Slashdot Mirror


The Sony Pictures Hack Was Even Worse Than Everyone Thought

An anonymous reader writes with today's installment of Sony hack news. "It's time to take a moment of silence for Sony Pictures, because more startling revelations about leaked information just came out and employees are starting to panic. BuzzFeed raked through some 40 gigabytes of data and found everything from medical records to unreleased scripts. This is probably the worst corporate hack in history. Meanwhile, Fusion's Kevin Roose is reporting on what exactly happened at Sony Pictures when the hack went down. The hack was evidently so extensive that even the company gym had to shut down. And once the hackers started releasing the data, people started 'freaking out,' one employee said. That saddest part about all of this is that the very worst is probably still to come. Hackers say they stole 100 terabytes of data in total. If only 40 gigabytes contained all of this damning information, just imagine what 100 terabytes contains."

348 of 528 comments (clear)

  1. ... Everything? by itsenrique · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.

    1. Re:... Everything? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they got the accounts system, (which seems likely, given that Sony seems to have put every subsystem on the same network, employee medical records on the same network as raw film files) then any electronic receipt for purchase of items for office lunch rooms could include the model numbers for the sinks.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:... Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I know them too. its "SYSTEMD".

    3. Re:... Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even the 3D models of the kitchen sinks.

    4. Re:... Everything? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Why would Sony have employee medical records? Not likely legal if in the USA.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    5. Re: ... Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why are breaches being marketed so hard, what's the REAL agenda?

    6. Re:... Everything? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Doctor's notes for sick days, drug tests, smoking cessation programs and company provided vaccination records all seem likely.

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

      I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.

      I could start feeling a little bit sorry for Sony but no. Such a shit company deserves this and more.

      I agree. After the PSN hack years ago with all the users information being taken, you'd think they would double down on security, and not keep all their eggs in the same basket. They are a big target that should never tempt fate.

    8. Re:... Everything? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't forget disputed insurance claims, and new employee paperwork with medical and life insurance applications with records of pre-existing conditions.

    9. Re: ... Everything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's bad, but I remember when
      they released a root kit disguised as a music Compact Disc.

    10. Re:... Everything? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Certainly legal. There's nobody who can't hold your medial information. .

      Wrong.

      HIPAA regulations are pretty strict about this. The company I work for does everything through a 3rd party because of this.

        When I told my boss I had to have time off for surgery I was given the phone number for the 3rd party company and they handled everything. They contacted my doctor and obtained all the necessary medical information to verify that I was off work for a legitimate medical reason. When I was ready to return to work, I went to a doctor who examined me and then reported to the 3rd party company that I was OK. The third party company then notified my employer that I was OK to return to work. At no time was my employer ever given any medical information about me.

    11. Re: ... Everything? by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      Why are breaches being marketed so hard, what's the REAL agenda?

      It should be serving as a wake-up call to companies that it is time to take data security seriously. Incredibly, it seems to be falling on deaf ears. I guess it's easier to ignore the issue.

    12. Re:... Everything? by matbury · · Score: 1

      We only hear about the big public mega hacks. There's a steady river of this stuff flowing into the databases of criminal organisations and bought and sold in bulk every day. Sony have been caught out spectacularly in the past too. It looks like they're unable to defend themselves against it.

    13. Re:... Everything? by flink · · Score: 1

      Why would Sony have employee medical records? Not likely legal if in the USA.

      It's not unheard of for employers to be self-insured, in which case the employer is itself a HIPAA covered entity. This might be true even if a third party like Blue Cross administers the plan.

    14. Re:... Everything? by apraetor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your employer could have held the information, but every system involved with access & storage would have to meet physical and electronic security requirements. Outsourcing is cheaper, and a business structured around PHI-compliance would have an interest in minimizing their liability.

    15. Re: ... Everything? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so far I haven't seen any real number about how much the breach actually _cost_ in money to Sony. some extra work for some staff sure.. but they're on salary anyways.

      so why not ignore the issue? it's not like the breach apparently has lead to documents enabling modchips on ps4 or something like that either.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    16. Re: ... Everything? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      How much would security cost? To do it right?

      Not a lot, actually. The most important aspect of real security is compartmentalization—ensuring that you don't have any high-value individual targets:

      • Every desktop has individual credentials for the local user, and except when unavoidable, you don't grant any network users (LDAP, etc.) any access. Every desktop has a separate external hard drive used for backup.
      • For shared projects, you have project servers, one per major project. Just like desktop machines, access is granted only to people working on the project. It has its own credentials, and it is backed up separately—ideally to an off-site server, and stored encrypted on that server.
      • Every email not involving a mailing list is sent encrypted, so that it never exists in a decrypted form on a centralized server.

      None of those things should cost significant amounts of money. They're just simple policy decisions. And with a scheme like the above, you typically wouldn't see attacks like this being successful in the absence of a massive zero-day remote kernel exploit.

      If you want added security, you could write a piece of software in a few minutes that logs all traffic by IP address and port, then compares it with traffic requested by the user's web browser (by continuously reading the browser's history and uploading any new locations every couple of minutes), and flags anything that doesn't match. Automatically ignore any automatic updates by software that your IT department installed, plus any known addresses owned by your OS manufacturer. If you see any other traffic, shut off the port immediately, and contact the user to verify that the traffic is expected. If so, whitelist that IP and port after verifying that the software the user is running is legit.

      Finally, add mail server rules that sanity check any email attachments, and similar rules for your HTTP proxy. If someone receives a disk image, ZIP archive, or other archive, extract the contents and ensure that there are no executables within it. If there are, allow the attachment if the executable is signed by a trusted authority. Otherwise, store a copy of the attachment in a secure location, and either filter it from the mail archive or refuse to send the final packet of data to the web browser. Flag it for review.

      Like the two guys running away from the grizzly bear, security doesn't have to be flawless; it just has to be robust enough to convince the attacker to go after an easier target.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re: ... Everything? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      That we need GOVERNMENT action!

    18. Re: ... Everything? by icebike · · Score: 2

      Some parts of this can be done even cheaper.

      Don't hook up enough external bandwidth such that someone can copy 100 terabytes of data without anyone noticing. Even at gigibit Ethernet speed that takes an incredibly long time to copy that much data.

      Sure, they have to move high-def movie clips, maybe even entire movies around between their various sites. But anyone stealing that much data would have to be INSIDE their network with a suitcase full of terabyte drives, or outside their network with a couple months to invest in the project.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re: ... Everything? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chances are they do have high bandwidth links for copying high resolution video files around, and that pipe will not be fully utilised all the time, there would be plenty of downtime when there was a lot of bandwidth available for exfiltrating data, and because high bandwidth usage is not uncommon it could easily go unnoticed. It doesn't matter if it takes a long time, so long as it hasn't been noticed you can sit on there for weeks or months gradually copying stuff.

      Also in one of the other stories about this hack i read that they had access for over a year.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    20. Re:... Everything? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't he notice when you came back as a woman?

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    21. Re: ... Everything? by SuperDre · · Score: 1

      Well, security is all nice, but there are always systemadministrators which have access to everything.. And in this case it's certain, they got help from inside, and then it's a lot harder to do good security..

    22. Re: ... Everything? by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's the ISP's fault. Haven't you heard?

    23. Re: ... Everything? by dremspider · · Score: 1

      Sony's most profitable division is selling life insurance. It could be from that. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013...

    24. Re: ... Everything? by dremspider · · Score: 1

      Sony's most profitable division is selling life insurance. It could be from that. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013...

    25. Re:... Everything? by Eosi · · Score: 2
      Sigh, wrong... HIPAA is for "Covered Entities".... So unless you work for a medical profession, insurance processor, etc. then your work is not covered by HIPAA. For everyone else that data is called PII. Now laws protect PII, but HIPAA is not one non-covered entities.

      Working in Security, and being a former HIPAA Security officer, I hear that "excuse" all the time by people, especially outside auditors like PWC (They should know this shit right). The also try to push PCI on companies that do not process credit cards.

      Sony could have that information, as part of FMLA requires you have that data, also some states (though mostly a company issue to cover their bases) requires medical notes if you miss three or more days of work, as "proof" you were sick. While for the doctor its HIPAA, for work its PII. This is to protect the company if you were to sue.

      Potentially they would have it due to work related accidents, limited work requirements (such as someone with lifting restrictions), actor/actress requests, etc..

      Just my two cents

    26. Re: ... Everything? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      If they'd had traffic shaping in place, there's no way anyone would have got 100 terrabytes of anything out of the company ;-)

    27. Re: ... Everything? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      If they'd had traffic shaping in place, there's no way anyone would have got 100 terrabytes of anything out of the company ;-)

      And no way to have automated offsite backups either.

      If I were interested in a company's data, gaining access to backups and backup servers is where I'd initially focus anyhow. You get the data from a multitude of machines without having to access all of them.
      Easiest are probably a fairly common corporate backup system where the policies are set on the server for convenience, so if you gain access to the server, you can tell it to drop encryption and automatically store a copy at $remote_host. Instant pot of gold.

    28. Re:... Everything? by suso · · Score: 1

      Why would Sony have employee medical records? Not likely legal if in the USA.

      Sony is big enough they may have their own company owned medical facility for employees. My last employeer had one.

    29. Re:... Everything? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      so you are wishing identity theft for the employees? I hate sony as much as the next person, but would never wish identity theft on the employees.

    30. Re:... Everything? by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      People blame silly decisions on "PCI" all the time as well. I'm not a QSA but I do a lot of work in payments and took my last small company through PA-DSS level 1, so I've got some background there.

      Having said that, anyone who touches a credit card should generally be in a PCI scope - even if you're a small mom-n-pop bookstore that takes Stripe. The worst abuse that I've seen though is trying to convince people that they should go all the way to "level one" compliance. The levels are based on your processing volume, with 4 being the lowest and 1 the highest. There's a self-abasement questionnaire, level 4 takes about 15 minutes, 2 takes all of 30 minutes (each with a truly trivial systems scan if you're doing work on the internet). Level 1, on the other hand, is designed for people staggering amounts of money and requires expensive on-site audits.

      Like premium gas, there's no reason to level up beyond where you need to be except for silly marketing purposes - yet more and more people who trust their consultant advisors are doing so, because its a relatively easy way for consultants to make bank.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    31. Re:... Everything? by weiserfireman · · Score: 2

      There is another huge loophole in HIPAA. It only applies if your company does electronic billing.

      I am a volunteer with a fire department. The local ambulance agency was shocked when they were told that the fire department EMT's were not covered by the HIPAA law. Our fire department doesn't bill for our services, so HIPAA didn't apply to us. We protect peoples privacy, because it is the right thing to do, but have no legal exposure, if someone accidentally says something (at least exposure under HIPAA laws, there may be other risks)

    32. Re:... Everything? by Eosi · · Score: 1
      Oh, I agree, if you touch one card a year, and are a business, you need to ensure you are PCI compliant.

      My comment was in reference to PWC trying to tell a company that did not touch cards are all, that they needed to be PCI and HIPAA compliant "Due to HR potentially having Medical data in employees files"...

      I have worked with QSA's from 5 different organizations, including one that became an ISA for the company I worked at. None of them could agree what the PCI rules meant, much less how to meet them. Only One of them I would trust to do my review, but even then, my company told us to "Only answer what he asks, with short phrases, so he does not find issues"..... HELLO, they are there to help you prevent issues or protect you in the case of a breach (Hello, how was Target compliant with AV that was from 2007 and had been EOL for over three years?).

      Sorry, I digress..... Compliance is important, but only when applied correctly. Security is even more important than compliance... but Compliance is NOT Security..... Never will be.

    33. Re:... Everything? by Eosi · · Score: 1
      Sorta, there are some other parts that get ignored. But I have heard this before.

      So HIPAA *SHOULD* apply to you *IF* you have to keep the medical record of the people you treat or transport. Likely you do not keep the record but provide it to the hospital, so would be fine (that or shred it when returning to the barn / fire house). In that case, the "mini security rule" part of the Privacy rules, would be all that applies to you.

      At least that was the case when I was doing HIPAA (moved on to other things, while I still know it, focus on ISO, RFM, PCI, SOX, etc. now).

    34. Re: ... Everything? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Sony has an infirmary on the studio lot, there's always a doctor and paramedics on staff.

      They respond to all accidents on the lot and they come out of someone faints, stuff like that. I've gotten flu shots there.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    35. Re:... Everything? by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Plus any accidents that may have happened on set. Physicals for any actors and stuntmen.

      --
      XDInd
    36. Re:... Everything? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It always amazes me that the wrong post gets modded higher because the wrong person is so certain he's right.

      It's done that way because the HIPAA consultants lie. No more. No less.

      When I worked in that space, I had COPA and HIPAA printed out and on me at all times. The part of HIPAA that was highlighted was the part noting "this should not be construed to mean encryption is required" Because I never met a HIPAA consultant who didn't insist that encryption is required.

      They lie. All of them. The worse they make COPA and HIPAA sound, the more money they make. Consultants are scammers. At least every one of them I ever dealt with on compliance. Just because your company was sold the wrong thing by a scammer doesn't mean that's in any way required by law.

    37. Re:... Everything? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      They hacked the Gibson and downloaded the garbage file. 99.999% of it is garbage.

    38. Re:... Everything? by amber_of_luxor · · Score: 1

      The only reason your company doesn't have your medical information, is becuase they don't want it.
      HIPPA is best described as "your medical data is legally available to all and sundery, upon request."

      HIPPA does zero for actual patient privacy, but a lot for security theatre, and medical theatre. It also provides an easy way for some people to make a lot of money, doing absolutely nothing.

      --
      Wind Beneath Thy Wings
    39. Re:... Everything? by syn3rg · · Score: 1

      60GB useful (read painful) data, 940GB of cat videos.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    40. Re: ... Everything? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Every desktop has individual credentials for the local user, and except when unavoidable, you don't grant any network users (LDAP, etc.) any access.

      This means no central provisioning of user accounts/etc. That is a non-starter in any big company. Anytime anybody needs access to another PC you have to send out an IT guy to grant access. Oh, and you need to keep track of admin passwords on 47,000 PCs somewhere, since there is no network account with access to all of them. Better keep it on paper too, otherwise you just created one of those high-value targets you are trying to avoid creating. Oh, and since you have 2000 support staff who need access to some of those PCs, expect a lot of copying and mailing of password lists, of course on paper again. Maybe when somebody needs help the guy who shows up happens to have the current password for that PC. Of course, forget changing those passwords regularly, since they aren't centralized.

      Every desktop has a separate external hard drive used for backup.

      Oh good - so that when the building catches on fire you lose the backup too. If the PC doesn't contain anything valuable, it doesn't need backup. If it does need backup, it needs something better than an external hard drive. Security isn't just about denying access to strangers - it is also about ensuring access to those who need it.

      For shared projects, you have project servers, one per major project. Just like desktop machines, access is granted only to people working on the project. It has its own credentials, and it is backed up separately—ideally to an off-site server, and stored encrypted on that server.

      This is a big company. Everything is a shared project, and everything needs all that backup anyway. Now the user has to remember multiple sets of credentials since they need a different password for every thing they work on since there are no network credentials in your firewalled paradise. Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise. Looks like you need a dedicated backup box for each one too, since we don't want to have one backup box with credentials to thousands of servers. I guess the guys who change the tapes keep a big paper list of all the backup server passwords. Oh, and I guess you buy an LTO tape drive for each server too. :)

      Every email not involving a mailing list is sent encrypted, so that it never exists in a decrypted form on a centralized server.

      And of course there are no central credentials of any kind, and likely no way to recover lost keys for all those encrypted emails. Or are you going to tape a flash drive to each employee's paper personnel file or print an ascii-armored key? Oh, and presumably the user won't have any way to change his encryption key outside of your control, not that you can remotely connect to his PC to check in any automated fashion since again there aren't any kinds of centralized network credentials. I guess the email key auditor can pull out his photocopy of the client admin account log and check them one at a time. Oh, and good luck if somebody figures that out and puts a keylogger on his PC thus getting a copy of the entire admin password database.

      None of those things should cost significant amounts of money. They're just simple policy decisions. And with a scheme like the above, you typically wouldn't see attacks like this being successful in the absence of a massive zero-day remote kernel exploit.

      There is a reason that no big company has policies like these. Sure, it will make life a lot harder on anybody breaking in, but it will staying on top of all your PCs almost impossible. Oh, and the fact that you can't do an automated security audit of all your PCs makes that zero-day exploit far more likely - or rather the six-month-old exploit that you thought you patched six months ago

    41. Re: ... Everything? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Also in one of the other stories about this hack i read that they had access for over a year.

      Interesting. That points in a direction entirely separate from the "North Korea did it because they hate 'The Interview' film" narrative...

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    42. Re:... Everything? by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 1

      They also could've let the employees use their servers to back up important information. An extra perk for working at Sony Films, or whatever it's called.

    43. Re: ... Everything? by zentigger · · Score: 1

      Security is not ever easy.

      Even if you know it well.

      There is a constant balancing act between accessibility and security and the two are most often mutually exclusive: one comes at the expense of the other. And even if you have everything locked down tight, it only takes a minute for it to all fall apart due to some exploitable code that is beyond the ken of all but a very few people on the planet.

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    44. Re: ... Everything? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Every desktop has individual credentials for the local user, and except when unavoidable, you don't grant any network users (LDAP, etc.) any access.

      This means no central provisioning of user accounts/etc. That is a non-starter in any big company.

      Lots of big companies do this. It isn't a non-starter except in the minds of people who have always done it in a particular way.

      Anytime anybody needs access to another PC you have to send out an IT guy to grant access.

      Why would anyone ever need access to another PC? Each employee should have a machine, and nobody else should be touching it unless that employee leaves the company, in which case the exit interview should require them to set their password to something and give it to their manager. So the only time you have to send an IT person out to grant access is when an employee dies suddenly.

      Oh good - so that when the building catches on fire you lose the backup too. If the PC doesn't contain anything valuable, it doesn't need backup. If it does need backup, it needs something better than an external hard drive. Security isn't just about denying access to strangers - it is also about ensuring access to those who need it.

      Fires are exceptionally rare, and the truly high-value assets should be on servers, which as I mentioned, should be backed up off-site, in an individually encrypted fashion. You can do this for desktops, too, if you'd prefer, but in practice, this really isn't needed.

      This is a big company. Everything is a shared project, and everything needs all that backup anyway. Now the user has to remember multiple sets of credentials since they need a different password for every thing they work on since there are no network credentials in your firewalled paradise.

      There's no reason you can't use the same password. That's really no different than using a shared credential, security-wise, except that a shared credential database represents a single server that you can target to obtain information for all servers, whereas per-server credential databases contain a smaller subset of accounts, which means that cracking one machine and stealing its password database will gain you access to fewer machines than cracking that central password server would.

      Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise.

      Why not? There's nothing preventing a VM's hard drive from being encrypted, and if somebody gets and keeps kernel access to a server long enough to find the keys in memory, you're in deep crap anyway.

      Looks like you need a dedicated backup box for each one too, since we don't want to have one backup box with credentials to thousands of servers. I guess the guys who change the tapes keep a big paper list of all the backup server passwords. Oh, and I guess you buy an LTO tape drive for each server too. :)

      Nope. I specifically said that you should encrypt the backup data. The backups can all be stored remotely on a single server, or pushed to a single tape drive, just so long as the data is encrypted by the machine that is being backed up. That's the only way to prevent your backup system from being a single attack surface that gains you access to everything.

      And of course there are no central credentials of any kind, and likely no way to recover lost keys for all those encrypted emails.

      Realistically, why would you ever need to do that? Any internal email of value is, by definition, in the account of more than one person. The chances of an entire department dying in a catastrophic accident are very, very low.

      There is a reason that no big company has policies like these.

      The la

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    45. Re: ... Everything? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "Like the two guys running away from the grizzly bear, security doesn't have to be flawless; it just has to be robust enough to convince the attacker to go after an easier target." According to the North Korea Did It theory, though, Sony was the one and only target, they weren't going to be discouraged and go over to Paramount.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    46. Re: ... Everything? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      When I was an admin I used to setup and account called 'backup_svc' with full admin rights and read everyone's email. Quite unethical I know, but ultimately gave up on this because people's personal lives really are fucking boring as batshit. Even after you find nude selfies, office affairs and stories of the previous week's drug binge, it all becomes uninteresting really quickly. Private information is vastly over-rated.

    47. Re: ... Everything? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Anytime anybody needs access to another PC you have to send out an IT guy to grant access.

      Why would anyone ever need access to another PC? Each employee should have a machine, and nobody else should be touching it unless that employee leaves the company, in which case the exit interview should require them to set their password to something and give it to their manager. So the only time you have to send an IT person out to grant access is when an employee dies suddenly.

      You have a kiosk on a manufacturing floor. Do you propose having 14 kiosks at each location in the event that there are 14 different employees who have to use it? Or are you suggesting that employees should carry laptops around all the time? Not every employee works at a desk.

      And what about support calls? IT workers may need access to lots of PCs, especially since your solution precludes the use of any kind of push-driven automated software management system.

      Oh good - so that when the building catches on fire you lose the backup too. If the PC doesn't contain anything valuable, it doesn't need backup. If it does need backup, it needs something better than an external hard drive. Security isn't just about denying access to strangers - it is also about ensuring access to those who need it.

      Fires are exceptionally rare, and the truly high-value assets should be on servers, which as I mentioned, should be backed up off-site, in an individually encrypted fashion. You can do this for desktops, too, if you'd prefer, but in practice, this really isn't needed.

      You cut out the part I responded to. Are you backing up the workstations or not? If not, why do you need all those backup external hard drives at each workstation? If you are, then how are you protecting them against fire? Or are you proposing just spending lots of money on the appearance of having backups, without providing actual data security?

      This is a big company. Everything is a shared project, and everything needs all that backup anyway. Now the user has to remember multiple sets of credentials since they need a different password for every thing they work on since there are no network credentials in your firewalled paradise.

      There's no reason you can't use the same password. That's really no different than using a shared credential, security-wise, except that a shared credential database represents a single server that you can target to obtain information for all servers, whereas per-server credential databases contain a smaller subset of accounts, which means that cracking one machine and stealing its password database will gain you access to fewer machines than cracking that central password server would.

      Ok, so instead of breaking into your AD server or whatever with credentials for every employee in the company, you break into the self-service HR website which has credentials for every employee in the company?

      Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise.

      Why not? There's nothing preventing a VM's hard drive from being encrypted, and if somebody gets and keeps kernel access to a server long enough to find the keys in memory, you're in deep crap anyway.

      I thought your whole point was to not have shared credentials that can be used to expand access beyond a single box. If you're going to run the boxes in VMs, then the hypervisor has privileged access to many boxes. If you want to be able to move VMs around in a cluster (which is how just about everybody does it) then that basically means you have a single point of access into every VM in your company. At that point, why not actually take advantage of centralized administration, since you've already denied yourself the benefits of a distributed model?

    48. Re:... Everything? by kloro2006 · · Score: 1

      sink stoppers even?

    49. Re:... Everything? by kloro2006 · · Score: 1

      clap tests? who knows.

    50. Re: ... Everything? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You have a kiosk on a manufacturing floor. Do you propose having 14 kiosks at each location in the event that there are 14 different employees who have to use it? Or are you suggesting that employees should carry laptops around all the time? Not every employee works at a desk.

      That's certainly a fair argument, at least in the context of relatively low-tech parts of certain businesses. However, it is also unlikely that such systems will have vast amounts of intellectual property that anyone would want to steal. In the context of a business that makes movies, by contrast, it is perfectly reasonable for every employee to have a laptop.

      And what about support calls? IT workers may need access to lots of PCs, especially since your solution precludes the use of any kind of push-driven automated software management system.

      Teach your employees to actually maintain their systems properly, and that ceases to be an issue. If your employees can't handle that, they shouldn't be working in a highly tech-centric business. Again, we're not talking about a factory floor here. We're talking about people who are using computers to create movies.

      You cut out the part I responded to. Are you backing up the workstations or not? If not, why do you need all those backup external hard drives at each workstation? If you are, then how are you protecting them against fire? Or are you proposing just spending lots of money on the appearance of having backups, without providing actual data security?

      Yes, you should back up the workstations, but not necessarily in a way that would guard against fires. The overwhelming majority of data loss is caused by either failure of hard drives or unlucky random data corruption that eats large swaths of your directory structure. By comparison, fires are orders of magnitude less common, so it isn't entirely out of the question to simply conclude that this known risk isn't worth protecting against, particularly if most of your really critical information lives on servers anyway, and your workstations only contain recent changes to projects or whatever. If the cost of a loss times the probability of that loss is less than the cost of protection, you're better off skipping the fireproofing. It all depends on how many days or weeks of effort you would lose if you did have a fire.

      Ok, so instead of breaking into your AD server or whatever with credentials for every employee in the company, you break into the self-service HR website which has credentials for every employee in the company?

      You can partially mitigate that risk by using email addresses as the username on the HR website. You can further mitigate that by telling users to use different passwords on confidential project servers than they use for other purposes (including the HR website).

      Suppose you need to defend yourself in a court case and an email between two employees who are no longer with the company sent 2 years ago is important? Or suppose you laid off half a department? Your solution is analogous to just letting everybody just use their gmail accounts to do work - no centralized access to email.

      What would you do if their only communication were in the form of physical meetings? There's really no difference. And there's also a decent chance that the continued existence of that email evidence will get you into trouble, in which case you're better off if the evidence no longer exists. At some point, it becomes a bit of a coin toss. With that said, there's nothing inherently preventing you from having central archives, so long as public key encryption is used to limit access to the data in that archive, and that the private key is kept in a safe place (ideally, offline).

      Great. Where do you keep all the backup decryption keys? How do you test to ensure that the list is always current,

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    51. Re: ... Everything? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oops. Missed one.

      Oh, you need to have one dedicated hardware box for every project - no VMs in your IT paradise.

      Why not? There's nothing preventing a VM's hard drive from being encrypted, and if somebody gets and keeps kernel access to a server long enough to find the keys in memory, you're in deep crap anyway.

      I thought your whole point was to not have shared credentials that can be used to expand access beyond a single box. If you're going to run the boxes in VMs, then the hypervisor has privileged access to many boxes. If you want to be able to move VMs around in a cluster (which is how just about everybody does it) then that basically means you have a single point of access into every VM in your company. At that point, why not actually take advantage of centralized administration, since you've already denied yourself the benefits of a distributed model?

      The purpose was to limit what an outside attacker can do, not what an employee can do. For protecting against outside attackers, you should be able to largely mitigate threats to the hypervisor by not configuring any network connections in the host OS itself (except while patching remote zero-day holes in the kernel or the hypervisor), and by strictly limiting what people can download and run while running in the host OS to... well basically nothing except the VM software.

      You can't do nearly as much to prevent attacks by your employees, but with that said, the more confidential the content, the less appropriate a VM would be, and the more locally controlled the server should be, with fewer people having access. Giving access to random IT people significantly increases your exposure.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Over what time interval? by man_ls · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How long was the attack taking place? What kind of Internet connection does Sony Pictures have? To ex-filtrate 100 TB of data is going to take a while, no matter how you cut it. My guess is that number is significantly inflated.

    1. Re:Over what time interval? by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you hit a server or many of them you'll get a fair bit better speed than if you hit a private person with american public tire shitternet. And as long as you're no detected it really doesn't matter if it takes 24 hours or 100 days.

    2. Re:Over what time interval? by 8086 · · Score: 1

      Even 40 gigs is not small for that matter. The hackers could've attacked multiple machines in multiple locations, and used a botnet/"cloud".

    3. Re:Over what time interval? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Informative

      What kind of Internet connection does Sony Pictures have? To ex-filtrate 100 TB of data is going to take a while, no matter how you cut it. My guess is that number is significantly inflated.

      Who says this was done over the internet?

      Send in a North Korean agent posing as a janitor to jack into the network from the inside. Plug in a device, let it download, then come get it the next night.

    4. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The big question is, how did they not notice that much data going out regardless of time frame.

    5. Re:Over what time interval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      40 gigabytes will fit on a single blu-ray disc. Sony, in particular, has no shortage of blu-ray discs.

    6. Re:Over what time interval? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      My internet connection at home is 100mbps = 12MB/s.

      = 43GB/hr
      = 1TB / day
      = 100 TB in 100 days.

      Spread that out across 10 machines and you're looking at a little over a week.

      An uncompressed 4k film in DPX is 10bit * 4096 x 2214 * 3 = 32 MB / frame * 24 fps * 60 seconds/minute * 60minutes/hour = 2.63 TB per *version*. Then there are Subtitled and Closed caption versions. A single film often has 10TB. They might have just stolen 10-20 films. And those servers presumably are on very fast connections capable of remote review over something like cinesync.

    7. Re:Over what time interval? by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trouble is they're all marked up with Sharpie around the outside...

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    8. Re:Over what time interval? by desertfool · · Score: 2

      Exactly my thought. You may be completely freaking clueless, but seeing 100TB leaving will leave a mark. Hell, I noticed a very minor routing (inbound) issue between ISP's in netflow data a few years ago just by looking at graphs.

      Wow. Just wow.

      --
      Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
    9. Re:Over what time interval? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      What do you mean? An African or European year?

    10. Re:Over what time interval? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      For one thing, that is likely the storage size, not the transfer size which is likely going to be way less due to compression.
      And if it was smuggled out through the machines that send backups offsite, it might not register. Those handle huge amounts of data as is, so a small increase over a few days might not be noticed.
      Or through one of the servers they use for external resources to access movies. A raw data download of all the segments shot for a film can easily be terabytes.

    11. Re: Over what time interval? by reanjr9417 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sony Pictures is likely sending out huge amounts of data as it is. It's the movie industry. Their daily backups could be 100 TiB.

    12. Re:Over what time interval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because upload is often less monitored by most network "experts"/"admins" because people don't yell at them over that being slow. And if they are hacked as bad as it sounds like, they could have faked up the reports to IT or simply shut them out.

    13. Re:Over what time interval? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Obvisouly a while but its not out of the question. Sony pissed off North Korea several months ago when they announced The Interview. If it takes a week to download ~100TB at ~1Gbps then a couple weeks/months is all they need for all that data.

      Agreed, but, isn't someone monitoring internet usage? 100 TB being downloaded even in a week to 10 days is an increase of multiple terabytes a day over whatever they normally use. One would think that would cause a spike on a graph somewhere, that someone ought to have investigated.

      I've been hosting websites for years, and the only time I was ever compromised (one server turned into a spam mail server -- how embarrassing) I caught it almost immediately by a sudden spike in the network traffic.

      As someone else said, since Sony has been compromised before, it just seems amazing that there wasn't some higher level of scrutiny.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    14. Re: Over what time interval? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. And consider that it may well have been taken out on a bunch of physical drives rather than the Internet. Pretty much everyone is saying this has some component of physical access - likely from a disgruntled employee. If the person or persons downloaded a couple of hundred GB every day to some hard drives, likely no one would notice. So it likely didn't happen all at once.

      IF this is true, it makes the timing suspicious for NK involvement. If this had been ongoing for say, 6 months, it was well before the Kim could get his panties in a bunch over the Interview. But what do I know?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Over what time interval? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've heard before that in high end movies they push a lot of data around, each day they upload the raw footage to their studio back home which edits it and makes dailies that the filming crew review to make sure it comes out as they want before sets are torn down and actors leave for other jobs. They could do it on location but it's hard to get the people and equipment to follow you around and besides that way you can take advantage of time zone differences. I think I saw that in the LotR extras, Peter Jackson was filming in New Zealand, they edited in the US and it was ready for review next morning.

      Consider that 50GB of an actual BluRay has probably been many terabytes of footage because of lack of compression, cameras rolling before and after scenes and many takes. I'm quite seriously suggesting that 100TB might not be that insanely much for a company rigged to handle huge data flows on a regular basis.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Over what time interval? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The big question is, how did they not notice that much data going out regardless of time frame."

      . Sony's big as fuck. From the PSN to their streaming services to their daily/nightly/hourly backups, that data transfer is *HUGE*. My old H2OFarm job saw us pushing 20TB raw data DAILY, and half of that was high-def video from my remote feeds.

      Please. Quit living and thinking in the 90s. we're two decades ahead. Catch up with Moore's Law.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:Over what time interval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I used to be IT at a game company that got bought by Sony. The amount of data transmitted each day overseas to Sony prior to purchase was so massive they had an OC48 installed. That line was saturated throughout most of the day.

    18. Re:Over what time interval? by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Plug in a device, let it download, then come get it the next night."

      100 TB / 24 hrs... = 9259259259 bps. So, plug in a device which can store 100 TB into a 10 Gb network port which connects to every data source at full speed, and that's it? A device which can hold 25x 4 TB drives would be pretty big, and it's unlikely all their systems and interconnects are 10G.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:Over what time interval? by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      1. Hack Sony Pictures

      2. Change location of corporate wide backup server to one I control.

      3. Profit!

    20. Re:Over what time interval? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      How long was the attack taking place? What kind of Internet connection does Sony Pictures have? To ex-filtrate 100 TB of data is going to take a while, no matter how you cut it. My guess is that number is significantly inflated.

      Given the level of access these people had, they likely just issued a request to the DBAs to send a copy of the backups via UPS to Kim Jung Uns house directly.

    21. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      You do unencrypted backups?

    22. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Raw footage is massive, that's understandable - but what is raw footage and accounting doing on the same system? I can't answer that either way... time will tell the story.

    23. Re:Over what time interval? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      For one thing, that is likely the storage size, not the transfer size which is likely going to be way less due to compression.

      The transfer size probably is smaller to some degree. But to hit that uncompressed volume of storage size, there is going to be a lot of data with poor compression rates. I expect that a lot of pristine, high-resolution digital video is in that, and that certainly won't compress all that well.

      But as you point out, those can be terabytes in size. Even with the potential value of that, most people aren't going to download the raw files, and fewer still will go through the work of converting them to lower-res files more amenable to download. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that I think it's unlikely. Sony has more to worry about from the financial and personal information that was obtained than the revenue loss from any movies that were downloaded.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    24. Re:Over what time interval? by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      i think you're missing a step...

    25. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      And our ability to secure information & monitor data flow on networks remained stagnant in that time?

    26. Re:Over what time interval? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's Sony Pictures we're talking about here, they probably run that operating system on all their PCs where all you need to do to download all the data on their network is plug in a USB stick, while your tech wizard back at the base hacks into the computer and installs the virus.

      As long as you make sure you're in and out of the office containing the PC in the 60 second window between night watchmen checking in, there shouldn't be any problem with doing this.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    27. Re:Over what time interval? by The+Rizz · · Score: 2

      100 TB being downloaded even in a week to 10 days is an increase of multiple terabytes a day over whatever they normally use.

      You need to pay attention not to raw numbers, but to percentages. If it was a 10 TB per day transferred, whether that will show up as a "spike in data usage" depends on what their normal usage is. If it's 100 TB per day, then yes - a 10% spike would be noticeable. On the other hand, if they're commonly transferring in the petabyte range, we're talking a 1% or less increase - that's within normal daily variances just about anywhere, and would never be noticed.

    28. Re:Over what time interval? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Shutting down the company gym was a big mistake.

      It would have been the perfect trap for those North Koreans, trying to sneak in with their brand new membership cards.

    29. Re:Over what time interval? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      what is raw footage and accounting doing on the same system?

      Who says both were on the same system?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    30. Re:Over what time interval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ???

    31. Re:Over what time interval? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I dunno, maybe they've successfully solved the age old ??? problem. If so they're going to be a gazlillionaire.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    32. Re: Over what time interval? by apraetor · · Score: 2

      If I was working in IT for Sony and wanted to steal their data -- assuming I had physical access -- I'd go for stealing disks off arrays if they use them for fault-tolerant redundancy. Write up the disk replacement as a failure, take it home. Get enough of the array and you're set. Obviously this requires them to have overlooked the need for securing the disks against physical theft with encryption.

    33. Re: Over what time interval? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      To add, I mean steal one disk, rebuild. Repeat for next disk.

    34. Re:Over what time interval? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      If someone stole one disk from a RAID array, rebuilt it, then stole another.. it could be done. If someone stole a set of disks from an array of Amazon's S3 service it might (ignoring any encryption) contain a similar mix of data.

    35. Re:Over what time interval? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      Assuming the disks were part of an array for redundancy, how many disks would have to be stolen before you could rebuild the remainder?

    36. Re:Over what time interval? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Then there are Subtitled and Closed caption versions."

      Except those are separate TEXT FILES moron.

      Motion picture subtitles (as they are distributed on disc) are not text-based. They are a subpicture that is overlayed on the original video.
      Yes, they wouldn't take up a lot of room, given the majority of the picture is the designated mask (clear) "color" and the limits on the number of other colors used, but they are not text files.

    37. Re:Over what time interval? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yes, as a matter of fact it did. Despite coming up with new stuff, the simple fact is - Man can make it, man can break it.

      To wit: Poodle/Beast attacks, making SSL and TLS 1.0 pretty much fucking useless, and from what I'm seeing poking around in TLS 1.2, it's just as fucking broken.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    38. Re:Over what time interval? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      The Digital Cinema Distribution Master (DCDM) contains uncompressed audio and video, but timed text elements like subtitles are stored in XML.

      DCDMs are turned into the Digital Cinema Package (DCP) for distribution to theaters, which is an encrypted file of JPEG 2000 video at a max 250 Mbps.

    39. Re:Over what time interval? by EETech1 · · Score: 2

      So wait...

      Kim Jung is an underpants gnome?

      ???

    40. Re: Over what time interval? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      Walking out with hard drives in your pocket is stealing, not a hacking.

    41. Re:Over what time interval? by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they have the good ones made by Panasonic?

    42. Re: Over what time interval? by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      Maybe they stole the backups? Fastest easiest way to get all data nicely aggregated into one spot. Walk out with one box of tapes?

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    43. Re: Over what time interval? by topologicalanomaly47 · · Score: 4, Informative

      RAID doesn't really work like this.

      Imagine you have a 6 disks raid6 - you need 4 to have the array working in a degraded state. Unless you steal 4 disks *at once* you won't be able to rebuild it offsite. Unless you get drives from RAID1 arrays you're better off smuggling in a 2tb 2.5 usb drive. If their physical security is any close to the IT security you can probably smuggle a f-ing NAS inside and nobody would care.

    44. Re:Over what time interval? by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      One of the stories on this mentioned they had access for a year...
      Sony pictures likely has extremely fast internet connections at multiple sites, as they deal with movies its highly likely they will be sending large high resolution video files around.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    45. Re:Over what time interval? by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 3, Funny

      Catch up with Moore's Law.

      I'm trying to, I think I can manage in 18 months or so ...

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    46. Re: Over what time interval? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Maybe somebody sold it to Kim?

    47. Re:Over what time interval? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      How about putting in a perfectly innocent looking CDROM and infecting the machine with a rootkit? There may even be some lying around on the Sony premises

    48. Re:Over what time interval? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Funny how someone shouting "moron" forgot that there are a lot of commonly used container formats out there which can contain the subtitle data in addition to the sound and video.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_container_formats
      Column 7 is what you want to look at.

    49. Re:Over what time interval? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't matter. If someone is able to re-direct the backups, they could change those settings as well.

    50. Re:Over what time interval? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Obvisouly a while but its not out of the question. Sony pissed off North Korea several months ago when they announced The Interview. If it takes a week to download ~100TB at ~1Gbps then a couple weeks/months is all they need for all that data.

      Agreed, but, isn't someone monitoring internet usage? 100 TB being downloaded even in a week to 10 days is an increase of multiple terabytes a day over whatever they normally use. One would think that would cause a spike on a graph somewhere, that someone ought to have investigated.

      I've been hosting websites for years, and the only time I was ever compromised (one server turned into a spam mail server -- how embarrassing) I caught it almost immediately by a sudden spike in the network traffic.

      As someone else said, since Sony has been compromised before, it just seems amazing that there wasn't some higher level of scrutiny.

      The flaw in your logic is assuming competence at sony. Also as has been stated 100tb overall isn't all that much relatively. The raw footage from one movie will probably exceed that.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    51. Re:Over what time interval? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Had he been inspired by a movie, he'd have suggested downloading the data with a modem. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    52. Re:Over what time interval? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that you're talking to a self-professed lighting systems designer lacking the most basic knowledge of geometrical optics. There's not much that logical reasoning can accomplish in his case.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    53. Re:Over what time interval? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      If the disks were members of a RAID set, then you'd have to steal them all at the same time otherwise you'd have inconsistent filesystems. With a bit of skill, you could probably read some data, but you'd be better off transferring data over a network as that wouldn't involve physical access to a server room (which typically have some kind of monitoring cameras installed).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    54. Re:Over what time interval? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Say you have a load of high end USB 3.0 hard drives capable of sustaining a write speed of 100MB/sec, and of course servers that have USB 3.0 ports and are capable of supplying data that fast. 100TB at 100MB/sec will take over 291 hours to copy, or more than 12 days. That's ignoring the time required to locate files of interest, set up the data transfer, swap drives, handle failures etc.

      I think internet is more likely, over an extended period of time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    55. Re:Over what time interval? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      "Plug in a device, let it download, then come get it the next night."

      100 TB / 24 hrs... = 9259259259 bps. So, plug in a device which can store 100 TB into a 10 Gb network port which connects to every data source at full speed, and that's it? A device which can hold 25x 4 TB drives would be pretty big, and it's unlikely all their systems and interconnects are 10G.

      By "next night" it was impossible for you to roll that into "in a week" or even "in a month"? Lights out facilities leave things untouched and even un-looked-at for months on end. And who says the 100TB is the compressed size? No doubt whoever did this was very skilled, packing things in compressed, encrypted chunks for easy exfiltration and minimal chance of detection. If it took them 1 night or 10 nights or 100 nights the plan would have worked the same way.

    56. Re:Over what time interval? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Obvisouly a while but its not out of the question. Sony pissed off North Korea several months ago when they announced The Interview. If it takes a week to download ~100TB at ~1Gbps then a couple weeks/months is all they need for all that data.

      Agreed, but, isn't someone monitoring internet usage? 100 TB being downloaded even in a week to 10 days is an increase of multiple terabytes a day over whatever they normally use. One would think that would cause a spike on a graph somewhere, that someone ought to have investigated.

      I've been hosting websites for years, and the only time I was ever compromised (one server turned into a spam mail server -- how embarrassing) I caught it almost immediately by a sudden spike in the network traffic.

      As someone else said, since Sony has been compromised before, it just seems amazing that there wasn't some higher level of scrutiny.

      North Korea would no doubt draw suspicion by having that much data going toward their country anyway, given that they dont have an open internet. No, if this was in any way related to NK it was by money trail only. They perhaps incentivized a hacking group or an insider with a few hundred thousand USD (maybe a few million if its delivered as counterfeit 20's and 50's) and the rest was done on the ground in the US, from one or many different routes over long periods.

    57. Re:Over what time interval? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no, everyone knows there would be scrolling green text in jibberish

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    58. Re: Over what time interval? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      The most obvious thing to take are the backup tapes.

      But if you've compromised the switches already (I believe that's in the claim?) just installing your own NAS seems even better.

    59. Re: Over what time interval? by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      Would it not be possible to steal the drives one at a time, image them, and then use the images to rebuild the raid array?

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    60. Re:Over what time interval? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      My bet is, they made images of the volumes and a team carried out some 30-40 external drives.

    61. Re:Over what time interval? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Huh?.. I .. I don't know that.. Auuugghhhh...........

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    62. Re:Over what time interval? by BTWR · · Score: 1

      I know this is the internet, but wow. You could have just told you disagreed but instead you went the "I'll be an absolute fucking asshole to a stranger because he posted a fact I deem incorrect."

      Either your mother messed you up bad or you were massively bullied in school and are still hung up on that and now take it out on some guy in a comment section. Either way, I'd say you should consider talking to someone about it.

    63. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't matter. If someone is able to re-direct the backups, they could change those settings as well.

      And a competent IT team wouldn't notice major settings changes or the change in backup size?

    64. Re:Over what time interval? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The key word there is competent which seems to be in extreme shortages at Sony.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    65. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      what is raw footage and accounting doing on the same system?

      Who says both were on the same system?

      For what reason does accounting need access to video production or vice versa? They are, or ought to be, separate internal systems that do not interact. Unless you're suggesting multiple intrusion points

    66. Re:Over what time interval? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Unless you're suggesting multiple intrusion points

      Multiple intrusion points makes more sense given the amount of data that they claim to have swiped (funneling all that data through one point would risk getting someone's attention and, given what GOP got, they're probably not that stupid).

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    67. Re:Over what time interval? by msauve · · Score: 1

      Was it impossible for you to read the GP, which claimed "To ex-filtrate 100 TB of data is going to take a while, no matter how you cut it?"

      Clearly, an argument against that claiming it could be done, simply, overnight is incorrect, which I pointed out with hard facts.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    68. Re:Over what time interval? by Zeromous · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hours and minutes. Its obvious to me, a former backup/dr guru in another life, this data was either walked out of Sony itself in 2-3 plastic bins, or fell off the back of an offsite storage truck.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
    69. Re:Over what time interval? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Jackson would carry around raw LotR footage on an ipod for transport.

      --
      Good-bye
    70. Re:Over what time interval? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The IT team already didn't notice 100TB transferred out. I think your assertion of competence is misplaced.

      And no, I've worked places where they didn't realize they'd set the 10 server backups to each sequentially re-format the tape and start from the beginning. So only the last server backed up was actaully recoverable. It was that way for 5 years, until they needed a file from #3 when someone finally noticed the error. If they were all appended, they would have fit on one tape, so it wasn't obvious, and always completed with no errors. How often do you think the configuration of backup jobs is checked? In my experience, the answer is "never".

    71. Re: Over what time interval? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I support the inside job scenario.

      That's a lot of data in a relatively short period of time.

      It could be a disgruntled IT employee and it might include some pay off.

      How much money is Sony's shit worth?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    72. Re:Over what time interval? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And for the part about hitting desktops ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    73. Re:Over what time interval? by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      In my experience - the backup gets checked every single time. I guess the standards at a small law firm are better than at a major corporation.

    74. Re:Over what time interval? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's all about the quality of the manager. The places with panicky managers fighting fires all the time think highly of themselves for fighting fires, but never ask why they have so many fires. But the rank and file IT worker thinks poorly of managers, so never notices this trend.

    75. Re:Over what time interval? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      "Motion picture subtitles (as they are distributed on disc) are not text-based"

      Do you actually do any ripping with hardware/media made this decade?

      They dropped the images crap from DVD and went to time-coded text files with a chosen system font to display. Smaller, more efficient.

      Uh, no they didn't.
      Doom9: How to deal with Blu-Ray subtitles.

      They still appear to be PGS (subpicture) based.

    76. Re: Over what time interval? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, apparently the NSA didn't notice Snowden, and intelligence is their job!

      That said, proper access controls are usually a good part of security. If a N. Korean janitor had physical access to the server room, not so good (if he was an admin, well you sorta have to trust your admins but you can still have some access controls in place with compartmentalized data)

    77. Re:Over what time interval? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      your math is wrong. the files should be stereoscopic and at 60fps at least if it was shot digital.

    78. Re: Over what time interval? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      thousands of dollars per kilowatt hour in some cases

      Reassembling a raid from drives taken at multiple different times will likely be harder than reassembling from disks taken at the same time because most raid implementations are designed to stop you doing it by accident but with sufficient determination it should be possible.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    79. Re:Over what time interval? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      OH Shi.....

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    80. Re:Over what time interval? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Over even better, if you have govt resources, get an entire intel team hired as service techs for all the major storage vendors. Next time a service call is placed, go and take what you like at your leisure. I'd be surprised if this isn't already happening.

    81. Re: Over what time interval? by AlexSasha · · Score: 1

      Offsite backups are done via moving the tapes offsite to something like IronMountain. Doubt that this was the vector of attack.

    82. Re:Over what time interval? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Self-professed"

      Yea, which is why when the Google Helpouts Beta started, I had to go through HOURS of testing, vetting, and former employment history with references in order to be a service provider.

      Try professionally-vetted, and come back when you can even touch my level.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    83. Re:Over what time interval? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Yea, you're talking about a shit media device.

      Come back when your player actually supports multiple formats, like mine. In fact, it prefers text-based subtitles and has .srt capabilities plus the ability to include a system font of your choice for text rendering.

      What's sad is I paid $15 for it in Wal-Mart. What'd you pay for your blu-ray player with a tenth of the capability?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    84. Re:Over what time interval? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And you still don't know basics of geometry. How sad is that? :)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. 100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Informative

    100 terabytes of data is easily consumed by the raw uncut footage of a few movies, easily. So it could be a whole bunch of stuff that really hurts them or it could just be a couple movies that were shot by M. Night Shyamalan that suck so hard no one cares.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Twist, M. Night Shyamalan was phone the whole time...

    2. Re:100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by Sir+Realist · · Score: 2

      Yeah but... imagine the harm to Sony's reputation if an unreleased M. Night movie got out...

    3. Re:100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by apraetor · · Score: 1

      A lot of the stuff that can hurt them the most isn't going to be video, it'll be all manner of personal / confidential files.. and that stuff is tiny compared to the video.

    4. Re:100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by AbRASiON · · Score: 2

      Some of the rumoured files were financial data - even stuff like "Diaz - Cameron - Passport.PDF" for goodness sakes.
      More info is on one of the reddit threads but it's apparently VERY nasty.

    5. Re:100 terabytes of data - a few movies? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Yeah but... imagine the harm to Sony's reputation if an M. Night movie got out...

      FTFY

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  4. Medical records? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    What is Sony doing with medical records?

    1. Re:Medical records? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      This undoubtedly refers to the insurance carried, what it covers and so forth. Those are medical records. It's not referring to MRI scans and detailed physical information.

    2. Re:Medical records? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      That's what I thought. I guess "insurance information" doesn't have enough scare factor for a story.

    3. Re:Medical records? by pcolaman · · Score: 2

      It could be related to FMLA claims. When someone claims FMLA there is certain medical documentation that may need to be shared with an employer (although as it is still covered by the HIPAA laws, great care has to be taken to ensure it is not exposed like it apparently was).

    4. Re:Medical records? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Actually it may very well included test results for stuff like MRIs. I had to claim FMLA years ago with a company I worked with and part of the document that was submitted to my employer was documentation from my Doctor including medical test results (with legal waivers allowing them to be sent to the Employer, of course) to help support the FMLA claim.

    5. Re: Medical records? by Rougement · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this still be classed as a HIPPA violation? If so, this might only be the start of Sony's nightmare.

    6. Re: Medical records? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Sony is not a covered entity under HIPAA, unless there's a new Sony medical clinic, hospital, or Sony administered health plan I hadn't heard of?

      Even if you are a covered entity under HIPAA, employee records are exempt from the privacy rule, as long as the reason the record is there is because they are an employee and the record is not used to provide medical treatment or health services.

    7. Re: Medical records? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      If it has a person's name and anything that HIPAA defines as medical information (anything with a diagnosis code, essentially), it is a potential violation. Most insurance information would qualify unless it's just cost data.

      Oops.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Medical records? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It is confidential, and disclosure by the employer may violate state laws, but the HIPAA privacy rule does not apply to an employer, even with records related to a FMLA claim. HIPAA privacy rule applies to the health care provider, and group health plan administrator (the insurance company) as covered entities, but not the employer.

      The information is confidential and it should nevertheless be stored separately in a confidential file for the employee. It should be physically secured and not scanned into a digital representation.

      Just because the employer is not covered by HIPAA, does not mean there is no liability, or that the employee won't sue them over damages resulting from negligent treatment of confidential records.

    9. Re:Medical records? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      It is confidential, and disclosure by the employer may violate state laws, but the HIPAA privacy rule does
      not apply to an employer, even with records related to a FMLA claim. HIPAA privacy rule applies to the health care provider, and group health plan administrator (the insurance company) as covered entities, but not the employer.

      The information is confidential and it should nevertheless be stored separately in a confidential file for the employee.
      It should be physically secured and not scanned into a digital representation.

      Just because the employer is not covered by HIPAA, does not mean there is no liability, or that the employee won't sue them over damages resulting from negligent treatment of confidential records.

      That is not entirely correct. Technically, as a "business associate" of the health plan (assuming that the health plan is through the employer) then they have the same obligations as the health plan administrator themselves when obtaining information for an FMLA claim, and information obtained must be done through a health care provider acting on behalf of the employer. This is a reason why many large employers (like the one I worked for) have on staff occupational nurses to act in this capacity.

    10. Re: Medical records? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nope. They are not necessarily "medical records" and aren't being used for treatment. Otherwise, if your mother emailed you at work about her goiter, Gmail (your mother's provider) and your work would both be in violation of HIPAA for storing her "medical records".

      It doesn't work that way.

  5. North Korea? by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 1

    There's a lot of talk going around right now, mainly from Sony itself, that North Korea is likely behind it. Seriously though - would expect a bunch of people who don't know what Internet is, who likely don't live and breathe IT, security - basically everything capitalism stands for, let alone having a pipe fast enough to rip 100TB of data...

    Now I understand they could be trained and based elsewhere, but might as well say the Martians did it...

    1. Re:North Korea? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think what happened most likely was, NK officials went to China, hired "internet baddies", and paid them to fuck Sony Pictures in the ass with their biggest internet broomstick.

      No technical expertise or infrastructure needed.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:North Korea? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      think what happened most likely was, NK officials went to China, hired "internet baddies", and paid them to fuck Sony Pictures in the ass with their biggest internet broomstick.

      No technical expertise or infrastructure needed.

      My guess is that a manager with too much access recklessly inserted a 2005-era music CD from Sony...

      No expertise at all required to be a manager.

    3. Re:North Korea? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a lot of talk going around right now, mainly from Sony itself, that North Korea is likely behind it. Seriously though - would expect a bunch of people who don't know what Internet is, who likely don't live and breathe IT, security - basically everything capitalism stands for, let alone having a pipe fast enough to rip 100TB of data... Now I understand they could be trained and based elsewhere, but might as well say the Martians did it...

      You obviously don't understand North Korea. Despite their terrible economy, widespread hunger, and stunning lack of technology in the hands of citizens, they still have an active standing army of over one million people, and count many, many more as available reserves. "Defense" spending is big there, so if they decide to hack, they can hack, and they will put government resources behind with little trouble because they have no fear of internal or national backlash. I doubt North Korea publishes accurate statistics, but it is a safe bet that they spend a much higher proportion of their GDP on defense (which includes hacking, propaganda, and internal oppression) than most countries. Militarily they are relatively weak on a per man basis due to most units being woefully equipped (and fed), but when they get the notion to do something (think nukes), they do it.

      This may not have been North Korea, and I have no idea really, but one can't assume it wasn't them because simply because they are poor and uber-wacky.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:North Korea? by Zembar · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      You mean like these?

    5. Re:North Korea? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Possibly. But it is wise never to underestimate your enemy, regardless; they may not be quite so backwoods in the Internet playing field as some assume. After all, they have managed to create nuclear warheads, not a small technological feat.. even if their missile tech still sucks.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    6. Re:North Korea? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Yes, one of the worst things the US does for actual pro-active security is to characterize non-friendly citizens are a bunch of techno-illiterate near-savages. Maybe it does something for morale to think yourself superior, but it also causes a lax attitude and underestimating your opponents.

  6. I mean, really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? 20 people - each with 5TB drive? Thats 100TB.

  7. Sad? Saddest? by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So Sony with its rookits and DRM get owned. Good. How does it feel, Sony? How does it feel?

    Hope this causes massive losses for them and horrors for its employees.

    1. Re:Sad? Saddest? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bearing a grudge against a company for the decisions of it's higher-ups is one thing, wishing horrors upon the majority of employees who are probably everyday folk earning a living - many probably sharing your view on the matter of the rootkit saga - might be going a little too far...

    2. Re: Sad? Saddest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No fuck that. Fuck the higher ups and every step of the ladder that supports them. They are all responsible.

    3. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "might" is logically equivalent to "might not".... so you're both right.

      burn sony to the ground. the rest of the planet too.

      you all suck.

    4. Re:Sad? Saddest? by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

      And you feel that this is equivalent, do you? What % of Sony employees do you believe actually had a hand in the decision to use the DRM, knew how it worked, and knew that it had a backdoor?

      If I had to guess, it would probably be fewer than 50.

      I would also guess that most people involved in shipping off the Jews knew they were doing something pretty bad.

    5. Re:Sad? Saddest? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      It's more likely because of the movie coming out Dec 25th.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By that logic the Rebels would have never blown up the Death Star. The soldiers and contractors of the Empire knew what they were getting into when they signed the contract. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
      The lesson here is: do not work for the guy force choking everyone if you don't like being blown up along with his shiny toys.

    7. Re: Sad? Saddest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. By that logic we are responsible for the governments actions in all things, because we support them. Fuck the NSA, fuck the pentagon, fuck the whitehouse. I don't care. Lay a hand on Snowden, lay a hand on the soldiers, lay a on the housekeepers; then we have a problem. You and I would come to blows if we met IRL, simply because you are a reprehensible prick who can't figure out that people do what they have to for their families, and that you cannot use the crimes of a few to condemn many.
      Say that to the face of the children of employees, even the janitors and security guards. Say that to the spouses whom now may have to face a nightmare.

    8. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      They handled it the same way US citizens handle the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. They ignored it.

    9. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      And, Godwin'd. That's a wrap everyone, have a great evening, see you in the next thread.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re: Sad? Saddest? by pitchpipe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No fuck that. Fuck the higher ups and every step of the ladder that supports them. They are all responsible.

      That's the kind of thinking that causes people to turn into terrorists with all of the associated be-headings of completely innocent people and other moronic actions. It's fucking stupid. Stop it.

      You don't have perfect knowledge and you never will, so quit acting like you do.

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    11. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Ommasaur · · Score: 1

      And Godwin's Law is thus invoked.

    12. Re:Sad? Saddest? by AbRASiON · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, a rootkit done once, a decade ago by some idiot in Sony music? Massive losses, more jobs lost, more people out of work, this economy even worse.

      Hopefully they fix their security, behave better as a company and no one loses jobs, Hopefully idiot posts like yours don't come to fruition either.

    13. Re:Sad? Saddest? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No. A 'Nazi' was a member of the Nazi Party. That's it. Some joined because they had to, some joined because they wanted to. Some organisations required membership (Gestapo & SS, as you pointed out), and many others favoured members over non-members. Trying to paint it as black and white is not really helping.

    14. Re:Sad? Saddest? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Looks like you need to dump a bunch of your cops in there too then.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    15. Re:Sad? Saddest? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Yea, let me tell you, the same fags SHARING MY VIEW of the rootkit saga (As I sit here staring at about ten dead optical drives, all fucked by Sony's DRM) are the same fucks THAT WROTE THIS SHIT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      Yeah, everyone who works for Sony had a hand in it. The guys at Sony Music bussed the Sony Pictures and SCE and all the other Sony arms guys in for some help on it.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    16. Re: Sad? Saddest? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you're incapable of nuanced thought.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    17. Re:Sad? Saddest? by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I agree with you and the GP.

      I equate this situation to civil unrest. For civil 'direct action' to work, someone has to be inconvenienced. Hopefully, that 'someone' is the government, and hopefully only them, and hopefully they're inconvenienced a great deal. However, in reality, the government is just a bunch of people with lives and jobs, and they use the services of non-government people. So no matter how targeted some civil action might be, it's going to end up inconveniencing some 'ordinary' people.

      The question is are the 'ordinary' people responsible for the government's actions? You might argue 'no', but you'll find a lot of people arguing 'yes' - ultimately, it's the 'ordinary' people that give the government the power to do whatever the unrest is about. We can argue about the indirect nature of that power provision, but no matter how corrupt or misdirected, the fact remains that it exists. It's the game we've chosen to play; don't argue about the rules.

      And so back to Sony Pictures. Whatever the beef is with them, they were able to do that thing because of the people that work for them. You can argue that if those people didn't work for them that a whole load of other people would just take their place, but if the majority of people thought about who their employer was and what they do day-in, day-out, the shit kickers of the world would have a much harder time hiring good, honest decent and talented people. That might make them think twice about their business practices (or in the case of the NSA/GCHQ etc, their purpose in life).

      [Anecdote: one of my previous employers used to get extra discounts on hotel rates because it was well known that the staff were nice people - sort of the reverse of what I'm trying to describe above]

      Don't misunderstand me - if my employer got screwed over this badly, I'd be screaming innocence and "I'm just a brick in the wall, I'm not responsible" and so on (after all, I'm "just" a lowly techie, right?). But the fact remains that my work for my employer potentially facilitates someone else here to do bad things more easily. For what it's worth, I do have a moral compass, and so don't work for some of the worse companies out there (despite recruiters trying to get me into them), and I haven't seen my employer doing bad things. Other people may view their actions differently though, and perhaps they'd judge me differently as a result.

    18. Re: Sad? Saddest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nazi German fathers did what they had to do to support their families and that's ok, that's what you're saying?

    19. Re: Sad? Saddest? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Then by that extension of "logic", "fuck" everyone who has ever bought a Sony product, or had any connection with them whatsoever. In fact, why not every human being alive? Look what we've done as a species!! In fact, how about you lead by example and kill yourself. Yeah, that's how your logic sounds.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    20. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      This.

      You are correct sir.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    21. Re:Sad? Saddest? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you say that the CEO, or at the very least, the heads of particular units are responsible for the bad things corporations do? After all, they are the ones who ok, if not initiate, this kind of stuff.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    22. Re:Sad? Saddest? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Justification? No, unless you subscribe to an Abrahamic faith.

      Delicious irony? Hell yes. If this takes Sony down then it's no more than they risked happening to anybody that was unfortunate enough to insert a certain Sony music CD into their computer.

      I'm not going to hack Sony because of their obnoxious business practices but I'm definitely enjoying their current problems. Someone somewhere was going to suffer catastrophic data loss and Sony would've been one of the front runners if we'd run a poll of "Which company should get fucked like this first?"

    23. Re: Sad? Saddest? by toby · · Score: 1

      " By that logic we are responsible for the governments actions in all things, because we support them" YES. THIS. It's what your so-called democracy is supposed to f'ing mean, innit.

      --
      you had me at #!
    24. Re: Sad? Saddest? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The reparations for WWI were a large part of what made the rise of the Nazi party possible, so condemning a whole country to economic collapse because of what their leaders did more or less caused WWII.

      But obviously it's easier to say "fuck all " than to figure out which of their leaders are actually to blame (the Nuremburg trials, for some values of justice).

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    25. Re: Sad? Saddest? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Damn, forgot about /. eating chevrons again. That was supposed to read "fuck all <J Random Demographic>".

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    26. Re:Sad? Saddest? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, just pointing out workers share in the blame of employer. got your attention, little AC

    27. Re:Sad? Saddest? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, just saying employees of company that has repeatedly done bad things share in the blame

  8. Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by cryptoengineer2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki... TL, DNR: 9 years ago, Sony was root kitting the machines of people who bought their CDs, and living about it.

    1. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Informative

      I feel sorry for their employees who's information was compromised, but I can't say the same about the company. They are still on my "do not buy" list, and I buy a lot of the sort of things that they sell. Still waiting for an apology for the rootkit.

    2. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't it be interesting if the initial breach into their systems was an exploit on a server that involved the sony rootkit because an IT stooge wanted to listen to some tunes while reviewing log files years ago.

    3. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      Good God, so I'm not the only one who both remembers Sony hacking their own customers, and hates to see their employee data stolen? I feel for the workers, but I don't give a damn about that horrible company.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. When the Empire moves into your neighborhood, you don't have a lot of choice - if it comes down to supporting my family or taking the moral high ground and not taking a job with a company with a dubious past, I'll have that direct deposit form signed in no time flat. I view huge corporations the same way I do governments and their armies - I support the individual soldiers even when they are called on to do unspeakable things as a group.

      It's hard out here for a pimp.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

      TL, DNR: 9 years ago, Sony was root kitting the machines of people who bought their CDs, and living about it.

      Mark Russinovich of Sysinternals (at the time) has a very good article on this. You can learn a lot through it, least I did.
      http://blogs.technet.com/b/mar...

      His first post I can't find in the time I have, is intense as well as much longer.

    6. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by dbIII · · Score: 1

      "If I work all day on the blue sky mine they'll be food on the table tonight."
      Much worse places than Sony even if it sounds like a bad choice.

    7. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by CheeseyDJ · · Score: 1

      His first post I can't find in the time I have, is intense as well as much longer.

      Here it is.

    8. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry for their employees who's information was compromised

      You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault.

      You could say the same about the towers, or those guys that get kidnapped in Syria and their heads cut off though.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Sony knows that they are still losing business over this - probably no way for them to find out. I know they've lost >$10K in sales from me since then (I had all Sony stuff at home until then, now nothing).

    10. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by Cederic · · Score: 1

      He was quoting a film - admittedly one published by Miramax rather than Sony.

    11. Re:Sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      I know, it's from one of the clerks films, it still makes a relatable point thong.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  9. PS4 keys? by BenJeremy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long before we see Sony's flagship console jailbroken like the PS3?

    For that matter... we'll probably see the PS3's keys brought up to the current version, as well.

    1. Re:PS4 keys? by BenJeremy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To clarify.... I know this is Sony Pictures, but if the hack was this invasive into Sony's IT infrastructure, it's very possible they penetrated the entire Sony network.

      All we are seeing at the moment is from Sony Pictures, but we may see a lot more in the next few weeks.

    2. Re:PS4 keys? by Khyber · · Score: 1, Informative

      "How long before we see Sony's flagship console jailbroken like the PS3?"

      Not very long. A grep on the server hosted by a nice Anon shows that there are keys in there for various things - app signing, etc.

      Sony's going to get ripped a new one hard.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:PS4 keys? by rossz · · Score: 1

      That's complete bullshit. Sony Pictures has absolutely nothing to do with SCEA. The only thing they have in common is the same parent company. That don't share even the tiniest bit of IT infrastructure.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    4. Re:PS4 keys? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I'd agree with you, if not for one thing: The torrent was seeded from a number of Amazon instances that form part of the playstation network infrastructure. That suggests that, while the hack focused on sony pictures, playstation didn't escape entirely. Which means there is hope that the right keys were released too.

  10. Re:Make peace with Kim Jung Eun by vux984 · · Score: 3, Funny

    How did 100 TB get to North Korea over their dial up modem without anybody else noticing?

    NSA sleeping that the wheel?
    Five-eyes? All navel gazing?

    Nobodies looking at the data going to North Korea?

    More and more this seems like a false flag.

  11. its about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As an insider of the SONY Dictatorship, I am shocked this has not happened earlier..
    I truly hope this sheds some light on the Wrong doings of this conglomerate.
    The time of taking advantage of your constituents in rude, unprofessional, and immature ways should be over..
    While I will admit there are some good people inside, but unfortunately they are all covered up, trampled, or set aside for money, ego, fame and or plunder.
    to get some background on the statements bade above, look at SCEA's shady past as one example of how the SONY juggernaut runs..

    Thank you,

    1. Re: its about time. by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      i would put odds that https://www.victoriassecret.co... was on the supplies list for this hack (or some similar store)

  12. Re:The Schadenfreude... by vettemph · · Score: 1

    It doesn't burn. It just warms the heart. ;)

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  13. Cutting the cord by jtara · · Score: 1

    So, does this mean that the Supreme Leader is cutting the cord?

  14. Not just insurance info by DigitAl56K · · Score: 2

    I've just been reading some of the articles, and it seems that in fact Sony has unfortunately been storing a lot of communication that contains discussion of medical issues amongst other things.

    This is an example of where a company could have done a better job of assessing the risk of retained data becoming a liability and applied suitable retention policies and other risk mitigation strategies like encryped storage (some articles suggest most files were not meaningfully protected).

    IT folks and legal departments in today's climate should be asking themselves what is being stored, what are thr benefits, what is a liability, what is the actual business need, what are the mitigation options.

  15. Re:I mean, really by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

    It would cost ~$3,500 retail for 100TB - easily accomplished by 1 individual.

  16. Kevin Roose's article by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    In case anyone else was looking for the missing link in TFS, Kevin Roose's article at Fusion is here.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  17. Scripts leaked by JThundley · · Score: 5, Funny

    At first they thought the data was fake; all the scripts read like movies everyone has seen already.

    1. Re:Scripts leaked by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Don't fucking insult me.

  18. Just how exactly.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seriously, how did they manage to steal "100TB" worth of data, without physically going there and copy a bunch of disks? You'd think SOMEONE would notice if there was an intruder downloading everything. 100TB can't exactly be downloaded in a few minutes there, it would take days, if not weeks. Even at 1Gbps, that's about 10TB a day, all day long, top speed. Surely, I'm not the only one who think Sony was highly negligent toward network security, again, here...

  19. Re:Good God! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    The live portion (I.e. Last 2 months) of my companies billing database is 23TB, 100 could be the raw footage of one movie.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  20. Or just raw video for a single movie... by beanpoppa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is Sony Pictures. The raw video for movies that they are shooting are stored online for editing equipment. One or two movies could easily take up 100TB of disk.

  21. How long did it take to steal 100TB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is there any information about how long it took hackers to steal this 100TB? Did no one notice the unusual amount of traffic? I have a 40Mbit connection at home and with overhead I can usually download at up to 4Mbytes/sec. At that rate 100TB is something like 300 days of 24/7 downloading. Even if I had a gigabit connection directly to sony that would take 12 days!

    1. Re:How long did it take to steal 100TB? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      Is there any information about how long it took hackers to steal this 100TB? Did no one notice the unusual amount of traffic? I have a 40Mbit connection at home and with overhead I can usually download at up to 4Mbytes/sec. At that rate 100TB is something like 300 days of 24/7 downloading. Even if I had a gigabit connection directly to sony that would take 12 days!

      Clearly this was not done by someone in his mom's basement with a 40Mbit Time Warner connection to his laptop. It was perpetrated by someone with considerable resources and a considerable ax to grind. Going after employees but stealing everything related to them is not cool, but screw Sony, they kind of had it coming.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  22. Lawsuits and Patents by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.

    I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.

    Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.

    (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ...
    (b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
                    (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
                    (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

    1. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.

      I think you confuse Sony Pictures with Sony Corporation.

      The former is unlikely to have a lot of patents, except for things like camera gimbals or ways to strip and reattach continuity reports to digital footage.

    2. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.

      No..... 1 year following lawful disclosure.

      The unlawful disclosure of confidential information by criminals is subject to adjudication by the courts.

      The unlawfully disclosed material may very well be deemed to be a condition that allows Sony to continue to pursue the patents, and publications made from unlawfully disclosed materials may be excluded from valid prior art.

    3. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

      Illlegal theft of records doesn't count as disclosure.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But infringement lawsuits against sony can now be had quite well due to seeing exactly what they are working on and how it was done?

    5. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real risk to Sony Pictures is having the real books behind the Hollywood accounting revealed.

    6. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, patents are public by definition anyway. GP might have a point if he meant "trade secrets" rather than patents.

    7. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why? We all know the shenanigans have been going on for decades. Most movie companies have been taken to court and settled (never coming to a final decision to avoid precedents), but nothing will ever be done about it. Likewise for the music industry, the book industry and probably the gaming industry. Nothing will every be done to force these industries into an honest accounting system.

      I find it interesting that they're all entertainment industries that wouldn't make the slightest different to mankind if they all disappeared this very second.

    8. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      They still either have 1 year from the (un)lawful disclosure, or 0 from the time someone else creates and uses the patented technology. Also, since the US specifically is a first to file....

      But this is Sony Pictures we're talking about, not Sony the 900 lb patent gorilla.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    9. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      The real risk to Sony Pictures is having the real books behind the Hollywood accounting revealed.

      Yup, the exact details of how they promise authors percentages of profits for the movie rights to their works and then somehow manage to make a huge paper loss on enormously profitable films. At least the lawyers of those people are going to have a field day. Even if these Hollywood studios and the gagsters that run them generally deserve every bit of misfortune that hits them it is never enough.

    10. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.

      I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.

      Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.

      (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ...

      (b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION;
      A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention ***shall not be prior art*** to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—

      (A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

      (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

      IANAL, but the key word here is "filing date", not the date the patent was approved, and I think maybe you misread the exceptions clause, specifically the part I outlined with asterisks..? If these patents have all already been filed, and are pending, then no wild release now will matter.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    11. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If the "GOP" wanted to harm Sony they wouldn't be putting films on bittorrent, they'd seed their accounting data ,particularly the real one, not the fake one they show all the people they owe royalties.

    12. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by sjames · · Score: 1

      They have been busted for individual instances of Hollywood accounting. What exposing the books would do is give a lot of people and the IRS slam-dunk cases in court.

      They'd have to pay out a lot of extra royalties and taxes.

    13. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Normally you have to think you have a good case before you sue, because you're going to spend a heap of money just to get discovery and be able to obtain the data you need to create a case. Then maybe the case doesn't look as good and you end up having to drop it, or just throw good money after bad.

      Now everybody basically gets no-hassle discovery up-front. The data is available to them in the same way it is available to Sony, so no burying of data in paper files that aren't searchable and all that fun. Lawyers can see if they have a case before they spend much money. Heck, ambulance chasers can go through the books and find the best cases and then call up those potential plaintiffs and beg to represent them. The only cases that will get filed against Sony are ones that Sony is likely to lose, so now they are the ones facing all the litigation costs if they want to defend them. The lawyers don't even have to mention having looked at the illicit files. They just file a lawsuit, obtain discovery, and do parallel construction like the DAs do.

    14. Re:Lawsuits and Patents by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      (a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ...

      Always wondered why technology doesn't just render all copyright obsolete. There's only 26 letters in the English alphabet, how hard is to generate every combination of those 26 characters over say 100 pages, then claim ownership of every book, movie script, and song yet to be written under prior art?

  23. 100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by mcolgin · · Score: 1

    Transferring 100 TB @ 100 Mbit/s would take about 12.5 days 1TB == 1048576 Mb
    1048576 / 100 ==> +/- 10485 secs
    104857 / 60 ==> +/- 174 mins
    1747 / 60 ==> +/- 2.9 hours
    That's just 1 TB, so multiply the last number by the number of TB.

    --
    I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com
    1. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Your math's a bit off: (10^14B)*(8b/1B)*(1s/100000000b)*(1h/3600s)*(1d/24h) = about 93 days

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by mcolgin · · Score: 1

      oh geez. Thanks for that.

      --
      I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com
    3. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by worf_mo · · Score: 1

      Transferring 100 TB @ 100 Mbit/s would take about 12.5 days
      1TB == 1048576 Mb

      1TB = 8e+6 Mb (Mbit). Transferring 1TB at 100Mbit/s takes about 23:18 hrs (overhead excluded), so 100TB would take more than 97 days.

    4. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good lord, you two. Are you masochists insofar as you simply enjoy doing things the hard way in order to increase your chances of making a mistake?

      (100 TB) / (100 Mbps) = 92.5925926 days

    5. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      For nontrivial math, I don't always trust Google's interpretation of the question to be the same as mine. That page is a little short on details of what it's actually doing. On the other hand, WolframAlpha is really good about showing its work. I just always forget that it's there.

      In either case, yeah, I like doing it the hard way. Or as I call it, "learning" or "practicing".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah, I'll admit that I am King of the Geeks. Talk nerdy to me.

      OK, OK. I'll double-check with a calculator that's not "bc" before publishing. I've done enough physics work, though, to trust that 1) calculations showing explicit conversions are almost always correct, and 2) calculations that don't almost never are.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  24. Re:Good God! by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    What makes Sony relevant as a company are it's people, their skills, their connections, the power they have to move the industry, the content rights they own, the technologies and products they develop, their brand, etc. etc.

    100tb can leak today and be irrelevant within 12 months because life continues and projects move on. I'd say in the wake of massive disclosure employee morale may be the biggest factor in the recovery.

  25. Re:Good God! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    Note the modifier "business data".... Not videos, not apple pie recipes sent by Aunt Bertha... If you are talking about strategically stored data and not user home folders, the signal/noise ratio is significantly better.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  26. Worst corporate hack? by koan · · Score: 1

    Why was all that shit stored where it could be hacked?

    One word "convenience", if corps (and regular people) would get over "convenience" this crap wouldn't any near as often.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  27. Re:Good God! by sexconker · · Score: 2

    This is either bullshit, or you're doing it very, very wrong.
    Even assuming a dumbass flat file at 4 KB per row for 62 days, that's over a thousand rows per second.

  28. What's the bigger picture? by Hussman32 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Was this hack the result of poor security, or will every single company in the world now see what has happened, over-react, and unleash draconian security measures that far exceed the point of diminishing returns?

    No matter what you think of Sony, this will not be good for the productivity of the corporate working world.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    1. Re:What's the bigger picture? by west · · Score: 2

      No matter what you think of Sony, this will not be good for the productivity of the corporate working world.

      You are absolutely correct. However, perhaps it's time to acknowledge that much of the productivity increases that the Internet brought to the workplace are only possible because systems could be built that didn't assume that the company was under constant assault - a condition that is very likely no longer true.

      My guess, however, is that real security won't happen until there's significant loss of life when real infrastructure gets borked by hackers (likely freelancers hired by a government vastly less efficient (and thus much more robust) than our own).

      "Wow, every traffic light in Los Angeles has just gone green."

    2. Re:What's the bigger picture? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      However, perhaps it's time to acknowledge that much of the productivity increases that the Internet brought to the workplace are only possible because systems could be built that didn't assume that the company was under constant assault - a condition that is very likely no longer true.

      That really makes you wonder.

      If you try to mail a bomb to somebody else the police will track you down. If you try to mail a bomb to somebody in another country the bomb will never make it past customs most likely. For centuries countries have carefully regulated the passage of people and things across their borders.

      Right now communications is not subject to these kinds of limitations. If you send a virus across a national border from a country that is friendly to such activities, it will reach its destination and there will be no consequences for you.

      Will the day come when borders apply to packets on the internet? Maybe text-only content (not including javascript/etc) is considered exempt just like paper mail is in the physical world. However, if you want to send binaries over the internet you have to pay a tariff which covers the cost of scanning it. If the packet doesn't meet the whitelist criteria it gets held until it can be inspected. Webpages will resemble the early 90s.

    3. Re:What's the bigger picture? by Reason58 · · Score: 1

      I work in InfoSec and this is spot on. Until a lot of people die the private sector will never take security seriously as a whole. Target, Home Depot, Experian, etc. make good news stories, but they really haven't impacted information security practices.

  29. $1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing??? by BUL2294 · · Score: 4, Informative

    With all the state-sponsored corporate & military espionage caused by China & Russia, with the never-ending probes from government agencies like the NSA/DHS/GCHQ/etc., with malware & ransomware attacks that can encrypt data in (generally) unbreakable forms, with criminal hacking organizations making off with millions of credit card numbers from retailers, with apparently no network controls as to how much data leaves company firewalls & where it goes, and so on, why aren't there more internal air-gapped networks in companies???

    This has hit the point of absurdity. If you are working on military plane designs, working on your next corporate acquisition, or even making movies or music worth tens of millions of $$$, why would you put your prized, unreleased digital files on computers that have Internet access? What kind of batshit stupidity is that? What, so your employees can browse Facebook & check Outlook e-mail at the same time? Such an air-gapped network would easily become an island--one that doesn't need Windows Updates, can stay on an old service pack, gets no software updates that solves 2 problems and but makes a new one (e.g. we know the bugs), and the like. And if those employees really need their Outlook e-mail, IM, or the Inter-Webs where they work, they can have a 2nd very low-end PC, connected to the main network, with a KVM between the two. Might even increase efficiency, given the mind's inability to multitask well. Or give them freaking iPads on a wireless network that's not connected to their "sensitive" work computer.

    It boggles the mind that given all these problems, which are increasing in frequency & cost every day, we still have little more than software firewalls & hardware routers between a company's most highly-sensitive assets (files & computers) and the big-bad-Wild-West-no-holds-barred-Internet.

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  30. Re:I mean, really by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    If you aren't in Africa, you can do it to. That's about the only place that doesn't make enough to make it "easily accomplished" by a dedicated person.

  31. Who's minding the store? by arit · · Score: 1

    How do you steal 100 TB of sensitive data without any network, database or IDS alerts going off?

    1. Re:Who's minding the store? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      How do you steal 100 TB of sensitive data without any network, database or IDS alerts going off?

      Choose your target carefully, of course..

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:Who's minding the store? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Like one that routinely sends 4k sized films to thousands of theaters on a monthly basis? Or sends around uncompressed 4k film dailies between location, studio and dozens of CGI labs? Or has millions of people downloading game patches routinely?

      I'm pretty sure they don't keep playstation game patches on the servers at sony pictures.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Who's minding the store? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      If it is like most NIDS I have seen they only care about incoming data and could give a shit about where internal machines are sending data. Add in that an improperly setup NIDS (i.e most of them) is worthless as they never notice a thing or barf alerts as fast as possible. My experience is that in most cases security is treated as a checklist
      Do hosts have firewalls turned on? Check
      Do we have network firewalls? Check
      Do we have a NIDS? Check
      ... etc.
      Yes they have them and they may actually be turned on but no one is doing the hard work like actually configuring them to be useful, checking logs, modifying rules to be a better tighter set or any of the real work that makes these things valuable. It takes a lot of effort to configure your firewalls and NIDS to manage both ends of traffic correctly and setting up a tool like Nagios to monitor systems for anything beyond a trivial set of scans takes real money. Hell I deal with this sort of thing at my work where corporate IT is always pissed at me because I am testing or trying out some tool, methodology, or securing customer systems and they can no longer "manage" them even though that isn't their job and they aren't cleared to do so.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  32. Don't they digitally distribute their films? by dlingman · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure sony ships out it's films via network to the theaters these days. When a new release comes out, and they dump a terabyte or so to a few thousand theatres... 100 TB could easily be missed or ignored.

    1. Re:Don't they digitally distribute their films? by cryptoengineer2 · · Score: 2

      Actually, they FedEx hard drives, according to a projectionist acquaintance of mine.

  33. Microsoft Windows implicated in Sony attack .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    "Upon analysis of the same WIPALL malware family, its variant BKDR_WIPALL.D drops BKDR_WIPALL.C, which in turn, drops the file walls.bmp in the Windows directory. The .BMP file is as pictured below: link

  34. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What Sony lacks in ethics it makes up for with incompetence.

    1. Re:Simple by pigoon · · Score: 2

      Ethics. That's hilarious. It's bottom line. That is your ethics in business. Security will remain unaddressed until it really impacts the bottom line of a major business. Then they will all jump on the bandwagon; and all of us in security will be richer.

  35. Re:Good God! by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "This is either bullshit, or you're doing it very, very wrong."

    Please. I can use more bandwidth than that (and do) on a daily basis with my Camfrog video chat server.

    The raw text data from the multiple horticultural facilities I monitor across the globe hits 30TB daily before compression or conversion into nice little charts.

    What fucking era are you from, the stone age? This is (almost) 2015.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  36. Terabytes! Oh, no! by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

    If only 40 gigabytes contained all of this damning information, just imagine what 100 terabytes contains

    The same thing 2,500 times?

    Sony has 140,000 employees; 40 gigabytes is already 280K per employee, so there's probably not much left to reveal just based on quantity alone.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  37. Re:Good God! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    This is either bullshit, or you're doing it very, very wrong.
    Even assuming a dumbass flat file at 4 KB per row for 62 days, that's over a thousand rows per second.

    You don't do databases do you? You have no idea what they are storing.
    I did some stuff earlier today that generated over 100Gig of transaction logs in just a few hours.
    Granted that's unusual, but it does happen, and if they're not cleaning up after things like that?

    Who says it's not ATM transactions and he's logging a video of every transaction as it passes by?
    Who says he doesn't work for Equifax and isn't storing 50 million transactions a day?

    And his point is valid. The raw footage for a single movie, with all the uncut footage? Easily could surpass 100TB uncompressed.

  38. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by godrik · · Score: 3

    Well, it is probably linked to the fact most of these companies are international companies with employees all over the world needing some form of interaction with the data.

    If you really want to get an internal network that is disconnected from the internet, it means that you will need an army of monkey copying data using memory sticks to feed the data bank and bringing reports back to the employee that needs it. And that induces super high latency in the system.

    The problem seems difficult to me. Completely isolated networks might have an unreasonnable operational cost. (Though a massive data breach might just be as bad.)

  39. Re:Good God! by west · · Score: 1

    > If you are talking about strategically stored data and not user home folders, the signal/noise ratio is significantly better.

    Not in any business I've worked at. Anything that is slightly valuable goes to the central data store so it will be backed up, and then never gets deleted because who knows when you just might happen to need it.

    Sort of like what happens on my home system too.

  40. Re:Good God! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Note the modifier "business data".... Not videos, not apple pie recipes sent by Aunt Bertha... If you are talking about strategically stored data and not user home folders, the signal/noise ratio is significantly better.

    Actually, it may have been all of those things, including personal crap.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  41. Re:I mean, really by The+Rizz · · Score: 1

    If you aren't in Africa, you can do it to.

    Even in Africa it's easy. I get hundreds of emails a week from Africans telling me about how they've got $150 million USD and they need my help...

  42. Good. by thedarb · · Score: 1

    Maybe this information can undo some of the damage you've done TO YOUR CUSTOMERS.

    * Undo the malware drm you put on peoples PC's.
    * Restore the ability to run Linux on game consoles that you wrongfully stole back AFTER you sold it.
    * Unlock the bootloaders on your android phones.

    Who knows what else. Probably a LOT of good can come from this. But the most important? Don't piss off your customers!

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  43. A fate worse that death by mendax · · Score: 1

    I'm not a big fan of Sony (although I like their electronic products because of their high quality) or big companies in general. However, a breach of this size could literally destroy the company if the amount of information that leaked yet to be revealed is even worse than what has already been revealed. The litigation nightmare this could cause in the US is appalling in itself but that could just be the tip of the iceberg because of all the corporate secrets that are now out in the open (or will be).

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  44. It's an isolated incident, by Yurka · · Score: 2

    now let us all hurry up and move our entire digital lives to the Cloud!

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
  45. Re:Good God! by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting he's using XML...

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  46. Too lazy to protect themselves by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    "In the letter, Sony defended its decision to wait five days to admit its security had been compromised and called on the government to help make the internet safer."

    They asked for outside help (expected the government to stop it) and apparently took security a bit lax in one area.
    "In the letter, Sony defended its decision to wait five days to admit its security had been compromised and called on the government to help make the internet safer." http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomgar...

    I did get two free simple games over that one, I expect money this time they need to take their security a bit more serious. I mean even shutting down the gym (who knows why, terminals?

    Once burnt twice shy, not something Sony is familiar with.

    1. Re:Too lazy to protect themselves by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I mean even shutting down the gym (who knows why, terminals?

      My company, which isn't quite as bit as Sony, but close, has badge access to every door in the building besides personal offices, with badge access control handled by servers located at corporate HQ. If you don't keep up with your ESD training, you're automatically barred from the labs, for instance. If Sony has something similar and they start taking stuff offline to stop leaks, there will be lot of side-effects.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  47. I say once again.... by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad I didn't take a job at Sony after my last time being interviewed by them....

  48. Can't avoid medical records by Green+Salad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I employ people in the USA in small IT and EE/IC specialty design shops. Most expert-level employees seem to come with white or grey hair. One of my IT geeks is a "MT Dew Diabetic." Avoiding the maintenance of medical records is simply not an option in the USA, given our laws and court rulings. We have to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), keep records of workman's comp medical restrictions, including very specific information, on what an employee may and may not do as well as provide emergency information to first responders. While often inconvenient, these are requirements I cannot avoid. Some of my employees have medical conditions (heart conditions, organ replacement, severe allergies, diabetes, unusual prescriptions of controlled sumstances, etc.) that they want known and available to first responders showing up at the office if they collapse clutching their heart or go into a sugar coma. Complicating this, if one of your customers is a Federal agency or Defense, you must, by law, have a "zero tolerance policy" for controlled substances. All this requires records to prove or excuse. For government accusations, corporations are "effectively guilty" until they prove themselves innocent with appropriate record keeping. Making this even more difficult, USA court rulings say we're also not allowed to store this information in their personal files, but must keep it in a separate, access controlled file, otherwise we could get sued if that person missed a pay raise or promotion because it was available to anyone reviewing their service and discipline records. The separate files seem silly when the teams are small enough that everyone knows each other very well anyway. Also, what if the employee who first greets the medics from the ambulance don't have easy access the secured medical files? Isn't that an even worse problem? Sued if you do. Sued if you don't. Sued if you didn't do it the nuanced way a team of $300/hr attorneys thinks you should have half-way done it. Nuisance suits are common in the USA.

    As a practical matter, a lot of valuable talent is not healthy. Many experts are experts because they have been at a speciality for 30-60yrs. If you have an employee that has an epileptic seizure, you don't want the rest of the team to stand there confused and gawking. You want them to recognize it and intervening to protect that individual's head and spine from injury. I had an employee with mental health issues under the care of a psychiatrist. While she was physically 100% capable (she was young and athletic) yet she was restricted from certain emotionally triggering situations. You want their supervisor trained know what those are and how to avoid it. You want a written record, periodically refreshed, that her supervisor knows and understands. You could say "I don't want to deal with that" but then you lose out on some great talent. Imagine a physics institute that didn't want to deal with maintaining medical records for Stephan Hawking.

    1. Re:Can't avoid medical records by dave562 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a practical matter, a lot of valuable talent is not healthy.

      This is so true. It is difficult to deal with as a boss and even more so as an employer. One of my guys is seriously over weight, and has a number of health complications that come with it. He is also highly intelligent and very capable. It is challenge because I want to be able to depend on him, and for the most part I can. But I also have to mitigate risk and make sure that there are people shadowing his projects and documenting his recommendations so that they can carry on if the time comes that he is no longer able to come into work.

      As his boss, I want to have a legitimate, sincere conversation with him about his health and his value to the company. I also want to have it with him as a friend and someone who cares about him. But due to the way employment law works, I have to avoid the subject.

    2. Re:Can't avoid medical records by Green+Salad · · Score: 1

      I feel for you on the job-shadowing and wondering if the talent will be alive or in a hospital bed next month. It's not limited to IT. If I look at my critical vendors, my brilliant tax CPA is another one I wonder about from month to month. He is a lone practitioner with no clerical assistants. I also look at the current batch of kids (future talent) graduating from high school and notice that, while technically literate and imaginative, 1/3 of the graduating kids are obese, as the new normal.
      I'm not sure how to build a resurgent culture of self-responsibility and sporting physical play in western civilization, except to encourage a few fellow geek friends here and there and maybe a thoughtful slashdotter or two.

    3. Re:Can't avoid medical records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      . It is challenge because I want to be able to depend on him, and for the most part I can. But I also have to mitigate risk and make sure that there are people shadowing his projects and documenting his recommendations so that they can carry on if the time comes that he is no longer able to come into work.

      No one should ever be a single point of failure. Anyone can be hit by a bus.

      As his boss, I want to have a legitimate, sincere conversation with him about his health and his value to the company. I also want to have it with him as a friend and someone who cares about him. But due to the way employment law works, I have to avoid the subject.

      Most overweight people know it and contrary to popular belief diet and excercise are not as effective as you'd think long term. 90%+ failure rate. Your employee may have issues with metabolism or hunger. He may have issues that make excercise difficult or heck he may even hate it so much he'd rather die young and be fat. Not everyone's built to live to 100.

      If there's anything I can't stand it's the "oh he died young because he didn't look after himself" mentality. Lots of people make very poor excercise and eating choices and do not baloon in weight.

    4. Re:Can't avoid medical records by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I employ people in the USA in small IT and EE/IC specialty design shops. Most expert-level employees seem to come with white or grey hair. One of my IT geeks is a "MT Dew Diabetic." Avoiding the maintenance of medical records is simply not an option in the USA, given our laws and court rulings. We have to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), keep records of workman's comp medical restrictions, including very specific information, on what an employee may and may not do as well as provide emergency information to first responders. While often inconvenient, these are requirements I cannot avoid. Some of my employees have medical conditions (heart conditions, organ replacement, severe allergies, diabetes, unusual prescriptions of controlled sumstances, etc.) that they want known and available to first responders showing up at the office if they collapse clutching their heart or go into a sugar coma. Complicating this, if one of your customers is a Federal agency or Defense, you must, by law, have a "zero tolerance policy" for controlled substances. All this requires records to prove or excuse. For government accusations, corporations are "effectively guilty" until they prove themselves innocent with appropriate record keeping. Making this even more difficult, USA court rulings say we're also not allowed to store this information in their personal files, but must keep it in a separate, access controlled file, otherwise we could get sued if that person missed a pay raise or promotion because it was available to anyone reviewing their service and discipline records. The separate files seem silly when the teams are small enough that everyone knows each other very well anyway. Also, what if the employee who first greets the medics from the ambulance don't have easy access the secured medical files? Isn't that an even worse problem? Sued if you do. Sued if you don't. Sued if you didn't do it the nuanced way a team of $300/hr attorneys thinks you should have half-way done it. Nuisance suits are common in the USA.

      As a practical matter, a lot of valuable talent is not healthy. Many experts are experts because they have been at a speciality for 30-60yrs. If you have an employee that has an epileptic seizure, you don't want the rest of the team to stand there confused and gawking. You want them to recognize it and intervening to protect that individual's head and spine from injury. I had an employee with mental health issues under the care of a psychiatrist. While she was physically 100% capable (she was young and athletic) yet she was restricted from certain emotionally triggering situations. You want their supervisor trained know what those are and how to avoid it. You want a written record, periodically refreshed, that her supervisor knows and understands. You could say "I don't want to deal with that" but then you lose out on some great talent. Imagine a physics institute that didn't want to deal with maintaining medical records for Stephan Hawking.

      Or, the government could put this information on an encrypted card the person keeps on them thus removing the need for companies to keep (and lose) private medical information on hand.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    5. Re:Can't avoid medical records by dave562 · · Score: 1

      It is a combination of a previous back injury, a bunch of poor dietary and health choices, and a genetic predisposition to weight gain.

      I have talked to him about it as much as I feel like I can. Like I said, I care about the guy. It is just that my hands are tied.

      And, he's not a single point of failure, but the organization would feel the loss.

    6. Re:Can't avoid medical records by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how to build a resurgent culture of self-responsibility and sporting physical play in western civilization, except to encourage a few fellow geek friends here and there and maybe a thoughtful slashdotter or two.

      Fat and sugar are addictive, borderline poisonous substances. On the other hand, willpower, time and energy are all limited resources. So while you'll probably always find some people who'll have enough of a surplus to stay fit throughout their lives even when constantly surronded by temptations and having to spend on both work and personal life, the same as you'll find the odd fellow who'll quit heroin cold turkey without being forced to, no amount of culture-building will significantly affect obesity rates as long as the cause remains on the shelves of every convenience store.

      But then again, comparing fat and sugar to heroin is hardly fair. After all, you can quit heroin but you can't quit food, so cold turkey is not an option. Instead, you have to carefully manage the intake for the rest of your life. Which, to put it bluntly, is a sufficient burden that it's probably more rational to settle for being fat. And that means obesity will remain a major problem until excessive fat and sugar are removed from food by legislation.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Can't avoid medical records by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      I am overweight and 3 months ago my boss (owner of the company) had a meeting with my about my confidence level. He said I would probably have my confidence boosted if I lost 50 lbs.
      It didn't upset me it was true, but I told him that I actually started losing weight 3 weeks ago (I actually did) and lost 15 lbs already. Now this is where 2 hurtful things he said came. First one was "it doesn't look like it". Fucking really? How encouraging is that. I don't expect him to say he notices that I lost weight or anything(because I doubt I actually did look any different) but what kind of comment is that?

      The 2nd thing that was really hurtful was he asked "do you have diabetes?" Ok so he is concerned about me, so I said "no", but then he said "Oh, that's surprising, most people your size do". WTF.. I mean luckily for me I think he is a giant fucking idiot douchebag already, so I just think of him even worse, but those 2 comments did sting a little. If it would have been someone else who was more emotional or had depression or massive self-image issues they would have been left in tears or worse.

      My boss is 70 years old chain smoker, I thought of it after, but I wish I would have said "do you have cancer?" and when he said no, reply with "oh, I am surprised, most people your age who still chain smoke are pretty much on their death bed"

      This is a small company so he IS the HR, so don't really have someone I could go to. Luckily I love my job other than my boss (which I don't have to interact with very often) so I just shrug it off best I can.

      Of course when I lose my weight he will probably be all self congratulating thinking how much of a motivational person he is motivating me to lose weight, forgetting that I told him I already started 3 weeks before the meeting.

    8. Re:Can't avoid medical records by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Anyways what I was getting at is I wouldn't actually mind if my boss had a meeting with me and was genuinely concerned about my health and offered to help me any way he could. But the way he came off was just hurtful. Now this wouldn't be the same with everybody as some people still have blinders on and in denial, or just think it is a complete invasion of privacy.

    9. Re:Can't avoid medical records by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      An idea, that I am not sure of or not, but how about company sponsored outdoor events? Like once a month or, every other friday all employees are encouraged (not required, but gets them out of work for the afternoon so they probably would want to) to go out and play a team sport like ultimate frisbee or soccer or something, could offer a company picnic as well like tuna salad sandwhiches. This could show them that exercising can actually be fun.

      Just throwing out ideas.

    10. Re:Can't avoid medical records by operagost · · Score: 1

      Fat and sugar are addictive, borderline poisonous substances.

      Oh. My. God. No, they aren't. Don't make excuses for these people. Substances necessary for biological function are not poison.SRE

      And that means obesity will remain a major problem until excessive fat and sugar are removed from food by legislation.

      So let's give up more of our liberty because some of us are irresponsible. The people are too stupid to feed themselves, amirite?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    11. Re:Can't avoid medical records by operagost · · Score: 1

      My boss is 70 years old chain smoker, I thought of it after, but I wish I would have said "do you have cancer?" and when he said no, reply with "oh, I am surprised, most people your age who still chain smoke are pretty much on their death bed"

      I LOLed. That would have really been a wake-up call for him in so many ways.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Can't avoid medical records by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Refined sugar is a poison. It is not necessary for biological function, as it does not exist naturally.

      I remember hearing about an experiment done quite a long time ago where some dogs were fed only water, some dogs fed only sugar water, and the dogs fed sugar water actually died faster than the dogs that only got water (hearsay, may not be accurate, I don't have a link, and I certainly don't condone starving animals to death).

      Fats, on the other hand, are fine. Sugar and processed carbs cause obesity, not animal fats.

    13. Re:Can't avoid medical records by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Oh. My. God. No, they aren't. Don't make excuses for these people. Substances necessary for biological function are not poison.SRE

      Oxygen is. Vitamin D is. Water is.

      So let's give up more of our liberty because some of us are irresponsible.

      No. Let's decide whether liberty to sell poisonous food is worth having an obesity epidemic. If you think it is, fine; but don't blame the victims.

      The people are too stupid to feed themselves, amirite?

      No. Are you sure you're actually replying to me, rather than some personal demons?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:Can't avoid medical records by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Or, the government could put this information on an encrypted card the person keeps on them thus removing the need for companies to keep (and lose) private medical information on hand.

      Or better still just centralize all the medical records and have a national ID system. It isn't like the NSA isn't already tracking all this info spying on everybody 100% of the time anyway, and it isn't like they're ever going to stop. We might as well at least standardize things and make use of all that data for something beneficial.

      Ambulance drives up and scans ID and up comes the person's essential medical data, ensuring the best possible first response. ER knows that patient is inbound while they're still inbound and doctors are looking over their history before they even come in the front door. Prioritization/triage is complete before they even arrive.

      If they lose their ID, then the EMTs just scan their fingerprint and an emergency identification is performed.

      People go nuts about big brother knowing everything about everybody, but everybody around here knows that big brother already knows everything about everybody already. Heck, I'd be shocked if the NSA didn't have a record of every digitized fingerprint taken anywhere in the world already, let alone US ones. All we're doing is preventing ourselves from benefiting from all this data. The folks who want to use it to do bad things already are doing it.

    15. Re:Can't avoid medical records by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      But due to the way employment law works, I have to avoid the subject.

      Good thing you are more than an employee.

    16. Re:Can't avoid medical records by OffTheWallSoccer · · Score: 1

      so cold turkey is not an option

      After the American Thanksgiving holiday, cold turkey was the only option for about a week.

    17. Re:Can't avoid medical records by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      And one of the more out of shape folks lands wrong and blows out a knee, or runs too much and drops of a heart attack, or... The opportunities to get sued are practically limitless with such a thing. My own employer gave up on the idea a few years before I came on when somebody ended up with a compound fracture in their leg as part of a friendly basketball game. Ran, fell, landed wrong, bones sticking out of torn muscle, not a good day for anyone...

      If there was any chance of benefit from a once-a-week thing, maybe it’d be worth it, but someone who habitually overeats and is significantly overweight isn’t going to see that “exercising can actually be fun” from a half-assed sportsball game once a week. They’ll see that exercising makes them hurt and sweaty and out of breath and oh-by-the-way they worked out, so they “earned” a “treat” after work which puts them an extra 1000kcal over their BMR for the day, and they get bigger as a result

      You can’t outrun a bad diet. Encouraging someone to exercise without convincing them to also bring their intake inline and preferably below their maintenance calorie level is more likely to injure them, turn them even more off on the idea of exercise, and make them fatter.

      Unfortunately an employer can’t realistically convince anyone to change their eating habits. Even if anyone would listen, the idea of my employer being able to say, “Put down the extra slice of pizza, or you’re fired,” isn’t something I’d like nor respond well to. For most people, even their closest friends and family can’t convince them.

      It takes a personal moment of clarity, and for some people that never comes. Mine came after seeing a friend who was always about my size drop half is body weight over a couple of years between seeing him. It was the kick in the ass I needed. If he could do it, maybe I could too. 180lbs down, maybe another 70-80 to go...

  49. Re:Good God! by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You've got it completely backwards. Sony has lost a vast amount of credibility and trust, and it will take a long long time to get it back.

    As you yourself said, "their connections, the power they have to move the industry" carry a lot of weight. A lot of people inside and outside Sony could have their reputations ruined by these leaks. The film industry is full of gossip and jealousy, and people often say things in private that can be incendiary if they get loose. If someone with big clout is offended, a lot of current and future deals could go out the window. Grudges are real, and can last a lifetime.

    And even non-bigwigs can be wrecked. Suppose someone takes time off, or has other issues from stress and uses prescription medication as a result. This could easily end up in personal records. This gets out, and that person could find themselves unemployable anywhere. Not even able to get a minimum wage job in retail or fast food, much less the entertainment industry. Remember, there are a lot of show hires and workers are transient, so there are a lot of ex-employees with records at Sony.

    Sony could be on the hook for a huge class actions suit, particularly if you consider ex-employees. No matter how long ago it was, if you name shows up online as a result of this breach you have a valid reason to sue.

    And Sony is not a well regarded company in Hollywood. They are known for squeezing the life out of people and then giving them the boot. They routinely have layoffs while they are advertising for new hires. (Everyone in Hollywood does this, but Sony is a prime example.)

    They keep a few people around but nobody lasts because it's cheaper, and transient workers are no threat to bad upper (or middle) management. Bad practice can be hidden if there is no one around to complain or remind anyone of previous mistakes. (Just ask anyone who has been cycled through Disney about this.)

    Given the combination of ill will and a lot of ex-workers, don't be surprised when the civil actions start. Sony doesn't have a leg to stand on, particularly on personal records. They had no partitioned networks/systems, no encryption, and didn't detect the breach until they were screwed. It's going to be just like drug lawsuits: there will be multiple late night commercials fishing for anyone who worked at Sony to join in.

    Hollywood is a schadenfreude kind of town. There will be a lot of movie industry types who will derive a lot of satisfaction from watching Sony suffer mightily because of this.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  50. Karma is a bitch by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

    I "almost" feel bad for Sony.
    No. No I don't. Could not have happened to a more deserving corporation.
    I do feel bad for the employees though so I'm not completely heartless.

  51. Re:Make peace with Kim Jung Eun by sjames · · Score: 2

    And there we have it. All those bazillions of taxpayer dollars wasted listening in on Aunt Tilly's scintillating description of the quilting bee and they totally missed the biggest ever hacking of a corporate system by a hostile foreign power.

    Their faces would be beet red if they weren't so shameless.

  52. Footage n Accounting same system? by Green+Salad · · Score: 2

    Putting on my IT geek hat, I'd say the term "system" or "same system" is rapidly losing its meaning in the age of "server fabric" and virtualized computing resources. You have systems of systems. Accessing everything from video editing apps to timecard and budgeting submission apps or web-pages from the same workstation, possibly at your home, on the day you telecommuted, using your "federated security credential" on your key-logging terminal. The key-logging pretty much by-passes all security from full-disk encryption, VPNs and secure sockets to compartmentalization and containment schemes, all of which become irrelevent. You don't even need to infect or access the target workstation to key-log it to gain access to bigger systems. Many of the attack techniques have been published or hinted at by security firms, ars technica and commented on by slashdotters over the years. In some of the more interesting techniques, attackers use your smartphone's microphone or your Xbox's Kinnect features.

    I don't actually know, but I would speculate that a state-sponsored actor, such as North Korea, can point a low-power laser at your window as you type on your keyboard and a small, crude app can statistically deduce which keys are being struck by both the rhythm, frequency and a differential analysis of the resonant frequency signatures inherent in each keystroke. Don't believe it's possible? Try this simple test. Listen carefully to the tap of your ~tilde key in the upper left corner. Now tap a "home" key such as D, F, J or K. They don't sound EVEN CLOSE in tone of click...do they? Precise tonal frequency differentiation is trivial for a low-end 80's era microphone and 80's era processor. While North Korea likely didn't create the acoustic key-logging technology, they likely can get their hands on it as long as the share the "intelligence take" with their Chinese or middle-eastern eavesdropping equipment suppliers, who most likely also hate Sony even more than some of Sony's consumers.

    North Korea has it in for anything Japanese. Strict middle-eastern religions include some great electrical engineering types and are likely outraged by the hot women in Sony's movies. who typically don't cover up in Burkas and have the audacity to drive themselves in cars and argue with men. China wants control of the Asian-Pacific region and wants all the intel, server access and compromised foreigners it can manage to obtain without upsetting its western-civilization consumers of Chinese-made goodies like Lenovo Thinkpads and Apple iPhones.

    1. Re:Footage n Accounting same system? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Don't believe it's possible? Try this simple test. Listen carefully to the tap of your ~tilde key in the upper left corner. Now tap a "home" key such as D, F, J or K. They don't sound EVEN CLOSE in tone of click...do they? Precise tonal frequency differentiation is trivial for a low-end 80's era microphone and 80's era processor.

      North Korea has it in for anything Japanese.

      To my ears all the buttons on my keyboard sound the same, maybe some slight differences based on the usage of the keys, but yeah to me tilde sounds the same as e when pressed.

      Strict middle-eastern religions include some great electrical engineering types and are likely outraged by the hot women in Sony's movies. who typically don't cover up in Burkas and have the audacity to drive themselves in cars and argue with men.

      NK ain't muslim. Buddhist maybe but I'm pretty sure they're not really religious at all unless you count the Kim dynasty as their gods, they do seem to worship them.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    2. Re:Footage n Accounting same system? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      NK ain't muslim. Buddhist maybe

      Don't bother. The above poster has grouped everything outside the place he cares about as "here be dragons" and bundled it all together. He probably says the same about Canada. Or Utah.

  53. Re:Good God! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At 50 fps 4K video takes about 3,8 TB / hour. Do double that for 2 hour movie. (8 TB). Count in the shooting ratio of raw material:finished film, which can easily be even bigger than 10:1 in multiple camera multiple shoots scenario. That's 80 TB for just one movie.

  54. Identity theft by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    Get somebody's SSN, birthdate, name, sex, employer, home address, etc, and identity theft becomes much easier.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    1. Re:Identity theft by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Which just means that the current methods of verifying identity are pathetic: None of that information is at all secret.

    2. Re:Identity theft by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact quite the opposite: People are interested because the information leaked can be used for identity theft, precisely because current methods of verifying identity are pathetic.

    3. Re:Identity theft by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If you can recommend a superior mechanism then there are a lot of people, companies and countries very interested in hearing from you.

      Don't forget to factor in cost, convenience, viability, privacy and human stupidity.

    4. Re:Identity theft by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Am I allowed to surgically implant a chip into people?

    5. Re:Identity theft by Cederic · · Score: 1

      See also: viability, cost, privacy.

    6. Re:Identity theft by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No privacy issue if the chip has a five-centimeter range. It just needs a public key pair (Something post-quantum, these things will be around a while) and enough computing power to hand over the public key and sign a string with the private one. Good for everything from financial transactions to opening the car door.

    7. Re:Identity theft by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You appear to have restricted identification to a distance of 50mm.

      This is somewhere in the region of several thousand miles less than current imperfect options allow.

    8. Re:Identity theft by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      No, I've restricted the individual's granting of permission for identification to 50mm. What they grant that permission to can easily be a payment terminal or computer, which in turn is just relaying the challenge-response between ID chip and a remote server. As it uses a nonce challenge, this could easily be a home computer with a cheap USB interface and it'd still be fine for logging onto a banking site or identifying you on a government service. Would just need a little cryptostuff and an agreed protocol. It could work.

      You could physically force someone's hand up against a reader, but if you're that close to someone you can do far worse than that anyway. As the private key never leaves the implant, there's no possibility of cloning it. It's basically just a smartcard, but one that can never be lost or stolen short of cutting someone's hand open.

      I'm imagining a slight variation upon RFID tags. It'd need a bit more processing power in the chip to handle a simple encryption operation, and bidirectional communication, but it's well within the capabilities of current technology. The chip only needs to allow the reader to call two functions: One to read the public key out, and one to give it a nonce and get back the signed nonce.

      I think I recall an episode of something like The Outer Limits that featured a technology like this. The main theme of the episode was human fallibility in security. The ID chip was described as an unhackable form of identification - and it was. It still failed due to a human error. Some hackers managed to almost activate a self-destruct system, but needed the company CEO to confirm the order by placing his hand against the chip-reader. Rather than hack the ID, they hacked the interface: Spoofing a countdown screen to make him think the self-destruct was already underway, so he'd panic and place his hand against the reader to give what he mistakenly believed was the cancel command. The ID chip worked perfectly in validating his identity, and promptly blew up the building. This isn't far off from how payment terminal fraud still works today: Thieves can't actually break the chip-and-pin authentication system, so they falsify the interface to manipulate the victim into thinking they are authorizing a different transaction to the one actually taking place.

  55. Bad news, good news by golodh · · Score: 2
    This computer burglary (I refuse to call it a hack) is unfortunate for Sony and its employees.

    My condoleances.

    On the other hand, it's very beneficial for our society that this sort of data now becomes a matter of public record simply because I'm pretty sure that the extent of data that is collected on employees hasn't been documented quite so clearly and unequivocally before.

    Besides which, it's well-documented that law-makers and public opinion generally aren't pro-active on basis of insight, intelligence, or commonsense. No, it always requires one or two actual cases of things going totally wrong to get people's attention. And even then it takes a couple of repeats before the shoot-the-messenger reflex can be bypassed and the underlying issues addressed.

    In addition, the release of business information gives a valuable historical reference on how the corporate world works in a way that transcends books and even court records (which are usually sealed anyway where commercial interests are concerned).

    So, in this respect, society as a whole benefits from this example of computer-burglary. Now if we could only make the data available in its entirety, or at least in coherent chunks ...

  56. Perhaps Sony should go retro by ikhider · · Score: 1

    Maybe such a prime target like Sony ought to lay off the whole 'cloud storage' thing and go a bit luddite. Use paper instead of e-mails, tape instead of digital--older mediums of information. Heck, use typewriters again. Sure, their offices may wind up looking like something out of Brazil, but a lot harder to hack. It certainly is awful what Sony did with their DRM spyware on consumers and some may call it karma. Perhaps this can be a learning experience and a way for Sony to take a new approach. Then again, maybe Sony will watch the end of Brazil and want to go that route with consumers instead.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    1. Re:Perhaps Sony should go retro by ruir · · Score: 1

      Why not using papyrus and engraving in stone?

    2. Re:Perhaps Sony should go retro by ikhider · · Score: 1

      Because paper and ink is much easier and that was also the defacto standard not too long ago. I am sure there is mothballed stoarge for this equipment as well...

      --
      "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    3. Re:Perhaps Sony should go retro by ruir · · Score: 1

      So they would better be back to sell comics than DVDs? At this moment on time, using pen and paper is as good as going out of business...it is not doable for a large multinational corporation.

  57. Let me state the obvious by ruir · · Score: 1

    Saying the attack in from korea just because the attack came from a korean IP and/or there are korean files there, is saying like I was mugged by Stevie Wonder because "I just called..." was playing on the radio. Technical people know better than listening to political propaganda drivel.

  58. Should have been Sony themselfs by mnt · · Score: 1

    and the name of the Operation should be called "OP GEOHOT". Gibson would be proud.

  59. Re:Make peace with Kim Jung Eun by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    Hackers say they stole 100 terabytes of data in total

    Indeed. At, say, 100 Mbps (~ 10MB/s) on the Internet - that's fast - that would take 10 million seconds, or 116 days full time...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  60. They've had plenty of wakeup calls by dbIII · · Score: 2

    There's been plenty of wakeup calls since the movie "The computer who wore tennis shoes" came out, or maybe even before. Taking the easy and lazy way out is seen as better than waking up and doing something sensible.

  61. Re:Good God! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    This is either bullshit, or you're doing it very, very wrong.

    A lot of places do it very, very wrong. Amazing how scanned HR paperwork can expand to fill a larger amount of data than highly detailed geological survey data of very large areas.

  62. Re:Good God! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    At 50 fps 4K video takes about 3,8 TB / hour. Do double that for 2 hour movie. (8 TB). Count in the shooting ratio of raw material:finished film, which can easily be even bigger than 10:1 in multiple camera multiple shoots scenario. That's 80 TB for just one movie.

    Don't forget to add 5/7/12.1 channels of high quality uncompressed audio to go along with it.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  63. Re:I mean, really by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    i helped that prince out once, good guy, he even offered to give me 10 million if i let him park some money in my acct. I should probably go check on it as i am sure the money will be there any day now

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  64. Re:I mean, really by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Before or after taxes?

  65. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by pla · · Score: 1

    I can't answer that for Sony in particular, but I can tell you with absolute certainty why it happens at smaller companies that could easily segregate such sensitive systems from the general corporate network...

    "Damnit, $peon, I don't give a damn about HIPAA or PCI or SOX! Make it so I can get to all the files I want, from my desk computer, or I'll find someone who can. Don't worry about it, just keep the bad guys off our network, and we'll have no problems. What??? No you can't lock down my computer so I can't browse por... er... financial news sites at lunch!"

    The problem comes from the people who do legitimately need access to such data considering themselves "too important" (and naturally, infallible) to follow the policies and procedures required to maintain meaningful access limitations. That, and the people who actually understand the need for an air gap almost never having the authority to say "tough, you work for this company, and this company requires that you do it this way".

    "Do you know who I am???"

  66. What Would Jennifer Lawrence Do? by gelfling · · Score: 1

    After all, all we care about is hacked nude selfies.

  67. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by hink · · Score: 1

    Air gaps work great and are cheap when they are only 3 feet wide- everywhere along the circumference of the inner "island".
    When your "island" has to cover multiple states and time zones at the same time, it becomes very unwieldy to strictly maintain that air-gap. Why do you think the DOD classified networks cost so much and have so many regulations concerning them? Have you ever priced what REAL hardware encryptors cost?

    --
    - speaking only for myself, as always
  68. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    And you've just failed security 101.

    Airgapping does not make you immune to everything. e.g. Windows Updates. A lot of those updates are to fix patches against physical exploits. And by airgapping you've increased your attack vector (because I am assuming here with your basic statement that you didn't think of how data will get in and out of the network including security patches). Then you're also assuming that the reason there was no airgap was due to Outlook and Facebook rather than

    Airgapping is rarely ever the answer. Understanding and breeding a culture of corporate security is. Knowing how to design networks with layered protection so that the computers themselves remain useful is.

  69. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by BUL2294 · · Score: 1

    So how did companies handle such networks 20+ years ago, where employees in "other offices" (cities, other locations in the same city, etc.) could access files, databases, etc., without any vector out to the Internet? Wouldn't be that hard to create a disconnected network island "war room" in each office--disconnect some ports & buy new routers. The real issue ultimately becomes that you now might want to consider multiple such air-gappped networks (e.g. R&D, HR, Finance, etc.)

    I have to assume that data breaches are much worse cost... This one has lost sales, lost goodwill, lawsuits, potential government fines (e.g. HR data), network design changes, etc. Even a $10 million air-gapped network would have been a bargain compared to this mess...

    I'm still waiting for a massive Salesforce data breach... That'll be interesting when it happens.

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  70. Ah, Karma by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    Remember back a few years ago, when Sony decided the best way to combat piracy was to install a rootkit on the machines of anybody who played one of their CD's?

    I hope I can be forgiven for reminding them of a couple of good old adages. Adages like, "What goes around comes around", "Karma's a bitch", and "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

    And I hope they'll forgive me for my complete lack of sympathy.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  71. Some perspective. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    Wasn't Lockheed hacked a couple of years back? My understanding is that quite a good amount of data regarding a variety of weapons systems, including data on the F-35, was stolen. I don't know how the volume of data stolen compares, but it seems to me like a far more significant hack than stealing a bunch of shitty film scripts and some employee data.

  72. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by hink · · Score: 1

    How did companies do things 20 years ago?
    They racked up lots of frequent flyer miles, spent hours on long distance calls, and made FedEx a household name (and very profitable). Did I mention the conference calls where people on the East coast had to stay at work late to talk to people on the West Coast?

    --
    - speaking only for myself, as always
  73. USA is slow by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I suspect that because Sony is a Japanese company, and has their headquarters in Japan, likely has most of their important datacenters in Japan, which unlike the USA, has incredible internet speed, and because Sony is a tech monster, likely has some pretty serious connections to their stuff.

    Now couple that with what we have already seen of general network incompetence with the last huge Sony breach to their Playstation network, due to them simply not updating their software to a version several years out of date, I don't think it is all that surprising.

    However you are right, 100TB is nothing to sneeze at, and would take some time, and likely multiple connections to work. I suspect that Sony was clueless about what was going on, until someone complained about slow network connectivity, and eventually some sysadmin started looking at things, and started to see connections, and bandwidth saturation, and then trying to figure out who was doing it, and on finding it wasn't Sony, needed approval about severing the connections (if even technically that easy)... and once approvals and technical fix were done, well 100TB is gone.

    I suspect with the amount of interconnectedness of distributed networks, it wasn't as simple as walking outside with an axe.

    1. Re:USA is slow by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Dude, America has BADASS, world-class trunks and backhauls. They put in special lines from NY to Chicago jsut to shave milliseconds off of trades.. Its the LAST MILE shit that we utterly fail at and keeps us lagging behind other nations, not the core infrastructure.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:USA is slow by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Well unless your Hacker is sitting in a trunk splicing wires, or splinter cell infiltration level expert of Sony HQ, your limitation is going to be last mile. Unless they are storing their ill gotten gains on some cloud that happens to be sitting on a fat pipe (even then you're sharing resources with other users).

      I think the parent (likely in the US) was thinking about how long it takes them to DL Frozen to their home PC and thinking about how many hours that takes, then dividing 100TB by the Bluray version size, and going, wow that would take a long time. Though heck, just doing a transfer over a network of 100TB is going to eat time. I guess I am just saying that were the Hackers and Data both actually sitting in say urban Japan, rather than your Redneck Hackers of the US, their times are going to be significantly better by many levels of magnitude.

      Then again, they were sketchy as to the details. It could be that Sony has had a leak for years, and hackers have just be trickle draining them without being detected, and Sony is reluctant to admit that they have had a breach for so long...

    3. Re:USA is slow by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The last mile problem is like looking at the life expectancy of 200 years ago. The number is so low because INFANT mortality was so high that it heavily pulls down the top end. I have 100 mb at my house right now, my friend has gigabit, but most people dont, so overall it makes us look like shit, but your assertions are jsut straight up wrong.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:USA is slow by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Never really thought about the effects of infant mortality, interesting if truly how they calculate that statistic.

      As to your analogy and saying I am wrong, I am not sure how you have proved either. That is fine if you and your buddy have 100MB and 1GB connections, however if most of the connections in your country are SIGNIFICANTLY less that than by a very large margin, I am not sure what you are talking about. I understand that in many large metropolitan cities, a good connection can be found for many areas, however outside that it is not good.

      If you are suggesting that MOST of the US has extremely good connections, and that there is a small but very poor portion (your dead baby analogy) bringing down the statistics, I think you are incorrect.

  74. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by BUL2294 · · Score: 1

    Explain how airgapping doesn't make you immune to Windows Updates? If your PC can't talk to Microsoft, and unless you're going old-school sneakernet with flash drives, how is it going to get updates? Most Windows updates solve some sort of security hole, usually caused by the execution of malicious software or some sort of security hole that's exploitable from the Internet. Take away "the Internet" and lock down what people can execute on their PCs within "the island" and problem solved. Yes, you now have a known unpatched security hole--but one that can't be exploited without access to the Internet. No malicious links, attachments, unauthorized software, browser toolbars, etc. Just people using limited specific software & specific versions on (for example) Windows 7-SP1.

    As has been proven by Stuxnet and this breach, unlimited state-sponsored funds ALWAYS beats "networks with layered protection". Big-name companies that spend shitloads of money on security still get breached. 15+ years of "breeding a culture of corporate security" also hasn't worked. But if you require the network to have a physical presence, then you've eliminated your primary attack vector.

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  75. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Such an air-gapped network would easily become an island--one that doesn't need Windows Updates, can stay on an old service pack, gets no software updates that solves 2 problems

    Well, only assuming you keep all your employees from plugging in any unapproved devices to any of the machines. Whoops instant virus (although still contained), made much worse by your internal security patches being way out of date.

    Or does nobody actually write malware for just plain destroying data anymore? Maybe not.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  76. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Plus you could presumably go old-school and just download and burn the updates to CD or something (after SHA-1'ing them etc.), couldn't you?

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  77. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    So how did companies handle such networks 20+ years ago, where employees in "other offices" (cities, other locations in the same city, etc.) could access files, databases, etc., without any vector out to the Internet?

    Thank you, that's a good question. Companies used to pay for their own, dedicated network connections between various offices - think T1s, T3s, ISDN, etc. Yes, they were much more expensive, which is why they mostly went away. The bean-counters probably saw dollar signs flash in front of their eyes when internet connections became cheap and VPN and other tunneling solutions were worked out that made it possible to replace the old dedicated connections, and that was that.

    Another possibility, however, is that the internet made the business need to be interconnected so great (i.e. email, web, saas, etc) that it just became too difficult to justify having duplicate machines on everyone's desks. Remember that IT is a cost center for businesses, so eternally being squeezed to be more efficient and cost-effective.

  78. Re:Who will get fired? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    If the Chief InfoSec Officer doesn't at least get fire

    Grep the 40 gig to see if you can find the risk log and/or the emails from the CISO to the CEO going, "We need 30 times the investment or you're going to get a career ending data breach"?

  79. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Good move. After all, employing three times the staff to cover for the lost productivity and constantly training new hires after you've sacked people for breaching processes is definitely going to make you competitive with companies that take a more balanced risk based approach to their security.

    Incidentally just what the fuck are you installing on the virtual machines if it isn't an operating system (e.g. Windows 8).

  80. Only what sony employees deserve by johncandale · · Score: 1

    I still have not forgiven them for the rootkit and other more recent sins. And no, employees are not innocent. You work for a corrupt company, you are complacent. Just like NSA employees, you don't get a free pass because you are following orders. If 60% of NSA employees quit, it would have forced change a lot faster then anything going on now.

  81. Re:$1tr question--Why is all this Internet-facing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    You misunderstood. No surprise I didn't write it very well.

    Airgapping your network only protects you from network attacks. It only protects you if people don't expand your network without authorisation. It also by itself is quite useless unless you have systems in place to do things like get Windows Updates onto the machine.

    If you think Stuxnet showed that this breach had anything to do with layered networks then you are very very misinformed. Stuxnet entered their systems on a closed network via internal breaches and replicated via USB. It is actually a perfect example of how airgapping doesn't solve problems.

    What I mean with "a culture of security" is that the whole picture is taken into account. I've worked at a lot of industrial plants and I've seen everything work, and I've seen it all fail too. One of the refineries we were at had a great airgapped system using sneakernet (burning CDs, no USB sticks as per policy) to get data on and off the network. A major breach was discovered when an operator had plugged a 3G modem into the back of a control systems machine so he could access the internet from his workstation. This is an example of airgapping without a culture of corporate security. Best of all there were no penalty for the operator. The plant was also way behind on security patches and the likes because they aren't connected to anything so why need security right?

    On the other hand the plant where I work now has a layered security approach with 3 distinct networks between the internet and the control system. The last layer is a one-way (I hate the term Data-Diode but that seems to be what they are calling it these days) isolation which pushes data to an external box on another network which the 3rd network can access via a firewall. But far more importantly is the view on security. You won't get operators plugging 3G modems into the PC not because the boxes are locked (which they are), but because someone sat down and thought through things like the bored users scenario and they have a second PC off the network which they can do with what they want (within policy). Oh and if this happened at my current work place the operator would be dragged to the gate by his ears and told never to come back.

    Airgapping as a security solution typically fails due to lack of security by other means, bored or idiotic users (especially if there's a nightshift), and the management problem where some genius decides it would be great if they can see what's going on in the network and the network grows arms and legs till it eventually gets plugged into something it shouldn't.

    A tiered approach on the other hand typically requires careful thought. Don't get me wrong this can be done VERY poorly, but for the most part the tiered network implementations I've seen and what comes with them I would consider to be far more secure because they have gone through a thorough design stage. By contrast the airgap solutions I've seen have typically been an afterthought where "airgap is the security so what else would you need".

    Oh also the Windows Update was just an example of something that is typically done poorly. Airgapped networks I have seen have let their software rot from a security point of view. But solutions exist and in the case of Windows Update it's running a WSUS server on the closed network and feeding it the necessary update by some means. This can be done both well and poorly regardless of which method is used, but is almost universally done poorly when the approach to security becomes, "just unplug it".

  82. Karma strikes back by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    Any one remember this?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  83. What am I missing? by lissnup · · Score: 1

    "In the letter, Sony [...] called on the government to help make the internet safer." http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomgar...

    How does the government doing anything to "the internet" help secure private data on a private corporate network?