4 ms·

Lockheed Martin hit by cyber incident, U.S. says

31 points by apievangelist 15y ago

riobard 15y ago
“They breached security systems designed to keep out intruders by creating duplicates to "SecurID" electronic keys from EMC Corp's RSA security division” Now all have come into place. Quick question: which country is most interested in LCMO's F-22 and has demonstrated the ability to use cyber technics to get information?
- dfischer 15y ago
  China?
- simcop2387 15y ago
  North Korea?
- coffie6423 15y ago
  Huh. Those Canadians again... j/k
  - omouse 15y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised. The PM has his eyes set on the Arctic! And the U.S. be stealin our oil! ;p
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Another quick question: is there a country that would like to conduct an attack and make it seem like it is coming from the country that is the answer to your quick question.
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    Another quick question: which of the two hypotheses is first to be eliminated by Occam's razor? U.S. is very unlikely to be willing to go to war with its biggest economic partners.
- count 15y ago
  What does the F-22 have to do with it? LMCO is gigantic, and has it's hands in thousands and thousands of unrelated projects and activities.
Groxx 15y ago
>The person with direct knowledge told Reuters on Friday that an intrusion at Lockheed was related to a recent breach of "SecurID" token authentication technology from EMC Corp's EMC.N RSA security division. You mean they didn't immediately start changing their system when RSA's key was stolen? Then, IMO, they had it coming. edit: a thought just occurred to me. Is the reason this is such a great "theft of a nation"-type action because there are known weaknesses that could be exploited easily? I wonder what would happen if military tech were developed with "Open Hardware" goals in mind... security-through-obscurity only works until someone looks.
- coffie6423 15y ago
  Tell me more: how do "open hardware" systems work? especially against protecting IP, not allowing another entity of copying a design? Also, do not forget the public image issue, not just the technical issues. Large organizations, priv or govt, have an additional aspect of work by the image they project. How they are viewed or marketed matters as well. When you start throwing around a soup of abbreviations, people take notice - thru the marketing power. That counts as well - the news made it to the top of google news, though it other recent intrusions had technical&psychological impact as well. Such intrusions have happened - though now they make it to the top of Google News
  - Groxx 15y ago
    I'm not entirely sure, sorry. Just that I think security through obscurity is a flawed practice at its very core. If you're interested in looking into it yourself, I'd suggest looking at the Arduino, which has been pretty much taking the home-electronics world by storm.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  The communications from RSA were that, based on what they knew, there wasn't a huge reduction is security as long as the PINs chosen where reasonably strong. I wonder which applies: RSA didn't know how bad the breach really was; RSA lied about how dangerous the breach was and how open their customers were; LCMO configured their system such that weak PINs were allowed; or something else happened.
r0sebush 15y ago
This event will be used as an example of why the US needs an internet kill switch and to impose more restriction on the use of the internet by US citizens. Much like the PROTECT IP act, you'll see more Laws coming out soon. Some may say this is a "false flag" event. It could even be that there are some subcontractors that worked within Lockheed that may have caused this breech. Regardless, there are going to be more restrictions coming for US citizens and companies that use the internet (in homes, schools, libraries, etc.).
nimrody 15y ago
The Wikipedia entry for SecurId says they use a scheme where each physical device has a private key that is also stored on the server (and apparently in RSA severs as well). I wonder why don't they use a public key scheme where the server only needs the public key of the specific user for authentication. This way the private key is stored only on the physical device.
pasbesoin 15y ago
Alright, so where the f- was the NSA (et al.) in all this? I would presume that, given sufficient background -- which, presumably, under these circumstances they could insist upon -- it should have taken them about 5 minutes (or seconds) to figure out this scenario. We spend untold amounts sifting possibly every email crossing a domestic -- and probably many a foreign -- nexus. But when identification/authorization for a defense contractor -- and probably a lot more than one such agent of critical infrastructure -- is compromised, they aren't involved and ahead of the curve in mitigation? Probably, certainly, there's a lot that the public isn't being told. But the silence is -- whether due to circumstances or to omission -- unsettling. The silence may be purposeful, even productive. But it does not sit well against the caterwauling of those who insist we make our private, personal communications ever more transparent to government inspection.

31 points by apievangelist 15y ago

“They breached security systems designed to keep out intruders by creating duplicates to "SecurID" electronic keys from EMC Corp's RSA security division” Now all have come into place. Quick question: which country is most interested in LCMO's F-22 and has demonstrated the ability to use cyber technics to get information?

dfischer 15y ago
China?
simcop2387 15y ago
North Korea?
coffie6423 15y ago
Huh. Those Canadians again... j/k
- omouse 15y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised. The PM has his eyes set on the Arctic! And the U.S. be stealin our oil! ;p
rdtsc 15y ago
Another quick question: is there a country that would like to conduct an attack and make it seem like it is coming from the country that is the answer to your quick question.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Another quick question: which of the two hypotheses is first to be eliminated by Occam's razor? U.S. is very unlikely to be willing to go to war with its biggest economic partners.
count 15y ago
What does the F-22 have to do with it? LMCO is gigantic, and has it's hands in thousands and thousands of unrelated projects and activities.

Groxx 15y ago

>The person with direct knowledge told Reuters on Friday that an intrusion at Lockheed was related to a recent breach of "SecurID" token authentication technology from EMC Corp's EMC.N RSA security division. You mean they didn't immediately start changing their system when RSA's key was stolen? Then, IMO, they had it coming. edit: a thought just occurred to me. Is the reason this is such a great "theft of a nation"-type action because there are known weaknesses that could be exploited easily? I wonder what would happen if military tech were developed with "Open Hardware" goals in mind... security-through-obscurity only works until someone looks.

coffie6423 15y ago
Tell me more: how do "open hardware" systems work? especially against protecting IP, not allowing another entity of copying a design? Also, do not forget the public image issue, not just the technical issues. Large organizations, priv or govt, have an additional aspect of work by the image they project. How they are viewed or marketed matters as well. When you start throwing around a soup of abbreviations, people take notice - thru the marketing power. That counts as well - the news made it to the top of google news, though it other recent intrusions had technical&psychological impact as well. Such intrusions have happened - though now they make it to the top of Google News
- Groxx 15y ago
  I'm not entirely sure, sorry. Just that I think security through obscurity is a flawed practice at its very core. If you're interested in looking into it yourself, I'd suggest looking at the Arduino, which has been pretty much taking the home-electronics world by storm.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
The communications from RSA were that, based on what they knew, there wasn't a huge reduction is security as long as the PINs chosen where reasonably strong. I wonder which applies: RSA didn't know how bad the breach really was; RSA lied about how dangerous the breach was and how open their customers were; LCMO configured their system such that weak PINs were allowed; or something else happened.

r0sebush 15y ago

This event will be used as an example of why the US needs an internet kill switch and to impose more restriction on the use of the internet by US citizens. Much like the PROTECT IP act, you'll see more Laws coming out soon. Some may say this is a "false flag" event. It could even be that there are some subcontractors that worked within Lockheed that may have caused this breech. Regardless, there are going to be more restrictions coming for US citizens and companies that use the internet (in homes, schools, libraries, etc.).

nimrody 15y ago

The Wikipedia entry for SecurId says they use a scheme where each physical device has a private key that is also stored on the server (and apparently in RSA severs as well). I wonder why don't they use a public key scheme where the server only needs the public key of the specific user for authentication. This way the private key is stored only on the physical device.

pasbesoin 15y ago

Alright, so where the f- was the NSA (et al.) in all this? I would presume that, given sufficient background -- which, presumably, under these circumstances they could insist upon -- it should have taken them about 5 minutes (or seconds) to figure out this scenario. We spend untold amounts sifting possibly every email crossing a domestic -- and probably many a foreign -- nexus. But when identification/authorization for a defense contractor -- and probably a lot more than one such agent of critical infrastructure -- is compromised, they aren't involved and ahead of the curve in mitigation? Probably, certainly, there's a lot that the public isn't being told. But the silence is -- whether due to circumstances or to omission -- unsettling. The silence may be purposeful, even productive. But it does not sit well against the caterwauling of those who insist we make our private, personal communications ever more transparent to government inspection.