Slashdot Mirror


Fourth US Navy Collision This Year Raises Suspicion of Cyber-Attacks (thenextweb.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Next Web: Early Monday morning a U.S. Navy Destroyer collided with a merchant vessel off the coast of Singapore. The U.S. Navy initially reported that 10 sailors were missing, and today found "some of the remains" in flooded compartments. While Americans mourn the loss of our brave warriors, top brass is looking for answers. Monday's crash involving the USS John McCain is the fourth in the area, and possibly the most difficult to understand. So far this year 17 U.S. sailors have died in the Pacific southeast due to seemingly accidental collisions with civilian vessels.

Should four collisions in the same geographical area be chalked up to coincidence? Could a military vessel be hacked? In essence, what if GPS spoofing or administrative lockout caused personnel to be unaware of any imminent danger or unable to respond? The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) says there's no reason to think it was a cyber-attack, but they're looking into it: "2 clarify Re: possibility of cyber intrusion or sabotage, no indications right now...but review will consider all possibilities," tweeted Adm. John Richardson. The obvious suspects -- if a sovereign nation is behind any alleged attacks -- would be Russia, China, and North Korea, all of whom have reasonable access to the location of all four incidents. It may be chilling to imagine such a bold risk, but it's not outlandish to think a government might be testing cyber-attack capabilities in the field.

26 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't there someone on the deck looking for other ships in the vicinity?

    Just saying??

    1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, without further evidence, it sounds to me more like incompetence than an attack. Why was someone not watching out for any approaching ships, and able to manually take control to avoid them? Reminds me of the old joke about the navy captain and the lighthouse.

      Furthermore, while the possibility of GPS spoofing makes sense, if a cyber attack on the boat itself is even possible, then that's a problem. The Internet of Things is a bad idea for toasters and refrigerators; it manages to be an even worse idea for warships.

    2. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bull Shit!

      It's boring is no excuse.

      Get your lazy ass on deck and watch for trouble, or go back to land and fuck off.

    3. Re:Why by currently_awake · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are 3 things preventing collisions at sea: 1-the warship has navigation radar. 2-the warship has bridge wing lookouts looking for ships, and ships have lights at night. 3-the civilian ship is also looking around. Yes, an American warship is running windows and is therefore an insecure environment, and could be hacked. But that won't stop the bridge wing lookouts from seeing the other ship coming, and a warship is much more agile (and faster) than a (much larger) cargo freighter. The Law of the Sea says the larger ship has right-of-way, so there is no dispute over who must get out of the way.

    4. Re:Why by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Law of the Sea says the larger ship has right-of-way, so there is no dispute over who must get out of the way.

      No, it doesn't. There are clear rules who has right of way.
      If you are in a small vessel, it is WISE to go out of the way, as you can maneuver better than a heavy ship. It does not mean it has right of way.

      It starts with the fact that a commercial vessel has right of way over a commercial vessel. Next there are very specific maritime laws that determine who has right of way. (No vessel ever has absolute "right of way" over other vessels. Rather, there can be a "give way" (burdened) vessel and a "stand on" (privileged) vessel, or there may be two give way vessels with no stand on vessel)

      A simple explanation of how stupid it would be is that you have NO idea how heavy a ship is. A smaller ship in length can easily be heavier than a much larger ship and you have no way of knowing.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... for a very basic idea and links to the rest.

      As this very basic idea is wrong, I need to assume that you also have no idea about the rest.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. Other possibilities by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have the considered it's not a state actor but a rich media mogul who's causing the accidents to extend his media empire? If only there were dashing British secret agent to stop this dastardly villain's evil plans.

  3. You know what's really chilling and a bold risk? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any military power using anything from Microsoft.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  4. More likely it is lazyness by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On a big ship no one is relying on GPS alone.
    Every ship has a magnetic compass.
    A helmsman should realize if the compass heading ans speed versus the GPS position makes any sense.

    Then again: during daytime a big civilian (freight!) vessel is like a mountain. It is extremely hard to overlook it.

    During night time, the whole deck of big ocean going vessles is illuminated by flood lights.

    Unless in fog, IT IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERSEE IT

    And then we have radar .... so if the ship got "hacked" the only option are hacked bandanas on the eyes of the watch and a hacked radar system.

    The latter would be a story, though.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  5. Definitely not by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any nation-state with the ability to hack software that would influence the most powerful warships in the world would not be doing so for farts and giggles over the course of months to cause a few (in the scheme of things) relatively minor collisions during peace time. They would reserve this cyber weapon for use when it really counted. If this was the result of a lone wolf hacker they would have sold this weapon for a huge amount of money to any of the countries that would want them to use against the US when needed, not risking its discovery messing around with it just for fun.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  6. Re:A better theory by Shinobi · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except that the merchant ships were in a TSS, and the destroyer apparently tried to cross behind one cargo ship, ahead of another, and got hit by the third, that had been obstructed by the first cargo ship.

    The Fitzgerald also ran across a TSS

  7. So let me get this straight by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A foreign state actor hacked into a US Naval Destroyer and with precision knocked out the steering to the ship at a critical moment where by it couldn't maneuver and was rammed by merchant vessel. And then moments later restored the steering to a working condition. Is that it? Do I have it right?

    As opposed to some mechanical/electrical malfunction happening at a critical moment causing said accident and the systems being manually reset after the fact.

    Yeah, right. Anyone who has ever worked with complex mechanical/electrical equipment knows that shit happens and that you don't need external actors to screw things up for you. And that goes without saying that the tropics are not an area that is conducive to nice, neat operations of equipment (consider the British destroyers that can't operate in the warm waters of the Middle East)

    So may I present exhibit "A". It's this sharp piece of metal in the form of a razor. Once owned by a chap named Occam.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  8. Re:Bring it! by zlives · · Score: 4, Funny

    tesla autopilot is to blame
    google map update caused the issue
    Trump whined to Putin after McCain blocked the health bill
    China warns US of what will happen if they don't get more islands/territory
    India/Micorosoft windows 10 update/virus mishap
    North Korea... err ummm they did something that caused something because they are highly capable

    well its a start.
     

  9. Re:A better theory by Shinobi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a reference video of the AIS tracks for the cargo vessels, collision handles shortly after the 50s mark.
    .
    https://youtu.be/vlrA36GzHNs

    Alnic MC is in a cluster of ships together with Team Oslo, Guang Zhou, Hyundai Global and a bit behind them was the Long Hu San
    Observe the evasive maneuver that first the Guang Zhou undertakes, and then the sharp turn to port the Alnic MC tries to perform, to avoid the collision.

  10. Re:never attribute to malice that which is incompe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a shame that you only remember the rumors and myths instead of finding out the facts. The aircraft carrier you're referring to is the USS Yorktown, which did suffer computer-related problems around 1997. But if the problem was just that the OS crashed, they could have just rebooted the damn thing!

    The actual problem was a crew member entered a 0 into a field in a network database, causing all of the software using the database to fail after attempting to divide by 0. The ship was dead in the water for under three hours and returned to port under its own power.

    In other words, this was a problem with the software running the ship, not the OS! Considering that most bugs are in the software running on the OS and not the OS itself, this should not be a surprise.

    dom

  11. Exhaustion by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a culture of overwork that results in severe sleep deprivation in the US Navy, and many people standing watch are impaired at an equivalent level to beign legally drunk. It's been the confirmed cause of other incidents before, and it seems a far more likely explanation than cyber attacks. Unfortunately, the Navy does not appear to be doing much to solve the problem.

    1. Re:Exhaustion by StevenMaurer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      We have a winner. I don't give a damn about any stupid GPS spoofing, you don't run ships into each other unless the crew is so absurdly tired that they're literally sleeping on watch.

      This is well known, and a cultural issue through all the services, especially more recently. It has nothing to do with funding or politics or any other bullshit.

  12. Re:A better theory by Holmwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sort of.

    Navy funds have generally been more available for new ship construction with training and operations spending coming under financial stress in recent years. This makes administrations look good, and politicians of all stripes love the shipbuilding financial spending that flows into a great many districts. Yet it can leave operational readiness stretched.

    Add the gender integration of the service. For whatever reason (likely a high operational tempo and longer deployments by the USN compared to some navies) a significant number of deployed female naval personnel are becoming pregnant; in 2016, 16/100 female sailors deployed had to be transferred back to shore. No one wants to talk about this, understandably so, as there are no easy answers.

    There is no additional funding for this; it cost the Navy $110m last year, and places huge stresses on those remaining -- both male and female -- who often have to step in without adequate backup and training. Even simply providing additional funding won't magically solve the problem, as a loss rate of 16/100 is quite high, and it can occur somewhat unpredictably, hitting certain commands harder.

    It's speculation but I'd guess that many collisions are down to watchkeeping errors and/or one or more people falling asleep on watch. Terrible, but possibly comprehensible given the stresses many crews are under.

  13. Re:Aren't these ships running.... by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    They may have been stuck in a forced upgrade to Windows 10, and were in the process of rebooting when the collisions occurred. Could Microsoft have ignored the Navy's desires not to upgrade to Windows 10, i.e., taken the Navy's dismissal as an OK to do so?

    "Ready fire control! Bogies off the port bow!"

    "I can't, sir. All the screens say 'Hi. We're setting things up for you'".

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  14. Re:Bring it! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Funny

    Trump whined to Putin after McCain blocked the health bill

    "You saw what happened to that ship named 'McCain'? Be a shame if the same thing happened to you..."

  15. Cyberattack? by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

    These are warships, supposedly capable of detecting supersonic enemy planes on attack vectors as well as missiles, hundred of miles away and they are unable to detect a fucking container-ship as big as a skyscraper 50 yards away?

  16. There is no hack that should work by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no single hack that should work to cause an accident like this. It doesn't matter if GPS is hacked or even off. It doesn't matter if your navigation system is faulty or given the wrong information. It doesn't matter if your radars are down. The fact of the matter is, ships have been navigating in congested waters at night for hundreds of years and there is no hack that should serve to cause a collision.

    Bridge watchkeepers are supposed to be trained in heads up visual navigation. GPS, ECPINS, AIS, navigation radars - they are all useful tools, but a watchkeeper is supposed to be trained to know when those tools are lying to to them. Because it really isn't a matter of if, but when something will happen to cause one or more of those tools to lie to you. This is especially true of warship watchkeepers who are supposed to be trained to operate in places where there may be denial of service for GPS or where AIS is being spoofed.

    I wrote about something like this before - almost two years ago. American warships have a reputation in NATO as being driven by amateurs. During fleet manoeuvers, the rest of us actively plot wider safety bubbles around American ships because they are erratic and have a tendency to simply go the wrong direction and just not care.

    This isn't a cyber attack. There is no attack on anything on the American ship that should have defeated the watchkeeper's mark 1 eyeball, and hacking a container ship to hit a warship with is like hacking a semi truck and thinking you are going to use it to ram a dirt bike on an open field. It's simply not possible to hit a warship with a container vessel if the warship has a watchkeeper that is awake.

    1. Re:There is no hack that should work by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American warships have a reputation in NATO as being driven by amateurs. During fleet manoeuvers, the rest of us actively plot wider safety bubbles around American ships because they are erratic and have a tendency to simply go the wrong direction and just not care.

      That's because the *are* piloted by amateurs (relatively speaking).

      A merchant marine captain will spend his entire life in the same career track, building on and enhancing his skills. A Navy captain will have gone through extensive training in school, then work his way through various specialties (engineering, communications, weapons, etc) before he finally gets his command, so he's got much less experience as a merchant marine captain. And even when in command, he's responsible for hundreds of sailors instead of the dozen or two that a merchant vessel would have.

    2. Re:There is no hack that should work by quiet_guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of your post is paraphrased from a recent gCaptain article that was equally erroneous. US Navy ships give distances in nautical miles just like the rest of the maritime world. Contrary to your claim, no vessel I've ever spoken to uses relative bearings on the radio - because that only makes sense if I know your heading to start with, so I can do the math to figure out what you mean. "off my starboard bow"? Sure. I can see that one. Long chain of command between captain and helmsman - sure, if long = about ten feet. Helmsman works for the Officer of the Deck, who works for the CO. Merchant version? Helmsman works for the Officer of the Watch, who works for the Master. Navy captains never talk on the radio? Guess I was confused every time I did. Every CO I know has a radio next to their chair on the bridge, and uses it when required. Yes, I'll let the Officer of the Deck try first - because that's how they learn - but I'm going to step in if we need to. How do I know this? Five years at sea in command of US Navy ships.

  17. Re:MH370 - paging CNN by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    A good conspiracy theorist would not squander his credibilty by getting basic facts wrong, like saying a collision occurred in the "Pacific southeast" when it actually occurred north of the equator in the Western Pacific. The Southeastern Pacific is off the coast of Chile, about 16,000 km away, or roughly halfway around the world.

  18. Re:Arrogant and ill trained US navy crew. by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember the US carrier fleet commander who got into an argument about who should change course with a lighthouse?

    That was a joke which never actually took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... & http://www.navy.mil/navydata/q...

    I figure it's much more likely that the captain demanded the traffic (driven by or for nignogs, clearly, it's the middle east) change course and played chicken with a tanker that has no chance of complying due to their massive size.

    The accident took place in the straits of Malacca which is hardly the middle east. If the Captain was so arrogant as to play chicken he could've just sunk the merchant ship when it got to close.

    It'd take an awfully crazy Navy captain to sink a foreign flagged ship in a public shipping channel.

    Most likely cause was probably weather reducing visibility (heavy fog/mist is quite common in that area) so they didn't see the ship until it was to late.

    That might be a valid excuse if either vessel was a 20 ft sailboat, but a 2 billion dollar Arleigh Class destroyer has 6MW worth of radar. Even my friend's 30 foot boat has a 4KW radar system than can see ships miles away through heavy fog and rain.

    If it can't see a 500 ft tanker approaching, what chance does it have in wartime?

  19. Re:Arrogant and ill trained US navy crew. by bestweasel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe it was a stealth tanker.