Pirates Hacked Shipping Firm's CMS To Plan Attacks, Find Valuable Cargo (softpedia.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Verizon's most recent Data Breach Digest includes a curious hacking case. Apparently a group of sea pirates have hired a hacker who uploaded a Web shell to a shipping company's CMS that allowed them to download cargo inventories and ship routes. They then used this information to attack ships, equipped with a barcode reader (and weapons of course), searching specific crates, emptying all the high-value cargo, and making off with the loot within minutes of launching their attacks.

Comments

Are they still called pirates?

[sims 2]

Now that we are referring to netflix subscribers by the same name we may need to come up with another name for people who steal at sea. What should we call them? Searates? Picaroons? Thieves?

Re:Are they still called pirates?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends if they have good lawyers or not. For safety I would suggest Unlicensed Goods Removals and Relocations Corporations. You never know when somebody might sue.

Re:Are they still called pirates?

[ArsenneLupin]

In French, "hackers/crackers" are called "pirates" (not just those that copy movies, but those that hack into servers. And that word was already used in the nineties). Quite appropriate word in this case...

Re:Are they still called pirates?

[tlhIngan]

Now that we are referring to netflix subscribers by the same name we may need to come up with another name for people who steal at sea. What should we call them? Searates? Picaroons? Thieves?

Well, the nautical version has been around a long time, and the copyright version has been around since the 17th century or so when copyright was first established.

Though I have to admit, this is one of the few times where the two worlds collide...

Maybe we can do what the Navy does - where "pilot" is an overloaded term (one is the sailor who guides ships into port, the other is the aviator)... pilot retains its traditional nautical terminology, while flying pilots are known as naval aviators...

Re:Are they still called pirates?

[Alumoi]

Politicians?

Unarmed ships are helpless.

[jcr]

It's fucking ludicrous that a vessel carrying a billion dollars worth of cargo isn't protected by at least a pair of .50 caliber Gatling guns. These pirates should be getting turned into a red mist at 500 yards.

-jcr

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[spork invasion]

The idea has definitely been discussed. It would seem very irresponsible to travel unarmed in pirate-infested waters such as near Somalia. However, it's not clear where this attack took place. It should be relatively safe to ship through the north Pacific or north Atlantic. I'd also expect the Southern Ocean is pretty safe because there isn't too much down there.

There's an article from the Christian Science Monitor that does a really good job of explaining the issues with protecting ships. It says that if crews are armed, pirates may retaliate if fired upon, injuring the crew or damaging the ship. Similarly, they believe that having specific armed security on ships will result in pirates getting more powerful weapons and firing from a distance. In short, they don't want to create an arms race with the pirates. There are other measures to protect ships, though they're somewhat expensive. I'd guess that shipping companies don't want to spend the money to protect ships traveling in areas where pirates aren't common.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a ship was armed with weapons, that would just make it a bigger target, since it must have something valuable to protect.

No it wouldn't. a) people don't have to know b) under the plan proposed all vessels would have weapons so it wouldn't give anything away.

The problem is different. When you choose to attack something, you study it and it's weaknesses. If the thing is armed with Gatling guns then you come along with autocannon. If it's armed with autocannon you come with missiles. Once we start arming ships, carrying arms will no longer be a sign of being a pirate and so it won't be possible to arrest these people because they will come on "merchant" vessels that just happen to have a higher ratio of arms to cargo than the existing ones. At that point the high seas will become chaos.

For this to work there needs to be a very clear monitoring and control of who can carry weapons working within some kind of clear military or police structure.

Remember, the Swiss and Canadians manage to carry huge amounts more weapons than the citizens of the USA without major problems because they are "well regulated" societies. If you just dump a load of weapons on boats the high seas will become as dangerous as the worse parts of the USA.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[excelsior_gr]

Get Gatling guns on one ship, the next pirate crew will show up with an RPG. If I was a sailor on one of those ships, there would be no chance in frozen hell I would fire back on a pirate to protect some rich dude's shit on board that's probably insured anyway. You can be as gun-ho about this as you want from your armchair, I'm throwing my hands in the air and letting the pirates go with the cargo.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[jcr]

US Navy ships carry very high-value cargo, all the time. Somalis with RPGs don't try to board them and steal the Tomahawk missiles. QED.

-jcr

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[AHuxley]

That could have been fixed under the Rome Convention, 2005 Protocol but it seems all the big powers only want their own nations mil with big flags flying or a push for ever more UN powers.
The inherent right of individual or collective self defense seems to have been totally blocked by the big powerful nations who could have allowed more protections at any time in the past decades but ensured nothing was useful was done.
All they did was update the forbidden cargo lists to contain nations doing bad exports and the right for a navy to stop them ie more state only policy was added.
The UN and the big powers wanted to keep their monopoly of force with their own govs and mils.
The question of who is a pirate and what another nation can do to any nation harboring pirates gets to be fun. What would be the limits for justifying a counter attack?
Failed state? Lax state? Poor state? Coup in play? Are Western backed freedom fighters pirates? One nations pirates are another nations clandestine services backed, freedom loving, moderate, pro democracy forces :)
The US suppression of the trade in drugs going out far over maritime zones?
All that has been done is a call for more naval units, international criminal investigations ie tracking pirates financial and logistical support. The UN and big nations like the proportionate use of their warships. The other neat new trick is to "invite" a nations customs inspectors for trade back to that nation.
Everything has been done to support the US gov, project UN power and nations navy patrol options. The US and UN took great care to shape the scope of any new options and selected the UN, big navy and big gov as the only real option.
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[tlhIngan]

It's fucking ludicrous that a vessel carrying a billion dollars worth of cargo isn't protected by at least a pair of .50 caliber Gatling guns. These pirates should be getting turned into a red mist at 500 yards.

Well, the BIG problem is firearms and every country has a ton of laws around it. It's been debated, and most shipping companies are averse to it because the permits and paperwork involved would basically halt the industry. Especially if you're transiting waters.

It's why they typically use water cannons instead.

Then again, shipping is really just a balance of risks. Every trip they easily lose a few containers overboard - it's a rather large amount once you realize just how much is shipped. And containers aren't typically holding a lot of valuable goods - the entire ship may have billions of dollars of cargo, but each container only has a few million dollars, and that's retail. Most containers have far less valuable goods inside. (Think stuff like toys, t-shirts, etc.).

Valuables like electronics are typically air-shipped because the delays over regular sea shipping are huge. While busy routes may be able to get you a product from factory to local shores in a month (for a direct route), less direct shipments can easily take 2-3 months. Or more, depending on how many stops the ship makes - it can take 3-4 days at each port to offload containers.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JWSmythe]

There are legal issues about having weapons on a ship. That is, when they transit different national waters, they may, or may not, be allowed to have some, or any, weapons on the ship, regardless if it's stored or not.

Simpler. Say your boat leaves a country where you can legally have Gatling guns. You transit inside another nation's waters where you can't legally have one, such as the Canada, US, or Mexico. You could end up in jail over it. Depending on the rules and policies, it could be the responsible party, captain, or crew. Unmounting the Gatling gun, and placing it in a locker isn't usually good enough.

Cargo ships can be transiting the waters of many nations during their cruise.

I wouldn't really focus on the chance of escalating force. The pirates that are committing most of these crimes are working on a real shoe-string budget. Like, a small boats, where the pirates are armed with knives, rifles, and the (very) occasional RPG. Clicking through the pirate activity map, I couldn't find any reports stating heavier weapons than rifles. Most were unarmed, or armed with knives. If they could afford, or steal, better ships and weapons, they'd be doing it already.

Pirate activity map

Here is a writeup on the issue

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[gweihir]

They are a bit more expensive to buy and operate though, and that makes it rather uneconomically. Your "QED" comes from some fundamental misunderstandings.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[serviscope_minor]

Get Gatling guns on one ship, the next pirate crew will show up with an RPG.

Next?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multi...

They've already been doing that for years.

You can be as gun-ho about this as you want from your armchair

The crew of the ship where that picture was taken faced off the RPG wielder with molotov cocktails.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[jcr]

Defending yourself and your neighbors is virtuous. If you can't see that, you're useless to those around you.

-jcr

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[jcr]

Sure, why solve the problem in an obvious way when you can pad it out with corporate welfare for the Lockheeds and Northrups of the world at vastly greater expense?

-jcr

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[LordWabbit2]

There are already several companies offering trained security personnel to protect ships when they venture into dodgy waters. The difference is that these are trained people with firearms, they are not handing out automatic weapons to the crew. A lot of them are ex-military or ex-policemen with extra training for naval duty.
Some of the companies after a quick google...
Sea Marshals
ESC Global Security
ESS&SA
McRoberts Protective Agency
Agema-Services
Rokada
Seagull Maritime Security
International Maritime Security (IMS)
Atlas
Britannia
Solace Global
Port2Port Maritime Security
Triaena Maritime Security
MAST
ESPADA
ALGIZ Security

The list goes on.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[jafiwam]

The idea has definitely been discussed. It would seem very irresponsible to travel unarmed in pirate-infested waters such as near Somalia. However, it's not clear where this attack took place. It should be relatively safe to ship through the north Pacific or north Atlantic. I'd also expect the Southern Ocean is pretty safe because there isn't too much down there.

There's an article from the Christian Science Monitor that does a really good job of explaining the issues with protecting ships. It says that if crews are armed, pirates may retaliate if fired upon, injuring the crew or damaging the ship. Similarly, they believe that having specific armed security on ships will result in pirates getting more powerful weapons and firing from a distance. In short, they don't want to create an arms race with the pirates. There are other measures to protect ships, though they're somewhat expensive. I'd guess that shipping companies don't want to spend the money to protect ships traveling in areas where pirates aren't common.

Well then follow up with a drone strike of the base camps they use and a torpedo for the mother ship.

If that doesn't work, I am sure a B1-B or two can carry a payload to fix the problem. Just one of those can carry enough land mines and sea mines to fuck up their areas of deployment real well.

Sounds like "we don't actually want to solve the problem, just whine about it" to me. Typical pussy generation. Maybe try handing out trophies to all the pirates or something. I am sure that would work.

The deciding factor in all of this is the insurance companies. Eventually they won't insure anymore, or they will charge too high a price.

On the other hand, they could SELL tickets to guys that would love to sit around on a ship and imagine being attacked by pirates only to fend them off. 40 fat dudes with their own ammo stashes and weapons could probably hold off a lot of pirates. The ship company would just need to feed, house, and entertain them a little.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[swb]

The usual pirate scenario seems to be a fairly small fishing type boat attacking a large ocean going ship. The former is usually wooden and the latter a multi-story sized hunk of steel.

I'm not sure why even a .50 cal semi-auto sniper-style rifle wouldn't be more than a match for pirates in a small wooden boat. The effective range of RPGs is only a few hundred meters and the ability to fire it accurately from a small boat in the ocean seems pretty limited. It's slow to fire repeated rounds and the effect is likely to be limited against a large, steel ocean going freighter.

The .50 round is effective at much longer ranges, a large ship would provide a much more stable and accurate firing platform in addition to being able to fire multiple rounds quickly. One guy with a .50 sniper rifle could probably do serious damage to a wooden fishing boat, with nowhere safe to hide for its crew and way outside the effective range of a RPG.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[The Evil Atheist]

Having delusional fantasies about defending yourself and your neighbours is not virtuous. The statistics regarding firearms used in defense has been overstated.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...

Real people are more concerned about protecting their ego than their person. But yeah, keep pretending you're just defending yourself and your neighbours.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[Trailer Trash]

There are legal issues about having weapons on a ship. That is, when they transit different national waters, they may, or may not, be allowed to have some, or any, weapons on the ship, regardless if it's stored or not.

Simpler. Say your boat leaves a country where you can legally have Gatling guns. You transit inside another nation's waters where you can't legally have one, such as the Canada, US, or Mexico.

If enough shipping companies got together and said "we can't ship to the US since we can't have guns" that would change overnight.

200 years ago it was a given that a decent ship would be outfitted with cannon and defensive measures. We're back in the age where pirating at sea is a profitable criminal enterprise, so it's time that ships become armed again. Most pirates just come in small fast boats that would be trivial to destroy with any sort of boat-mounted weapon.

The other issue that needs to be addressed is why Somalis started in pirating in the first place. You can read up on that elsewhere.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[Trailer Trash]

The usual pirate scenario seems to be a fairly small fishing type boat attacking a large ocean going ship. The former is usually wooden and the latter a multi-story sized hunk of steel.

I'm not sure why even a .50 cal semi-auto sniper-style rifle wouldn't be more than a match for pirates in a small wooden boat. The effective range of RPGs is only a few hundred meters and the ability to fire it accurately from a small boat in the ocean seems pretty limited. It's slow to fire repeated rounds and the effect is likely to be limited against a large, steel ocean going freighter.

The .50 round is effective at much longer ranges, a large ship would provide a much more stable and accurate firing platform in addition to being able to fire multiple rounds quickly. One guy with a .50 sniper rifle could probably do serious damage to a wooden fishing boat, with nowhere safe to hide for its crew and way outside the effective range of a RPG.

And by "serious damage" you mean "sink it".

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[currently_awake]

Civilian ships are not allowed to carry guns. There are legal limits to sailing armed ships through the waters (200 mile limit) of other countries. This is the excuse China uses to complain about American warships sailing past their fabricated islands in the South China Sea.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[myowntrueself]

Get Gatling guns on one ship, the next pirate crew will show up with an RPG. If I was a sailor on one of those ships, there would be no chance in frozen hell I would fire back on a pirate to protect some rich dude's shit on board that's probably insured anyway. You can be as gun-ho about this as you want from your armchair, I'm throwing my hands in the air and letting the pirates go with the cargo.

Except the pirates, the Somali ones, want you. They want to take you hostage and get a ransom for you. If they don't get ransom your ass is toast.

Now do you want to defend yourself?

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[swb]

Depending on the nature of the vessel and shot placement, it may just damage it in some non-critical way or it may actually do enough damage to remove propulsion or actually sink it. There's a lot of variables, from pirate vessel materials, construction, shot placement, and the ability of the boat to handle a leak of some kind.

Decent bilge pumps may be able to keep it from sinking long enough to make it back to port if the hull is only punctured once or above the average waterline. A steel hulled vessel may not puncture at the other limits of .50 BMG range.

Regardless, I'm not exactly sure what concern I'd have about scaring them off versus sinking them outright. We are talking about pirates firing RPGs, aren't we?

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JoelDavis9035]

I agree the vessels should have better defence, but pouring money into arming cargo ships to save a few TVs is hardly worth it.

Instead use that money to:

-Add GPS tracking to the valuable cargo
-Improve insurance policies, which they probably already have
-Maybe start by using a more secure CMS
-Lock down the cargo better, so plasma cutter etc would be required to open
-Encrypt cargo labeling, where decryption key is not onboard

These are just some 5 second ideas which may not stop pirates but should at least slow them down.

Guns are really just a barbaric form of defense.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[xombo]

Wouldn't they be protected by safe harbour provisions as long as they are flying a flag of a country that permits carrying weapons and never remove them from the vessel?

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[KGIII]

Did you just call Somalia 'ungoverned?' Hmm... You've never been to Somalia, have you? Somalia is *over-governed* by any definition. It's not a representative government, it's not a good government, it's not government that is recognized by the UN, but government it is and there sure is a lot of it. They've even got paperwork, treaties, trade agreements and the likes. They've got judicial, executive, and legislative powers. No, Somalia's *very* governed. It's kind of strange that people don't think so.

Re: Unarmed ships are helpless.

[Type44Q]

God DAMN; well said.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JWSmythe]

News outlets keep referring to it as ungoverned. We were all taught to trust the news, so there should be little reason to research a fact that is repeated without being contradicted. Except, news outlets can be wrong.

News outlets have gotten very good at copy & paste. It isn't just within a single story passed around. They'll keep copy & pasting pieces from stories, assuming nothing has changed, and that the fact checkers at the previous publication did their job.

It's trivial to check with respected sources for correct information. If they did, they would see that the US resumed formal recognition of the Somalian government just over 3 years ago.

CIA World Factbook

US State Department

United Nations

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JWSmythe]

That depends on the country. Most would say no. You could check with DHS. As I understand it, if you brought an armed ship within the US EEZ (200 nautical miles), you would find out that it isn't exactly welcome.

Simple breakdown chart

A NOAA breakdown of distances from shore with brief descriptions of each zone.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JWSmythe]

I guess it's good that I haven't gotten into the piracy business. I could do well with "liberating" the ships and cargo from the previous owners. :)

Hostages have to be clothed, fed, and otherwise taken care of. It's easier to just let them go at the first safe port.

A while back, I wrote up a theoretical plan on amassing a flotilla of pirate ships. It looked good on paper, and could probably make a great piece of fiction. In real life, I'm allergic to things like having my flotilla being blown out of the water by any of a number of well armed navies.

Being in the middle of an ocean without a ship is similar to flying without an aircraft. It may be fun for a few minutes, but can have dire consequences after that.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[KGIII]

That's true too but not really the intent of my response. They have a whole lot of government - it's just not the legitimate government, not recognized, and not one by or for the people. It's not a representative government, not at all. It's not a good government, not even remotely. But they're governed pretty damned hard.

It's strange that people say it. It's like saying North Korea doesn't have a government except Somalia's full of small, regional, Kim Jong Un-esque people. They've got paperwork to go from one region to another, with applicable filing fees. They've got taxes. They've got regulations - boy have they got regulations. They've got a hierarchy, judges, enforcement, and even have fines.

They're not elected. They take their position by force and threat of force. They hold that position by disallowing access to resources and with a monopoly on violence. They are every bit a government. They're often not that large, comparatively speaking, but they're powerful and they're certainly governing. They're not governing well (by any definition that I can think of) but they're certainly governing.

It's not lawless, that I can assure you of. Oh, there are lots of laws. I don't believe they're all written down - nor do I think they've got justice systems that are anywhere near what we might call just. They probably have something akin to an appeals process - but I'm not sure that it actually works or is based on concepts of justice like you're familiar with.

No, they've got too much government. I know that sounds really odd to say but it's true. Most of the government isn't official or recognized by other States but it's surely governance. It's authoritarian, dictatorial, oppressive, and horrible for the people but they're well and truly governed. A regular citizen can not, for example, go on a shooting spree and get away with it. No, no... Not at all. Depending on who they shoot, they'll die in any one of a number of different ways. One of the more "interesting" ways to die is to have a tire filled with gasoline thrown around their neck and set alight. Yeah, it's not pretty.

It's not mob justice. Not at all. They're war lords. They're governors by every definition and they certainly seem to enjoy governing. I observed that, for the most part, people seemed resigned to accept it. I'm not really an expert or anything but many of them (they don't really all have uniforms - but some do, depending on where you are) seemed to be armed. I suppose they could try an insurrection, and I understand that many areas do change hands on a frequent basis, but the void is simply filled with new draconian assholes who war over the area and take power and take their turn abusing people. Sometimes areas will merge, break apart, etc... It's actually pretty dynamic.

I was there in 2011, I spent about a month in Somalia and the surrounding areas. It's not as dangerous as they might make out. I hired a "guide" ahead of time, carried enough cash to pay but not enough to make murdering me or kidnapping me of interest, and paid my "documentation fees." My "guide" included his "friends" for much of the time but were unable to cross the real country borders with me. It's actually a beautiful country and the vast majority of people are really impoverished and desperate but otherwise nice.

I'm not gonna say something stupid and suggest you go visit, no. I will say that it's not at all like the movies or media portray. There is an official government. I didn't see much of them. Well, if I did then I didn't notice them outside of the airport and at the border. I did see lots of government agents - but they were not agents of the official government. Even in a single urban area, there may be multiple factions. It's all a bit confusing to an outsider but it's dishonest to say they're ungoverned. Well, not dishonest for you - but dishonest for those who do who should know better. They may not be the official government. They may not be a government we legally recognize. They might be horrible governments and all that but they are, truly, governments. There's a lot of 'em, many of them even have their own flags and other assorted decorations/symbols. (I know there's a word for that stuff, it's slipped my mind.)

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[dave420]

Seeing as the ships have to travel internationally and dock in different countries, that is a terrible idea, as it will instantly limit the ports said ship can sail to.

My cousins work protection on cargo ships - they are delivered to the ship (with weapons), and stay with it when at sea. When they approach territorial waters, they leave the ship. This is the only sensible, non-knee-jerky way to deal with the security of cargo vessels. Just sticking guns to everything might seem like quite a sensible solution, but it's far more complicated than that...

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[JWSmythe]

I was agreeing with you. :) I haven't been there, and really don't see a need for it in the near future.

With as much as they've changed, according to the current public information, I can understand someone thinking there was no law. There is always a law. As you said, there is the government, and there are warlords. Any good gang or self-declared local gov't, has some sort of organization and laws. In anarchy and chaos, someone will always strive to have power over others. They have to adopt at least some sort of legal system. They may not *say* it, but it's there.

As I understand it, and I could be far off base here, much of Africa works in similar ways.

Honestly, we have the same here. We don't have "warlords" exactly, but we have elected officials who may bully their way into a position. Once they're in power, they can tend to take liberties, which may not be exactly legal. Sometimes those leaders aren't elected. Gangs, "clubs", and other groups fill voids, installing their own beliefs on how things should work. Look at street gangs, the mafias, and even the Y'all Qaeda. Only one of those groups forget to bring snacks. :)

And I think what you were looking for in your last paragraph is ribbons, medals, and insignia.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Case in point.

There are tons more like it.

Re:Unarmed ships are helpless.

[KGIII]

> I was agreeing with you.

I kind of figured/knew that you were. I thought I'd elaborate and make it more clear if you weren't really sure what I meant. I haven't re-read my post but if there's any "you" in there, it's the generic you and not you personally. Ah well... Sorry if there was any confusion. I'll make up for it by writing a small novella for you. I'm actually lacking time again today so this cannot be all that lengthy. You don't really *have* to read it, of course, but I'll see if I can think of anything interesting or informative to add. If nothing else, at least it's something for you to read and something for me to write while I wait for a phone call.

I really enjoyed going to Somalia. I did a lot of Africa throughout 2011. In 2007, I won the life-lottery and sold my business. One of the things I'd done for work was travel - a lot. But, most of that travel was in the US. So, I wanted to see more of the world and I did. Before I went there, the State Department called tell me about how it was a dumb idea to go there.

This has happened more than once but some are more pressing than others. With Somalia, the guy on the phone actually swore at me and called me a, "Fucking idiot." That's verbatim. "If you go to Somalia, you're a fucking idiot." He told me that they'd be unable to help me if things went south. All told, I've probably spent a bit over 10 months in Africa and right around one in Somalia. I've been contacted by the State Department a few times but they've only sworn at me once. I've never had an issue while abroad but I tend to make sure that I follow the rules, official and unofficial.

I don't do tours but I often hire a guide. Why would I want to hang around with tourists? Depending on where you're going, a guide may actually be less expensive than an actual tour with a tour group. That probably sounds a bit strange but it has been true many times. I've also found that guides are more likely to help me find the more interesting things. They'll help you in ways that a travel agency or tour group simply will not, at least not the reputable ones.

One of the neat benefits of having dual citizenship (I'm a Canadian citizen by grace of heritage) is that I can just drive across the border and fly out of Canada. I also have a Canadian passport which enables me to mix and match or visit places that are (or were) technically illegal to visit. That's not really required most of the time and we're now allowed to visit Cuba. Soon we'll be able to go to Cuba as tourists. You could also just put a cut/folded piece of paper in your passport and certain countries would stamp the paper instead of the book itself. (That's actually the method I used to get to Cuba. It's the defacto 'undocumented' method if you travel to Israel and travel to other countries in the Middle East.)

I'm kind of over my travel thing, at least on that scale. I still travel but I've stayed closer to home lately. I've driven all around North and South America. I was in the process of doing that, starting last September, when I bumped into a nice younger woman in Buffalo, New York. We bumped into each other by accident and, like Velcro, she just sort of stuck. Having satisfied my wanderlust, we've decided to stay in Florida until spring when we'll go home to Maine. This has been one of the more interesting journeys. An interesting aside (to me) is that I actually took this particular trip because someone from this site suggested that I do so. I have been unable to contact them to extend my thanks or to invite them to some festivities but I was lucky enough to get a few other site participants to come celebrate the New Years festivities with us.

At any rate, I mostly like to drive anywhere that I go now. There are obvious exceptions to that rule but it has reached the point where flying in and out of the US is a bit more effort than it is worth. Charter is an excellent option if the destination is close enough and won't result in a much longer travel times. This is especially true if there a

Hacker uploaded shell to shipping company's CMS

[tetraverse]

"hacker who uploaded a Web shell to a shipping company's CMS"

What was the name of this CMS and who originally installed it?

Re:Hacker uploaded shell to shipping company's CMS

[ArsenneLupin]

What was the name of this CMS and who originally installed it?

Don't expect such info from this article, if you find gems such as the following:

Fortunately, the hacker wasn't that skilled. Verizon says that the attacker used a Web shell that didn't support SSL, meaning that all executed commands were recorded in the Web server's log.

A newspaper that isn't skilled enough to know the difference between SSL and POST (if that's what they meant...) certainly wouldn't know the difference between Joomla, Drupal or Wordpress either.

Re:Hacker uploaded shell to shipping company's CMS

[softnewsit]

Verizon's team said it was a custom-built CMS

Re:Given Slashdot's Pro Piracy position

[fisted]

I don't know. Do they take the original loot, or are they making copies of it?

Re:Given Slashdot's Pro Piracy position

[penguinoid]

I don't know. Do they take the original loot, or are they making copies of it?

Probably the one that carries a smaller penalty.

Coldfusion? Joe in 2001?

[radicimo]

Although interesting on the surface, that softpedia piece reads like it was written by Verizon PR. No surprise, since the "article" is basically a regurgitation of the Verizon "whitepaper" most likely regurgitated by someone who has none to a basic understanding of pen testing and web security:

"With all this information in hand, Verizon helped the company block the hacker's IP, remove the Web shell, take down its server, reset passwords for all compromised accounts, and upgrade the CMS."

And the world was great again. Right?

"For instance, we found numerous mistyped commands and observed that the threat actors constantly struggled to interact with the compromised servers."

Next time you won't be so lucky ... or alternatively, what about the more l33t sk1ll3d that are still inside the shipping company network who Verizon didn't find?

"Additionally, as a sign of their lack of skills, the attacker also didn't use a proxy or VPN and exposed their home IP address."

Send in the drones?

Interesting angle but poorly written article that blows smoke so far up Verizon's ass that it comes out their nose. Based on the descriptions of how incompetent the hackers were, OPM could have figured this one out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Verizon RISK team.

Re:Coldfusion? Joe in 2001?

[Bert64]

How do they know that was their home ip address and not just another compromised host?
And even if it was their ip, were they in a jurisdiction where they don't care about exposing it?

Re:Silly pirates

[ArsenneLupin]

That sounds like a lot of work. Haven't these pirates heard of torrents?

Have you heard of any big ships with valuable cargo that travel on torrents?

Cyberpunk / Shadowrun at its best

[Qbertino]

Sounds like something straight from a William Gibson or Neal Stephenson novel. Crafty little beggars, you have to give them that.

the part left out of the summary:

[Gravis Zero]

upon boarding the ship, the lead pirate announced, "Me scurvy dogs and me be after yer booty so we're scannin all yer baaarrrcodes."

Pirates of the Carribian?

[Bob_Who]

Must be the laid off Disney IT workers....

Re:Pirates of the Caribbean?

[Bob_Who]

Must be the laid off Disney IT workers....

Way To Much Effort

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently a group of sea pirates have hired a hacker who uploaded a Web shell to a shipping company's CMS that allowed them to download cargo inventories and ship routes. They then used this information to attack ships, equipped with a barcode reader (and weapons of course), searching specific crates

if you've got that much access, why not just reassign valuable packages/containers deliveries to addresses or shipping companies you control in,and just drive the goods away. Who looks inside a shipping container at a dock anyway? Pick random/breakable commodities of modest value and the company might never twig anything was wrong until you had made off with millions. I don't see the advantage in storming a supercarrier in a small boat and making off with handfuls of jewlery when you could have an entire container delivered to your front door.

Re:Way To Much Effort

[bad-badtz-maru]

The reconsignment process would potentially draw attention to what was happening, as it's a fairly high-profile thing to do to a shipment.

Re:pirates

[Big Hairy Ian]

Pirates have been using Intel since the days of Henry Avery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and undoubtedly before

Re: pirates

[deathlyslow]

How is that different from others bashing Christians?

Seen something like this before

[Hulfs]

I've worked in the Supply Chain / Shipping world for over 10 years now and have seen incidents like this multiple times.

One of the more memorable ones was where someone in the container yard in China was breaking into the containers and skimming product from the cartons inside the containers. In order to try and go undetected they were peeling off the carton labels that were printed out from our tracking system and reprinting the labels from a local device to reflect the new unit counts after they stole several items from each carton.

We ended up finding out about this because when the goods were received at the customer's distribution center they were complaining that they were scanning the same carton into their receiving system over and over again. Turned out that the guys printing the labels got the quantities right and the carton numbers correct and aped the design fairly closely, but couldn't figure out how to adjust the barcode on the label so they were reprinting the same carton barcode number over and over.

Even after showing the customer the print logs of the actual labels that were printed from our system (and how the barcodes were not repeating there), and showing them the minor positioning difference in the labels and showing them the actual shipment amounts that should have been in the cartons they STILL claimed our system was printing labels wrong for months. They literally told us that thieves weren't sophisticated enough to do what we were telling them was happening. They finally believed us when they got a batch of cartons where the skimmers got lazy and just pasted their reprinted labels over top of ours.

Piracy

[neminem]

It's not piracy... it's infringement of copyright! Piracy is... oh wait, never mind, yep, it's totally piracy. Sorry about that.

Throwaway guns

[argee]

Easy. Get a bunch of guns to defend the ship as it sails thru the pirate waters. When it approaches a country where guns are not legal,
throw them overboard (or melt them). The cost, compared to the alternative, is trivial.

Re: pirates

[dave420]

These people are not being "bashed", they are being condemned for the actions of a few. No-one is claiming all Christians are savage terrorists because the IRA was made up of Christians, yet Muslims have to put up with this endlessly.

I understand why you think "Oh this bashing of one religion is not accepted, but the bashing of another one is - what gives?", but to ignore the precise nature of the "bashing" going on, and the context in which this "bashing" is happening will only lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Mindless attacks are never appropriate, regardless of the target (Christianity, Islam, etc.).