Slashdot Mirror


Australian Stock Exchange Crack Attempt Came From US Military Installation

Hamish writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting the US military may have tried to crack the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Have a look at the article. No one is actually claiming that the attack was officially sanctioned but the attack did originate from a US military institution. "

149 comments

  1. Okay... by HerrNewton · · Score: 1

    This is all very odd; no offense to our Australian friends, but if you were going after a foreign stock market, wouldn't you take Tokyo, London, or Berlin?

    --

    ----
    Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
    1. Re:Okay... by sinnergy · · Score: 2

      I agree to some point, if you're going for the golden egg, you might as well go for the goose that laid it. However, one might consider something like this as a small stagin arena for a much larger "project". Yes, this is getting press, but if *I* were a s00p3r cr4c|3r, I'd try my skills on smaller fish before going for the big kahuna.

      In either case, it's still an interesting case study and really should remind everyone that the main security concern they must face is not the threat to *their* data, but the threate that someone will use their computer illegally to access *other* peoples' data. Therein lies the real problem.

    2. Re:Okay... by ry4an · · Score: 1

      No. You would go for whichever one you thought you could make it into.

    3. Re:Okay... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Very very very good point.

      From my personal experience 99.9% of attacks come from an already hacked site. It is interesting that they did not use a university as a staging area which is the usual case.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Okay... by Alex_Kaufman · · Score: 1

      The Geran stock exchange is Frankfurt AFAIK

    5. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they haven't?

  2. Hmm... by TheBinary · · Score: 1

    UhOh! I sure hope this isn't grounds for WW III ;)

    1. Re:Hmm... by Yarn · · Score: 1

      yes, W3c is bad enough :/

      --
      -Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
  3. Australian security by PurpleBob · · Score: 3

    It's no wonder the Australian site was so secure - any data that looked remotely harmful would be immediately censored out of existence.
    --

    --
    Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
  4. Copy protecte? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australian Stock Exchange crack....wow...I never knew it was copy protected!

  5. wasn't me, honest by devphil · · Score: 2

    As a sysop for the Air Force Research Labs, I tell you straight up that I had nothing to do with it whatsoever. The fact that I now own massive shares of Sydney Opera House is a coincidence. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    phil
    (hoping that nobody else in his directorate reads /.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:wasn't me, honest by Mr+Neutron · · Score: 1
      Hey Phil-

      OSI is on its way to your cube...I suggest you panic and run.

      Dunno about AFRL but HQ AMC/SC reads. Well, at least one of his staff weenies does.

      ObArticle: [...]associated with military activities[...]

      This is pretty vague. I don't necessarily read *.mil here. It could be MITRE, or RAND, or a DoD host. I suspect that somebody (maybe an Aussie) broke into the host to perform the attack. If we were really trying to mess up ASX, I assume we'd do it through a front. At least, I hope so.

      Next article: Host associated with US Military Posts to Slashdot

      Neutron

      --
      I get my kicks above the .sigline, Sunshine.
    2. Re:wasn't me, honest by Raven667 · · Score: 1

      What, HQ/AMC reads Slashdot. That can't be right, that would mean that someone there has a clue. Not my experience at all. Then again maybe I'm just bitter.

      --
      -- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
  6. Two very likely possibilities by mattdm · · Score: 3
    1. The source IP address was spoofed

    or

    2. The machine from which the attack oriented was, as they say, owned.

    --

    1. Re:Two very likely possibilities by AME · · Score: 2

      More likely: 3. Some Airman who fancies himself a [c|h]racker was using one of the computers in his shop during his break. Or even more likely: 4. Some Airman who fancies himself a [c|h]racker was using one of the computers in his shop when he should have been doing his work. AME [former Airman, USAF]

      --
      "I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
    2. Re:Two very likely possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a hracker?

    3. Re:Two very likely possibilities by drix · · Score: 1

      I hope for their sake it wasn't #1. It would be humbling, to say the least, to brag to the press about your "multi-level" firewalls and then, oops, find out that they can't even detect spoofed packets.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  7. That's no good at all by MaximumBob · · Score: 1
    That's not good at all. I mean, having a stock exchange in a developed country come under attack is bad enough, but having the attack look like it came from the U.S. (regardless of whether or not it did) is even worse.

    Scary thought about what could happen if this happened to, say, Russia, and cooler heads did not prevail. Or between India and Pakistan, except those two really do assault each other's systems all the time.

    1. Re:That's no good at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between third world and first world countries? where are the second world countries? Is this based on the skin color? And when did the US stop being so aggrassive? or sneaky or.. CIA type

    2. Re:That's no good at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is based on Nuclear weapons.. If you have them than your the elite. Australia doesnt have any so it's not.

    3. Re:That's no good at all by maxII · · Score: 1

      Thank god we are note elite then :)

    4. Re:That's no good at all by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      Its based on a point system. There are points awarded for skin color and religion. There are bonus points for nuclear weapons. Lighter skin colors get higher number and darker skin colors get lower numbers. If you are mostly christian or jewish you get bumped up but if you are moslem or hindu or budhist you get bumped down. Yellow people are in a category of their own and are a wild card. Lets score a some countries as an example
      Israel: light brown people -1, jewish +1, Nuclear weapons +1. Score 2 first world!
      India: Dark brown people -2, hindu religion -1, nuclear weapons +1 score -2 second world!.
      Khazakistan: light brown people -1, nuclear weapons +1, moslem religion -1, score -1 second world.
      Japan: Budhist/shinto -1, no nukes 0, yellow people +3 (Wild card!) score +2 first world!
      You can use this simple guide to determine where in the world countries stand. Politicians use a very similar guide to set foreign policy too!.

      I hope I was able to clarify this for you. In guess who is coming to dinner there is a quote that I love.
      If you're white you're all right
      if you're brown stick around
      if you're black stay back!

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:That's no good at all by ZeroLogic · · Score: 2

      I can't believe the other post got moderated up to a +2 interesting! The terms have nothing to do with skin color, and certainly not a point system!

      The reference to 1st, 2nd, 3rd world date back to a paper by a political geographer (whose name escapes me) he used 1st world to describe the "free nations", 2nd world to describe the USSR and it's children.

      And 3rd world was used to describe the "Unaffiliated" countries.

      Zl

    6. Re:That's no good at all by GC · · Score: 1

      uh eh?

      ermmm... yes, right, hmmm....

      did you forget what you were reading?

      and....

      Japan - no nukes? ha, you DO make me laugh..., plenty of nuclear, perhaps no nukes...

    7. Re:That's no good at all by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      It was a joke dude!

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    8. Re:That's no good at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the lack of nuclear that precludes Australia from being elite.

      Australia has always been viewed as a joke country which makes semi-amusing beer commercials which play off your criminal origins.

      G'Day Mate !

      Brought to you by someone with too much time on his hands and the letter Q.

  8. Taxes at work by chuck · · Score: 1
    I'm so glad my government is keeping me safe from the dangers of the Australian economy!

    (Note: I don't actually believe the USMil is behind this...)

  9. The power of the Roo by KingJawa · · Score: 1

    1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters can write the great American novel.

    So I guess 100 Kangaroos with 1000 whatever-machine-they-use-down-there can create the server the US Government can't break into.

    Fear the power of the Roo.

    1. Re:The power of the Roo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, we use the same machines you do (apart from those your government won't let be exported).

      And you should fear the power of the 'roo. A good sized one can kill a human with a kick from the hind legs. Also fear those cuddly little koalas, they'll piss on you at first chance. Dirty little so and so's.

    2. Re:The power of the Roo by Digital_Fiend · · Score: 1

      they have leet klawz, tew.

      -warren

    3. Re:The power of the Roo by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1


      Fear the power of the Roo.

      Don't you mean "ph33r th3 p0w3r 0f th3 r00"? Our kangaroos are very l33t :)

  10. What sense of the word "military installation"? by drix · · Score: 2

    Ok, it seems highly unlikely that the US government would actually be behind this (If you really wanted to do some damage, go after an exchange that's important like the Nikkei, FTSE, etc.) What's more likely is that someone cracked a box which resides under a government domain and did all their telnetting from there. Haven't a couple of the armed services websites been defaced lately? If you can overwrite files you can certainly run telnet. Thus, it may have looked like the attack was coming from a military installation, but was actually just some bored kid who finished his math homework.

    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    1. Re:What sense of the word "military installation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      OK a couple of corrections for you :

      FTSE and Nikkei are not stock exchanges, they are Stock Indicies. The FT in FTSE stands for "Financial Times" which is basically the UK equiv. of the Wall St journal. The markets in London and Tokyo are called the LSE and TSE (I'll let you guess what they stand for). This is the same as in NY, where the market is called the NYSE and the main index is the Dow Jones Industrial.

      Overwriting files may be all you need to do to run telnet. But that is of little use if you can't get out past a firewall. For instance, where I work I can run telnet no problem on any machine, but I can only get to other machines on our net - no outgoing access. I assume US military installations have at least a firewall protecting us from them?

    2. Re:What sense of the word "military installation"? by arcade · · Score: 1

      I assume US military installations have at least a firewall protecting us from them?

      Why should they filter outgoing packets?

      And, no, I don't think all US-.mil sites filter outgoing packets. Not when you think about the amount of .mil domains you see on irc during a year. Scriptkiddies have a tendency to 'brag' by using them as vanitydomains.


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    3. Re:What sense of the word "military installation"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why should they filter outgoing packets? And, no, I don't think all US-.mil sites filter outgoing packets. Not when you think about the amount of .mil domains you see on irc during a year. Scriptkiddies have a tendency to 'brag' by using them as vanitydomains.

      I guess they should because of events like this - tarnishing the good name (??) of the US military. That's why we do it here - to prevent idiots getting our name in the news. Also it would help stop an insider sending sensitive information/data out of the company.
      Thanks for the infor tho...I guess there are a lot of military machines which simply don't need much in the way of security.

  11. What bothers me ... by HalJohnson · · Score: 3

    Is if they detect so many attempts (and I doubt they detect them all), why would an obvious spoofed attack be headline news?

    Of the "plenty of attacks" on the ASX computer system, Mr Humphry said none had been successful, with "amateurs trying fairly frequently".

    Why wasn't this just dismissed as another amateur attempt, instead of slandering the US military. I mean, everyone has problems with their government. I'm no huge fan of ours (US), but considering Oz's track record in regards to technology, this just seems to be an outright insult towards the US.

    Are you telling me they honestly believed our military was trying to attack their stock exchange? It simply doesn't make sense.

    Mr Humphry said authorities were notified after the hackers from the US military installation tried to break into the site and "broke into another site to achieve that objective".

    If they had control of a machine between their servers and the supposedly source, someone with enough technical expertise could make the attack seem like it was coming from literally anywhere. As long as the packets route through that machine, it wouldn't matter.

    And even if the attacks genuinely came from a US military institution, I doubt it was from anything but an unsecured web server that was cracked. Of course the article doesn't give many details.

    It just bothers me that they'd publish this garbage and make it seem as if that was exactly how it happened, when there are numerous possibilities of how the attempt could've occured. And without any details.

    You can try to blame this on the Australian media, but I can't, since they should've dismissed this attack, and the media shouldn't even have been notified.

    1. Re:What bothers me ... by maxII · · Score: 1

      What "track record" are you referring to?

    2. Re:What bothers me ... by HalJohnson · · Score: 1

      This and This ... Etc.

    3. Re:What bothers me ... by HaggiZ · · Score: 1

      I think that any US citizens/residents that take this to matter personally have a whole bunch of problems of their own. I'm sure most people (including the guy that noticed the attack) would assume that the address of the machine was either spoofed, or the machine had been "owned".

      Do you seriously believe that simply because a single media outlet gets their hands on some information (info which another poster points out had to be reported to authorities), and then twists it around to try and grab a headline, that all Australians believe it to be true and that the Americans are all against us? Of course we do!! Newspapers and other media outlets would never twist a story or try a bit of scare-mongering to lure in a few extra $$

      Shame on them.

    4. Re:What bothers me ... by phantomlord · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who does computer security and networking stuff for the air force in DC. When he came home on leave last month, he was telling me stories of some of the goings on there... I guess one guy in particular tries breaking into their public systems but isn't good enough to do anything so let let him play until they get annoyed and disconnect him. He said he sees up to a dozen different IPs trying to crack various systems every day and a large number of the computers are running NT( he's their "UNIX specialist" and he just called me yesterday to try to get his mouse working on his home box in linux so we know what kinda people admin these boxes) so I see it as definately plausable someone could have found a method to grab the box and use it for their own needs. Whether or not the military can find out who it was that did it is another thing.

      On a slightly different note, considering our "cyberwar" on Yugoslavia, I'm sure many other governments could be concerned and so are initiating counter attacks( ie, if they're going to get us, we might as well get them ).

      --
      Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
    5. Re:What bothers me ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow the above links. I agree. Stop the censorship!! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

    6. Re:What bothers me ... by hammy · · Score: 1

      I think the security analysts at the ASX would have checked this out pretty thoughly before they made any claims liket this about the US military. It's a serious claim and I'm sure they checked it seriously before alerting the media and making formal complaints to the US government. Note they're not blaming the US military the attack just origninated from a US military institution. It's not the Aust. media, the head of the ASX made these claims.

  12. Left out one other explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You left out one other explaination. The government is lying to us.

    Nah, that can't happen.

    Injured software engineer wins against Mattel! Ain't that swell?

  13. c4hn y00 sai Spo0off? by FatSean · · Score: 1

    C'mon. This kind of crap is what I'd except from ZDNet. Slashdot lending even the slightest bit of legitimacy to this joke makes my stomach churn.

    --
    Blar.
  14. journalism bwahahahah by dithi · · Score: 1

    So now the Australians are going to 'upgrade' their laws? This is reminiscent of The Onion article on the US constitution v2.0. Really, a good look at the article can tell you a lot about the slant. Computer analogies are beginning to be overused IMHO.

    --
    I am that that is, not that that is not, that is.
  15. this is funny.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its trivial to spoof your IP into a different ADDRESS when portscanning a box...its also very easy to insert fake information( and also erase info) in utmp/wtmp/lastlog. If the US gov't. wanted to crash a machine, they could've just lanuched an ICBM missile headed straight to their a$$...jk =)

    1. Re:this is funny.... by arcade · · Score: 1

      its trivial to spoof your IP into a different ADDRESS when portscanning a box...

      You've got to get packets back to yourself, to get to know what ports are open. In other words -- it's not that easy. You've got to be "in between" so that you can packetsniff the packets coming from the host you're scanning, and the address you've spoofed.

      (correct me if i'm wrong)

      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    2. Re:this is funny.... by proberts · · Score: 1

      > You've got to get packets back to yourself, to
      > get to know what ports are open. In other words
      > -- it's not that easy. You've got to be "in
      > between" so that you can packetsniff the packets
      > coming from the host you're scanning, and the
      > address you've spoofed.
      >
      > (correct me if i'm wrong)

      What's often overlooked is that 'in between' can be *either* in between the scanner and the victim or the victim and the spoofee. If you do the second part, it's more likely that you'll have a case of denyability if you're also the spoofee if you can route the replies to the spoofed packets out-of-band.

      "We were sniffing our network that day because we seemed to be under some sort of attack, here're the logs and you can see that we didn't send any traffic out, it must have been spoofed" is possibly a good defense in such situations, especially if the spoofee is say a college network with a significant number of hosts and shared media.

      Paul

      --
      http://www.pauldrobertson.com
  16. Australian censor/ by destiny · · Score: 1

    Its amazing how Americans always seem to come up with the idea that we have really strict censorship in Australia.

    I can tell you right now there is more censorship in the US. It is mainly about the application of the laws that matters, and here the laws are applied in an appropriate maner (mostly).

    In case you are wondering why this was reported (about 24 hours ago), the guy is supposed to report such attacks and the rest is just a media beatup.

    Do I trust the US, not really.

    --

    We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. We shall prevail!
    1. Re:Australian censor/ by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      America is the most uptight censored country I have ever been in. No cursing, no nudity, no nothin. The media is scrubbed clean before it ever reaches the pristine and virginal ears and eyes of the citizenry. Also many subjects are just plain taboo. I am still waiting for an American politician to admit he does not believe in god, Or that drugs should be legalized. I have never been in Australia but I can not imagine that it's more censored then here.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:Australian censor/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am still waiting for an American politician to admit he does not believe in god, Or that drugs should be legalized.

      Governor Jesse Ventura of Minnesota just did both in the same interview.
      href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/ 10/03/ventura/

    3. Re:Australian censor/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Ventura took an unbelievable amount of flack for it. The Reform Party sounds like they want to kick him out for somehow giving them a bad name.

    4. Re:Australian censor/ by Malcontent · · Score: 0

      Oops forgot about him. To be fair though he did not admit that he did not believe in god. He did critisize organized religion but he goes to church regulary himself. I presume he does believe in god. I admire him for tackling very powerful religious organizations in this country. I know he will get a lot of flack for it and may even be kicked out of his own party for saying those things. Kudos to Jesse!

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    5. Re:Australian censor/ by ToastyKen · · Score: 1

      I think PurpleBob was making reference to the Australian internet censorship situation.

    6. Re:Australian censor/ by Uart · · Score: 1

      I am still waiting for an American politician to admit he does not believe in god,

      His name is Governor Jessie Ventura.

      Or that drugs should be legalized.

      His name is Governor Jessie Ventura.

      oh, and he also wants to legalize prostitution.

      --

      Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
  17. Which is worse? by Apuleius · · Score: 2

    1. a military host was compromised and then used to attack the Aussie stock exchange,

    or,

    2. the US Army decided to audit the Aussie stock exchange without authorization.

    Quite frankly, I hope it's the latter.

    1. Re:Which is worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt be suprised if it was the second. The CIA once did an audit on MI5/MI6 without the 'official' knowledge of the British Intelligence (ie, they figured it out themselves and got pretty pissed off)

      A lot of people on both sides got their wrists slapped.

    2. Re:Which is worse? by arcade · · Score: 1

      1. a military host was compromised [..] or,
      2. the US Army decided to audit [..] Quite frankly, I hope it's the latter.


      But, it's probably the first alternative that's correct. The US military have thousands of *nix'es up'n running, some for years without any upgrades. There are bound to be hundreds of easily crackable boxes in the .mil domain.

      and the .gov domain .. oh, don't get me started. I'm getting tired of all the EFNet scriptkiddies bragging by using .gov-domains as vanitydomains.


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    3. Re:Which is worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. The U.S. Army decided to audit the Aussie stock exchange without authorization.

      What gives the U.S. the authority to go around "auditing" other countries' computer systems in the first place?

    4. Re:Which is worse? by jtn · · Score: 1

      The same authority that gives them the right to dictate other country's internal policies.. pure arrogance.

  18. Not the military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    The Military? Bullshit..


    The box the attack was launched from was probably cracked.. Military boxes aren't exactly secure..


    If you look at
    http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/stats. html


    Breakout Total
    Government Systems 79
    NASA Systems 27
    ARMY Systems 19
    Military Systems 47

    .. and that counts only hacked boxes where the webpage was replaced..

    1. Re:Not the military by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      That's not a reasonable comparison unless you count attempts, as well.

      While I kept a box on the local Ethernet for four years, there were no successful breakins. On the other hand, considering that almost all the "attempts" were simple probes (as in: "let's portscan 128.2.*.*" etc), it wouldn't be fair to say that my box was more secure than, oh, one with a full-time sysadmin auditing the code. It simply wasn't targetted as much as a .mil box would be, for instance.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  19. is the government really responsiable? by discore · · Score: 1

    i sort of doubt the government had any involvment or knowledge of the hack. i bet it was some people hacking from .gov machines. remember folks anyone can use any machine if they have access, and cover it all up.

    and if it hasnt been said enough yet, .gov is notorious for having bad security.
    dont go bashing innocent .gov computer nerds yet ;)

    tyler

  20. Reason and Sensibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree 100%. Seems Mr Richard Humphry just wanted to get his name in the paper. In the mean time, he slandered the U.S. military and by extension the U.S. government and all the citizens of the United States. And he has not even met a reasonable burden of proof to make his claims.

    He said another serious attack came from Victoria.

    Well, geesh, it must have been an Aussie attacking. Call out the Federal police!! We must mount a defence! We have found the enemy--and he is us.

    Okay, so I apologize, that last comment may be inappropriate, and two wrongs don't make a right, but I want justice!

    And one more thing, how does/would Dick know the attack originate via the attempts of more than one individual? That is, how come he says hackers, and not just hacker?

    1. Re:Reason and Sensibility by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 1

      and like no American would ever make a comment without adhering to a burden of proof? ;P

      --

      Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  21. Quite Honestly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If indeed this attack came from a 'mitilitary institution' (which I doubt they know for sure) I must have been a hacked one. That's just simple. However, making statements like: "We build multi-layered firewalls," he said of the ASX security strategy. The hackers had not been able to pass "through the first wall". Not a good idea Mr. Humphry. That smells just like another crack-this-box-a-thon. Have at it boys and girls. Make the USA proud!!!

  22. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least we can spell.

  23. India is richer than Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You doofus.

    And the US is the biggest trigger happy country in this world.

    1. Re:India is richer than Australia by Dix · · Score: 1

      Almost exactly the same GNP and growth rate.
      India has about 50 times as many people

  24. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "At Least we can spell."

    What kind of english is that my friend?

  25. Forgetting something..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Okay, I think this is going too far. I seriously doubt that the US military would hack the Australian Stock Exchange. But it sure makes a good media pitch.

    If a .mil host has been compromised, then I'd be waiting to see which major computer system the US military tries to crack into next. Hackers use other systems as jumping points. They don't, for example, hack/crack directly from their own system. They might have a trail of maybe 5 or 6 hosts between them and their destination. the .mil host just happens to be the last one before the asx system.

    It makes things more challenging for the hackers, and almost impossible for admins if the owner of any one of those hosts along the line doesn't know what they are doing.

    Now if one of those systems was an NT box, or a socks5 proxy (perhaps an open insecure wingate) with open access, then there would be little chance of the hacker/cracker being found.

    -zardoz

    1. Re:Forgetting something..? by arcade · · Score: 1

      Now if one of those systems was an NT box, or a socks5 proxy (perhaps an open insecure wingate) with open access, then there would be little chance of the hacker/cracker being found.

      My guess it that he did two or three bounces via insecure @home boxes. (there are hundreds of open wingates there..) Then via some .gov domain - to a .mil domain (so that the .mil wouldn't get too suspicious) - and then finally to australia.

      Of course, just a guess, but thats what I would've done if i wanted to go on a cracking run. (@home really should start blocking port 23, 1080 and so forth)


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  26. motives by goon · · Score: 1

    this is a possible. I dont know if any slashdotters at the moment realise australian troops are in east timor enforcing the peace. This could be an indonesian 'crack' posing as a US IP.

    given the current state of affairs this is a possibility.

    --
    peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
    1. Re:motives by arcade · · Score: 1

      this is a possible. I dont know if any slashdotters at the moment realise australian troops are in east timor enforcing the peace. This could be an indonesian 'crack' posing as a US IP.

      Blah. Blindspoofing a tcpconnection isn't exactly easy. So my guess is that spoofed ip packets are out of the question. The american military got a box cracked again. Or maybe they forgot to close their wingate.

      And if you don't think this is a realistic explanation, then start using IRC and visit a couple of "eLiTe takeover-kiddie-channels". you'll be surprised when you see how many who uses .gov and .mil domains.


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    2. Re:motives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming they were smart enough to reject source routed packets :) BTW have the sequence number generators in the OS's IRC servers run been improved since say 2 years back? Blind spoofing was feasible in the past due to the rather lame sequence number generators. Alternatively, if you somehow could gain access to a major NAP you could spoof a whole lot of adresses.

  27. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we can read too. And cut'n'paste. (There's no captial L in there). And we use the Queen's English.

  28. Flame anyone? by ChunkOChowder · · Score: 0

    hehe. Man, this thread is burning up!

    --
    Make it idiot-proof and someone will build a better idiot.
  29. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And we use the Queen's English.

    ...which works really well for subjects of the Queen. ;)

  30. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does the Queen favor sentence fragments?

  31. Is the publicity just part of a pissing war? by thogard · · Score: 2

    East Timor is currently being used as a pawn by US military to convince the Aussie military that they are not properly prepared for their own defence. While its looking like a full on pissing war between the sides, this should just add more fuel for the fire. Australia has asked the US (its best ally) for help in the E Timor mess and the US said they would not send any troops even though every time the US asked the Oz military for troops, they were sent. Now the US military just lent 4000 suits of body armour and keep adding other little bits of hardware all while politely pointing out that if the Oz government spent a bit more on US made hardware, these little problems wouldn't happen. This little incident just switches things around a bit the other way.

    1. Re:Is the publicity just part of a pissing war? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US had that body armour sitting around doing nothing anyway, they didn't need it in Bosnia cause they sat back and pounded them from the air. I also hear that the US is 2 1/2 years behind in payments to the UN while Australia is one of the best UN supporters. Whats the story with the USA? Its about time they got over the paranoia of the cold war and started relizing that they are not the only county in the world "that matters". Oh sorry this was on a firewall attack wasn't it. Ha Ha just goes to show you that "the arse end of the world" can match it with the super powers.

  32. Military Security by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I don't reckon Military computer security would be any better than anyone else's. Probably worse, seeing as how you can generally make more money with computers in the private sector than you can in military. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if a lot of the systems in the military -- especially the unclassified areas -- had security weaknesses going back five to ten years.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Military Security by drix · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the military; in the article an IT guy for the Australian stock exchange mentions multi-level (or something to that effect) firewalls. Think NYSE and all their computer gadgetry, which is light years ahead of anything the US military has, except for maybe a few exceptions for code-breaking or whatever they do.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  33. It wasn't _MY_ military, it was his. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the attack was succesful, the mil would have free access to the Australian economy, they got BUSTED so it was a attack from a spoofed IP. Maybe the military sys-admins should learn from the ASX how to build a network that is actually secure??

  34. Don't suggest spoofing by Columbine+dropout · · Score: 1

    IP spoofing is a myth. It can be done on a lan, but the laws of tcp/ip simply forbids it on the net. This is probably fake information the aussie government put out to get the media all rowdy. Clearly the government is furthering their attempts censor the net. How far will they go? Then again it could be real and some idiot government hired script kiddie forgot to cover their tracks.

    --


    --
    Karma: -1,257,423
    if you can't beat 'em might as well join 'em
    1. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by HalJohnson · · Score: 1

      "the laws of tcp/ip"?

      AFAIK, TCP/IP is a protocol, not a set of laws :)

      Spoofing is very real, and if you believe otherwise, you're being illogical. Think about the essence of data communications, just a bunch of electrical pulses travelling down a wire. If you have access to that wire, you can send anything down it and make it seem like it was coming from anywhere on the other end. You can also deny traffic, or modify it en route. Basically, you can do anything.

      Don't kid yourself, spoofing is a common occurance, and those who do it properly are usually not even noticed.

      And encryption doesn't help much either, if the format of the data is known (the protocol), you can easily just proxy the authentication and none would be any the wiser. 3rd party authentication is slightly better, but for a determined entity, its really just one more wire to compromise.

    2. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by dw · · Score: 1

      Actually, spoofing is possible if the hijacker resides on a network along the route of the two other identities. Also, spoofing should be possible in one way attacks, like some denial of service attacks.

    3. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by arcade · · Score: 1

      Spoofing is very real, and if you believe otherwise, you're being illogical.

      Either there need to be a cracked host in the route between the .mil box and the australien box, or a cracker resided on the same LAN (non-switched..) as the .mil box, or the australian box. if not, the only possibility would be blindspoofing -- and since that is next-to-impossible to accomplish on the net (due to lag, and pretty random numbers used in the handshakes) -- we can pretty much rule that out.

      And, since I guess the .mil is connected 'straight to the backbone' -- and the australian site the same .. I really doubt any of the backbone routers are cracked -- and -- I really doubt any of them are on unswitched networks.

      Therefore .. american military has a crackec box..


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    4. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by arcade · · Score: 1

      Also, spoofing should be possible in one way attacks, like some denial of service attacks.

      DoS attacks cannot really be called 'cracking' ;)

      SYNflooding / smurfing / udp-flooding with spoofed sender-addresses is nothing new. But I really, really doubt that is what this is all about.


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    5. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by proberts · · Score: 1

      > and since that is next-to-impossible to
      > accomplish on the net (due to lag, and pretty
      > random numbers used in the handshakes) -- we can
      > pretty much rule that out.

      (A) You're missing the fact that TCP isn't the only protocol you can blindly spoof. So, if we're talking about spoofing in general, there's a UDP and ICMP-sized hole there waiting for poorly written applications.

      (B) Lag has _nothing_ to do with a blind spoof attack, since you can either flood the spoofee or pick a host that's behind a network that doesn't report unreachables.

      (C) Very diffuclt to predict sequence numbers are a relatively new occurance. I wouldn't bet my hard-earned money on everything using them either.

      (D) Why are you ok with cracked end-boxes, but not
      anything cracked in the path? You wouldn't believe the number of poorly administered routers, older routers with vulnerabilities, and new Web browser configuarble routers set up by morons.

      Your conclusion is probably correct, but your premises are flawed.

      Paul

      --
      http://www.pauldrobertson.com
    6. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by arcade · · Score: 1

      (A) You're missing the fact that TCP isn't the only protocol you can blindly spoof. So, if we're talking about spoofing in general, there's a UDP
      and ICMP-sized hole there waiting for poorly written applications.


      This is of course well known to the australians. You've got to be pretty damn stupid if you say that someone was involved in attacking you -- because of the sourceaddress of icmp / udp packets (or tcp-syn packets). I assume that we're talking about a successfull tcp-handshake. If not - I don't get why this got into the media at all.

      (B) Lag has _nothing_ to do with a blind spoof attack, since you can either flood the spoofee or pick a host that's behind a network that doesn't report unreachables.

      Very wrong. If you've followed bugtraq the last week or so, you would've noticed the "bug" in the linux 2.2 kernel that makes blindspoofing easy on a network with little lag. On the internet the blindspoofing would be difficult, because of lag. Also - if i remember correctly - the two machines would need to have quite syncronized clocks.

      (C) Very diffuclt to predict sequence numbers are a relatively new occurance. I wouldn't bet my hard-earned money on everything using them either.

      Any recent tcpip implementation should should have difficult to predict sequence numbers. I don't know how older systems works, so you're probably right.

      (D) Why are you ok with cracked end-boxes, but not anything cracked in the path? You wouldn't believe the number of poorly administered routers, older routers with vulnerabilities, and new Web browser configuarble routers set up by morons.

      I have a tendency to believe that most core-routers are well-configured. Of course, there are extreme amounts of poorly administered routers ... but are there extreme amounts of poorly administred core-routers?

      Of course, it may be that I'm not paranoid enough about THIS. :-)


      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    7. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets put the all the situations in wich your statement is wrong in a list...

      1. The system allows source routing
      2. The system has predictable sequence numbers
      3. The attacker can sniff the return datastream from the system to the spoofed address (granted you _almost_ have to be on the lan of either machine... but its not unthinkable that you could tap the data en route)

      So if the system is well secured (secure sequence numbers&no source routing) AND the entire route between it and the spoofed address is likewise then you're right... or in other words, you're wrong :)

    8. Re:Don't suggest spoofing by proberts · · Score: 1

      Point (A) said "spoofing in general" for the reason that there was a lot of more 'academic' discussion going on than discussion limited to the particular case in point...

      > Very wrong. If you've followed bugtraq the last > week or so, you would've noticed the "bug" in
      > the linux 2.2 kernel that makes blindspoofing
      > easy on a network with little lag. On the...

      Once again, as the attacker you get to pick what's spoofed. Spoofing from a blackholed network or from an easily-flooded host removes the lag issue completely. Synched clocks only work for similar implementations that derrive their sequence numbers from the time.

      > Any recent tcpip implementation should should
      > have difficult to predict sequence numbers. I
      > don't know how older systems works, so you're
      > probably right.

      "Should" and "do" are two different things. Making difficult sequence numbers affects TCP performance. At least for relatively recent versions of HP/UX you have to sysctl hard numbers, and the default was easily guessable. If you've a
      decent collection of hardware you can run nmap or ISS and look at the predictability of your hosts.

      > I have a tendency to believe that most
      > core-routers are well-configured. Of
      > course, there are extreme amounts of poorly
      > administered routers ... but are
      > there extreme amounts of poorly administred
      > core-routers?

      (a) a leaf router will do quite well in this instance and (b) it only takes one, extreme ammounts don't mean much. Some tier-1's manage their routers well, and some manage them poorly. .au doesn't have a great ammount of off-continent bandwidth (though it's certainly better than it used to be) so you'd probably be looking for on on-continent routing hole at either end if you were preparing an attack. (limted bandwidth tends to be managed better than widely available bandwidth)

      Paul

      --
      http://www.pauldrobertson.com
  35. If it were really the US Military... by Keeper · · Score: 1

    With all the secret agent men, contingency plans for contingencies which may or may not have contignency plans, and the number of really smart people they pay just to "think" about a problem and find a solution, I find it difficult to belief they'd be dumb enough to try to gained unauthorized access into a "high level" type machine/network from their own network. If they were really going to do such a thing, they'd setup an account with sprintlink or something...

  36. From an aussie by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    C'om on guys.. it hadda been spoofed..
    On top of that.. I'd be willing to bet it was one of our own guys....
    in fact.. i'd bet a new athlon that it was one of ours AND either from tasmania/queensland or over here in western australia..
    :-)
    (but that doesn't mean we can turn our backs on you yankees yet... *grin*)

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  37. It was the US Government... by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

    ...Undoubtedly trying to affect the price of those tasty Aussie Beef Snacks.

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    1. Re:It was the US Government... by Bryan_Crowl · · Score: 1

      First they hurt our farmers by stoping our TOP QUALITY beef coming in and now they try to hit everyone else by taking down our Stock Exchange

      Come america go back to picking on the Russians
      hehehehhe

      --
      Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
    2. Re:It was the US Government... by radja · · Score: 1

      And then they try to swamp the market with their hormone infested american beef.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  38. The media's interpretation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The .mil machine in question was most likely owned first. I wonder if broadsheet and lower quality papers will bother to explain concepts like "telnet" or "ssh" (let alone IP Spoofing!!) to their non-computer-literate readers. This might raise interesting questions - I mean if cyberwarfare's the future, and the media have such a shaky understand of technology and feel even less dutiful about reporting on it (see the RSA cracking story recently) 'God help us' .

  39. Pfft, It's all speculation. by Dan+B. · · Score: 2

    I've simply got to reply to all the "It was a spoof" posts (about 13 when I counted). My God you people speculate a lot! Read the article, It literally says we traced it back as far as possible and it landed in an IP range that is associated with the particular US military base.

    Now, chances are the would be cracker targeted the ASX, believing it to be inferior, for personal gains or whatever, but failed.

    The fact that it seemed to have come from another source, after originating from the Military base would indicate that the 'owned' box was where the guy was going to have his trail end. I would say he was literally 'caught in the act' before he covered his path at this point. Routers pass a lot of information on and it is oh so possible to link back spoofed IP's to the source route. On a wide area scale, spoofed IP's do not return to the host very easily. If the connection is open, the trace can be made to the source IP.

    Now for my 2c worth: It would not surprise me one bit if he just dialed-in to a MIL server that he just 'happened' to have a number for, so was designated an IP in their adress range. If this guy was any good though, he would have removed any evidence of ever actually having dialed in though. IMO, this is about the only plausible explaination.

    You can break the law all you like -- until you're caught. Remeber one thing. It is only the dumb criminals that are in jail.

    --
    Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
    1. Re:Pfft, It's all speculation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you trace it back without the help from the network operators of all the backbones it crosses? And would they do that on just the authority of a company? (remember ASX traced it back)

  40. Why on Earth? by Flicka · · Score: 1

    Why on earth would australia fabricate such a wild story??
    Most astralians are simple especially our journalists and politicians.
    No Body seem's to think that mabey the US didnt do it, mabey it was the bored system administratior?
    Australia has every thing to lose here....

  41. This is all part of a BIGGER plan by Indonesia by Bryan_Crowl · · Score: 1

    No No you americans have got it all wrong, Atm as you may well all know Australia is literally at war with Indonesia over their handling of the whole East Timor independance deal.

    But really and truly the only thing that is stopping Indonesia from declaring war on Australia is the presense of International military espically from the United States, who are believed to be the most powerful military force in the World

    Possibly they thought they could piss us Aussies off by *trying* to hack out ASX from The US Military whom we believe to be our friends



    --
    Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
    1. Re:This is all part of a BIGGER plan by Indonesia by FirstEdition · · Score: 2

      C'mon mate, get a grip on reality.

      Firstly, countries are not "literally at war" until there is a public declaration. Have you heard one of these? Of course, this doesn't exclude a campaign of dirty tricks or covert interfearance like the US involvement in Afghanistan in the mid 80's.

      Secondly, the US and Australia are firm allies. This doesn't mean that each country isn't soverign, and sometimes their national interests clash. However, it is on nothing as important as national security. Remember that Australia hosts some important US satellite bases on its soil. Now, of course, the US military will not grind to a halt without these bases, but they are important "assets".

      Finally, invasion of Australia from the north is a subject that has engaged the brains of Australian military planners for a long time. Summary: it would be extremely difficult and probably couldn't be done by anyone except the US itself. Remember that after the city of Darwin on the coast, to the south there is 2000km of really nasty desert. To the east there is 2000km of really nasty crocodile infested tropical rainforest. Logistics for supporting an invasion over that kind of terrain is Australia's defense.

    2. Re:This is all part of a BIGGER plan by Indonesia by jafac · · Score: 2

      Not only that, every time I end up with Australia in RISK, I end up kicking ASS!

      "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    3. Re:This is all part of a BIGGER plan by Indonesia by Bryan_Crowl · · Score: 1

      If you are australian I hope you watched 60 minutes, they were over there to interview someone and when they introduced themself they were told that the person wouldnt talk to them and made some threat, also how many times does your embassay have to be shot at , in the space of 2 days,for you to know that there is some extreme hostatility

      I believe they wouldnt have to come to Australia, they are believed to have missilies which can reach Darwin

      --
      Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.
  42. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'd rather a sentence fragment than an American corruption. For example:

    Missing words as in "I'll write you" (you write a character in a book, not a real life person. Well, unless you're a political spin-doctor.)

    Redefining chemical elements. There is a pronounced 'i' in "aluminium", and sulphur is sulphur!

  43. Confession. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi. I have been in that situation, somewhat, before. No, I wasn't cracking or hacking, but telneting all over the place.
    I could telnet into a machine, turn around and telnet back to the base I was at and set up loops. The crazy thing is, it is easier (or was then, several years ago) to get into unsecure or semi-secure military systems then it is to get into your regional library's system.
    Many huge military systems have little or no security, like those in the hospitals, simply because there is no reason to.
    The Pentagon system is comprimised all the time, More than 200,000 times in 1997 IIRC. They just don't put important information on those systems.
    I have seen secure military systems, and secure(relatively) military webs, and those contain actual important stuff.
    To return to the point, it would be trivial to use a unsecure military network to launch some sort of attack, and from anywhere in the world. They have good hardware(usually) and wide ranges of IPs(usually) and lots of traffic(usually).
    I am actually more surprised that it doesn't happen more often.
    Sorry, but the fifth amendment demands I post AC.

  44. You're all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The media in Australia is owned by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer. They have no interest in opposing the Internet censorship proposals because it would help people inform themselves rather than relying on Murdoch and Packers bullshit generators.

    The Australian Government, most notably Senator "dick" Alston are pushing for Internet censorship in Australia. They need media beatup, overkill and sensationalism to push their warped little barrow.

    This article is to make the plebs feel that the government is doing the right thing keeping all Australians, especially little children, safe from all us evil paedophile 'net users.

  45. fun fun fun by loudici · · Score: 1

    getting a free telnet account on a .mil account sounds like fun if a bit dangerous. lots of free disk space, a good connectivity, and if you use a password cracker on a thing that has any security they accuse the US military and you get on /.,..
    I bet they all use their girlfriend's first name as password too. I know that is how it works in the french army. The sysop is a private, and when you are a private you do not want to tell an officer that 'barbara' is not a secure password.
    Not that the french army is connected to the net either but they lock their windows box so that nobody beats their Tetris hi-score.
    way too much fun!
    ---

    --
    Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
  46. LAWS??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they could have as many laws as they want, but there is always going to be someone out there who want to hack something. It is no point in using a waste of money on policework, when there is just a new kid the next day.

    It would be more efficient to generate better secutity on computer-systems. Because it's impossible to hack anything without access from the system beeing hacked

  47. You guys crack me up by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 3

    It's funny how an AAP story on a story on an Australian TV program suddenly becomes international news on Slashdot.

    From what I recall of the original story on TV (I was half asleep at the time).

    1. The ASX gets loads of people trying to get into it.
    2. Almost all of these people are idiots who have seen "Wargames" and think they'll give it a try.
    3. There have been a few serious (ie more than clueless) attempts, he mentioned two, one from Victoria (the state, not a person), and another which was traced back to a military installation in the US (via a hacked site in New Zealand IIRC).
    4. The ASX has pretty good security, using multiple firewalls through which noone has got further than the first. The guy was also very careful not to boast about how good it was or to go into any great detail. He merely stated a few facts.

    A lot of you seem to be saying 'well obviously the military box was compromised' as if such a point had never crossed the guys mind.

    It seems to me that they simply went to the right source to stop their problem (unless you expect them to hack back in to the US military box to trace the hacker, news at 10, Australian Stock Exchange hacks into US Military site).

    That and the fact that they want local laws changed to make prosecuting local hackers easier (as the person from Victoria was traced but could not be prosecuted because he was not caught 'in the act').

    Hardly Earth shattering stuff Slashdot.
    The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  48. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Dix · · Score: 1

    > There is a pronounced 'i' in "aluminium", In fact Aluminum and Aluminium came into existence at about the same time, thus both are correct. Read Bill Bryson's "Made in America" for an excellent history of American English - and America.

  49. Points system by Dix · · Score: 1

    You forget such things as "level of corruption" and "openness of economy".

    How about "per capita GNP".

    I agree with your sentiment though.

  50. Hackers had not been able to breach the first wall by GC · · Score: 1

    Well he seems pretty sure that no one has breached their outside firewall. How can he be so sure though?

    Similar to: 90% crime is never reported -> 90% of hackers are never detected...

    I can understand the reason for using a Multilayer firewall to build a secure demilitarised zone in your network, but if you are accepting incoming packets through both firewalls to your internal network then the method of exploiting is exactly the same, say, as if you have 1,3 or 100 layers of firewalls, because the packets will pass through them all (assuming they match the firewall criteria as valid packets)

    I expect plenty of hackers are now also armed with the extra information that there is another firewall beyond the first, because if they get access to a host within the demilitarised zone they now know what to look for (another firewall).

  51. US military cracked. by arcade · · Score: 1

    Making this into a media-thingie about "US attacking australia" is absurd. The .mil box was obviously cracked. Some scriptkiddie playing around with a remote-exploitable bufferoverflow-script-thingie that the military has been to lazy to plug. Then the australian site was attempted for some reason. Maybe some australian from the 'attempted cracked domain' had @ status on some big IRC channel..


    --

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  52. Is their database really on a public network? by Katravax · · Score: 1

    The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all? Firewalls or not, a database that can be harmed by tampering doesn't belong on a public network. The ASX is just airing its bad security practices.

    1. Re:Is their database really on a public network? by arcade · · Score: 1

      The real question here is what the hell is the ASX database doing connected to a public network at all?

      Eh. Say you run a company. Your server serves vital information to your employees - so that they can do their work. Your employees also need to use the internet.

      Ok, what do you do? Well, you put everything on the same network, and make a hell of a firewall. You should be able to connect out -- but nobody should be able to connect from the outside to any of your machines. If you need a machine to be accessible from the internet, you put it outside the firewall -- or enable special rules for that machine. Furthermore, that machine should now be treated as 'non-trustable' by the rest of your network -- so that if it gets compromised, the rest of your network should not suffer at all.

      *puh*

      In other words -- the moment you put the host behind a secure firewall, it's not on a "public network" anymore. Now the next question is "what on earth may be looked upon as a 'secure firewall' -- does it exist?



      --

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  53. Who says... by Darksky · · Score: 1

    ...the attack came from a .mil IP? All the article says is that it came from "a US military installation". That could mean the attacker was actually some kid whose dad is stationed on an Army base in Nevada.

    --
    01101100 01101001 01101110 01110101 01111000 01110010 01110101 01101100 01100101 01110011
  54. Get real :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it was the US military do you honestly think that they would use thier own server? Or maybe they did that to make us think that? It's all very confusing.

  55. i thought... by emmons · · Score: 1

    Actually I always thought it's the berlin DAX, at least that's what the BBC always reports. German news reports about 6 different exchanges throughout the country from each major city. Not all the exchanges are in on city like New York.

    -----

    --
    Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
  56. National Prejudice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a pronounced 'i' in "aluminium"...

    In fact, aluminum and aluminium came into existence at about the same time, thus both are correct. Read Bill Bryson's Made in America for an excellent history of American English -- and America.

    (Rolls eyes...) AFAIK, the American spelling and pronunication aluminum came about because a leading American aluminum manufacturer (probably Reynolds) misspelled aluminium on their stationery and advertisements. It was wrong at the time, but it grew in popularity and eventually stuck and became accepted as right.

    1. Re:National Prejudice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh care factor??? You should learn a few lessons off us Aussies (and that is pronounced "Ozzies" *not* "Ossies") and learn how to make *REAL* beer! Im sorry.. I have tried Budwieser before and it tastes like water needless to say it that is probably what it is made of (with added colourings and artificial flavourings). Please also note spelling once again.. Colo*u*r Ive said my peace

  57. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you don't, you speak commoner's english. The only people that I've ever heard speak "Queen's English" or "Oxford English" are german teachers and students learning english at school.

  58. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know that sulphur is sulphur.

  59. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nutn' like a good ol' flaem krieg!

  60. Re:Australia is not a developed country. by cy · · Score: 1

    I'd heard (no I can't find any corroboration for this at all :-) that the reason it is spelt aluminum in America is that someone made a typo when doing a patent application. May well just be a UL, but for what its worth I heard it from some US academic speaking at a graduation dinner at an Australian university.

  61. Tool by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Information is a tool. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the ASX generates a hell of a lot of information and that there are many people tapping into it (or perhaps you think someone is typing in all those stock tickers).

    An ASX separated from the outside world would be much less useful.

    Oh, and what part of the article mentioned 'the ASX database' (whatever that means!) and what bad security practices does it reveal?

    Surely you aren't suggesting that using multiple firewalls is a bad idea?
    The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  62. WHy Would The US Military do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Practice.

    I honestly don't think any one from the US Military would be trying to sabotage the Aussie economy, but lets face it, After Japan and Canda, Australia is right up there in Internet conectivity (per capita) an technical skills. So with all the recent "cybeterrosim" hype, and as a test of skills, they might have tried to crack a secure site or two just to see if they could.

    The US wouldn't dream of attacking Japan (too politically charged -- they'd make a HUGE deal about it) or Canada (trade relations, proximity etc.) So Australia's the next choice.

  63. WTF? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, I'm sure that now crackers are 'armed' with the knowledge that there are more than two firewalls they'll be into the thing in minutes.
    I mean, multiple firewalls on something pretty important to the economy, who'd a thunk it?


    The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:WTF? by GC · · Score: 1

      Chuck,

      Is flaming a hobby of yours?

      :)

  64. not even the us military is that stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you don't shit where you eat.

    1. Re:not even the us military is that stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really thinks so? I think somebody is in denial here

  65. What's scarier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - that the US military decided to hack the ASX, or that someone was able to hack a US military site, but not the ASX?

  66. Scoff, A hack attempt. by Blackfire · · Score: 1

    Oh no, look out. Yet another hack attempt comming from a military outpost or educational institution.
    Who woulda thought? (Gee) Sure is hard to bust into these mammoth vaults that have similar securities to... "A brick of swiss-cheese". Get with it clan. People have been using military systems and ARPANET for years as not only a target, but a drop point to break into other systems. Not very much news here. What would be the icing is if someone found out it was Kevin Mitnick.

    Stick a fork in it: ding I'm done.

    -Bf

  67. (US) TLA Envolvement by $nyper · · Score: 1

    Hello, I don't want you to think that I am some paranoid phreak. But whom in this country (US) likes to attempt unauthorized and unsanctioned cracks on other country's boxen. Anyone remember the little TLA referred to as the NSA.

    Why? Well why not it, was a challenge to their skills and it can give them an insight to depth of security other countries implement.

    Why make it appear to originate from a US military installation? Because then it would be easily dismissed as a spoof attack. Because we all believe the US Military is neither intelligent enough to attempt to crack the system, nor do we believe they are stupid enough to try. Also with all of the compromised US military boxen it gives the military a perfect out. This way no one gets blamed except for the Airman acting as sysop over that box who just got demoted for failure to secure it and almost causing an international incident.

    Remember US intelligence agencies do some pretty harry stuff afterward they can then classify it without fear of reprisal. Because remember, it is for the sake of national security. Well, that and there is no one in this country with balls enough to keep them in check.

    --
    "Help me Obi-/.-Kenobi,your my only hope!" -$
  68. Read the "The Cuckoo's Egg" by pwb · · Score: 1

    For the younger generation. Read Clifford Stoll's book "The Cuckoo's Egg". It will shed a bit of light on the abilities (or lack there of) of the US government.

  69. i luv rumors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aids might be spread through keyboards. no wait that was the 80s. ok flesh eating bacteria resistant to modern antibiotics because might be spread through the keyboard. especially microsoft keyboards. especially if you are using windows.

  70. Get off the Aissie's case... by chazR · · Score: 1

    Story One: "US Military launches Minuteman II Missile from Vandenburg Range in the general direction of Australia. US claims that the missile was 'modified' to prevent nuclear detonation, and anyway, they shot it down with an ExoAtmospheric 'kill' Vehicle. Not many hurt." Story Two: "US Military Installation in Western California launches attack on Australian Stock Exchange Server. Not many hurt" Just what have you guys got against the Aussies anyway? If I were Australian I'd be starting the get paranoid. Feed The Hungry. Save the Whales. Free the mallocs

  71. Get off the Ozzie's case... by chazR · · Score: 1

    Story One:

    "US Military launches Minuteman II Missile from Vandenburg Range in the general direction of Australia. US claims that the missile was 'modified' to prevent nuclear detonation, and anyway, they shot it down with an ExoAtmospheric 'Kill' Vehicle. Not many hurt."

    Story Two:

    "US Military Installation in Western California launches attack on Australian Stock Exchange Server. Not many hurt"

    Just what have you guys got against the Ozzies anyway? If I were Australian I'd be starting the get paranoid.

    Feed The Hungry. Save the Whales. Free the mallocs

  72. an act of war by zonker · · Score: 0

    i think someone in the us military is trying to pick a fight with the aussies...

  73. Alumin(i)um by Dix · · Score: 1

    Well you would be wrong. The name arose from the material it was originally extracted from: "Alum". The metal's name came from this on both sides of the Atlantic.

    1. Re:Alumin(i)um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still doesnt remove that fact that the correct spelling includes the 'i'. Whats next? Uranium without the 'i'? Uranum.. hell you might as well call it Uranus. And why is it that Microsoft Word keep telling me that 'Colour' is spelt incorrecty??

  74. Yeah, Sure, Whatever... by Pyrrus · · Score: 1
    can you say script kiddiez w/ telnetz? Of course I keep getting more curious what good ol' Uncle Sam is doing behind that curtan. And again as always that was a CRACKER not a hacker, im creating a .sig that says that now.

    Did you mean 'hacker' or 'cracker'?
    Do you know the diffrence? I don't think you do.

  75. Rupert Murdoch by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 1

    was, last time I heard, not an Australian

    --

    Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  76. Not important...? by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 1
    Hmm, AsiaPac recently had a financial meltdown as very much in the throes of recovery.

    The ASX survived pretty well and was one of the very few that did. If we fell on our arses now, I can guarantee you in the US would feel the effects.

    --

    Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  77. Mexico and Canada by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 1
    What are you talking about? The border of the first world ends at Mexico and Canada! :)

    *Removes tongue from cheek*

    --

    Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  78. Guy Being Interviewed Was A Suit by supine · · Score: 1
    Don't know if it was mentioned by anyone else yet, but that piece of info about the crack coming from a US.mil installation was provided by a suit. I watched the program and he was supposed to be expounding on the new installation of boxen to run the ASX and got drawn on a comment he made about security. He mentioned they get lots of script kiddie style attacks, but said they got a couple of serious attacks recently, one local and one that "appeared" to come from a a US.mil box, but there was certainly no clarification ("Business Sunday" certainly isn't up to discussing spoofed IPs and compromised hosts).

    cheers
    marty

    --
    "I can't buy want I want because it's free. Can't be what they want because I'm me." -Corduroy, Pearl Jam
  79. HysteriaMongers == Idiots by FirstEdition · · Score: 1

    With all due respect. BIG DEAL. So someone doesn't like Aussies. No-one likes everyone.

    $sarcasm on$
    The English don't like the Germans. The Belgians don't like the Dutch. Many people don't like the USA. No one likes the French.
    $sarcasm off$

    But really, it doesn't matter at all whether Indonesians as a race like or dislike Aussies.

    What matters somewhat is a country's official foreign policy. What matters a lot from Australia's point of view is the US's official foreign policy. This real-politik has served Australia well since the war.

    I agree that having your embassy shot at is not great. However, this is why the people representing Australia over there are called "diplomats". They are supposed to be diplomatic about these kind of things.

    If embassies are consistantly shot at, to the outside world, the host nation just looks incompetent for not being able to keep peace on their streets.

    Finally, everyone in politics (even Nth Korea) realises that the firing of a missile which hits a foreign country is an act of war - and these days will probably get a multinational force arrayed against them. And anyway, why would Indonesia provoke a shooting war that they could never win with one of their biggest trading partners?