Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian-Controlled Telecom Hijacks Traffic For Mastercard, Visa, And 22 Other Services (arstechnica.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the benign-BGP? dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the security editor at Ars Technica: On Wednesday, large chunks of network traffic belonging to MasterCard, Visa, and more than two dozen other financial services companies were briefly routed through a Russian government-controlled telecom under unexplained circumstances that renew lingering questions about the trust and reliability of some of the most sensitive Internet communications.

Anomalies in the border gateway protocol -- which routes large-scale amounts of traffic among Internet backbones, ISPs, and other large networks -- are common and usually the result of human error. While it's possible Wednesday's five- to seven-minute hijack of 36 large network blocks may also have been inadvertent, the high concentration of technology and financial services companies affected made the incident "curious" to engineers at network monitoring service BGPmon. What's more, the way some of the affected networks were redirected indicated their underlying prefixes had been manually inserted into BGP tables, most likely by someone at Rostelecom, the Russian government-controlled telecom that improperly announced ownership of the blocks.

76 comments

  1. So? by klingens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sure all the relevant important traffic for these sites was and is at least TLS encrypted, right? Right?

    And it's not as if that espionage on banks isn't a totally normal thing:
    https://www.wired.com/2017/04/...
    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
    http://www.reuters.com/article...

    Not just a few banks or lowly consumer creditcard companies, but SWIFT itself, the system that all banks use to transfer money around the globe. Not just traffic but actual inside data.
    Not to mention a ton of routers inside various banks all over the middle east.

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

      Nothing to see here, now move along...

    2. Re:So? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I'd be pretty shocked if the Russian government doesn't either directly control, or have inside access to a CA trusted by browsers.

    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure all the relevant important traffic for these sites was and is at least TLS encrypted, right?

      Sure. Of course, there are no russian CA's that a "Russian-Controlled Telecom" would own, right?

    4. Re:So? by klingens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the banking system uses the CA Network and CAs of consumer browsers as their web of trust, to secure financial transactions, then they need to be defrauded of every single penny they have so they can go bankrupt in the next 5 minutes hopefully. We'd all be better off, seriously.

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who else are they to use? No snark, seriously, who else is there to trust?

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

      Follow the money and find out.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "to secure financial transactions"

      Bank-to-bank, sure, they could use their own web of trust. If they trusted each other enough to establish one.

      Bank-to-consumer, who the hell else are they going to use except standard, consumer-oriented CAs?

      One can steal money just as effectively by controlling a couple of accounts from a consumer perspective.

    8. Re:So? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      For consumers, I'd expect them to use pinning as a supplementary measure. It would limit the damage if someone did manage to get hold of a valid certificate, hopefully giving the bank time to react before the theft progresses from hundreds of thousands of dollars and into the tens of millions.

    9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For consumers, I'd expect them to use pinning as a supplementary measure.

      On the consumer end, U2F also gives a significant help to detecting MITM in a simple way: the server can get a copy of the TLS session key signed by the client's U2F RSA key.

      Banks don't bother to use U2F.

      They only do fashionable security, not practical security. It's a CYA operation.

    10. Re:So? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      I'm sure all the relevant important traffic for these sites was and is at least TLS encrypted, right? Right?

      Yep, but it was auth-only TLS because adding confidentiality protection creates too much overhead and banks mostly care about auth/integrity, not confidentiality.

    11. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or one of the various US alphabet agencies including, but not limited to the NSA, CIA, DNC, SJW, KKK, MRA, GWX, or systemd?

    12. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now they're redirecting replies on slashdot, this is madness.

    13. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking systemd! Screwing with our BGP again! I knew it.

    14. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a big deal unless you don't have encryptions ! In that case you're a fucking moron sysadmin!!!

  2. Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what the headline would have been if it were US entities doing the same thing; with no fact checking by main stream media.

    Think about all the lies we've been fed on all this time...

    1. Re: Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've done it before, go Google. Here's a piece from 2013, and funnily enough it's from rt.com.

      https://www.rt.com/usa/mtm-renesys-redirect-internet-775/

    2. Re:Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suggest that you read this guy's past comments before upvoting, to see if there's an agenda. Not that he's wrong, but, you know, smells like russian trolling nonetheless...
      And how did such a mundane comment get so highly modded so fast? Curious.

    3. Re: Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't 'interfere with my narrative' - I agreed with him!
      Idiot yourself.
      But read his past comments and decide for yourself whether he's just pushing the truth as truth, or pushing it for another reason.
      We know there are russian trolls out (ditto american too), just use your wisdom, that's all.

    4. Re:Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know when you use phrases like "no fact checking by main stream media" your entire argument is nullified by the fact it shows you be a conspiracy theorist kook right?

      The mainstream media are the ones who fact check - it's the non-mainstream media that has thrived on fake news. I don't know how that hasn't been obvious, but I guess you're just a contrarian retard who likes to pretend his smarter than everyone by seeing the REAL story, rather than by, you know, actually being smart. Whatever floats your boat, but in the real world, you're still correctly perceived as really really dumb though.

      Why don't you fuck off to Russia if you think there's an equivalence between Russia and the US? I'll give you a hint: there isn't. The US is at least still just about an actual functioning democracy, with freedom of the press, and free speech, Russia is none of these things. If you want the press to be suppressed like in Russia then kindly fuck off there rather than trying to kill the press in the US with lies to bring it down to Russia's level of authoritarianism.

    5. Re: Empahsis noted -- "Russian-controlled" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said "fact check". You're a tool.

  3. 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it also coincidence that 4 out of 30 are French?

    We got election in France with Le Pen with very close ties to Russia.

    Did not Clinton lose thanks to Russian hackers that broke into her email?

    1. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Did not Clinton lose thanks to Russian hackers that broke into her email?

      Clinton lost because the Democrat party lost.
      br. The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:4 out of 30 are French by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The election was so close that even the tiniest factor could have influenced the outcome. The email hacks revealed a little bit of dirt in the form of taking money from finance companies for speaking appearances, and it gave some information on DNC campaign plans to their Republican counterparts. It's possible that turned what would have been a narrow victory for Clinton into a narrow victory for Trump.

      Remember that Clinton actually got more votes. Trump got less, but he did best in states which the electoral collage failed. It's a part of the reason he is so heavily despised - a lot of people view him as having won on a technicality, by arcane rules established for a time long past.

    3. Re:4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So I am taking they would have taken the same stance on the Dewey - Truman election as well. They would have expressed such vitriol in that day and age where one would accept the loss and move on and ensure to do better the next time.

      Honestly, I believe that we are fortunate to have documented proof of what most only had suspicions of in regarding how these people (e.g. career politicians) operate. I am still waiting for the Congressional Term Limits to at least be talked about. I would LOVE to see this at least being discussed and the reason why they will reject it (and you know they will).

      BTW, he did best in states where the electoral college, not collage, worked as designed. If you keep believing that major metropolitan areas have more say in the direction of this country, you will be continually disappointed.

    4. Re:4 out of 30 are French by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Familiarity breeds typos.

      Why shouldn't the metropolitan areas have a say proportional to their population? That's the obvious way to do it: Everyone gets a vote, all votes are equal. The electoral college says that people in some states, specifically those with lower population, are worth more in votes than someone in a more populated state.

      If they are worth anything, that is. Another effect of the college system is the creation of safe and swing states: If you live in Texas or Alabama, you can be sure your vote means squat because your state is going to go R regardless. It means politicians focus all their campaigning on the swing states and try to win over voters there with promises and pandering, because there's no point wasting resources trying to woo a state where the college votes are a forgone conclusion.

      The whole system is inherently undemocratic, but reform is not politically feasible, so you're stuck with it.

    5. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who just voted in a corporate whore of a SCOTUS judge?

      Who just gave ISP's carte blanche to sell whatever private data they want?

      You are delusional and once you wake to reality it will be too late. The US will be full fascism.

      Grats numbnuts.

    6. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The election was so close that even the tiniest factor could have influenced the outcome.

      If that's true, then the interference or subversion of democracy or whatever was tiny.

      Are you disasterizing or minimizing? Pick one. This is not even motte-and-bailey; it's plain old vacillation and talking in circles.

      Personally, I'm going with "hypothetical disaster":
        - Russia could have hacked the voting results themselves, but probably didn't.
            In response, what we need is not McCarthyist Russia scapegoating. We need a voter-verifiable paper trail and laws that automatically trigger a statistically-sound audit

        - Democratic party is corrupt and collapsing on itself
              In response, what we need is not Bulverizing the hypothetical motives of whoever's involved in exposing them. We need a democratically accountable Democratic party.

      The email hacks revealed a little bit of dirt in the form of taking money from finance companies for speaking appearances,

      The aggregate dirt was not "a little". Only the marginal dirt revealed by the hacks was "a little."

      People already knew Hillary was giving talks to bankers and using noisemakers to stop the press from hearing what she was saying to them. People already despised her for being two-faced. It was such a joke her supporters had to turn "nasty woman" into a positive thing.

      Some of the things exposed in the leaks, like leaking debate questions to the campaign ahead of the debate, help democracy instead of hurting it. Just imagine if the target of the leaks had been reversed, allegedly Russian hackers had exposed leaks of debate questions from Fox News to the Trump campaign, and Hillary had won. You would simply thank the hackers and move on. If someone challenged "foreign interference" you'd relativise everything and bleat "but mah democracy, they doin' us a service, and also 'white men,' " and move on.

      narrow victory for Clinton into a narrow victory for Trump. Remember that Clinton actually got more votes.

      does not mean the election was close. Based on the rules under which it was conducted, was it actually close, or was the pre-election polling just shit?

      a lot of people view him as having won on a technicality, by arcane rules established for a time long past.

      He is a total incompetent clown and "bizarrely terrible," but he is 100% right on this: he won based on the rules we agreed on. If we'd had different rules, he'd run a different campaign and likely win it, but in any case:

        - you aren't entitled to retroactive rule shopping. That's how cheaters play.

        - it's unclear the system you advocate is better for your own side, much less for democracy long-term, and you clearly haven't thought it through: you're just knee-jerking to this one outcome.

      It's getting so bad I'm as afraid to "share common cause" with liberals as I am with Internet trolls and "white supremacists." They're petty, selfish, smug, partisan, and have no respect for their neighbor and sense of fair process as a part of public responsibility.

    7. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Entrope · · Score: 2

      Yeah, swing states prove the electoral college is worthless. Rust Belt states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are such safe Democratic strongholds that no presidential candidate with an (R) after their name should bother campaigning there.

    8. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Nobody believed those three states were fixed, they were considered swing states back in the 1980s. And certainly by 2004, and in 2008 and 2012. Are you confused and think just because Trump declared something that the facts support it?

      Seriously, making discredited arguments like this seems to be Trump and his defender's stock in trade.

      If you want to really look at something, explain why Trump got fewer votes in Wisconsin in 2016 than the loser in 2004.

    9. Re:4 out of 30 are French by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      BTW, he did best in states where the electoral college, not collage, worked as designed.

      This, btw, is false.

      If the intention of the founders was to over-represent rural areas, then they would not have included the size of the House delegations in the number of Electoral College votes. Because it doesn't make any sense to have the difference in Electoral College vote size based on population if your intention was to represent states.

      What's going on is an artifact of the size of the House, and the fact that we have not expanded the number of House members since the early 1900s.

      It appears the founders intended the House to have one representative per 100,000 people, as evidenced by the amendment they wrote about it. That amendment has an amusing history featuring things like a ratification literally lost in the mail, so it's not part of the Constitution. But it provides a window into what the framers were thinking.

      Anyway, if we had kept up with that formula, or kept up with the ~200,000 per seat when the House reached 435 members in the 1910s, then we'd have LOTS more House members today (about 1,600 at 200k/district) and an Electoral College that looked a lot more like the popular vote.

      But we stopped expanding the House at 435 seats for various reasons (some good, some sinister). So districts in populous states have a ton of people in them. CA has 53 districts, so they've got around 740,000 people per district if you assume equal population size. WY's one district has 586,000 people in it. Use that 200k/district rule and WY gets about two House districts, and CA gets about 196. Yielding 4 Electoral votes for WY, and 198 for CA.

    10. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I am taking they would have taken the same stance on the Dewey - Truman election as well. They would have expressed such vitriol in that day and age where one would accept the loss and move on and ensure to do better the next time.

      Interesting choice of years. You picked one where the level of acrimony was considerable within the parties themselves, to the point where Strom Thurmond was on the Democratic ticket in several states, and even in the election, the vitriol which Truman expressed for Dewey was quite strong.

      Justifiably so, in many respects. Dewey ran a staid campaign.

      Honestly, I believe that we are fortunate to have documented proof of what most only had suspicions of in regarding how these people (e.g. career politicians) operate.

      And you could have documented it decades ago, it hasn't changed and the people are still reelecting Congress en masse.

      I am still waiting for the Congressional Term Limits to at least be talked about. I would LOVE to see this at least being discussed and the reason why they will reject it (and you know they will).

      We already did talk about it, United States Term Limits v. Thornton.

       

      BTW, he did best in states where the electoral college, not collage, worked as designed.

      Given that the Electoral College was not designed with the current partisan system in mind, that makes you a liar or misinformed at best.

      If you keep believing that major metropolitan areas have more say in the direction of this country, you will be continually disappointed.

      If you believe that the malapportionment induced by the electoral college is a good way to set the direction of this country, you will end up being disappointed.

      This upcoming Census will be a shocker to some.

    11. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does not mean the election was close. Based on the rules under which it was conducted, was it actually close, or was the pre-election polling just shit?

      Consider the margins in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, a net total of less than 200,000 votes. There are websites with map programs that let you "adjust" it down to the county level. As few as three shifting changes the outcome.

      a lot of people view him as having won on a technicality, by arcane rules established for a time long past.

      He is a total incompetent clown and "bizarrely terrible," but he is 100% right on this: he won based on the rules we agreed on.

      Not only is he not 100% right (his errors on proclaiming a landslide, illegal voters and even the highest number of electoral votes since Reagan preclude that), speak for yourself, not all of us agreed on the rules, in fact, some of us made our protests known, and some of us even voted under signed protest of an unfair system.

      If we'd had different rules, he'd run a different campaign and likely win it,

      This is where you lose credibility, especially since Trump himself was recently proclaiming himself the unlikely victor. Is it possible in some other circumstances that Trump could win? Perhaps, but to declare it likely is failing to perceive how close this election was. Frankly, a lie of such a base nature that it discredited you by saying it.

       

      - you aren't entitled to retroactive rule shopping. That's how cheaters play.

      Actually, by my state's laws, we the people are entitled to effect change in government by any means we see fit. This same principle is in effect in many other states. Not to mention as a matter of practice, it is the basis of the country itself, not just in the Revolution but the Constitution.

      So your protests are moot.

      - it's unclear the system you advocate is better for your own side, much less for democracy long-term, and you clearly haven't thought it through: you're just knee-jerking to this one outcome.

      How empathetic of you. Not at all smug or condescending.

      It's getting so bad I'm as afraid to "share common cause" with liberals as I am with Internet trolls and "white supremacists." They're petty, selfish, smug, partisan, and have no respect for their neighbor and sense of fair process as a part of public responsibility.

      You would seem less of a hypocrite if it weren't for the selfish, smug, partisan, disrespectful and genuinely incapable of grasping fairness of the person you just got done fawning over, or your own tendency thereby.

      I mean, a person might be bamboozled enough to be fooled by your empty protests, but not sombody who has thought about things a bit more.

    12. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electoral college says that people in some states, specifically those with lower population, are worth more in votes than someone in a more populated state.

      No, technically, it doesn't, specifically say that, nor is it caused by the rules for the Electoral College. That is actually a result of the Reapportionment Act of 1929, a law passed by Congress that limited the size of the House to 435, rather than the Electoral College itself. Though the causes for that date back another two decades.

      The Electoral College is flawed, in many ways, but the root of that one is because they never fixed a rule for the appoirtionment of the House and your average citizen can't grasp it since nobody explains the history of it to them. A good number might even say it is a rule in the Constitution.

      They'd be wrong. So no, the Electoral College does not specifically say that, so your blame is misidentified. At most you can say that it allows it.

    13. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton lost because the Democrat party lost.

      Nope. The Democratic Party won. Not only did they gain seats, they had a "defeat" that tore it the legitimacy of Trump's election, and they have Trump himself to set up an opposition based attack. Without the albatross of the Affordable Care Act dragging them down. Even if Trump passes something, it will blow up on him.

      The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been.

      Nope. Not even close. The Southern Confederacy, the Republics of Dole, the Nazi's third Reich, the 1880s GOP, the 1920s GOP, the 2000s GOP, any one of them were magnitudes worse stooges for the Corporate Oligarchy.

      You have no sense of scale, Rockoon, you just let your mouth run.

    14. Re:4 out of 30 are French by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, the "worst corporate tools that there has ever been" would be the Republican party in general. Lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy meanwhile slashing social programs? The Democrats are certainly not perfect and Clinton most assuredly so but the Republican's economic policy clearly puts them in favor of the oligarchs over the common person. Their economic policy could not be more tailor maid to reduce the middle class in favor of enriching the affluent.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    15. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools " IE, the GOP represents the BEST corporate tools? For the job, sure. Idiot.

    16. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So youre saying the Minoritys should only be heard if theyre not republicans?

    17. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton lost because a lot of us are simply never going to vote for a Clinton again. You might convince me not to vote at all, but I won't vote for them. And no, I really don't care if you think that the world will end if your candidate doesn't get elected. That will just get me to vote to spite you. We'll see whether you've learned your lesson or not when you try to nominate Chelsea. I'm guessing "not" but we'll see.

      P.S. Chelsea still counts as a Clinton no matter whether people call her Chubble or Diane Reynolds or whatever else.

    18. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Clinton was such a douche fewer people could stomach coming out to vote for her. Next question.

    19. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, if you want to hear from Minorities, Republicans are the worst.

      They don't let any speak. They even invented the Hastert Rule to silence dissent.

    20. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I think a lot of people saw the election as "Douche v Asshole."

    21. Re:4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "br. The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been."

      Apart from the one you elected of course, because the whole premise of his campaign was the idea that he was a businessman therefore he knows best and because he's done formally unprecedented things like putting a corporate stooge rather than a diplomat in the secretary of state role.

      Except all that of course, yes, you're right.

      Seems a bit weird calling Clinton and the Democrats the worst corporate stooges when many people voted Trump precisely because they saw a corporate stooge as being more likely to run the country better than the Democrats who were perceived to be more like bureaucrats than corporate stooges.

      But whatever you have to do to justify to yourself that you're not part of the problem of course.

    22. Re:4 out of 30 are French by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Democrat party lost because their leaders as a whole are the worst corporate tools that there has ever been.

      What? And also what? The republicans are much worse. Much, much worse. Democrats occasionally try to help people. Republicans only try to help corporations. It's true that the Democrats lost because their leaders are corporate tools, but calm your hyperbole there, son.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that just explains your sexism, it doesn't explain Trump's relatively poor performance.

    24. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton didn't run in 2004.

      Fucking Trumpanzees are so fucktarded it defies any rational explanation.

    25. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nimrod, the USSA already went full fascist years ago. Wake up and smell the jackboots!

    26. Re:4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Okay, then as a less populated states that are dedicated to feeding the overinflated egos of larger cities, we could vote to cut all foods going into your cities until you realize what is good for a metropolitan area is not necessarily good for the rural area (and yes both are important). Good luck with getting their bread, water and electricity. The only reason large cities still exist is because they are supported by everything outside their own domain.

      Your comment on they should have more say is the reason why the Democratic Party lost the last election at the national level and massively at the state and local level. They LOST TOUCH WITH THE PEOPLE. PERIOD. They put too much emphasis on the heavily populated areas thinking just like you are now.

    27. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Here is the real kicker.... Trump got more vote in Wisconsin than the loser in 2016 election. DOH!

    28. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Now that I would agree on. I am sure there were quite a lot of people who saw that it really did come down to the lesser of the two evils.

    29. Re:4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      So the current process worked as it was devised even after the 435 limit was imposed in 1929. The purpose of the 435 limit was to address concerns about the more populous areas having too much influence thus eventually silencing the rural areas.

    30. Re: 4 out of 30 are French by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      It was not originally designed for a two party system but was that only lasted the first four presidents (16 years). It was later adapted to take that into account. So, that makes me NOT a liar and makes you misinformed. The limit is the 435 limit of the House that effect the number of electoral votes for each state. It's purpose was exactly that no populous area will attain so much influence that they will plow over any smaller area.

    31. Re:4 out of 30 are French by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      No on both counts.

      The system is not working as devised, because the Electoral College was not intended to boost rural states beyond the +2 votes every state gets for Senators. Since every state gets the same +2, its an insignificant boost compared to House delegation size. To stick with CA vs WY, that's +53 votes for CA House delegation, and +1 vote for WY.

      Second, the House is not the check on populous states dominating rural states. That's the Senate, where rural states do have massively out-sized power. 2 vs 2 for CA/WY. The House was always designed to represent the people - ALL of the people, not just the ones in Rural states.

      And no, the 435 limit was not installed on behalf of rural states. Positive reasons include just how unwieldy the House was getting as it got big. Sinister reasons include "machine" politics seeking to maintain their control. "Hey, let's give rural states more power!" was not one of the reasons given.

  4. The U.S. does this regularly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in addition to all other spying on the world, but of course we're not allowed to talk about that. If something like this happens, most likely accidentaly, then all the shit-outlets on the Internet are quick to blow it up and point fingers.

  5. They just wanted to say by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Papers Please Comrade Data... before the data left Russian borders.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  6. Get their parents involved. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These children are in dire need of parental supervision. Put them behind a responsible operator who makes sure they can't do it again.

  7. Collection network leaking into prod network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Likely explanation:
      - rostelcom is running a collection network spying on these netblocks.
      - They use BGP within the collection network to limit what's collected and avoid DoSing themselves. BGP is a good protocol for custom stuff because it's simple to write and debug an endpoint, and it interoperates well.
      - Misconfiguration leaked collection net prefixes onto the public Internet.

    If that's true, the collection is ongoing.

    No news here: NSA is collecting the same and more of both these networks and Russian financial networks. Go back to sleep, sheeple.

    1. Re:Collection network leaking into prod network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay then Comrade Numbnuts.

      Using an example of bad behavior to excuse different bad behavior is a douchebag move.

  8. Oh great by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    "Russian-Controlled Telecom Hijacks Traffic For Mastercard, Visa, And 22 Other Services."

    Well that's just fucking splendid.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  9. Lingering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? Anybody still doubts that every government that can, monitors, fucks with, tries to identify the source of anything they don't like?

  10. 5 to 7 minutes? by thogard · · Score: 1

    5 to 7 minutes sounds like the reboot time of a major router when the admin didn't understand the redundancy features.

    MasterCard is connected to my local peering exchange via their DDoS protection provider. There is no way that route would go via Russia unless the DDoS provider globally dropped all their other routes. Some of the listed companies also have a large global peering presence as well.

  11. wasn't this just a test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to see if they could, and maybe get some sample data to see what they'd be dealing with before they start the full attack?

  12. Rostelecom = Russian Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There's lots of these, e.g. you'll see VneshEconomBank used to bailout Putin projects and host spies in its offices abroad.

    e.g. A Russian agent was caught and prosecuted in its New York office:
    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/revealed-jared-kushner-met-with-head-of-russian-bank-that-hosted-spy-ring-busted-by-preet-bharara/

    They really are a rogue nation at this point, ISIS kill a few people, but Russian *invades* allied countries, actively tries to take them over, it's government hackers constantly attacking our systems, its government propaganda constantly spreading astroturf.

  13. Over in Poland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poland's Baltic port is cut off by strip of land. To sail to it, they need to go through a Russian controlled gate in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

    Russia sets special conditions on the use of the gate, e.g. military ships need special permission/inspection.

    Polish government is making its own gate, since the Russian fleet has been threatening Baltic states. It wants to strengthen its NATO facilities.

    So what's Russia been up to? Propaganda, astroturf, but not phrased in terms of "Russian government disapproves", more phrased in terms of "the people of poland disapprove"... i.e. Russian media claiming to be the true voice of the Polish people.

    When we put sanctions on Russia, it took away the carrot and left the stick. No reason for Putin to hold back. So now Putin is facing protests, and he's attacking other nations to keep power. Not just Ukraine (miltary), not just Hungary (politically) , Germany (hacking and propaganda), not just Baltic states (agent provocateurs on the ground and cyber), not just the USA (hacking, astroturf, monied influence)....

    Russia is practically at war with us at this point.

  14. Trump is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any evidence? Can you cite an article mentioning this US hacking of border gateway protocol ? No?

    And how are we not allowed to talk about it? By what mechanism does the US stop us talking about it? No?

    And you got 2 mod points? What nationality are those mod points?

    Really fuck you, you Russian skum troll. Hijacking networks is never allowed, and its not by accident that you transmit specific false routings.

    1. Re:Trump is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of the recent NSA and CIA fallout, revealing how they subvert communication networks, businesses, banks, and industry systems around the world?

      We're not allowed to talk about it in the sense that people like you will vigorously deny and downvote any comments on it, just like now.

      No, fuck you, you ignorant little shit, for being a passive accomplice in the U.S. propaganda outlets efforts in spreading lies and demonizing an entire country and its population for political gain.

    2. Re:Trump is that you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russian cunt. Fuck you and fuck your corrupt country. Have fun sucking Putin's dick.

  15. The internet seems designed to be abused. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

    No fixes for BGP hijacks, no mandatory ingress/egress filtering for ISPs, all the major browser manufacturers refusing to implement DANE. Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence I guess ... extreme fucking incompetence.

    Build a new internet already, so we can let the old internet rot.

  16. Smoke and mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This unverified news basically says that encrypted internet traffic from some banks was temporarily rerouted through "other" servers. So what? Start worrying, details to follow, they said.

  17. Freaking Commies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone please explain to me why Russia was ever connected to the freaking internet? It's a DOD project!

  18. Marble Framework perhaps...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snooping upon Russian businessmen would be nothing new to NSA/CIA brothers.

  19. Re: PUTIN HAS A LITTLE A LITTLE DICK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah - your mom just has a "spacious" pussy.

  20. Cue the massive CNN Trump outrage chevron! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am willing to bet $10 there'll be a dozen Trump conspiracy theorists raising hell over this. HE DID IT! and shit like that.
    You fucking wankers could be more pathetic, but I'm at a loss as to how....