6 ms·
I hate how this has for some reason been big news the past few days. One mediocre article came out about it, now it keeps getting regurgitated through other new
by Rotdhizon 8y ago
I hate how this has for some reason been big news the past few days. One mediocre article came out about it, now it keeps getting regurgitated through other news sites. This is nothing new, the US infrastructure has likely been compromised for quite some time. Many of the very critical plants that hold the keys to keeping the lights on, water flowing, water treated, etc are mostly running on systems built pre 2000 that weren't built with security in mind. Many of these systems can not have security integrated with them, and they can not be replaced. The most you can do is cover it with as many blankets as you can (firewalls, extensive logging, behavior analytics, etc). The biggest question is not whether or not these facilities are compromised, it's whether or not a bad actor is going to use it for malicious purpose. It's one thing to shut down a website for the lols, it's another thing to overload a nuclear reactor and contaminate an entire chunk of the US.
Notice how the article is based entirely on "what ifs".
>> "They got to the point where they could have thrown switches"
>> "where they could have caused blackouts"
At this point it is a waiting game. Who is going to be the fellow to push the enter key on their keyboard that then causes a 7 digit number of people to go without power, clean water, or even be exposed to radiation? It's understandable that countries feud and people just don't like each other, but actually shutting down key infrastructure like these scenarios suggest is an end game move that establishes the point of no return in global conflict.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> This is nothing new, the US infrastructure has likely been compromised for quite some time Just because something isn't new doesn't mean it can't be news. "The well is poisoned!" "Bob noticed that last week. Why are you still talking about this? "..." It's being discussed now. Better late than never.
- jbob2000 8y agoIt's more like, "The well is poisoned and Bob noticed last week, but we can't fix the problem because then people go without drinking water for 2 weeks"
- debt 8y ago“but actually shutting down key infrastructure like these scenarios suggest is an end game move that establishes the point of no return in global conflict.” Sounds like you understand why then they’re reporting on this and regurgitating it over and over again. The public has the right to know if we’re on the brink of global conflict. Nefarious actors are gaining privileged access to the power grid. Seems like a relevant thing to keep in the back of our minds in the event the power suddenly goes out.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago>The biggest question is not whether or not these facilities are compromised, it's whether or not a bad actor is going to use it for malicious purpose. It's one thing to shut down a website for the lols, it's another thing to overload a nuclear reactor and contaminate an entire chunk of the US. This. Tons of stuff is compromised And if the Russians and Chinese are in our power plants we're in theirs too. Everyone can attack everyone else better than anyone can defend themselves. That's the nature of a highly asymmetrical form of warfare like that. Offense > defense (in the case of "cyber warfare"). >At this point it is a waiting game. Who is going to be the fellow to push the enter key on their keyboard that then causes a 7 digit number of people to go without power, clean water, or even be exposed to radiation? Attribution is hard. Do you think the Israelis wouldn't attack us and make it look convincingly enough (for the talking heads and the general public) like Iran if it looked like our relations with Iran were about to thaw substantially in a way that was bad for them? >It's understandable that countries feud and people just don't like each other, but actually shutting down key infrastructure like these scenarios suggest is an end game move that establishes the point of no return in global conflict. Wars have started over a lot less. Nobody ever thinks what they're doing will be the final straw that starts the war.
- gepi79 8y agoI agree except for the last point. The most aggressive states are USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK and France while being (morally) supported by NATO allies. They engage in overt and secret warfare because they can in order to meet some objective. They do not engage in war because they were attacked.
- insensible 8y agoThings like Stuxnet show us that regardless of how true this story is or who in fact sponsored it, infrastructure compromise is a global game. I suspect this is part of what Russians are talking about when asking to negotiate on cyberwarfare. If this is indeed them, they may see such compromise operations as necessary for reciprocity for the NSA's known systemic compromise of systems around the world, which surely makes them feel threatened. A reciprocal compromise would allow them to respond tit-for-tat if attacked, and give them negotiating room for diplomatic resolution. So let's hope it's correctly attributed and not some criminals with nothing to lose.
- blakesterz 8y ago"So let's hope it's correctly attributed and not some criminals with nothing to lose." This indeed. We can only hope it's the pros!
- mannykannot 8y ago> The biggest question is not whether or not these facilities are compromised, it's whether or not a bad actor is going to use it for malicious purpose. > Notice how the article is based entirely on "what ifs". Doing something about the compromise issue would make your biggest question correspondingly less speculative, which is a good reason for discussing the scope for compromise, no matter how much you hate it.
- antris 8y agoCan you please provide the sources for the claim that this compromise has been widely known before? I've had the gut feeling too, that utility control rooms have been compromised for a long time, but my gut feeling isn't the same as knowing and it isn't newsworthy either.