Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who Hacked The Washington D.C. Police Surveillance Cameras?

Posted by EditorDavid on from the see-you-later dept.

An anonymous reader quotes GIzmodo: City officials and the Secret Service have confirmed that just days before the presidential inauguration, police surveillance cameras in Washington, DC were targeted by hackers. Reportedly, 70% of the CCTV storage devices were infected with ransomware. According to the Washington Post, "City officials said ransomware left police cameras unable to record between January 12 and January 15. The cyberattack affected 123 of 187 network video recorders in a closed-circuit TV system for public spaces across the city, the officials said late Friday." A spokesperson for the Secret Service says despite the compromised cameras, the safety of the public or protectees was never jeopardized, and the city's CTO says they resolved the problem without paying the ransom by simply removing all software from the devices and rebooting them.

37 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. bets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $5 says it was an employee doing something stupid on a computer inside the network.

    1. Re:bets by Falos · · Score: 1

      Malice? Maybe.
      Incompetence? Even if the first is true, it's still Yes.

    2. Re:bets by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Imparare una lingua diversa dalla propria lingua madre è semplice mente figlio di una cagna.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:bets by martinfb · · Score: 1

      No way, man!
      It was somebody PUTIN it to them!

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  2. why are the recorders on the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or, if they are not, how were they hacked?

  3. If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by gavron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...then clearly they don't need all those cameras.

    E

    1. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's entirely plausible that the costs of the cameras outweigh the benefits, possibly by a wide margin. But that does not automatically follow from a lack of incident on this occasion. If someone falls asleep at the wheel of their car and manages to not kill themselves or have an accident (definitely happens) then that does not prove that staying awake at the wheel is unnecessary. Again, I'm not arguing that the cameras are worthwhile, just noting that you'd have to be a complete imbecile to feel that their lack of value had been proved by nothing going wrong on any particular occasion on which they were inoperative.

    2. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're 100% right. It's just like that day I didn't crash my car, so I don't need any of that faggoty insurance. Or when the live wire on my oven didn't come loose and touch the casing, so I didn't need all that commie earthing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's not just the lack of an incident. They claimed that public safety was not in any way impacted by the loss of the cameras. That includes potential for harm not being increased by their loss.

    4. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Driving uninsured or using an ungrounded oven DO jeopardize you. You just happened to beat the odds. The DC authorities claimed nobody was jeopardized at all.

    5. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then there was the time someone said something incredibly ridiculous and I didn't have my sarcasm meter with me so I posted what I thought was a clever put-down, but it didn't matter because it turned out he wasn't being sarcastic.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:If the publc and protectees weren't harmed... by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      ... and I didn't have my sarcasm meter with me ...

      Was it hit by ransomware?

  4. Wasted Effort by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They must have been sorely disappointed; after all that effort of hacking the cameras, they had so few people to watch on them.

    1. Re:Wasted Effort by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're rather have a lunatic President with daddy issues and a fragile ego instead of a few stupid protesters who get out of control?

      My wife, who has a green card, is legitimately worried she might have issues getting back into the country when she has to travel internationally in a couple weeks. Trump is pissing all over the Constitution, and quite frankly, acting more like a despot instead of the leader elected somewhat democratically. He wants to punish people who question his judgement.. that's fucking scary.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Wasted Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > My wife, who has a green card, is legitimately worried she might have issues getting back into the country when she has to travel internationally in a couple weeks.

      You know one of the things that _really_ bothers me about this?

      Not _one_ of the ten or twenty news articles I've read on the topic either link back to or include the text of the Executive Order.

      The referenced Order is not present on whitehouse.gov (though an EO signed on the 28th is present). The referenced EO is not present in the Federal Register's list of EOs (though, it looks like they batch-publish Orders and might take up to a week to publish the one "everyone" is talking about the 27th and the one on whitehouse.gov from the 28th). EOs typically have a "Purpose" section (see

      https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/2017-02095/border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements

      ) which both administrators and courts use as guidance to interpret any ambiguous language in an EO. Because we cannot read the EO's scope-limiting Purpose section (let alone any of the other text of the Order), we have no idea if the unnamed "Homeland Security Spokesperson" that journalists are quoting has taken some of the language of this EO out of context, or if the "Spokesperson" is drawing a properly-grounded conclusion.

      It's entirely possible that this is a poorly (whether deliberately or accidentally) worded EO that will cause _actual_ trouble for Green Card holders. However, (given that it is national policy to consider Green Card holders to be one step away from full-fledged US citizens (we _do_ call them Permanent Residents, after all)) it seems likely that _any_ delays will be minimal.

      Rather than being an attempt to fuck over Green Card holders, it seems _more_ likely to me that (given the _conspicuous_ absence of source material) this is hand-wringing and hyperventilation over something that's being blown out of proportion.

      I guess we'll see what's up once the Federal Register gets a chance to publish the EO.

      Watch this space:

      https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/donald-trump/2017

    3. Re:Wasted Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html

    4. Re:Wasted Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kudos to the NYT for doing what pretty much noone else was doing and actually fucking quoting their sources. And thanks to you for the link.

      So, from the text of the EO, it's abundantly clear that the intent is to temporarily (I'm hopeful, but we'll see how temporary it _actually_ is) permit the restriction of the entry (or reentry) of every non-diplomat, non-NATO-attached alien (resident or non-resident) from a country referenced in 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) (Read section (a)(12) here:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187

      ).

      That list could reasonably be described as "Countries that we think harbor or promote terrorists, or just don't like for 'national security' reasons". It's small comfort, but this EO won't affect citizens of countries that we're friendly with or countries that we don't give a shit about.

      Given the main thrust of the EO (creating "more thorough" screening procedures for aliens who are citizens of a "problem country" who wish to enter the US), it seems entirely reasonable to prevent entry from those countries until those procedures have been finalized and deployed. 90 days seems like an entirely reasonable length of time to roll out significant changes to policies in a bureaucracy. The exemption list (foreign diplomats or NATO personnel, and _only_ those personnel) makes a _ton_ of sense. These folks are already certain to have been vetted.

      Anyway, there's this in the EO:

      "(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked."

      Which -really- has been the state of reeentry to the US for Green Card holders for approximately forever. Reentry to the US has never been guaranteed for aliens.

    5. Re:Wasted Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-full-text

      with unlimited access for now.

    6. Re: Wasted Effort by mmell · · Score: 1

      So leave behind the Democrat/Republican Alliance and join the Independents!

    7. Re:Wasted Effort by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Too bad she was already here on an H1B visa (not tech related) after getting her undergrad and graduate degree in the US.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    8. Re:Wasted Effort by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      So you're rather have a lunatic President with daddy issues and a fragile ego instead of a few stupid protesters who get out of control?

      Seems only having one of the two would be an improvement. We have both.

  5. When your Cyber security Czar is a fraud... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when the head of cyber security knows nothing about the actual practice of the art. Not condemning the current administration, they didn't have control long enough to enable this screwup, but they're on track to let more and worse things happen in the future.

  6. Confession by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1

    It was me. I did it.

    1. Re:Confession by antdude · · Score: 1

      Prove it! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    2. Re:Confession by thexfile · · Score: 1

      It was the hacker on the grassy knoll.

    3. Re: Confession by mmell · · Score: 1

      You know, jokes like that are a great way to find out how waterboarding works. You do realize that even though you're (apparently) a US citizen there are those here on Slashdot who aren't - so exercise a bit of caution or check your ammo.

  7. fail by Patent+Lover · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the CC in CCTV means closed circuit. Clearly that's not the case here.

  8. Crap Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So they factory reset them and wiped them... No mention of closing any of the security holes that allowed them to be pwned in the first place. Enjoy the next wave of the attack.

    1. Re:Crap Security by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They probably changed the root password from GOD to superman or drowssap or something. You know it is solid now- because government learns from its mistakes.

  9. Re:It wasn't me. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It was Spartacus.

    Me? Fuck off. I'm Sarcastipiss. Easy mistake to make, I know.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re:Russia! by slashrio · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually I think it would be a good idea to 'hack' those cameras into sending a copy of their stream to an independent server, so that at the next 911 event the FBI can't withhold video evidence, like that of the cruise missile going into the Pentagon, from the public.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  11. Re:Russians!!!! by slashrio · · Score: 1

    Putin isn't secretly allied with China.
    He is openly allied with China, after the USA/NATO put so much pressure on him that he didn't have any other option left.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  12. [obligatory subject] by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    Very likely an antifa sympathizer trying to make it harder for the police to capture their violent acts.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  13. We all know it was ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... the Russians.

    In 3.. 2.. 1...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  14. Re: Jan 12-15? by mmell · · Score: 1

    Oy vey!. Have you always been a schmuck, or is it only since we elected a cheddar cheese rind with delusions of adequacy?

  15. Re: Russia! by slashrio · · Score: 1

    The shit part is to expect me to believe that a Boeing went through that small hole in the Pentagon.

    --
    "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  16. Re:sand n1ggers and smelly indo-chimps by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    that's all it takes to replace the software on a camera.