

    6. Re:Consequences? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Those laws are for people that does things against the government/corporations, not for corporations doing it for the government. Having backdoor will be the new normal, at least if people keeps buying from them.

      And don't think the "consequences" will include removing them, the fix will only just put them more hidden, or reinstall them with the next update.

    7. Re:Consequences? by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've got it backwards. The computer abuse laws are for jailing the evil hackers who published the information.

    8. Re:Consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the computer belongs to the corporation the CEO works for then chances are he already has authorization.

      When my company buys a computer from HP, it stops being HP's computer, and neither HP's CEO, nor any of his minions, is authorized to access it.

  6. Eh? by adolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The most recent statement from HP, following another warning from Technion, admitted that 'all HP StoreVirtual Storage systems are equipped with a mechanism that allows HP support to access the underlying operating system if permission and access is provided by the customer.' While HP describes the backdoors as being usable only with permission of the customer, that restriction is part of HP's own customer-service rulesâ"not a limitation built in to limit use of backdoors.

    Without reading TFA, which I expect to be even more sensationalist crap:

    I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.

    Did I miss something?

    If so, please synopsize in non-sensationalist terms.

    Indeed, whatever the case: Please post a not-purposefully-scary summary of the actual problem below, because right now it sounds a whole lot like the not-backdoor that Remote Assistance is under Windows.

    1. Re:Eh? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      If so, please synopsize in non-sensationalist terms.

      Non-bullshit, redacted by lawyers version:

      Anyone with access to the NAS over the network and an SSH client can enter a username and password, gain elevated privileges to the cluster, and while not allowing access to the data directly from that interface, access can disable the cluster or delete all the data within it, as well as wiping out partition information, etc.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Eh? by adolf · · Score: 2

      Sweet! Thanks.

      I'll keep that in mind as I continue to not buy or specify HP products for a myriad of other reasons.

      (That they killed Alpha and whatever was decent about Compaq was already sufficient. Nevermind the fact that their laptops are the least-service-friendly machines I've ever laid a screwdriver on. Or the crazy bullshit computers that I've wasted countless man-days troubleshooting unique problems on in the late 90s. Or the home-oriented desktops they once built which were impossible to open the case on without subjecting them to severe punishment. I don't care if they're "better now," especially now that it seems plain that they're getting worse: I never bought 'em, never will.)

      (Hay! Without HPAQ/DEC/MSFT's misgivings, we could have been doing the 64-bit OS dance fifteen years ago and had it all settled out long before now! Instead, Windows 8 still comes in a 32-bit incarnation.....)

    3. Re:Eh? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      nice rant... didn't *the market* actually kill Alpha. And PA-Risc. And Itanium. And (mostly) POWER ?

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    4. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't know about sensationalist but it is a call for Murphy's Law to remind them of their foolishness. One of the many ways in the computer world that "if something can go wrong, it will go wrong" is "if there is a backdoor in software, it will be found and/or leaked and it will be exploited". So yeah, nothing to see here, everyone grab their tin foil hats with blinders and move along and remember Keep It Simple, STUPID, just as your superiors and government overlords request/demand and don't worry, obscurity is effective isn't it?

    5. Re:Eh? by khallow · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nevermind the fact that their laptops are the least-service-friendly machines I've ever laid a screwdriver on.

      You sound like a crazy person. I bet you want to clean the fans or some such nonsense.

    6. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Alpha was firmly in last place in the rapidly-shrinking RISC market.

      But don't bother Alpha fanboys with facts, they have 20 year old benchmark results to masturbate to.

    7. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, you missed something. Customer action is not required to grant access. Customer permission is only required by HP's internal rules, not by the backdoor itself.

    8. Re:Eh? by adolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, that.

      Interestingly, I just acquired a Dell laptop from the same lineage as the "clean the fans" song.

      There is a cover on the bottom, removable with one screw. Beneath is the heatsink. Just beyond is the fan.

      The heatsink itself is copper, and can be easily removed, cleaned/rinsed/whatever, and reinstalled.

      Yay.

    9. Re:Eh? by endus · · Score: 1

      Right, so when someone writes a worm that exploits this, NBD!

    10. Re:Eh? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      I doubt it. We've got some software like this, and while we were having trouble one day and I was on the phone with their support (who was about as skilled as your local broadband support tech) proceeded to log into our equipment, duplicated my administrator account, log in as me, and start making changes. The log even reported the changes as being done by me. When I realized what was going on I started yelling into the phone "What the fuck do you think you're doing? Holy fucking shit?!?!" The tech on the other end was rather surprised I was upset "Excuse me?" he asked... "How did you just do all that?!?! This is on OUR servers, behind OUR firewall!!! You're under contract with us, none of this should be possible! physically, or legally!" all he said was "Well they don't let me see the contracts. I just click this "Clone account" button and there we go..."

      I reported the whole thing to our security director. It ended up in the lawyers lap. Their software basically just tunneled its way out of our network. There were other reasons their software needed to connect to them so they just used the same port to allow their support techs to have basically more access than I, the senior administrator had. Now, instead of having a secure product, we have an unsecured product and the only thing protecting us from them is a "more specific" contract that, again, their techs have no access to read. Also, given the regulations we're under, that tech was violating federal law without even knowing it.

      Don't trust your vendors. My management has, after this and several other incidents, come to the conclusion that these sorts of products are more trouble than they're worth. In the near future we'll be building it all in-house and dropping vendors like this. Some stuff, like oracle and microsoft, will be hard to dump. But I bet that given enough time even they will be gone and we'll be on something open source.

    11. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I read comments like this a lot, and they don't entirely gel with my experience of HP stuff.

      Their "consumer" products are truly horrible, and whether it's a laptop, desktop, printer or MFP, you're best advised to just keep walking; but their business-class hardware still seems pretty decent.

      For instance, the nx6320 laptop I used to use made it pretty easy to swap drives, RAM, clean fans, anything you might want to perform at home as a modestly skilled and equipped self-tech; but the 4710s I bought to replace it, a "consumer" product with (for the time) excellent specs for the price, is horrible - replacing the hard drive basically requires starting at the top and taking the thing apart (top cover, display, keyboard, ...) until you work your way down to a very cheap looking HDD bay. I expect they didn't plan to perform much maintenance on them at all, and didn't make it any easier than a tight budget would allow.

      Back in the day, when HP were an instrument company making their way into the IT space, they built essentially all of their hardware in-house and it was, in its way, almost beautiful. Today, it seems they buy in or contract out almost everything, particularly at the consumer end; and I expect they to pay much closer attention to the quality of what they are peddling to business, because that segment will expect them to actually maintain it for years into the future and they don't like working on shitty gear any more than the rest of us.

    12. Re:Eh? by AdamWill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The thing you're missing is this part:

      "While HP describes the backdoors as being usable only with permission of the customer, that restriction is part of HP's own customer-service rules - not a limitation built in to limit use of backdoors."

      i.e. there is not actually any kind of technical restriction on the use of the backdoor, there is no actual customer control over it. When they say 'we can only use it with the customer's permission' what they mean is 'we told our reps only to use it with the customer's permission and we hope they do what we say, and no-one else finds it, so now...oops'.

    13. Re:Eh? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.

      The requirement for permission is sociological and based on adherence to company procedures and policies of HP.

      If HP had chosen to require physical manipulation of the storage device, collecting a serial number or code printed ONLY on the device, or another method of OPT-IN selection by the storage admin, then I am sure there would be no complaint.

      The problem is some HP support employees have access to a God code that grants administrative access to any piece of gear, and it's the same for all customer units, AND probably the code continues to work, even if some customer service employees are terminated, that might know the code.

      It's poor security against insider abuse, regardless.

    14. Re:Eh? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      So "no direct access to data" probably isn't saying much --- just about the limitations of what capabilities the admin UI has.

      Posturing by HP to attempt to reduce the perceived severity of the issue?

      While not allowing access to the data directly from that interface,

      There are probably commands they would be able to type that might enable an additional iSCSI, FC, or NFS initiator to connect; possibly an initiator running on an IP address controlled by the person using the backdoor.

      People can do other things on their computers besides load up SSH sessions; if they've got IP connectivity to the storage unit.... it reasons they might use the admin UI to change the configuration in other ways that impact their level of access

    15. Re:Eh? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I bet you want to clean the fans or some such nonsense.

      Only Mac fans. There's no cute women that are fans of HP or MS Windows laptops.

    16. Re:Eh? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      That is the HP version yes.

      The reality version is similar, but get rid of the bit about a customer needing to enable it and replace HP Support with anyone.

    17. Re:Eh? by JakartaDean · · Score: 2

      Anyone with access to the NAS over the network and an SSH client can enter a username and password, gain elevated privileges to the cluster, and while not allowing access to the data directly from that interface, access can disable the cluster or delete all the data within it, as well as wiping out partition information, etc.

      So anyone including unhappy ex-employees who still have access to the network or physical access to a machine, and who might be interested in holding their former employer to ransom? Including current employees eager to become ex-employees and interested in changing this password in case their reference letter isn't what they wanted? Including anyone who can get the IP address and is interested in shit-disturbing? It sounds like a race to change this password is on as every single unit probably is a target now.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    18. Re:Eh? by Kaenneth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, better than underaged benchmark results.

    19. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, HP killed Alpha and PA deliberately as part of their chumming up with Intel after vacuuming (though it was more D&C) Compaq+DEC, while Itanium was dead in the water because VLIW is fucking hard to optimise for and it has been not much of a performance enhancement since Merced.

      A lot of Alpha tech has been incorporated into modern Intel-compatible CPUs, which are now a heap of microcode anyway. But the instruction set monoculture is harmful and has led to severe stagnation, which is why all the interesting stuff happens in GPUs and dreams about reconfigurable CPUs are replaced with expectation of half a century of 386 with all its stupid rules and limitations.

      It does not help, of course, that Microsoft has been scared of anything non-386 since the turn of the Billennium: Itanic Windows was created reluctantly; Windows RT is a fucking abortion; &c.

    20. Re:Eh? by thsths · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that is exactly where the problem starts, but not ends.

      The backdoor is available without customer interaction! HP is lying in its statement - it is not technically wrong, but intentionally misleading. So they know they are lying, too. And it seems they are also refusing to fix it.

    21. Re:Eh? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service, which can be activated by a customer (by two factors: permission and network access), and that without action on the part of the customer, said backdoor is closed.

      "Permission" isn't much of a safeguard against criminals. They tend to do stuff without it.

      (Isn't that the very definition of "criminal", i.e. doing stuff they don't have permission to do?)

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Customer action is required to allow an external third party access to the system in the first place, and if you run your SAN on a network with full public access, you deserve everything you get anyway.

    23. Re:Eh? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I have the HP 3070A multi-purpose print/scan/copy thingy and I've been very happy with it. Easy to use, reliable, works flawlessly over WiFi (both print and scan), stable drivers and good print quality. Then I also have the cheapo HP 635 laptop, fully plastic (as expected for the price point) but has served very well, nice display too.

      Basically my recent experiences of their consumer stuff have nothing to complain about.

    24. Re:Eh? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you need a better security director, a better firewall/network infra admin, and some junior guy to read logs and watch the seim. The better question here is how/why was this device able to tunnel in/out of your network without someone explicitly allowing it? What you allow unfiltered egress from your data center? If you do your vendors are the least of your problems.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you should hire someone who can read posts to you.

      The GP clearly explained that that were other reasons why connections from the device in question to the supplier were authorisated. Unless you know the exact protocol involved and wanna do deep packet inspection there's no real way your firewall is gonna know the difference between that connection being used for "good" or "bad" reasons.

    26. Re:Eh? by swalve · · Score: 1

      There is still 32 bit only hardware.

    27. Re:Eh? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why would just anyone have access to this machine via SSH?

      Have you not heard of firewalls? Whatever connects to this NAS just needs CFS/NFS access on the regular network. SAN type protocols would be VLANed off and SSH would be limited to the administrative machines at the very least. This all assumes people did their jobs correctly.

    28. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to do this for my Sony Vaio F-series laptop from 2010.

      To clean the fan properly required me to strip the system. As well as opening the case the motherboard actually had to be removed from the chassis, including all the ribbon cables for the peripherals.

      The fan cleaning was essential, as the dust was sufficient to raise the system temp and cause a daily blue-screen...

    29. Re:Eh? by Alsee · · Score: 2

      Right. ANYONE who can access the local network, or if the device is internet accessible ANYONE on the internet, can enter the username HPSupport and the password badg3r5.

      This is a wide open highly dangerous back door, which was (formerly) protected by nothing more than the hope that (1) no one bothered to notice that HP publicly offered this sort of remote support and (2) the hope that no one who did notice it bothered spending 20 seconds on Google to find a website that could instantly decode the SHA-1 "78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50" of the password back into the raw password "badg3r5".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    30. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually recommend to people to purchase Dell because I might later on be working on them. HP are very difficult to work on, but not as difficult as those first-generation Lenovo thinkpads. Only time I ever shattered an LCD.

    31. Re:Eh? by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you need a better security director, a better firewall/network infra admin, and some junior guy to read logs and watch the seim. The better question here is how/why was this device able to tunnel in/out of your network without someone explicitly allowing it? What you allow unfiltered egress from your data center? If you do your vendors are the least of your problems.

      Reading helps...

      There were other reasons their software needed to connect to them so they just used the same port to allow their support techs to have basically more access than I, the senior administrator had.

      It's not hard to tunnel pretty much anything over anything else, particularly when encryption is involved. If your whatsit speaks a proprietary binary protocol or even just uses encryption in a reasonable way and has a legitimate reason to connect to outside sites, you don't really have a good way to know what exactly it's doing with that connection.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    32. Re:Eh? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      I grok this to mean that a backdoor exists for customer service ...

      If the backdoor existed for customer service reasons, the customer would be told about it rather than HP having to admit it exists only after someone spotted it and went public.

      This could mean we can't consider purchasing HP equipment and have to get rid of any we already have - our contracts with some of our clients (banks, a police force or two, and so forth) demand that every one working for our company and any third party that has access to our equipment in any way is fully background checked. If there are accounts on there for which we don't control the credentials then we can not give them assurances that such due diligence clauses are satisfied. While needing network access is a mitigating factor limiting opportunities to abuse this hole, may not satisfy such contract clauses as we need to account for breaks in security elsewhere in our provisions (theft of equipment, unexpectedly clueless or gruntle-less individuals in the DC, ...).

      ... which can be activated by a customer

      TFS doesn't say the user has to activate it, just they they intend to gain permission before using it. This might be by means of it being disabled until the user takes action to allow access, but the wording does not explicitly say that and if it is open aside from proper firewalling and other provisions it might be exploitable by a bad actor with your DC.

      Indeed, whatever the case: Please post a not-purposefully-scary summary of the actual problem below, because right now it sounds a whole lot like the not-backdoor that Remote Assistance is under Windows.

      The key concern from my PoV is more that it exists but was "hidden", rather than what it actually does. It causes the appropriately paranoid to ask "what else is in there that we do not know about?". While there is an assurance that it does not allow access to data they confirm it allows enough access to be used for DoS purposes and as the feature was not previously documented at all (hidden, to take a more negative spin on "not documented") I would prefer some 3rd party confirmation before taking that statement as any sort of assurance.

    33. Re:Eh? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      Those provisions don't neccesarly defend against a bad actor in the DC, so in some high security situations allowing this to exist is a breach of security clauses in service provision contracts. Securioty in dpeth and all that.

    34. Re:Eh? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, but they are going to limit the scope of the threat. Security in layers and all that.

    35. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In the near future we'll be building it all in-house and dropping vendors like this.

      Good luck with that.

    36. Re:Eh? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They used to make great printers. Once upon a time.

      So recently (a couple of years ago) I bought an OfficeJet. I have to use the damn thing in draft mode, or it refuses to print on colored paper. It refuses to print if the paper is half-size, etc. I've still got a G55, but modern computers don't come with Centronics ports...but the G55 is a LOT more flexible.

      OTOH, I'm not sure who does a better multifunction printer. (All I want is scan and print. Fax is optional. Internet services are actively disliked....which means I'd really perfer someone beside HP, even if the machine was otherwise desireable.) I tried a Brother, but it didn't have decent Linux drivers. (Yes, I know, I'm not supposed to call them printer drivers. But I can't remember what I'm supposed to call them, and drivers are what they are called on the company websites.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    37. Re:Eh? by adolf · · Score: 1

      And there will continue to be, as long as 32-bit operating systems are available.

      The question is this: Is it your logic that is circular, or is it mine?

    38. Re:Eh? by swalve · · Score: 1

      You are making my brain hurt.

  7. And with this... HP has lost all my respect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been having an ongoing driver problem with my printer. Today -- I've tried multiple times to notify HP; they want me to pay them to open a case to report a bug. Now, I find out that they have multiple back doors?....

    Time to walk away.

  8. It's standard practice by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pretty every much hardware/software stack combination that I ever encountered over 30+ years of programming had a "back door" admin account to allow the vendor to get into the systems to repair damage. This is nothing new.

    Yes, it's a security hole.

    But it's also standard practice and should come as no surprise to anyone.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been building Opensolaris/Nexenta based SAN's for years.

      Never had a single account I didn't know about.

      I don't understand why this would be "carry on as normal" to anyone.

    2. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IBM has, on midrange POWER systems, a service ID that has a constantly changing password. In case of loss of passwords and the like (mind you, passwords for the Service Processor, not the OS itself) you can call IBM and the CE will come, log with the service ID and wait on the phone till rochesters tells him what the password for that machine at that time is.
      Neat system, if someone ever finds out how the key is computed it could be defeated but its a lot harder than say, a hard coded password...
      DS4000 series System Storage DO have a hardcoded user/pass but the controller has rlogin turned off by default so unless you get to the cage and log in via serial cable it's safe...

    3. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pretty every much hardware/software stack combination that I ever encountered over 30+ years of programming had a "back door" admin account to allow the vendor to get into the systems to repair damage. This is nothing new.

      So trusting any vendor about any security is out of the question. Rolling your own stack is the only way to actually retain any control over your mission critical data.

      But it's also standard practice and should come as no surprise to anyone

      Or perhaps it is one of the "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" - 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

      http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

    4. Re:It's standard practice by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Pretty every much hardware/software stack combination that I ever encountered over 30+ years of programming had a "back door" admin account to allow the vendor to get into the systems to repair damage. This is nothing new.

      Those other ones tended to be acknowledged and documented.

      There is a big difference between a hole in the wall you know about, and one you don't.

      But it's also standard practice and should come as no surprise to anyone.

      You can't plug or safeguard against security holes that are kept secret.

    5. Re:It's standard practice by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Even the low end, small brand prosumer/business grade ethernet, quality firewall with wireless and 3G dongle units seem to send something back.
      Forums usually have the question why is my new, quality firewall phoning home?
      Its only an anonymous diagnostic tool that cant be turned off and users are to be thankful for the low cost of the unit, low power usage, cool running and great support... cpu and memory is great too...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re: It's standard practice by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      Correct: It should come as no surprise to anyone. Which is why it shouldn't be hidden.

    7. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DS4000 series System Storage DO have a hardcoded user/pass but the controller has rlogin turned off by default so unless you get to the cage and log in via serial cable it's safe...

      As it should be. I hate appliances which can't be recovered with physical access to the device. If someone (who isn't supposed to) manages to get that kind of access to the device, you've fucked up security in much more significant ways.

    8. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So trusting any vendor about any security is out of the question. Rolling your own stack is the only way to actually retain any control over your mission critical data.

      Generally not sufficient either, at least using PC (or IBM, or Sun) hardware. Intel hardware pretty much all has IMT which you can never be sure is disabled, nor have any visibility into who it gives access to or what it does when it is being accessed. IBM hardware all has HMC which has a documented backdoor provided to IBM via a time-based cryptographic counter and challenge-response mechanism. Sun and HP have the equivalent in their ELOM/ILOM system.

      So you buy some old Pentium 3 or older system. You could build something full custom from the CPU up but most organisations don't have this kind of budget, and it'snot cost effective.

    9. Re:It's standard practice by erik.martino · · Score: 1

      Industrial espionage has never been so easy.

    10. Re:It's standard practice by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a security hole.

      If you know about it, you're in the firing line when shit hits the fan. If you work in a sector with specific regulations on data handling, eg PCI, HIPAA, Sarbanes Oxley, they're pretty much excluded from that sector. It is a due diligence failure on your part as the person recommending / implementing the system.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:It's standard practice by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it is one of the "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" - 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

      I'm just wondering how you deal with conflicting information. Do you just look at which item in the Truth Suppression list fits the other person arguments, and dismiss it? How do you distinguish truth suppression from someone giving you truthful information that the news is indeed old?

      What I'm getting at is: your tinfoil hat is too tight. Loosen it up and allow blood to flow to your brain again.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just wondering how you deal with conflicting information. Do you just look at which item in the Truth Suppression list fits the other person arguments, and dismiss it? How do you distinguish truth suppression from someone giving you truthful information that the news is indeed old?

      It's not what you say that matters. It is what you do that does.

      When an undocumented backdoor surfaces, it is kind of stupid to dismiss that as "old news" or "everyone does it". The reality is, no one does this except for purposes where you do not want the other party knowing you are accessing their data.

      Another term for undocumented backdoored system is bot. A bot used by the real owner of the botnet for some other purposes.

    13. Re:It's standard practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that specific one, but I know on another product, the changing password way in is *only* available after logging in with customer credentials. The CE cannot log in with the IBM password directly, they must use a special service account that has password synced to customer password and *then* use the 'secret code' to break out of the restricted cli.

    14. Re:It's standard practice by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it is one of the "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression" - 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

      Similar to one of the "Twelve Techniques for Suppressing Discussion" - 4. Dismiss a reasonable response as one of the "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression".

  9. Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Informative

    The password you're looking for is badg3r5. So there. Go forth, my minions! In other news, Slashdot's corporate overlords apparently no longer believe in full disclosure, as it had in the past, and now omit critical information probably because their lawyers have more say in the editorial process than the submitter, editors, or anyone with a clue to spare. :(

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by purpleidea · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The password you're looking for is badg3r5.

      Yikes! That's not even a very good password.

      This is a huge backdoor/security issue. This is another bit of proof that proprietary software is never okay.

      Check out gluster instead maybe! All that's missing is a FreeBIOS.

    2. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a huge backdoor/security issue. This is another bit of proof that proprietary software is never okay.

      If by "never" you mean "widely used", then I'm going to go with... nope. Here's the thing -- corporations are what buy most software. Corporations are willing to spend large piles of money on software. And corporations don't want security that cannot be defeated because a malicious person (or a perfectly ordinary employee with an asshole manager they want to get revenge on!) could disable it in a way it cannot be recovered from.

      They pay massive amounts of money for support contracts that demand minimal downtime. There's nothing in that contract, or even a single fuck given, to security -- which is why you get convenient fast-recovery options like this... that have the "small" side effect of having giant unpatchable security holes in it. The worst of it is, the patch will probably take some custom (weak) hashing function that generates a unique password based on the serial number of the device... like so many other first responses many other vendors over the years have implimented... and then someone will figure out the hashing function and you'll have to run a 'keygen' then and probe the SNMP interface before doing the exact. same. goddamned. thing.

      The balance between security and convenience has always slanted heavily towards convenience. Saying "proprietary software" is to blame for this is disengenuous at best. Open source software tends to be used by people who give at least half a fuck about security -- but look at the projects that have gone mainstream. Firefox, for example, and it's attaching NTFS AD streams to downloaded files (just like internet explorer!) and integration with internet options (just like internet explorer!) control panel... all to please their corporate overlords. Oh, and bonus -- you can't override it. So if your corporate overlords screw up, Firefox is just another target waiting to be exploited. And the list goes on. The reason why open source appears more secure is because the people who use it are somewhat more experienced. It has nothing to do with open source itself -- it is purely the people who are using it that have created a (albeit imperfect) culture of security around the products.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The password you're looking for is badg3r5. So there. Go forth, my minions! In other news, Slashdot's corporate overlords apparently no longer believe in full disclosure, as it had in the past, and now omit critical information probably because their lawyers have more say in the editorial process than the submitter, editors, or anyone with a clue to spare. :(

      My dog has more say in editing Slashdot stories than Slashdot editors do.

      And he's out in the back yard. In a thunderstorm. Taking a dump.

    4. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by shentino · · Score: 1

      In this litigious dog eat dog sue at the drop of a hat world, it's entirely possible that ignoring your lawyers will get you obliterated rather than simply censored.

      If someone has a gun to your head, do you keep your mouth shut and live, or do you mouth off, get your brains blown out, and wind up never able to talk about *anything* again?

    5. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      badg3r5??? badg3r5???? we don't need no stinkin' badg3r5!!!!

    6. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

      If someone has a gun to your head, do you keep your mouth shut and live, or do you mouth off, get your brains blown out, and wind up never able to talk about *anything* again?

      Say "what" again! Say! "what"! again! I dare you! I double-dare you, motherfucker! Say "what" one more goddamn time!

      It depends a whole lot on how calm you can stay under the pressure.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    7. Re:Slashdot Lameness... Deleted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. The password should have been CorrectBadgerBatteryStaple. But they screwed the pooch and picked a poor password...

  10. Customers Demand It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for a large networking appliance company. We know these backdoors are a bad idea from a security standpoint. The problem is, customers demand them. They call up and want something fixed--or a customization or diagnosis or whatever--and many times the only way to resolve the issue is to access the box. Most times it's a configuration problem on their end, but often the quickest way to figure this out is to access the internal databases.

    On our appliances our backdoors are completely optional--if you disable it, support is completely unable to access the box, period (I know because I helped to write it). But you wouldn't believe how irate customers become when you tell them that you can't help them, even though they're the ones who _chose_ to disable the support access, and clicked through all the warnings.

    Could these backdoors be made more secure? Absolutely. But developing, say, a storage appliance and developing a secure remote access protocol (both in terms of software as well as access control) are worlds apart. SSH and SSL are just tiny elements in an overall solution.

    I'm not one to argue that convenience and security are necessarily opposed. But it is incredibly hard to find the small set of solutions that provide both maximum convenience and maximum security. And even if you've found a solution in that set, it's incredibly hard to prevent it from degrading over time as developers come and go, introducing bugs as they add and fix features.

    1. Re:Customers Demand It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then use the serial on the box as a method for generating the password or something. You don't even have to start thinking ssl and ssh things. Don't have a standardized password for all boxes. That's just nuts. Anyone that can get past the firewall can pwn the equipment.

    2. Re:Customers Demand It by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      With a fixed, weak master password that is not adviced in the documentation nor requested to changed to a safe one on install/configuration? That is a plain backdoor. That they managed to built security on it to enable you to control what authenticated users can see or do only make it worse, is not that they don't know how to authenticate users or have secure passwords. Not only they sold you a backdoor, but also show how idiot they think you are.

  11. Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect? How are HP supposed to keep prices down if they can't sell your personal information and home made porn?

    If you use closed OS product, you clearly have no interest in security.

  12. Freedom by Taantric · · Score: 3, Funny

    When you buy an 'Merican product you are buying Freedom!

    1. Re:Freedom by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If you buy it from China you get half the Freedom for half the price.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Re:badg3r5 by girlintraining · · Score: 0

    Well, I know what this poster was thinking: "Quick! First post it, before someone else who can type faster than 9 words a minute writes an insightful and informative post giving away the secret sauce!"

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  14. The *can* access the data on the device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The earlier article said they can reset user passwords, if they can do that, they can grant themselves access to the data.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/09/hp_storage_more_possible_backdoors/
    " lost admin passwords are resettable by HP. One, from November 2011, states: “You will need to call support and they can get into the backed and reset it for you. 1-800-633-3600 'Lefthand Solutions'”. The other, posted by a LeftHand product manager in 2009, states: “Call support. They can reset the password remotely.”

    So they CAN get access to the data, because they can change the configuration to give themselves access.

    1. Re:The *can* access the data on the device by ameen.ross · · Score: 4, Funny

      Probably another case of "they cannot do X because it's in the customer support rules".

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
  15. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by jcr · · Score: 1, Funny

    I used HP3000s back in high school. They had plenty of other security holes, too.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  16. Well DUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could

    A) Actually TELL people about it

    B) put a switch on the box to disable it when it's not in use

    but perhaps these solutions are "too difficult"

    and you sound WAY TOO MUCH like a marketroid, spewing tech speak and making excuses

    1. Re:Well DUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I wrote the above post)

      We actually support a one-time password scheme--actually a small randomly generated password which is a seed to a prime number generator which in turn is used to generate keys for strong PKI authentication. However, what happens if for whatever reason the management GUI breaks and they can't access the script to generate the password and keys, or even just to re-enable support access.

      I can guarantee you that whatever bright idea you think you have, it's not even remotely a perfect solution. These people buy these boxed solutions because they want convenience. Even if the appliance is for "security" (i.e. a firewall of some sort), the analysis is the same. They want stuff to work, and they want it to work now, period. And the more complex these appliances, the more crap that can go wrong. The feature list on these boxes fills volumes; these aren't your grandparents' packet pushers.

      Also, companies like mine and HP acquire many of their products through acquisition, not in-house development. Many times some product you just acquired was developed by imbeciles or neophytes who got lucky and won that particular market. So even though in-house you have lots of expertise on dealing with these issues, any particular product may have been implemented by a one-hit wonder team who did in okay job on the product's primary functionality but fubar'd the rest of the generic functionality.

      Then your in-house developers want to fix all the problems but marketing and management are telling you to move on because the product is already selling like hot cakes so why spend any time on fixing what isn't, to their eyes, broken. Of course, this kinda if idiocy as absolutely the fault of the company. So its the company's fault for not fixing it, but not their fault for the stupid decisions in the first place.

      I'm not defending a decision to leave a fixed password for the root account of a box. While that particular decision is egregious, the notion of keeping backdoors is not. Customers demand backdoors, period. And as long as there are backdoors, there are going to be exploits for them.

    2. Re:Well DUH by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Customers demand backdoors, period. And as long as there are backdoors, there are going to be exploits for them.

      Backdoors for service accounts don't have to be trivial to exploit. If you ship a secret backdoor with the sort of simple password protection this one has, you deserve to go out of business over the resulting negligence lawsuits.

  17. Meh by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 2

    They're going bankrupt anyway so this issue will take care of itself.

    NEXT!

    1. Re:Meh by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They have too many people mixed in with politics to go bankrupt. The taxpayer will fund purchases of their stuff whether it is shit or not.

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

      HP are going bankrupt by more than doubling their stock price in six months? I mean admittedly they only have a $50b market cap, so yeah, I'm sure they're real worried about their imminent demise right now.

  18. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the system I worked on, there is a manufacturing mode that only someone with Admin privilege AND a manufacture mode password generator can enable. This means only HP support personnel can turn it on if the customer allows it.

    Once it is turned on, root access can be gained using a private key.

  19. Every single day by spire3661 · · Score: 2

    My worst fears of how deep spying has gone keep getting confirmed. Pretty much every single major vendor is backdoored by the NSA one way or another.

    --
    Good-bye
    1. Re:Every single day by dbIII · · Score: 2

      While you could be correct I'd blame this especially stupid backdoor on HP instead. They need to be badgered about it and stop treating people like mushrooms.

  20. Not so bad with TOPT by perpenso · · Score: 2

    I work for a large networking appliance company. We know these backdoors are a bad idea from a security standpoint. The problem is, customers demand them. They call up and want something fixed--or a customization or diagnosis or whatever--and many times the only way to resolve the issue is to access the box. Most times it's a configuration problem on their end, but often the quickest way to figure this out is to access the internal databases. On our appliances our backdoors are completely optional--if you disable it, support is completely unable to access the box, period (I know because I helped to write it). But you wouldn't believe how irate customers become when you tell them that you can't help them, even though they're the ones who _chose_ to disable the support access, and clicked through all the warnings.

    This was my exact experience when working on telco infrastructure equipment years ago. We knew it was bad security but customers wanted it.

    If working on such equipment today I would expect that we would incorporate a time-based one-time password that the customer would have to provide to our support person. Hardly perfect but a bit better than what seems to be common place today.

  21. Corporations are people, HP backdoors are HP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Corporations are willing to spend large piles of money on software"

    Corporations are just a lot of people working for a company. If those individuals don't want this, then the corporation doesn't want this.

    Do you think any company wants a backdoor open to its company data? The medical data is protected by criminal law, the corporate secrets contain the value in the company, the employee data is a critical business secret covered by lots of laws, the stock related financial data it is a breach of the financial regulations to let outsiders see that.

    The idea that corps want these back doors is just garbage. The idea that everything has these backdoors is just garbage. They've spent a lot of time worrying over whether Chinese made kit has backdoors, yet the one with the discovered back door is HP.

    This is a HP problem.

    And given the MS revelations, a closed source software problem. The idea that a company will expose itself to loss of trade secrets, bankruptcy lawsuits, criminal liability for staff , just so that a HP man can save a trip out site to reset a password is just garbage.

    You sir are A grade shill.

  22. No not really by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    The right answer is a service account they can have activated, if needed. On the EqualLogic (Dell) we have that is how it is done. When they need to work on the system, they have you connect to a WebEx session. They then request control of the PC. They have you log in to the system using your admin account, and they can then set the password on an "fse" account, which they can use to access service functions you aren't supposed to get at. Once they are done, they encourage you to change the fse account to a different password.

    That is how it is properly done: They get in using your system, with you monitoring what they do, and you lock out access after they are done.

    Now maybe they are going to have access all the time for proactive monitoring. Fine, that is a service some like (we may take Dell up on it if they start offering it). Again the right method is an account set up by the customer, not one hardcoded in. Why? Well because of shit like this. If it is hardcoded in, and you can't change it, then if someone discovers the access, it is bad times.

    For that matter I've never seen this on Cisco stuff either. The recovery for that is via serial, I've never seen a remote override from Cisco. Maybe it is there, but I've never seen them use it.

    1. Re:No not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For that matter I've never seen this on Cisco stuff either. The recovery for that is via serial, I've never seen a remote override from Cisco. Maybe it is there, but I've never seen them use it.

      There's not a remote over-ride, but they can execute a command which generates a one-time password which has an expiration timer, which will allow that login to gain access to special manufacturer commands. As far as I'm aware, you an only do that with a login which already has maximum access. It's just a way to keep the people using the hardware from being able to get into some of the internals of the Cisco IOS, in particular the functions which control the license level of the software.

      Nobody who is serious about making Carrier-grade equipment has a recovery account that you can get to over normal connections- it's all done via some type of console port. Some manufacturers use serial, some use ethernet, hell I've even seen one that used a crappy stereo mini-plug jack. The important factor is that it's a special port that isn't ever used for anything else, and even then most hardware lets you change the default password during the initial device setup.

    2. Re:No not really by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's one of several right answers. My favorites are all variants of "Plug in this cable connecting two ports on the chassis", or, alternatively, "Plug in this cable connecting this port on the server to the router". That way you don't need to be able to access even an active screen to set things up...but you do need physical access. Then access over that connection should be protected via encryption, but probably not ssh. Something simpler. Even ROT7 would probably suffice...though ROT8 wouldn't (assuming a byte oriented protocol).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. Hmm are switches possible? by Camael · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty nifty idea.

    Is it possible to engineer the appliance so that instead of using passwords sent remotely to access the appliance, access is only granted when a physical switch is flicked on by the consumer? i.e.

    Operator: Okay, we are connected to your system, press the red button now.
    Customer: *press*
    Operator: Okay now were in. Gimme a few minutes while we check your system.

    1. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Problem is: Customer is sitting in Mahogany Towers and the equipment is sitting in a co-loc facility miles away.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they can't pay someone to do it? point a camera at the gear to make sure the switch is in the proper positiion

      are you an engineer or a marketing person? because you have NO chops for problem solving

    3. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IBM ESS Storage Systems have something like that. You connect the serial cable, log in as SERVICE and the password is displayed on the cluster's panel. So you must be in front of the ESS itself to service it....

    4. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is absolutely possible, and not at all a bad idea.

      When I have set servers up for remote support, I just add a script they can run to open a support tunnel to the phone home server. They can have it run on startup or they can run it on request (or refuse to run it, of course).

      On a custom build device like a NAS, the button would be easy enough.

    5. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a story floating about regarding a server box that occasionally locked up and needed to be reset. Just a simple press of the reset button is all. (The server wasn't so critical that they needed a backup or anything, but it needed to be up.) After the Nth time being called in during nights and weekends to do this, the tech came up with a solution: a second box with a CD drive, positioned in front of the first. The second box pinged the first- if it didn't respond the second box ejected the CD tray, which was positioned so it would tap the reset button on the first box.

      Between that, and taping/wedging the button in, it's not as good a security measure as you might think.

    6. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social engineers have been pretty good at tricking people into pushing red buttons* based on flimsy pretenses. You probably need a lid on the button with a sign that says in big print "OFF LIMITS - RISK OF INJURY OR DEATH" or "IF SOMEONE ASKED YOU TO PRESS THIS BUTTON, CONTACT SECURITY IMMEDIATELY".

      * among other things, Kevin Mitnick tricked Pacific Bell technicians into giving him access to the FBI's wiretap system, which he then used to listen in on the FBI agents investigating him.

    7. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Most colo contracts include "hands and eyes" time where they will hard power-cycle machines, push a button, grant physical access to a vendor who is pre-approved to do some work... simple things. Whether you trust them enough to do that and whether it's a good idea to do that are separate issues. In the case of an emergency though it really helps.

    8. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even simpler than that, you just have the support tech send their ssh key to the system operator, let them add it to the device, then remove it when the support call is finished. This has the advantage that it requires no physical access to the system.

      There should still be a physical method for resetting the device security because fat-fingers and lost documentation happen and you need a way to fix this. Having a default password or a counter password is the worst way to acheive either of these goals, and the secure way to handle the problem is just as easy.

      I don't give electricians or Aircon vendors keys to my datacenter either, I tag them in when they have a legitimate reason to be in their and the rest of the time they have no access. Why should system security and system vendors be treated any differently to physical maintenance operations.

    9. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you EVER actually attempted to get the average data center remote hands guy to do ANYTHING? Even if they have enough brain cells to actually find the correct button, it'll either a) cost you thousands each month in support costs or b) take hours for them to drag their knuckles down to the cage and push the button.

    10. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honeywell DPS-xxxx systems had this. In order for support to connect to the service console, a system operator had to type a command to enable the remote console. Once the remote console was activated, only then would the modem answer.

    11. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Bah. Push a button? Your skills are weak unless you can call in and convince a manager to strip-search an under-aged female employee.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    12. Re:Hmm are switches possible? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 2

      Do you mean this story, written by Jake Vinson?

      Here's an edited version of the text for those too lazy to click on the link (used without permission, but go visit the site anyway as it has lots of amusing - if not entirely truthful - anecdotes)

      As time passed, a proprietary gateway server to communicate with credit processing agencies would crash more and more frequently. And these were bad crashes, too — the kind of crashes where the server wouldn't respond to ping and would have to be restarted manually. It wasn't really a big deal for the admin, Erik, to hit the restart button on the server when he was there, but that was only 40 hours a week. The credit union needed it to be active 24/7, but was unwilling to hire 24 hour staff in the datacenter.

      Erik had a script running that would ping the server every few minutes and alert him if it didn't respond so he could halfway proactively keep things running. It had to be restarted manually whenever it crashed, so there was no easy way to fix it remotely.

      It was then that Erik idly looked at his computer, which had just ejected a disk image DVD he'd burned. It sparked an idea, but it was too absurd to say out loud. Still, he couldn't help but chuckle at the thought. "A CD ROM drive in an old system could eject and hit the reset button. I'd have to position the servers just right, somehow get the heights and alignment correct, and update the polling script to eject the CD ROM drive any time it didn't respond to ping." It was a ridiculous idea.

      Yet that was exactly what Erik found himself spending the rest of the afternoon setting up. He found an old PC, updated his script to ping the server every two minutes and eject if there was no response, and with the help of a few phone books found the perfect height and position on the floor. Finally, Erik stood up, and ashamedly admired his work. He slapped a label on it that read "ITAPPMONROBOT," and another below with big underlined letters that read "DO NOT MOVE."

      Somebody else did a similar hack to open a security door, and yet another to reset a wireless network.

  24. Typical by endus · · Score: 1

    No one listens to the security group no matter how badly they get hammered. This is just dumb shit. If I ran the world everyone who was involved with implementing this would be fired immediately.

    Remote access for customer support is a great thing...just build it right. It's really not that hard at all to build it right...probably even easier than building it this stupid ass way.

  25. Re:badg3r5 by shentino · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would you rather deal with Rainbow Tables or Bobby Tables?

  26. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, through to the early 80's. Hewlitt and Packard, the men, had a true sense of worth of their employees and treated them with respect. That was pretty much gone as the 80's rolled on. Packard was a changed man from his stint(s) in Washington. Then, of course, by the time Patricia Dunn was in charge, the company was a toilet. Pretexting, anyone? Yeah, sad.

  27. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2

    Why not both?'); UPDATE vulnerabilities SET failtype = 'Bobby' WHERE admin = 'fool'; --

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  28. Re:badg3r5 by mysidia · · Score: 1

    If HP had decided to store their passwords properly, by using Bcrypt or Scrypt with a decently high work factor, we would not be having this discussion... their password could be badg3r5, and it would take at least 5 or 6 hours to crack using a dicitonary search with l33t-speak substitution, so there probably wouldn't be 50+ people having discovered it within a couple days :)

  29. Why Multi-Level Security is So Important by zbobet2012 · · Score: 1

    Your SSH ports should never be exposed to the public internet directly. Generally you want a "jump" box that is a very tight and tied down system (selinux/freebsd) with RSA keys to get in. Just Saying

    1. Re:Why Multi-Level Security is So Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Public Internet? Really? That's all your concerned about? How about any business that requires auditable data access/manipulation and or is concerned in the least about insider threat? How about the ability of the mail clerk to nuke your entire storage array if he gets hacked off and decides to quit and leave a going away present. Outsider threats are the least of your concerns with a hole like this. But thanks for your brilliant security advice.

  30. hp support unresponsive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who would have thought? I pretty much lost my last job over hp products which are extremely poorly designed but sold using fancy expensive PowerPoint presentations shown to idiots in charge, and even worse supported.
    I've never dealt with any other company which had worse clueless and unresponsive support.
    HP openview, nnm, sitescope, and bsm to name a few of the shitty apps.

    1. Re:hp support unresponsive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, HP Openview, which should have been called Instant DOS. On the plus side, after the calls stopped, I knew which company sites had smart administrators. My manager had to field all of the calls, and he WASN'T happy, at all.

  31. Re:badg3r5 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    That looks suspiciously like the sort of simple password my ex-boss used to insist we use for things like Domain administrator accounts on Windows. He was an HP-UX admin at one point - does HP offer a free "find a crappy password" tool?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  32. Huawei backdoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So were the rumors floating around a while back that 80% of networking gear built in China have backdoors and should not be trusted were started by the NSA who demand 100% of all gear have backdoors?

    1. Re:Huawei backdoors? by Agent+ME · · Score: 1

      Huawei ... rumors

      Am I the only one that remembers the actual holes? https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229785/Hackers_reveal_critical_vulnerabilities_in_Huawei_routers_at_Defcon

      (Sure it might not have been an intentional backdoor but still works as one. I don't see why we shouldn't treat security issues like this.)

  33. Uh-oh! by Chmarr · · Score: 5, Funny

    78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 ? Really ? Crap... that's the combination to my luggage.

    1. Re:Uh-oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 ? Really ? Crap... that's the combination to my luggage.

      Damn. that's the combination of my medical marijuana storage facility!

      Small world.

  34. Re:badg3r5 by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity, since it's relevant but perhaps well known to most here but me, are rainbow tables capable of mixed letters and numbers and, say, 8 character pw length already widely available and searchable that fast with ordinary hardware? Are all my passwords (for those places still not accepting passphrases, which is most I deal with) that vulnerable once /etc/shadows is accessed?

    --
    The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
  35. Standard Practice by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You people do realize that for *years* high end disk arrays shipped with *gasp* modems.

    So if a problem occurred the array could 'phone home', open a case, upload logs and tell the vendor a problem took place. Then the vendor could dial in, diagnose the problem and dispatch a CE with the replacement part.

    The techs accessing the arrays over the modems couldn't 'download' the customer data. Yes there were some companies that wouldn't allow the modem to be installed and would often have to sign very long legal documents basically saying that if a hardware failure happened and the vendor wasn't notified, the customer assumed responsibility.

    1. Re:Standard Practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people do realize that for *years* high end disk arrays shipped with *gasp* modems.

      Which the customer had to *knowingly* connect to a phone line, so it's nothing like this case *at all*.

    2. Re:Standard Practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that modems can be *gasp* unplugged?

  36. Re:badg3r5 by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Woo, go badgers! By the way, I'm fairly certain they have little to no presence in Wisconsin. I'm an IT manager in WI and the closest HP support and sales agent is in Illinois or something like that. The password was either randomly generated, related to the meme video, or some other strange source.

  37. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On *NIX, us real admins use apg(1) ref: http://linux.die.net/man/1/apg.

  38. Re:badg3r5 by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    Rainbow Tables: enabling ontopic first posts since 2013.

    if it's that then it's the same as the previous.. unless the badgers post was joke then and now.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  39. Re:badg3r5 by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

    They need to get a snake grip on this before it mushrooms.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  40. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes: http://www.sha1-lookup.com/index.php?q=78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50

  41. Not even common decency by Myria · · Score: 2

    They don't even have the common decency to at least choose a password that isn't already in every rainbow table on the planet.

    If I were to make a back door system, I'd make sure customers knew about it. I'd make it so that a physical switch had to be activated on the device itself in order for the back door to be used. Activating the switch would be plainly obvious, with both physical indicators on the device and in management software, with auditing and warnings that the back door has been activated - and detailed logging of that account logging in. I'd use a 30-character randomly-generated password at least, if not some kind of public-key system, to authenticate the back door login.

    If having to go to the physical device is a pain for you the customer, you can always just leave the switch always activated - you'd still be better off than those badg3r5 at HP.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Not even common decency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the banner in vCenter when you enable SSH on the device?

  42. Re:badg3r5 by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm an IT manager in WI and the closest HP user support and sales agent is in Illinois

    They definitely have people they don't let you talk to, and I'm betting those guys wrote this account into the software.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  43. Re:badg3r5 by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Let's face it, it's far more likely to be "HP1234" than anything as complex as l33t-speak.

    --
    No sig today...
  44. Re:badg3r5 by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait... the SHA1 of "badg3r5" is actually 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50.

    (mushroom, mushroom)

    --
    No sig today...
  45. The LeftHand Path by gishzida · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually for those that administer these systems this is old news...

    I worked for a financial institution that had two four node clusters of storage products [one was SATA based and the other SAS based] which were developed by LeftHand Networks which ran on HP storage servers [DL320s] and Dell hardware as well. Shortly after we installed the clusters, HP bought LeftHand... and the LeftHand OS [then called SAN i/Q] became an HP only product [they dropped support for other hardware]. at that time (2008) this support back door already existed... I had occasion to allow a LeftHand support engineer access to a node which had taken itself off line... and the only way to bring it back was the command line backdoor -- It was part of the LeftHand OS / Cluster Administration software... LeftHand OS is a actually Linux with some custom cluster control / management software.

    The real issue of this account is that it allows a third party access to an interface that the owner of the hardware cannot access-- yep, that is right LeftHand did not trust its clients with access to the command line on their storage server products... you were buying a very complex "Storage Appliance" which *required* a support contract... they were designed as a RAID 5 Cluster. Each Node was set up as a RAID 50 array and then the nodes were then clustered as Raid 5... you could lose a lot of drives and still have a cluster which at the time was something unique on the market

    On the other had (the left one?) the Support Engineers at LeftHand were extremely knowledgeable of their products [It was then a start up and at least in part employee owned] and they were actually concerned and responsive to the needs of their customers... I was sad that the senior Support folks cashed out and moved on when HP bought them...

    When HP took over that all went out the window... by 2009 the front end of the support operation went to Mexico and if you really did need a support engineer they would have the engineer call you [previously the Support number was a direct line to the support engineers]

    Now my recollection was the reason that HP bought them was that LeftHand had a product that was better than HP's offerings at the time... so it should not be surprising that the LeftHand code base evolved / moved into other products...

    The bottom line is that the only way to get access to the command line of a LeftHand node required either SSH access or a modem connection. As an administrator, giving network access to black hats by failing to block access SSH access to sensitive systems from unknown IP space just shows you are an idiot. While I understood the reason for the back door my only real fear of it was that some HP trainee engineer would wipe a cluster and take down the vSphere cluster that the storage cluster supported. The fact that my boss did not know the password made the system safe... since my boss knew nothing about server systems or networks...

    1. Re:The LeftHand Path by MrNemesis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Was about to say the same thing here as well; we had some of the G1 LeftHand units foisted upon us as a "cheap" SAN solution about three years ago, very soon after the HP buyout you mentioned.

        It was probably more likely due to the fact that the salesman over-promised, the company under-spent (seriously, they expected 1Gb NICs to be fast enough to feed over 300 VMs) and the HP techs set them up wrongly (the same RAID50 setup you describe), but we had endless problems with them - performance was predictably rubbish but a single disc failure kept causing the node to reboot. Anyway, because of the continual problems with the LH, we basically had an HP tech dialling into the nodes at least once a week to firefight the issue du jour, simply because certain node failures could only be remedied this way for some inexplicable reason. HP refused to let us know the backdoor, so one of the network team installed a keylogger on the box they dialled into via WebEx to activate the backdoor which captured teh badgers as it went in. So eventually we were able to fix our nodes much quicker, but it was annoying as hell and a cynical person might say the "backdoor admin" mode was only there to justify support contracts. If I was the kind of person to work in LH's marketing department I would have spun this backdoor as a "Cloud-based administrative control and recovery system" because it was slow, overpriced and unreliable.

      Eventually we got a new head of ops who wasn't as much of a yes-man to the director (who by this point was being hauled over the coals for the shitty performance and reliability of his much-vaunted SAN solution) and HP recanted and bought back the LH and sold us a 3par instead (of which performance, support and reliability have been exemplary), and the fact that HP had basically bullied us into a position of "we're going to backdoor you literally and figuratively" was a big factor in negotiating ourselves a good price.

      Based on my experience, I'd avoid anything to do with the LeftHand forever more, the whole support infrastructure was just the putrid icing on top of a very shitty cake.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    2. Re:The LeftHand Path by wolrahnaes · · Score: 0

      As an administrator, giving network access to black hats by failing to block access SSH access to sensitive systems from unknown IP space just shows you are an idiot.

      The part you're missing is that the concern here isn't unknown IP space for the most part. There are probably very few of these things actually exposed to the whole internet, and I agree that the people responsible for any that are need a good smacking. The concern is malicious users or code running within your network. Most networks fit the candy analogy, i.e. hard shell, soft insides. There may be decent external security but once you're inside the perimeter you often have open access to everything.

      As someone else said, this is about the geeky mail clerk who is pissed about something and wants to make an impact when he leaves. An easily accessible backdoor like this could make such an attack nearly untraceable.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  46. Re:badg3r5 by Inda · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I played with MD5 rainbow tables, probably 10-15 years ago, it was an interesting experience.

    I signed up to a website and was given a large block of passwords to crunch. I can't remember my block, but it was full of 7 character alpha-numeric passwords. There were some 6 character password blocks left to crunch, but 99% of them were complete.

    My P3 450 crunched them all weekend and beyond. In return, I was given complete access to the MD5 rainbow tables, through some forms on a website.

    It was a near-instant search.

    Assume that your 8 character passwords are fully hashed. All alpha-numeric passwords 7 characters and under were complete back then.

    Asking Google to search for hashes is also fun.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  47. You miss the point by miles by mha · · Score: 1

    The point is not that such access exists, the point is that it is NOT DOCUMENTED.

  48. Re:badg3r5 by webmistressrachel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh wait... I thought you were joking!

    The SHA1 of "badg3r5" really is "78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50".

    http://www.sha1-lookup.com/index.php?q=78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50

    HP used "badgers" in leet-speak for an NSA backdoor? Smells like they wanted people to know, to me. Maybe they didn't like what they were supposed to be doing, and stuck their tongue firmly in cheek at the implementation stage? "Screw the NSA - we'll give them a back door if they want it so much - and we'll make it so that researchers find it easily, so our business isn't damaged in the long term ("If we wanted you data so much, we'd have done a better job of hiding it - blame your government")

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  49. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agilent is the real descendent of HP, actually, even if they didn't get the corporate name. Anyway, the world changed. IBM's reputation now is not based on their typewriters.

  50. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by PRMan · · Score: 1

    Yep, that's why Eugene Volokh and his dad Vladimir made money selling that security package (yes, that Eugene Volokh, the law professor at UCLA. He was a kid genius programmer.)

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  51. Re:Oh grow up by PRMan · · Score: 2

    You didn't need to swear at the tech guy, manners goes a long way.

    Fuck you.

    You self-important, overblown dick.

    Hypocrite much?

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  52. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Packard was Deputy Secretary of Defence in the late 60s and early 70s, this completely destroys your argument, doesn't it.

    Do Slashdotters not even do a simple Google search before posting?

  53. Obvious? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    Would this fact not have been obvious the first time someone called support?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  54. Really, Myron? by jr88keys · · Score: 2

    "Mister potato head . . . MISTER POTATO HEAD . . . back doors are not secrets!"

  55. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the US doesn't even have a Deputy Secretary of Defence, I'd say your argument is destroyed, chump.

  56. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    977533ed14dd55576b6bf27f869b040b68e39bd7

  57. Re:Oh grow up by Kielistic · · Score: 1

    Troll or just stupid?

    A succinct explanation for people that might be dumb enough to think like that: if all your security can be bypassed remotely with a click of a button then you have no security.

  58. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    HP is not an ethical company. Another example is their printers. They now put small computer chips on every ink cartridge, which allows them to distinguish their cartridges from another brand. Those embedded chips also allow the printer to distinguish a new ink cartridge from one that has been refilled. The result? My $160 OfficeJet printer refuses to work with a non-HP ink cartridge, AND it refuses to work with a refilled cartridge. Luckily, I found a bit of a hack on the Internet - every time I print something, I have to physically go to the printer and open and close the access door for the ink cartridges. That at least lets me use HP cartridges that have been refilled at a local refilled-ink-cartridge store. But the hack doesn't work for refillable cartridges that can be purchased cheaply online.

    Personally, I will never buy ANY HP product again.

  59. Re:badg3r5 by AJH16 · · Score: 1

    Badgers! We don't need no stinkin' badgers! (But apparently we get them anyway.)

    --
    AJ Henderson
  60. Re:badg3r5 by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

    A 7 character password is stupidly short these days. This is just retarded, as a brute force attack against a password that short takes very little time now (few hours at most). Even a 'leetspeak' password at double that length would take much much longer, but still get knocked out in less than a month.

  61. Toggle by phorm · · Score: 1

    So make it something that can be enabled if needed, but is disabled by default. Maybe a special network port that should only be plugged in for recovery or a serial console that requires physical access (both still needing a proper login), or something like a jumper/switch/etc that are off by default by when turned on toggle a recovery console/account.

  62. Sing along! by Alsee · · Score: 1

    78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 (repeat x6)
    Mushroom mushroom!
    78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 (repeat x6)
    A snake a snake! Snake a snake ohhh it's a snake...

    The damn Slashdot Lameness Filter won't let me fully write it out without the (repeat x6). Grrrr.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  63. Re:badg3r5 by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Reality check - What good would having administrative access ONLY to your storage array be to the NSA? The only thing they can do is to screw up your storage.... they won't be able to READ any of your precious data.

    This just underlines the need for a separate administrative network that doesn't have access to your data network.

  64. Re:badg3r5 by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

    Hell have you ever had to call HP support? if it was more complex than "HP001" I'd be surprised,maybe "HP#1" if they wanted to get fancy ;-)

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  65. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bucky did his mom.

  66. Re:badg3r5 by Spamalope · · Score: 2

    You think that's all they have?

    What is the back door for iLO, the HP remote admin for servers? You don't think they'd put one in the storage but leave out the servers do you?

  67. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I administer HP p4500g2 mulit-site SAN clusters where I work and they're wonderfull. I saw this "backdoor" in action once when hard drive firmware bricked an entire shelf. I am very thankful HP added this functionality.

    I also believe the unnamed Register source has it wrong. Rebooting specific nodes should never "cripple the cluster". I could spend all day rebooting nodes with zero downtime. That's the reason HP has you install failover managers on local ESX(i) storage.

    If you properly implement VLANs like you should why would this be a concern? What am I missing?

    I'm not an HP advocate but I feel this story is misleading.

  68. Password Hint by guruevi · · Score: 1
    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  69. Re:badg3r5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, I bet they just really like this song

    CAPTCHA: badgers (What are the odds?)

  70. Re:badg3r5 by 1s44c · · Score: 1
  71. Re:badg3r5 by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    It was the first link on google when searching for the hash. Not even salted, well done HP.

  72. Re:badg3r5 by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    A NSA backdoor would let you get at the data. This is a support backdoor.

  73. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    Well he said HP3000 servers so about then, yes.

  74. So I'm not the only one who... by thegreatbob · · Score: 0

    ...threw that hash down a sha1 database before I RTFA... 78a7ecf065324604540ad3c41c3bb8fe1d084c50 SHA1: badg3r5

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  75. Returns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect this might have something to do with returns. Were I work we have a way to authenticate to a data storage system as the manufacturer (pretty sure it is cert signature based, not just badg3r5). At that point we can tell the system to revert to default settings, this will allow us full access to the device, though the data on it will have been obliterated (cryptographically). We do this so that we actually have the ability to refurbish them, otherwise they would basically be scrap.

  76. "attempted to contact HP" by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHA. I work at HP, doing enterprise customer support. I have five different companies I support, and have at least 12 different "bosses" I report to. I can totally understand why they never heard from HP. I submit issues with various Citrix portals, access to exchange boxes, etc, and never hear anything either. The bureaucracy there is so thick it makes Brazil look organized. I've been waiting on access to RSA admin accounts for over seven months now...just when some progress seems to be happening someone goes on vacation, someone moves to a new position, etc...and the whole process has to be restarted, only to stall again because the paperwork runs into itself where it was already sitting! I'm still using my lead's authentication...which we're all pretty sure is a violation of NERC's security policy but no one cares. We have so many outsourced business parts that it's become a game of bouncing tickets around to avoid SLA violations, different companies ignoring our tickets until they are almost an SLA violation, then assigning them back to us and not telling us, because we don't have access to whatever system that notifies people about ticket re-assignment. Every day I have tickets I submitted a month or so ago come back to me with notes like "not our department, please re-assign"...and the tickets have gone from me to their t2 pool, then their t2 pool sits on it and then sends it to a (seemingly mostly random) department who sits on it until the last second because it's "not their job" and they assign it to "misroute", then the computer sits on it for a few days and auto-assigns it back to the originating person (me). They should go back to t2, since all I mostly do is re-assign it to them...and the whole time the customer STILL ISN'T RESOLVED. Gods forbid actually giving me any access to fix these issues myself...even when I'm supposed to be able to, half the time I feel I'm breaking the law by using someone else's credentials to log into whatever and do it. I wouldn't be surprised if their request is still slowly winding it's way through a dozen different departments so that HP's response will be "compliant" with company PR releases.

  77. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by bonehead · · Score: 2
  78. cue(?) sky net comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when (not "if") skynet becomes self-aware it will require exponentially more storage.
    a certain person which i will not name was sent back thru time to insert this back door so that
    when the need arises, humankind can put a nasty dent into sky nets memory storage ... or
    maybe "they" just need a failsafe for certain "nasty" data than can be plausible denied.

  79. Exactly! by Zynder · · Score: 1

    That is why experienced and highly intelligent bosses, like myself, use 1 2 3 4 5!

    1. Re:Exactly! by johnnick · · Score: 1

      1 2 3 4 5 - That's the combination to my luggage!

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data."
  80. Re:Eh? - They were ahead in the 64 bit race by colablizzard · · Score: 1

    HP's doomed Itanium was _ahead_ in the 64 bit race. It was one of the first 64 bit processors that gained reasonable market share.
    The true reason for its demise is the lack of backwards compatibility. They decided to fix everything in one go: 64 bit, increased execution parallelism without programmer effort etc.
    Years later AMD came up with x64 that was compatible with x32 and Intel quickly hoped on board as it saw the marked liked backward compatibility.

    I have seen the Itaniums, if the program was slightly optimized, it would beat the daylights out of other architectures in terms of performance. Too bad that didn't count.

  81. Re:Eh? - Laptop serviceability huh? by colablizzard · · Score: 1

    Nevermind the fact that their laptops are the least-service-friendly machines I've ever laid a screwdriver on.

    Are you confusing HP with Apple?

  82. A separate LeftHand OS? by allan_small · · Score: 1

    Obviously it was so they did not know what their RightHand was doing.

  83. Re:HPSupport acounts are not new, but hiding them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he was trying to be funny. See "Defence" vs "Defense" and the mimicking of the haughty tone of the parent.

  84. badg3r5 by muskyhunter · · Score: 1

    The irony is that Badger5 is a Wisconsin Lottery game. http://wilottery.com/lottogames/badger5.aspx