No, 'federal officials' tipped the Post off to the story, but even the Post doesn't claim the fed official told them it was a grid hack. It seems even the author of the article did not directly claim that but the editor decided to state it in the headline anyhow. On top of that, nobody even tried to verify the story. You can let the Post off the hook if you like, but it is much more than a 'mistake'.
Hey Editor David, instead of covering up your ignorant original posting of this article by changing the headline with no explanation, how about just posting a new article. Now people are confused at comments below pointing out the erroneous headline which should have never been put here to begin with if you'd just tried a little to validate it.
The headline does not say the grid was penetrated, it says the retracted (fake) story was ABOUT the grid being penetrated.
The story here is that the WP changed their original story.
NO, the story here had the erroneous headline "Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid", but Editor David just now changed it without informing anyone. So now many are confused just so he can cover up his lame submission.
If you don't believe me, then explain why the comment you responded to is dated before this article shows it was submitted?
So other sources say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of the grid
Did you read the source you linked to? It says nothing about being at a power station, and specifically says it was on a laptop NOT connected to the grid systems.
Since both men and women have their code accepted at higher rates when you know their gender, I wonder if there is a relationship between knowing more about a person and accepting their code. Does knowing someone better mean you are more accepting of their work? If Beth is a working mother of 5 and you know this, does that knowledge make you more or less likely to approve of her code opposed to only knowing that someone made a merge request?
I don't know, but surely there is something we can be outraged about. We must look harder.
In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.
What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?
The code was found on a laptop at the power station,
That is not necessarily true. All we know is that it was a company laptop that wasn't connected to grid or power systems, there is no reference I can find to it being in a power station, just as likely to be in a corporate office.
The code was found on a laptop at the power station, and it's Russian in origin. It's uncertain if it's deliberate, and they're investigating that aspect of it now. That's the whole story as I can see it, and it doesn't seem like something to dismiss. It's definitely concerning, regardless of where the code came from. The laptop wasn't connected to the power station network, but depending on the malware, it might not have taken much (a USB stick copying some files to a network computer) to change that. So yes, let's keep investigating, and hopefully it was just some 'user viewing a bad website', but we can't say that right now either.
Sure they should investigate it further, but I doubt "Burlington Electric" is high on the Russian target list. Don't assume it 'might not have take much' to transfer to control systems, because those systems are pretty much all isolated from admin systems anymore, I would be very surprised if there were a crossover path via the laptop. Of course we should check to make sure, but it doesn't appear to be a bid deal.
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems."
No, the english lanquage can convey different meanings with the same words, and choice of words in a particular context can convey different meanings or impressions. "predict" sounds a lot more impressive that "detect". If you saw two cars obviously about to collide and reacted accordingly, you would not go around telling people you predicted the accident.
Or maybe you completely missed my point, I never said the term was not technically correct, I even said you could argue it was. I bet you wouldn't use that term if you had just avoided an accident.
Musk picks terms to make things sound more impressive than they may actually be. I have seen accidents about to happen and avoided them many times in my many years driving, as I'm sure most of us have. In none of those cases did we go around saying we 'predicted' those accidents. We say we 'detected and avoided' them. That is exactly what this technology did. That should be impressive enough on its own, and its certainly useful, but its not as attention grabbing which is Elon's primary objective. You can argue over the term and say it is technically correct, but get real, its not how we ever describe such a thing in real life.
It did literally "predict" the accident, just like I can "predict" that my pen will hit the floor should I drop it.
This presumes that the "accident" is only the collision and not the entire stream of events. The stream of events was not predicted, just the outcome after initiating events created certainty, or near certainty of the outcome. It seems that the accident was detected and avoided rather than predicted in this sense
Or could similar conditions result in a prediction of a collision, but not result in one? Your laptop drop has certainty whereas the events leading up to the collision may have had uncertainty which could have allowed for a different conclusion.
The key questioss as to how impressive this technology is (and it sounds impressive and useful) is how early in the event stream can it accurately predict accidents, under how many different scenarios does it reliably work, and how many false predictions are encountered.
Slashdot Mirror
No, 'federal officials' tipped the Post off to the story, but even the Post doesn't claim the fed official told them it was a grid hack. It seems even the author of the article did not directly claim that but the editor decided to state it in the headline anyhow. On top of that, nobody even tried to verify the story. You can let the Post off the hook if you like, but it is much more than a 'mistake'.
They didn't make a mistake. They made up claims that the grid was penetrated when hey were clearly told it wasn't.
Hey Editor David, instead of covering up your ignorant original posting of this article by changing the headline with no explanation, how about just posting a new article. Now people are confused at comments below pointing out the erroneous headline which should have never been put here to begin with if you'd just tried a little to validate it.
The headline does not say the grid was penetrated, it says the retracted (fake) story was ABOUT the grid being penetrated. The story here is that the WP changed their original story.
NO, the story here had the erroneous headline "Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid", but Editor David just now changed it without informing anyone. So now many are confused just so he can cover up his lame submission.
If you don't believe me, then explain why the comment you responded to is dated before this article shows it was submitted?
So other sources say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of the grid
Did you read the source you linked to? It says nothing about being at a power station, and specifically says it was on a laptop NOT connected to the grid systems.
Just type in your IP address, why not narrow down their target list.
Since both men and women have their code accepted at higher rates when you know their gender, I wonder if there is a relationship between knowing more about a person and accepting their code. Does knowing someone better mean you are more accepting of their work? If Beth is a working mother of 5 and you know this, does that knowledge make you more or less likely to approve of her code opposed to only knowing that someone made a merge request?
I don't know, but surely there is something we can be outraged about. We must look harder.
But you don't know how "big" a breach it was. We had malware on a laptop not even part of the the grid network.
DogDude should read crap before posting it. Only an utter moron would not pick up on the BS. I'd be embarrassed.
In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.
What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?
The code was found on a laptop at the power station,
That is not necessarily true. All we know is that it was a company laptop that wasn't connected to grid or power systems, there is no reference I can find to it being in a power station, just as likely to be in a corporate office.
The code was found on a laptop at the power station, and it's Russian in origin. It's uncertain if it's deliberate, and they're investigating that aspect of it now. That's the whole story as I can see it, and it doesn't seem like something to dismiss. It's definitely concerning, regardless of where the code came from. The laptop wasn't connected to the power station network, but depending on the malware, it might not have taken much (a USB stick copying some files to a network computer) to change that. So yes, let's keep investigating, and hopefully it was just some 'user viewing a bad website', but we can't say that right now either.
Sure they should investigate it further, but I doubt "Burlington Electric" is high on the Russian target list. Don't assume it 'might not have take much' to transfer to control systems, because those systems are pretty much all isolated from admin systems anymore, I would be very surprised if there were a crossover path via the laptop. Of course we should check to make sure, but it doesn't appear to be a bid deal.
The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.
"We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization’s grid systems."
Wake me up when it can track dupes.
I"ll wait till this is posted again tomorrow to comment.
I mean, it's a tech area... so it kind of fits.
So whatever happens in this areas fits?
Not tech, not news, not interesting, not surprising, not important.
Most likely a large frozen nest of Godzillas.
Well, I think its pretty cool, but I also think they shouldn't be able to patent an idea they can't yet build.
The language itself is clear.
No, the english lanquage can convey different meanings with the same words, and choice of words in a particular context can convey different meanings or impressions. "predict" sounds a lot more impressive that "detect". If you saw two cars obviously about to collide and reacted accordingly, you would not go around telling people you predicted the accident.
Here is the list of detected diseases from the source report. ;
lung cancer, colorectal cancer, head and neck cancer, ovarian cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, gastric cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, idiopathic Parkinson’s, atypical Parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, pulmonary arterial hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and chronic kidney disease.
Or maybe you completely missed my point, I never said the term was not technically correct, I even said you could argue it was. I bet you wouldn't use that term if you had just avoided an accident.
Musk picks terms to make things sound more impressive than they may actually be. I have seen accidents about to happen and avoided them many times in my many years driving, as I'm sure most of us have. In none of those cases did we go around saying we 'predicted' those accidents. We say we 'detected and avoided' them. That is exactly what this technology did. That should be impressive enough on its own, and its certainly useful, but its not as attention grabbing which is Elon's primary objective. You can argue over the term and say it is technically correct, but get real, its not how we ever describe such a thing in real life.
But - but - but - Elon Musk tweeted a news article about the incident, adding more credibility to the matter!
That behavior is predictable.
It did literally "predict" the accident, just like I can "predict" that my pen will hit the floor should I drop it.
This presumes that the "accident" is only the collision and not the entire stream of events. The stream of events was not predicted, just the outcome after initiating events created certainty, or near certainty of the outcome. It seems that the accident was detected and avoided rather than predicted in this sense
Or could similar conditions result in a prediction of a collision, but not result in one? Your laptop drop has certainty whereas the events leading up to the collision may have had uncertainty which could have allowed for a different conclusion.
The key questioss as to how impressive this technology is (and it sounds impressive and useful) is how early in the event stream can it accurately predict accidents, under how many different scenarios does it reliably work, and how many false predictions are encountered.