5 ms·

It's like the worst possible scenario. Could it be this will be a wakeup call to the people that work on these systems? I doubt it, based on government procurem

It's like the worst possible scenario. Could it be this will be a wakeup call to the people that work on these systems? I doubt it, based on government procurement strategies like we saw with the website for obama care.

komali2 8y ago
I had the opportunity to tour the "USS BONHOMME RICHARD," as well as talk to visiting sailors and marines, this weekend during SF Fleet Week. My takeaway impressions (other than that god damn do these people drink and holy shit are they young), especially after talking to the mechanics and network IT folks, is that a ton of their systems are old, the manpower turnover is between 1-2 years as they get cycled between boats (or 4 max as most of these kids are just putting in their 4), and training is extremely specialized. Most parts of the systems (this especially from the mechanics) usually perform to about 10% their pitched lifespan from whoever made them before they fail, repeatedly. The windshield wipers on all Ospreys (those dank helicopter/plane things, think Ghost in the Shell) have been disabled/removed because their motors would catch fire in inaccessible places near the pilot's feet. The only thing preventing access to a boat's network is standing orders and the threat of punishment. You can just plug right in. Every system runs on the same network. This includes radar, weapons systems, anti-air, emergency comms, in-ship cameras... This on top of the fact that half the people I talked to, the ones actually running these systems, are overworked 19 year olds with circles under their eyes. The only people over 25 seemed to be officers and pilots, maybe those guys know about the systems and can offer expertise? I'm not sure, I didn't get to talk to any of them. I'm hoping my perception of the military is completely wrong, which is entirely possible because I didn't get to talk to that many people, maybe like 4 or 5 mechanics, a couple marines, and a couple of the network IT people, all relatively low rank. But, as of right now, I have absolutely no confidence in the military to withstand a full on cyberattack from a similarly provisioned military.
- jki275 8y ago
  Many of your technical details are badly incorrect. Not sure who you talked to, but they're not well informed.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Can you expand? Why are the IT people I talked to, working on these systems, so poorly informed about how they work?
    - jki275 8y ago
      First, most IT personnel on ships (especially one as ancient as the Bonhomme Richard) do not work on weapon systems. Most of them would not even be able to discuss where on the ship they are intelligently, let alone what they connect to. The people you talked to simply aren't informed. You even note that you were talking to 19 year old kids, and they're not generally the ones who know what's going on.
      - komali2 8y ago
        Well that's a question I have as well - who actually knows what's going on there?
        jki275 8y ago
        People like me.
        komali2 8y ago
        People named jki275 that post one-sentence replies on Hackernews? ;) What kind of work do you do? You're in the military? What's your rank / job description? That's the kind of information I'm curious about. If the answer is "I can't tell you because it'll expose personal information," well, I'm not the one that outed you lol.
        jki275 8y ago
        I gave very specific comments above, and explained that I have many years of experience with these systems. No, I'm not going to give you details other than that I'm a very senior person in the field. And I'm not 19 years old...
- outworlder 8y ago
  I too toured the boat. > The windshield wipers on all Ospreys (those dank helicopter/plane things, think Ghost in the Shell) have been disabled/removed because their motors would catch fire in inaccessible places near the pilot's feet. Well, this is not related to the main point about cyber security. If true, it's just a piece of equipment that was found to be flawed. It is a non-essential system that was made INOP. The Osprey is a marvelous piece of engineering that is difficult to replicate by other nations. > Every system runs on the same network. This includes radar, weapons systems, anti-air, emergency comms, in-ship cameras... Physical network or logical network? > The only thing preventing access to a boat's network is standing orders and the threat of punishment. You can just plug right in. And then do what once you are in? Unless we are assuming there is zero security, this doesn't mean much. Besides, you have to be on the ship already. I'm not saying that the systems are adequately protected, they may not (as the article states), but there's too much information missing for us to play the role of security auditors.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >Well, this is not related to the main point about cyber security. It's a testament to the attitude and quality control practices of the suppliers who also supply the networked equipment.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "The Osprey is a marvelous piece of engineering that is difficult to replicate by other nations." Whatever I have heard about the Osprey nobody should want to replicate it. Too expensive, too complex.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Good points, but physical access is a fundamental of security, and for good reason.
  - nradov 8y ago
    The Osprey is shit engineering. It can't even fly in a dust cloud, which makes it essentially useless for one of its main intended missions. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-can-t-spend-even-one-minute-in-a-dust-cloud-df1b1b5528c5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-can-t-spend-even-o...
alarge 8y ago
I don't know that it's just the procurement strategies to blame. Many years ago, I was asked to bring a command and control system into (Orange Book) C2 compliance. Among the things I introduced were personal user accounts with some restrictions around allowable passwords. The users of the system (most of which were "former" fighter pilots) were furious with the restrictions, which they viewed as getting in the way of their jobs. They invariably created a shared login with the simplest password they could come up with that would meet the requirements (e.g., Abc123 or some such). Security can't be imposed by the system on its users. They have to cooperate.
- rphlx 8y ago
  A decent fraction of the population views password restrictions as a challenge to come up with the shittiest, least secure password that they possibly can while still meeting all restrictions. You can blame users for that with some justice, but as a system designer, it's still your responsibility provide security despite shitty but reasonably likely human behavior. With modern crypto there are very few systems where it's appropriate to have a user-selected <=12 character password for primary auth, yet unfortunately that continues to be widespread for banks, ecommerce, and (probably) some military systems. High-end security people seem to almost universally hate short user-selected passwords (except when they have to break them..) but old practices die hard and old systems take a long time to be replaced.

komali2 8y ago

I had the opportunity to tour the "USS BONHOMME RICHARD," as well as talk to visiting sailors and marines, this weekend during SF Fleet Week. My takeaway impressions (other than that god damn do these people drink and holy shit are they young), especially after talking to the mechanics and network IT folks, is that a ton of their systems are old, the manpower turnover is between 1-2 years as they get cycled between boats (or 4 max as most of these kids are just putting in their 4), and training is extremely specialized. Most parts of the systems (this especially from the mechanics) usually perform to about 10% their pitched lifespan from whoever made them before they fail, repeatedly. The windshield wipers on all Ospreys (those dank helicopter/plane things, think Ghost in the Shell) have been disabled/removed because their motors would catch fire in inaccessible places near the pilot's feet. The only thing preventing access to a boat's network is standing orders and the threat of punishment. You can just plug right in. Every system runs on the same network. This includes radar, weapons systems, anti-air, emergency comms, in-ship cameras... This on top of the fact that half the people I talked to, the ones actually running these systems, are overworked 19 year olds with circles under their eyes. The only people over 25 seemed to be officers and pilots, maybe those guys know about the systems and can offer expertise? I'm not sure, I didn't get to talk to any of them. I'm hoping my perception of the military is completely wrong, which is entirely possible because I didn't get to talk to that many people, maybe like 4 or 5 mechanics, a couple marines, and a couple of the network IT people, all relatively low rank. But, as of right now, I have absolutely no confidence in the military to withstand a full on cyberattack from a similarly provisioned military.

jki275 8y ago
Many of your technical details are badly incorrect. Not sure who you talked to, but they're not well informed.
- komali2 8y ago
  Can you expand? Why are the IT people I talked to, working on these systems, so poorly informed about how they work?
  - jki275 8y ago
    First, most IT personnel on ships (especially one as ancient as the Bonhomme Richard) do not work on weapon systems. Most of them would not even be able to discuss where on the ship they are intelligently, let alone what they connect to. The people you talked to simply aren't informed. You even note that you were talking to 19 year old kids, and they're not generally the ones who know what's going on.
    - komali2 8y ago
      Well that's a question I have as well - who actually knows what's going on there?
      - jki275 8y ago
        People like me.
        komali2 8y ago
        People named jki275 that post one-sentence replies on Hackernews? ;) What kind of work do you do? You're in the military? What's your rank / job description? That's the kind of information I'm curious about. If the answer is "I can't tell you because it'll expose personal information," well, I'm not the one that outed you lol.
        jki275 8y ago
        I gave very specific comments above, and explained that I have many years of experience with these systems. No, I'm not going to give you details other than that I'm a very senior person in the field. And I'm not 19 years old...
outworlder 8y ago
I too toured the boat. > The windshield wipers on all Ospreys (those dank helicopter/plane things, think Ghost in the Shell) have been disabled/removed because their motors would catch fire in inaccessible places near the pilot's feet. Well, this is not related to the main point about cyber security. If true, it's just a piece of equipment that was found to be flawed. It is a non-essential system that was made INOP. The Osprey is a marvelous piece of engineering that is difficult to replicate by other nations. > Every system runs on the same network. This includes radar, weapons systems, anti-air, emergency comms, in-ship cameras... Physical network or logical network? > The only thing preventing access to a boat's network is standing orders and the threat of punishment. You can just plug right in. And then do what once you are in? Unless we are assuming there is zero security, this doesn't mean much. Besides, you have to be on the ship already. I'm not saying that the systems are adequately protected, they may not (as the article states), but there's too much information missing for us to play the role of security auditors.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >Well, this is not related to the main point about cyber security. It's a testament to the attitude and quality control practices of the suppliers who also supply the networked equipment.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "The Osprey is a marvelous piece of engineering that is difficult to replicate by other nations." Whatever I have heard about the Osprey nobody should want to replicate it. Too expensive, too complex.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Good points, but physical access is a fundamental of security, and for good reason.
- nradov 8y ago
  The Osprey is shit engineering. It can't even fly in a dust cloud, which makes it essentially useless for one of its main intended missions. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-can-t-spend-even-one-minute-in-a-dust-cloud-df1b1b5528c5 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-can-t-spend-even-o...

alarge 8y ago

I don't know that it's just the procurement strategies to blame. Many years ago, I was asked to bring a command and control system into (Orange Book) C2 compliance. Among the things I introduced were personal user accounts with some restrictions around allowable passwords. The users of the system (most of which were "former" fighter pilots) were furious with the restrictions, which they viewed as getting in the way of their jobs. They invariably created a shared login with the simplest password they could come up with that would meet the requirements (e.g., Abc123 or some such). Security can't be imposed by the system on its users. They have to cooperate.

rphlx 8y ago
A decent fraction of the population views password restrictions as a challenge to come up with the shittiest, least secure password that they possibly can while still meeting all restrictions. You can blame users for that with some justice, but as a system designer, it's still your responsibility provide security despite shitty but reasonably likely human behavior. With modern crypto there are very few systems where it's appropriate to have a user-selected <=12 character password for primary auth, yet unfortunately that continues to be widespread for banks, ecommerce, and (probably) some military systems. High-end security people seem to almost universally hate short user-selected passwords (except when they have to break them..) but old practices die hard and old systems take a long time to be replaced.