12 ms·

Computer virus hits US Predator and Reaper drone fleet

369 points by llambda 15y ago

thetruthsayer 15y ago
Less people are now being remotely killed. That can't be a bad thing.
jarrett 15y ago
Does anybody know what operating system the infected machines run? If it's a Unix variant, ouch--I guess they have some really bad luck. But if this is just an everyday virus, as opposed to cyber warfare targeting the drones specifically, I can't help but think they might be running Windows. Air gap or not, that seems risky to me.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rdl 15y ago
  That's funny. It's Windows. Very little Unix anywhere in the DoD over the past few years on new systems; it's mainly legacy, or embedded in products they purchase. There are definitely some Unix server deployments within DoD even now, but they're few and far between. Blue Screen of Death and all.
  - misterbwong 15y ago
    Wow can anyone confirm this? I'm surprised that the drones themselves are running windows. If so, I presume it's win CE or a custom variant of?
    - jlarocco 15y ago
      The way it works is some AF guy in Nevada remotely controls the drones flying half way across the world. My guess is it's not the drones themselves running Windows, but the consoles used to communicate with the drones. It makes sense. AF guy gets to work, plugs in his USB drive filled with music and pulls up the drone control program... Though, now that I think about it, I would be disappointed, but not entirely surprised, if the drones ran Windows also. Sigh.
      - Vivtek 15y ago
        Well, there was that case maybe ten years ago of the nuclear carrier that had to be towed back to port after a BSoD killed it dead in the water; its control systems all ran Windows.
        greyish_water 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship_testbed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship...
        Pyrodogg 15y ago
        > On 21 September 1997, while on maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Virginia, a crew member entered a zero into a database field causing a divide by zero error in the ship's Remote Data Base Manager which brought down all the machines on the network, causing the ship's propulsion system to fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship_testbed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship... Wow. Reading more of the wiki article (and linked sources) reveals that the actual towing to port is a contested issue. Noone denies that a /0 error killed the whole ship though.
        jarin 15y ago
        Ok I don't feel so bad now. I was stationed on a nuclear carrier and one day I accidentally deleted the entire supply/logistics/personnel/maintenance database cluster. I mean come on, the menu option was labeled "Re-index databases". I thought it would make it go faster :) I ended up just making something up and restoring from backup.
        ams6110 15y ago
        So the problem was actually the data validation logic in the application, allowing invalid data to get into the database (and why no constraint on the database field?) coupled with no exception handling on a division operation (always a red flag). None of that has anything to do with Windows, really, but it's an easy cheap shot to take.
      - 15y ago
    - ChuckMcM 15y ago
      Well the ISS uses windows [1] and there were reports of malware getting up there. They also had driver compatibility issues and were rebooting the systems that controlled the gyros a lot. One would think you could just write a mil-spec OS for their computers but government, and more specficially government procurement, doesn't really work that way. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/malware-detected-at-the-international-space-station/1806 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/malware-detected-at-the-i...
      - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
        There's no virus on the ISS. It was on the laptops the crew carries around. Big difference. The control systems of the ISS aren't windows.
        ChuckMcM 15y ago
        To refute your statement that the control systems of the ISS aren't windows, there was a story in wired [1] where it talked about Windows problems on the station's on board computers. They linked to the commander's log [2] which mentions the NT problems. Generally infrastructure issues with specific software and such is redacted from this log for national security reasons but this tidbit survived apparently. The speculation from wired was "The network appears to be a mix between IBM AIX (Unix) and Windows NT servers and Russian laptops running an unspecified operating system." which correlates with what folks I know at NASA have hinted at as well. [1] http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42912?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42912?... [2] "At about 2200, we were reconfiguring some mail files which, with a lot of help from Windows NT, got put in the wrong place during the backup procedure. When we finished restoring the files, the network was down and would not come back up. We worked this for several hours. Finally, jiggling some cables brings just a part of the net back. (that really instills confidence in the stability of your network)." - from http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp1/exp1shepmarfeb.html http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp1/exp1shepmarfeb...
        drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    - SingleShot 15y ago
      I have never heard of a drone running anything other than an RTOS. However the ground stations for command/control/monitoring are typically run on traditional Windows-OS machines.
      - pcottle 15y ago
        If the drone is running a RTOS, wouldn't the GCS need RTOS-like reliability as well to communicate with it? That's all I can say (I think)
        javert 15y ago
        No. Windows boxes can communicate to an RTOS like VxWorks over a network just fine.
        rdl 15y ago
        The level of performance needed in the GCS is even less than you might think, too -- for most of the UAVs, you don't have direct flight controls -- it's more like a naval ship, where you instruct it to go to certain altitude and fly a flight path you plot on a map. Some of them have more stick/rudder style controls, mainly for landings, which are often controlled by another operator physically at the launch/recovery site (and who might be a contractor vs. soldier/airman).
        javert 15y ago
        it's more like a naval ship, where you instruct it to go to certain altitude and fly a flight path you plot on a map. Woah, what Navy has ships like that? Bowser's navy? But yah, I know what you're talking about.
    - snorkel 15y ago
      I don't know myself but I'm willing to bet for sure it's Windows. DoD contractors prefer hardware that has simple-stupid .NET libraries, you won't find Linux drivers for most of it, nor a developer that can separated from the cozy comfort of Visual Stupio.
    - rdl 15y ago
      The control systems run XP, Vista, or maybe Windows 7 (not sure about 7 yet). This is true of almost all military desktops, and all office automation servers, and most specialized servers (well, Windows Server 2003/2008). I'm not sure what OS is on the aircraft; I think it's probably a RTOS for flight control and possibly separate processors (running whatever) on a bus for sensor packages. A lot of UAVs have interchangeable sensors, and sometimes a special camera, electronics package, etc. costs more than the airframe, is developed independently, etc. There are tens (hundreds worldwide?) of UAV platforms in the US military, ranging from tiny little throwable tactical systems up through almost U2-sized "real aircraft, minus a pilot" like Global Hawk.
      - Symmetry 15y ago
        I know the F22 runs windows on top of a RTOS. I imagine many other planes and such are similar.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - pcottle 15y ago
    I would think about this for a second; the DoD doesn't manufacture, produce, or design these systems. They contract that out. Considering that General Atomics Aeronautical is a smaller defense company (relative to other ones), I'm sure they could make their own decision about what OS to run on the planes and on the ground. That's all I can say...
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Blue Screen of Death and all. Remember: for the military, death is just business as usual.
ck2 15y ago
Oh please tell me they aren't running windows. Just wait until the cops start using these in the USA for "crowd control" ugh.
- brianobush 15y ago
  probably are... mission control at spacex has many windows terminals.
  - kakali 15y ago
    What does this have to do with SpaceX? They're not DoD and they don't fly drones.
    - brianobush 15y ago
      They obviously fly satellites into low-orbit on contract for the govt. My point was control of expensive/dangerous things - by (or for) the govt with potentially dangerous sw.
  - bh42222 15y ago
    mission control at spacex has many windows terminals What in the...!?!?
- bitstream 15y ago
  I don't think the problem here is their OS, rather it'll be their network structure. So instead, perhaps that should be: "Oh please tell me they didn't connect directly to the internet".
  - pohl 15y ago
    That's the sort of thinking that leads to a crunchy shell with a soft, chewy center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_%28computing%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_%28computing%2...
- eli 15y ago
hugh3 15y ago
It seems to me that a more interesting question than "how did the malware get there?" is "why are they telling us that they found it?" Presumably the default thing to do under these circumstances would be to shut up about it, so the fact that they're broadcasting it to the whole world must mean something. In any case I wouldn't take any of the details at face value -- e.g. do they really not have any idea where it came from, or are they feigning ignorance in the hopes of lulling their opponent into a false sense of security?
- jarrett 15y ago
  Maybe they anticipated a leak and wanted to get out in front of the story.
- Pyrodogg 15y ago
  Because someone leaked it. > “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” The end of the article says they asked for an official response and were stonewalled. > The Air Force declined to comment directly on the virus. “We generally do not discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats, or responses to our computer networks, since that helps people looking to exploit or attack our systems to refine their approach,” says Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for Air Combat Command, which oversees the drones and all other Air Force tactical aircraft. “We invest a lot in protecting and monitoring our systems to counter threats and ensure security, which includes a comprehensive response to viruses, worms, and other malware we discover.” 'The military' doesn't want anyone to know; some individuals inside do.
  - roc 15y ago
    Or the military staff is leaking this to motivate the higher-up who green-lit the contract to exert some pressure, because they have unfortunately-little direct power themselves.
    - Pyrodogg 15y ago
tomjen3 15y ago
This is going to be fun when somebody figures out how shoot somebody with a virus based predator. Next time think twice before antagonizing your local geek :)
JonnieCache 15y ago
Like hugh says, this doesn't add up at all. “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” C'mon. You're the military. "It just keeps coming back?" So you decide to do a press release about it? Please. I wouldn't have whined like that when I was de-malwareing neighbourhood PCs at age 13, I would have fixed it. If I can successfully keep malware off the PCs of middle aged parents with teenaged children, then the government capable of developing and operating fleets of unmanned military drones can certainly isolate a network and disable the USB bus. There is definitely some high level shit going on right here. I doubt we'll know about it for many years, if ever.
- rdl 15y ago
  There are hundreds of thousands of machines and millions of removable drives. Tracking down every last instance of a piece of malware and then dealing with it is quite hard at that scale. Usually they fall back on policy ("no usb/removable drives") They're handicapped by a need AND compulsion to use contractors for everything. Actual government employees didn't build drones; they were all developed and in many cases largely maintained and even operated by private contractors, working to government requirements (which themselves are structured to make the contractors inefficient, compared to normal commercial companies). Same thing with networks.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    If I'm ever in charge of a PC capable of firing guns at people, then at a bare minimum I would disable the USB bus entirely, I probably wouldn't fit a NIC either. I'd also definitely install some of that software that makes the HDD read only and transparently passes through all writes to RAM. Fuckit, if I'm the US military I'd develop such a device in hardware. Send the recorded video/telemetry data to a write-only volume. It's not that hard. But anyway, my point was that I don't for a second believe that they're this incompetent, there must be other factors at play.
    - 15y ago
bitstream 15y ago
This seems about as random and undirected as Stuxnet magically appearing at five Iranian nuclear plants.
runjake 15y ago
Clarification: It's infecting the control station computers (which I believe are still Windows XP), not the UAVs themselves.
- roc 15y ago
  Those computers have access to every bit of data coming from the UAVs and every bit of control data going to the UAVs. So the fact that the compromised machine is in Nevada and not over Pakistan is pretty close to irrelevant. Unless you want to make the argument that it's far worse for the ground control systems to be continually reinfected, as they have access to the rest of the air-gapped private network as well.
  - NinetyNine 15y ago
    >So the fact that the compromised machine is in Nevada and not over Pakistan is pretty close to irrelevant. Well, at least it's easier to axe a box in the room than to shoot down a rogue UAV across the world.
  - runjake 15y ago
    You don't need to tell me about the systems. I worked on them. It's far less worse that the control stations are infected as opposed to the aircraft themselves. It's pretty easy to shift control stations for a UAV. It's not so easy to regain control of a malfunctioning UAV. So, far from irrelevant. That said, I was merely clarifying a common misinterpretation people were getting from the article.
munin 15y ago
the quote used from the source seems to mean they don't know anything. a keylogger is benign? by what definition of benign are we operating under here? downside of things being "off the record" is this could be someone who oveheard two guys talking about something unrelated in the cafeteria, put "two and two" together, and picked up the phone. and since you can't get an official line ... you just run with the rumors and BS
- bostonvaulter2 15y ago
  Well if the keylogger is on an airgapped network it would be relatively hard for it to get data off of the network, so some might call it "benign".
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    unless, of course, it's designed to leak data out of the airgapped network when the next USB stick is connected...
noduerme 15y ago
“We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” Lol. Yes, when all else fails, just assume that the military-grade, impossible-to-erase virus is harmless. Hasn't done any damage yet, right? This is the problem with rigid hierarchies. Everyone just passes the problem to someone else until the whole thing blows up. In this case, literally.
mindstab 15y ago
next up: "Virus ridden US attack drones strafe US cities" "Iran strikes back for virus that temporarily crippled nuclear infrastructure" Though really the drones probably live in middle east so it'd be more like drones would go berserk in a US military bases in middle east and kill troops or attack innocent foreign civilians drumming up more anti American sentiment "Americans use drone to assassinate Afgan president"
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  No, the headline would be "Americans use drone to murder hundreds of civillians". It would make us look even worse, and judging by the history of suicide bombers, the Taliban or whoever would not hesitate. Edit: This may be a bit of a cynical view, but if you believe I'm actually wrong, I'd like to hear why
  - user9756 15y ago
    Eh, guys. I may be off here but isn't the problem that the US use of drones is killing civilians ("collateral damage"). And that is what is currently making people living there very sad and angry.
civilian 15y ago
Okay! Here's what the sysadmins should be doing: Each GCS should be recording the identity & timestamp of each removable drive that is attached to it. Then we'll have a graph of all the connections between the machines. If any GCSes aren't infected (or if we have any information about which machines first showed evidence of the virus) then we might be able to trace out the path of infection. Hopefully it'll lead to patient zero, and they can figure out whether it was intentional (charge w/ treason!) or accidental (500 push-ups).
- count 15y ago
  They have tools available for them to do that today. In fact, that's one of the driving forces behind HBSS deployment.
- roc 15y ago
  Or they could just fill all the usb ports with glue and remove the optical disk drives, if any. I thought the whole point of an air gap network is that nothing crosses the gap. Having those ports/devices available is just asking for it.
  - ghshephard 15y ago
    "usb ports with glue" Keyboards, Mice, Joysticks for these systems were probably designed with the idea that a USB bus would be available. It will take a while to replace all of these systems with their non-USB configurations. Given that BlueTooth is probably a no-no as well, how would one build a system these days that needs to support Mice, Joysticks, and Keyboards without using USB?
    - bradfa 15y ago
      A few options include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port
      - 15y ago
LiveTheDream 15y ago
One solution could be to keep machine images stored, like AMIs, and use a tool like Chef or Puppet to re-deploy a known good configuration. This strategy lends itself to the case where everything is virtualized. Of course, the source of the infection could be really nefarious. For example, imagine if someone replaced a keyboard with one that delivered a payload (trojan, keylogger, etc) when it is plugged into a computer's USB port? Then reformatting the hard drive does nothing because it will immediately infected again.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  One solution could be to keep machine images stored Didn't I read recently about a real virus discovered in the wild, that could infect the BIOS of certain computers?
- bonzoesc 15y ago
  > One solution could be to keep machine images stored, like AMIs, and use a tool like Chef or Puppet to re-deploy a known good configuration. It's probably Norton Ghost, and I'd put $5 on the Ghost image being cooked bad.
EGreg 15y ago
Terrorism is primarily a problem of technology, imho. As things become more automated, they have a capacity to be used for both intended and unintended purposes. If our military relies on drones, it should make sure they can't be used against us :) But to illustrate my main point, 1000 years ago it was impossible for one man to destroy a lot of people. 500 years ago a man Guy Fawkes could use gunpowder to blow up part of a building. SInce then we invented dynamite, planes, rockets... a society in which technology enables a small group of people to wreak havoc on a large group of people must necessarily have more surveillance/intelligence than one where this is not possible, if it is to ensure the security of its citizens. I mean what is to prevent a person from releasing a contagious virus in the NYC subway or something similar, and the effects to show up only days later? I hate to say it but we don't know where we're going with all this technology's potential for bad things.
- saucetenuto 15y ago
  I've heard the modern version of this called "Moore's Law of Mad Science" - every year, the IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point. In practice it's probably exponential rather than linear, but that's not really better.
pavpanchekha 15y ago
Perhaps the fact that our computer systems are now of military importance and the fact that a security hole can mean deaths and international relations disasters will finally lead to people taking a good look at verified computing. Where a virus doesn't mean outsmarting some forgetful C programmer but is mathematically impossible. Or not, it was just a bug, we'll fix it this one time and pretend it will never happen again. Worse is better, as they say!
- dmoney 15y ago
  How can a virus be mathematically impossible? And what if there's a bug in your math?
  - pavpanchekha 15y ago
    To answer your two questions, it is possible to mathematically prove, using certain tools that are admittedly rather academic (my argument is that we should consider using them more), that certain behaviors are impossible in a program. For example, a buffer overflow, or some form of data leak. This has been done, though admittedly not to programs anywhere near as complex as, say, the Windows kernel. And, if there's a bug in your math, you will, of course, have some bug. Garbage in, garbage out. But! You can write your mathematical proof in such a way that the computer checks it for you (for example, static typing is a weak form of this). So all you need to have faith in is that program. Now we've exchanged faith in all programs to faith in one program. Which is an advance. But then we can formulate a proof that that program is correct in its own proof language. We hand-check this proof once, and then from then on the program can check later iterations of itself. That's the dream, anyways. Some of the machinery to do this is available today, but some not.
FrojoS 15y ago
in what has become the US military’s most important weapons system. Seriously? Already?
- chadgeidel 15y ago
  Any technology that enables you to strike the "enemy" from further away is your "most important weapons system". Slings, Arrows, Gunpowder, Aircraft, Missles, and now Drones all follow this paradigm.
- mturmon 15y ago
  People in this thread would enjoy reading the following excellent short review of what drones are doing and their implications: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/predators-and-robots-war/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/predato... The statement you quote is impossible to rate as true or false. But here's a fuller quote from the article above: "But there are also quite a few things about drones that you might not have heard yet. Most Americans are probably unaware, for example, that the US Air Force now trains more UAV operators each year than traditional pilots. [...] As I write this, the US aerospace industry has for all practical purposes ceased research and development work on manned aircraft. "
scarmig 15y ago
"We think it's benign, but we just don't know." Whoever this is is obviously so far out of the loop and technical domain that everything they say should be taken with a heaping pile of salt. I don't doubt that a virus exists, but the scope of it is likely wildly overblown. At least, there's no reason to actually think it's some military grade virus that is impossible to eradicate that intercepts all communications with the drones.
joeybaker 15y ago
It would be great if Ars had used its security and technical staff to tell us if this is a problem or the minor annoyance that the military says it is. The article amounts to little more than a summary of the drone program and a bit of "he said she said" http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html reportage.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  How could they do that analysis without having the virus or other data firsthand? They can only report what they have.
  - joeybaker 15y ago
    Analyse what they know: 1. It's a keylogger 2. They've been aware of it for weeks 3. They admit that they can't seem to beat it 4. These are isolated systems and it's likely that the attack was via USB drives Based on those facts, is it likely that this is benign? Are there known viruses that fit this pattern? Who's in charge of this project, and what do they say about it? Is it SOP for viruses to be able to completely beat military security for weeks? What are the possible security breaches? Why attack this part of the system? There's a lot of questions that could and should be asked. Instead, Ars just repeated history and summarized the press release.
    - wanorris 15y ago
      1. As reported upthread, there was no press release to summarize. This was a story built on leaks from anonymous sources. 2. This is a Wired story republished on Ars, not actual Ars reportage. I certainly agree that additional commentary from security researchers would be welcome, however.
ajays 15y ago
So all that terrorists have to do is commandeer a drone (thanks to this virus) and then they can rain terror anywhere they want? This is scary.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  That's a bit like saying all a terrorist would need to do to seize control of an ICBM is to infect the missile base with a virus. It's not that easy.
  - ajays 15y ago
    They have infected the control computers, and the keylogger (and mouselogger?) is logging all the commands being given. If they can come this far, how difficult is it to, say, insert spurious "fire" commands? Or redirect the drone to some other place?
    - brown9-2 15y ago
      My point was that there isn't any indication from this report that the drones were purposefully infected. Random infections are probably inevitable due to probabilities, but deliberate ones seem quite a bit harder.
- mindslight 15y ago
  Indeed, the barrier to entry has been lowered by a staggering amount. Previously, terrorists had to pay many millions of dollars to General Atomics to rain down death from above.
nickolai 15y ago
Im not worried. Its the military. They'll soon come up with a "Feynman can open our safe locks ? Don't allow Feynman near the safe locks!" kind of solution.
- orenmazor 15y ago
  the worst part about this mentality is that whatever process/documentation they come up to "solve" the problem will make life 10x more difficult for everybody and cost a lot of time and money.
colanderman 15y ago
"Eventually, the technicians had to use a software tool called BCWipe to completely erase the GCS’ internal hard drives." You mean they paid $40 a license for dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sda? (I know BCWipe is a secure delete tool. But a computer virus can't perform forensic analysis of your hard drive.)
NHQ 15y ago
How to turn your enemy's weapons against him.
saturn7 15y ago
wait wait this is my fav part, "At first, they followed removal instructions posted on the website of the Kaspersky security firm. “But the virus kept coming back,”" They have access to the same information my mom does? Don't they have their own people for stuff like that. Seriously Kaspersky isn't exactly the best antivirus program in the world and from their own website "The company’s headquarters are located in Moscow, Russia" US military uses a Russian antivirus company for help with military security.
wrs 15y ago
Hang on a minute... (a) You have malware on a computer on a secret network and you try to remove it? Shouldn't that be an automatic "shred the entire machine and start over" situation? (b) Flight suits? Really?
shareme 15y ago
So why does a secret operation want it known that is open to computer viruses? I submit this a Black Flag operation story.
7952 15y ago
The article says that USB keys are used to move data on to the system from other networks. If this is true it would be better to assume that all data from that other network is bad, and require it to be serialized in a none executable format. The software then needs to validate the data against a schema. This is something websites have done for years and is very basic. The mistake that is made here is to assume that a network can ever be secure. It is like assuming that no one will ever pee in a swimming pool.
nazgulnarsil 15y ago
BULLSHIT, this is covering ass for future liability.
svag 15y ago
I suppose the virus is one of the 18 keyloggers that the virus encyclopedia of Kaspersky has... http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/find?objs=virus&words=keyloggers http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/find?objs=virus&words=keylogg...
0x12 15y ago
Disinformation at work. Either that or gross incompetence but my money is on the former.
kmil 15y ago
It scares me thinking that mortal drones are running on Windows.
bilban 15y ago
Attack of the drones.
shabble 15y ago
From Rule 34[1]: Ever since Filipino Jemaah Islamiyah hackers pwned an MQ-9 Reaper and zapped the governor of Palawan with USAF-owned Hellfire missiles, the Americans have gone back to keeping a human finger on the trigger: not because a state governor from a foreign country was killed, but because of who was in the armoured limousine right behind him. (The prospect of having to utter the term collateral damage in the same sentence as President of the United States before a congressional enquiry had focussed a few minds.) [1] http://www.amazon.com/Rule-34-Charles-Stross/dp/0441020348/charlieswebsi-20 http://www.amazon.com/Rule-34-Charles-Stross/dp/0441020348/c... (his referral tag, not mine)
code_duck 15y ago
If this was true, the last thing they would do is put out a press release about it.
perlgeek 15y ago
So they wipe it off without actually patching the exploit which the virus uses...
Hyena 15y ago
How difficult would t be for the DoD to make an OS just for themselves with no public distribution or documentation? That seems like the permanent solution here.
- astrofinch 15y ago
  Well they'd also have to port Microsoft Office, etc.
Havoc 15y ago
Try disabling autorun for USB drives. These guys don't sound qualified to fly a paper plane let alone drones...

369 points by llambda 15y ago

Less people are now being remotely killed. That can't be a bad thing.

Does anybody know what operating system the infected machines run? If it's a Unix variant, ouch--I guess they have some really bad luck. But if this is just an everyday virus, as opposed to cyber warfare targeting the drones specifically, I can't help but think they might be running Windows. Air gap or not, that seems risky to me.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rdl 15y ago
That's funny. It's Windows. Very little Unix anywhere in the DoD over the past few years on new systems; it's mainly legacy, or embedded in products they purchase. There are definitely some Unix server deployments within DoD even now, but they're few and far between. Blue Screen of Death and all.
- misterbwong 15y ago
  Wow can anyone confirm this? I'm surprised that the drones themselves are running windows. If so, I presume it's win CE or a custom variant of?
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    The way it works is some AF guy in Nevada remotely controls the drones flying half way across the world. My guess is it's not the drones themselves running Windows, but the consoles used to communicate with the drones. It makes sense. AF guy gets to work, plugs in his USB drive filled with music and pulls up the drone control program... Though, now that I think about it, I would be disappointed, but not entirely surprised, if the drones ran Windows also. Sigh.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      Well, there was that case maybe ten years ago of the nuclear carrier that had to be towed back to port after a BSoD killed it dead in the water; its control systems all ran Windows.
      - greyish_water 15y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship_testbed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship...
      - Pyrodogg 15y ago
        > On 21 September 1997, while on maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Virginia, a crew member entered a zero into a database field causing a divide by zero error in the ship's Remote Data Base Manager which brought down all the machines on the network, causing the ship's propulsion system to fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship_testbed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48)#Smart_ship... Wow. Reading more of the wiki article (and linked sources) reveals that the actual towing to port is a contested issue. Noone denies that a /0 error killed the whole ship though.
        jarin 15y ago
        Ok I don't feel so bad now. I was stationed on a nuclear carrier and one day I accidentally deleted the entire supply/logistics/personnel/maintenance database cluster. I mean come on, the menu option was labeled "Re-index databases". I thought it would make it go faster :) I ended up just making something up and restoring from backup.
        ams6110 15y ago
        So the problem was actually the data validation logic in the application, allowing invalid data to get into the database (and why no constraint on the database field?) coupled with no exception handling on a division operation (always a red flag). None of that has anything to do with Windows, really, but it's an easy cheap shot to take.
    - 15y ago
  - ChuckMcM 15y ago
    Well the ISS uses windows [1] and there were reports of malware getting up there. They also had driver compatibility issues and were rebooting the systems that controlled the gyros a lot. One would think you could just write a mil-spec OS for their computers but government, and more specficially government procurement, doesn't really work that way. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/malware-detected-at-the-international-space-station/1806 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/malware-detected-at-the-i...
    - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
      There's no virus on the ISS. It was on the laptops the crew carries around. Big difference. The control systems of the ISS aren't windows.
      - ChuckMcM 15y ago
        To refute your statement that the control systems of the ISS aren't windows, there was a story in wired [1] where it talked about Windows problems on the station's on board computers. They linked to the commander's log [2] which mentions the NT problems. Generally infrastructure issues with specific software and such is redacted from this log for national security reasons but this tidbit survived apparently. The speculation from wired was "The network appears to be a mix between IBM AIX (Unix) and Windows NT servers and Russian laptops running an unspecified operating system." which correlates with what folks I know at NASA have hinted at as well. [1] http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42912?currentPage=all http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2001/04/42912?... [2] "At about 2200, we were reconfiguring some mail files which, with a lot of help from Windows NT, got put in the wrong place during the backup procedure. When we finished restoring the files, the network was down and would not come back up. We worked this for several hours. Finally, jiggling some cables brings just a part of the net back. (that really instills confidence in the stability of your network)." - from http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp1/exp1shepmarfeb.html http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp1/exp1shepmarfeb...
        drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  - SingleShot 15y ago
    I have never heard of a drone running anything other than an RTOS. However the ground stations for command/control/monitoring are typically run on traditional Windows-OS machines.
    - pcottle 15y ago
      If the drone is running a RTOS, wouldn't the GCS need RTOS-like reliability as well to communicate with it? That's all I can say (I think)
      - javert 15y ago
        No. Windows boxes can communicate to an RTOS like VxWorks over a network just fine.
        rdl 15y ago
        The level of performance needed in the GCS is even less than you might think, too -- for most of the UAVs, you don't have direct flight controls -- it's more like a naval ship, where you instruct it to go to certain altitude and fly a flight path you plot on a map. Some of them have more stick/rudder style controls, mainly for landings, which are often controlled by another operator physically at the launch/recovery site (and who might be a contractor vs. soldier/airman).
        javert 15y ago
        it's more like a naval ship, where you instruct it to go to certain altitude and fly a flight path you plot on a map. Woah, what Navy has ships like that? Bowser's navy? But yah, I know what you're talking about.
  - snorkel 15y ago
    I don't know myself but I'm willing to bet for sure it's Windows. DoD contractors prefer hardware that has simple-stupid .NET libraries, you won't find Linux drivers for most of it, nor a developer that can separated from the cozy comfort of Visual Stupio.
  - rdl 15y ago
    The control systems run XP, Vista, or maybe Windows 7 (not sure about 7 yet). This is true of almost all military desktops, and all office automation servers, and most specialized servers (well, Windows Server 2003/2008). I'm not sure what OS is on the aircraft; I think it's probably a RTOS for flight control and possibly separate processors (running whatever) on a bus for sensor packages. A lot of UAVs have interchangeable sensors, and sometimes a special camera, electronics package, etc. costs more than the airframe, is developed independently, etc. There are tens (hundreds worldwide?) of UAV platforms in the US military, ranging from tiny little throwable tactical systems up through almost U2-sized "real aircraft, minus a pilot" like Global Hawk.
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      I know the F22 runs windows on top of a RTOS. I imagine many other planes and such are similar.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- pcottle 15y ago
  I would think about this for a second; the DoD doesn't manufacture, produce, or design these systems. They contract that out. Considering that General Atomics Aeronautical is a smaller defense company (relative to other ones), I'm sure they could make their own decision about what OS to run on the planes and on the ground. That's all I can say...
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > Blue Screen of Death and all. Remember: for the military, death is just business as usual.

ck2 15y ago

Oh please tell me they aren't running windows. Just wait until the cops start using these in the USA for "crowd control" ugh.

brianobush 15y ago
probably are... mission control at spacex has many windows terminals.
- kakali 15y ago
  What does this have to do with SpaceX? They're not DoD and they don't fly drones.
  - brianobush 15y ago
    They obviously fly satellites into low-orbit on contract for the govt. My point was control of expensive/dangerous things - by (or for) the govt with potentially dangerous sw.
- bh42222 15y ago
  mission control at spacex has many windows terminals What in the...!?!?
bitstream 15y ago
I don't think the problem here is their OS, rather it'll be their network structure. So instead, perhaps that should be: "Oh please tell me they didn't connect directly to the internet".
- pohl 15y ago
  That's the sort of thinking that leads to a crunchy shell with a soft, chewy center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_%28computing%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_in_depth_%28computing%2...
eli 15y ago

hugh3 15y ago

It seems to me that a more interesting question than "how did the malware get there?" is "why are they telling us that they found it?" Presumably the default thing to do under these circumstances would be to shut up about it, so the fact that they're broadcasting it to the whole world must mean something. In any case I wouldn't take any of the details at face value -- e.g. do they really not have any idea where it came from, or are they feigning ignorance in the hopes of lulling their opponent into a false sense of security?

jarrett 15y ago
Maybe they anticipated a leak and wanted to get out in front of the story.
Pyrodogg 15y ago
Because someone leaked it. > “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” The end of the article says they asked for an official response and were stonewalled. > The Air Force declined to comment directly on the virus. “We generally do not discuss specific vulnerabilities, threats, or responses to our computer networks, since that helps people looking to exploit or attack our systems to refine their approach,” says Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, a spokesman for Air Combat Command, which oversees the drones and all other Air Force tactical aircraft. “We invest a lot in protecting and monitoring our systems to counter threats and ensure security, which includes a comprehensive response to viruses, worms, and other malware we discover.” 'The military' doesn't want anyone to know; some individuals inside do.
- roc 15y ago
  Or the military staff is leaking this to motivate the higher-up who green-lit the contract to exert some pressure, because they have unfortunately-little direct power themselves.
  - Pyrodogg 15y ago

tomjen3 15y ago

This is going to be fun when somebody figures out how shoot somebody with a virus based predator. Next time think twice before antagonizing your local geek :)

JonnieCache 15y ago

Like hugh says, this doesn't add up at all. “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” C'mon. You're the military. "It just keeps coming back?" So you decide to do a press release about it? Please. I wouldn't have whined like that when I was de-malwareing neighbourhood PCs at age 13, I would have fixed it. If I can successfully keep malware off the PCs of middle aged parents with teenaged children, then the government capable of developing and operating fleets of unmanned military drones can certainly isolate a network and disable the USB bus. There is definitely some high level shit going on right here. I doubt we'll know about it for many years, if ever.

rdl 15y ago
There are hundreds of thousands of machines and millions of removable drives. Tracking down every last instance of a piece of malware and then dealing with it is quite hard at that scale. Usually they fall back on policy ("no usb/removable drives") They're handicapped by a need AND compulsion to use contractors for everything. Actual government employees didn't build drones; they were all developed and in many cases largely maintained and even operated by private contractors, working to government requirements (which themselves are structured to make the contractors inefficient, compared to normal commercial companies). Same thing with networks.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  If I'm ever in charge of a PC capable of firing guns at people, then at a bare minimum I would disable the USB bus entirely, I probably wouldn't fit a NIC either. I'd also definitely install some of that software that makes the HDD read only and transparently passes through all writes to RAM. Fuckit, if I'm the US military I'd develop such a device in hardware. Send the recorded video/telemetry data to a write-only volume. It's not that hard. But anyway, my point was that I don't for a second believe that they're this incompetent, there must be other factors at play.
  - 15y ago

bitstream 15y ago

This seems about as random and undirected as Stuxnet magically appearing at five Iranian nuclear plants.

runjake 15y ago

Clarification: It's infecting the control station computers (which I believe are still Windows XP), not the UAVs themselves.

roc 15y ago
Those computers have access to every bit of data coming from the UAVs and every bit of control data going to the UAVs. So the fact that the compromised machine is in Nevada and not over Pakistan is pretty close to irrelevant. Unless you want to make the argument that it's far worse for the ground control systems to be continually reinfected, as they have access to the rest of the air-gapped private network as well.
- NinetyNine 15y ago
  >So the fact that the compromised machine is in Nevada and not over Pakistan is pretty close to irrelevant. Well, at least it's easier to axe a box in the room than to shoot down a rogue UAV across the world.
- runjake 15y ago
  You don't need to tell me about the systems. I worked on them. It's far less worse that the control stations are infected as opposed to the aircraft themselves. It's pretty easy to shift control stations for a UAV. It's not so easy to regain control of a malfunctioning UAV. So, far from irrelevant. That said, I was merely clarifying a common misinterpretation people were getting from the article.

munin 15y ago

the quote used from the source seems to mean they don't know anything. a keylogger is benign? by what definition of benign are we operating under here? downside of things being "off the record" is this could be someone who oveheard two guys talking about something unrelated in the cafeteria, put "two and two" together, and picked up the phone. and since you can't get an official line ... you just run with the rumors and BS

bostonvaulter2 15y ago
Well if the keylogger is on an airgapped network it would be relatively hard for it to get data off of the network, so some might call it "benign".
- rbanffy 15y ago
  unless, of course, it's designed to leak data out of the airgapped network when the next USB stick is connected...

noduerme 15y ago

“We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.” Lol. Yes, when all else fails, just assume that the military-grade, impossible-to-erase virus is harmless. Hasn't done any damage yet, right? This is the problem with rigid hierarchies. Everyone just passes the problem to someone else until the whole thing blows up. In this case, literally.

mindstab 15y ago

next up: "Virus ridden US attack drones strafe US cities" "Iran strikes back for virus that temporarily crippled nuclear infrastructure" Though really the drones probably live in middle east so it'd be more like drones would go berserk in a US military bases in middle east and kill troops or attack innocent foreign civilians drumming up more anti American sentiment "Americans use drone to assassinate Afgan president"

sliverstorm 15y ago
No, the headline would be "Americans use drone to murder hundreds of civillians". It would make us look even worse, and judging by the history of suicide bombers, the Taliban or whoever would not hesitate. Edit: This may be a bit of a cynical view, but if you believe I'm actually wrong, I'd like to hear why
- user9756 15y ago
  Eh, guys. I may be off here but isn't the problem that the US use of drones is killing civilians ("collateral damage"). And that is what is currently making people living there very sad and angry.

civilian 15y ago

Okay! Here's what the sysadmins should be doing: Each GCS should be recording the identity & timestamp of each removable drive that is attached to it. Then we'll have a graph of all the connections between the machines. If any GCSes aren't infected (or if we have any information about which machines first showed evidence of the virus) then we might be able to trace out the path of infection. Hopefully it'll lead to patient zero, and they can figure out whether it was intentional (charge w/ treason!) or accidental (500 push-ups).

count 15y ago
They have tools available for them to do that today. In fact, that's one of the driving forces behind HBSS deployment.
roc 15y ago
Or they could just fill all the usb ports with glue and remove the optical disk drives, if any. I thought the whole point of an air gap network is that nothing crosses the gap. Having those ports/devices available is just asking for it.
- ghshephard 15y ago
  "usb ports with glue" Keyboards, Mice, Joysticks for these systems were probably designed with the idea that a USB bus would be available. It will take a while to replace all of these systems with their non-USB configurations. Given that BlueTooth is probably a no-no as well, how would one build a system these days that needs to support Mice, Joysticks, and Keyboards without using USB?
  - bradfa 15y ago
    A few options include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS/2_connector and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_port
    - 15y ago

LiveTheDream 15y ago

One solution could be to keep machine images stored, like AMIs, and use a tool like Chef or Puppet to re-deploy a known good configuration. This strategy lends itself to the case where everything is virtualized. Of course, the source of the infection could be really nefarious. For example, imagine if someone replaced a keyboard with one that delivered a payload (trojan, keylogger, etc) when it is plugged into a computer's USB port? Then reformatting the hard drive does nothing because it will immediately infected again.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
One solution could be to keep machine images stored Didn't I read recently about a real virus discovered in the wild, that could infect the BIOS of certain computers?
bonzoesc 15y ago
> One solution could be to keep machine images stored, like AMIs, and use a tool like Chef or Puppet to re-deploy a known good configuration. It's probably Norton Ghost, and I'd put $5 on the Ghost image being cooked bad.

EGreg 15y ago

Terrorism is primarily a problem of technology, imho. As things become more automated, they have a capacity to be used for both intended and unintended purposes. If our military relies on drones, it should make sure they can't be used against us :) But to illustrate my main point, 1000 years ago it was impossible for one man to destroy a lot of people. 500 years ago a man Guy Fawkes could use gunpowder to blow up part of a building. SInce then we invented dynamite, planes, rockets... a society in which technology enables a small group of people to wreak havoc on a large group of people must necessarily have more surveillance/intelligence than one where this is not possible, if it is to ensure the security of its citizens. I mean what is to prevent a person from releasing a contagious virus in the NYC subway or something similar, and the effects to show up only days later? I hate to say it but we don't know where we're going with all this technology's potential for bad things.

saucetenuto 15y ago
I've heard the modern version of this called "Moore's Law of Mad Science" - every year, the IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point. In practice it's probably exponential rather than linear, but that's not really better.

pavpanchekha 15y ago

Perhaps the fact that our computer systems are now of military importance and the fact that a security hole can mean deaths and international relations disasters will finally lead to people taking a good look at verified computing. Where a virus doesn't mean outsmarting some forgetful C programmer but is mathematically impossible. Or not, it was just a bug, we'll fix it this one time and pretend it will never happen again. Worse is better, as they say!

dmoney 15y ago
How can a virus be mathematically impossible? And what if there's a bug in your math?
- pavpanchekha 15y ago
  To answer your two questions, it is possible to mathematically prove, using certain tools that are admittedly rather academic (my argument is that we should consider using them more), that certain behaviors are impossible in a program. For example, a buffer overflow, or some form of data leak. This has been done, though admittedly not to programs anywhere near as complex as, say, the Windows kernel. And, if there's a bug in your math, you will, of course, have some bug. Garbage in, garbage out. But! You can write your mathematical proof in such a way that the computer checks it for you (for example, static typing is a weak form of this). So all you need to have faith in is that program. Now we've exchanged faith in all programs to faith in one program. Which is an advance. But then we can formulate a proof that that program is correct in its own proof language. We hand-check this proof once, and then from then on the program can check later iterations of itself. That's the dream, anyways. Some of the machinery to do this is available today, but some not.

FrojoS 15y ago

in what has become the US military’s most important weapons system. Seriously? Already?

chadgeidel 15y ago
Any technology that enables you to strike the "enemy" from further away is your "most important weapons system". Slings, Arrows, Gunpowder, Aircraft, Missles, and now Drones all follow this paradigm.
mturmon 15y ago
People in this thread would enjoy reading the following excellent short review of what drones are doing and their implications: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/predators-and-robots-war/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/predato... The statement you quote is impossible to rate as true or false. But here's a fuller quote from the article above: "But there are also quite a few things about drones that you might not have heard yet. Most Americans are probably unaware, for example, that the US Air Force now trains more UAV operators each year than traditional pilots. [...] As I write this, the US aerospace industry has for all practical purposes ceased research and development work on manned aircraft. "

scarmig 15y ago

"We think it's benign, but we just don't know." Whoever this is is obviously so far out of the loop and technical domain that everything they say should be taken with a heaping pile of salt. I don't doubt that a virus exists, but the scope of it is likely wildly overblown. At least, there's no reason to actually think it's some military grade virus that is impossible to eradicate that intercepts all communications with the drones.

joeybaker 15y ago

It would be great if Ars had used its security and technical staff to tell us if this is a problem or the minor annoyance that the military says it is. The article amounts to little more than a summary of the drone program and a bit of "he said she said" http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html reportage.

brown9-2 15y ago
How could they do that analysis without having the virus or other data firsthand? They can only report what they have.
- joeybaker 15y ago
  Analyse what they know: 1. It's a keylogger 2. They've been aware of it for weeks 3. They admit that they can't seem to beat it 4. These are isolated systems and it's likely that the attack was via USB drives Based on those facts, is it likely that this is benign? Are there known viruses that fit this pattern? Who's in charge of this project, and what do they say about it? Is it SOP for viruses to be able to completely beat military security for weeks? What are the possible security breaches? Why attack this part of the system? There's a lot of questions that could and should be asked. Instead, Ars just repeated history and summarized the press release.
  - wanorris 15y ago
    1. As reported upthread, there was no press release to summarize. This was a story built on leaks from anonymous sources. 2. This is a Wired story republished on Ars, not actual Ars reportage. I certainly agree that additional commentary from security researchers would be welcome, however.

ajays 15y ago

So all that terrorists have to do is commandeer a drone (thanks to this virus) and then they can rain terror anywhere they want? This is scary.

brown9-2 15y ago
That's a bit like saying all a terrorist would need to do to seize control of an ICBM is to infect the missile base with a virus. It's not that easy.
- ajays 15y ago
  They have infected the control computers, and the keylogger (and mouselogger?) is logging all the commands being given. If they can come this far, how difficult is it to, say, insert spurious "fire" commands? Or redirect the drone to some other place?
  - brown9-2 15y ago
    My point was that there isn't any indication from this report that the drones were purposefully infected. Random infections are probably inevitable due to probabilities, but deliberate ones seem quite a bit harder.
mindslight 15y ago
Indeed, the barrier to entry has been lowered by a staggering amount. Previously, terrorists had to pay many millions of dollars to General Atomics to rain down death from above.

nickolai 15y ago

Im not worried. Its the military. They'll soon come up with a "Feynman can open our safe locks ? Don't allow Feynman near the safe locks!" kind of solution.

orenmazor 15y ago
the worst part about this mentality is that whatever process/documentation they come up to "solve" the problem will make life 10x more difficult for everybody and cost a lot of time and money.

colanderman 15y ago

"Eventually, the technicians had to use a software tool called BCWipe to completely erase the GCS’ internal hard drives." You mean they paid $40 a license for dd if=/dev/null of=/dev/sda? (I know BCWipe is a secure delete tool. But a computer virus can't perform forensic analysis of your hard drive.)

NHQ 15y ago

How to turn your enemy's weapons against him.

saturn7 15y ago

wait wait this is my fav part, "At first, they followed removal instructions posted on the website of the Kaspersky security firm. “But the virus kept coming back,”" They have access to the same information my mom does? Don't they have their own people for stuff like that. Seriously Kaspersky isn't exactly the best antivirus program in the world and from their own website "The company’s headquarters are located in Moscow, Russia" US military uses a Russian antivirus company for help with military security.

wrs 15y ago

Hang on a minute... (a) You have malware on a computer on a secret network and you try to remove it? Shouldn't that be an automatic "shred the entire machine and start over" situation? (b) Flight suits? Really?

shareme 15y ago

So why does a secret operation want it known that is open to computer viruses? I submit this a Black Flag operation story.

7952 15y ago

The article says that USB keys are used to move data on to the system from other networks. If this is true it would be better to assume that all data from that other network is bad, and require it to be serialized in a none executable format. The software then needs to validate the data against a schema. This is something websites have done for years and is very basic. The mistake that is made here is to assume that a network can ever be secure. It is like assuming that no one will ever pee in a swimming pool.

nazgulnarsil 15y ago

BULLSHIT, this is covering ass for future liability.

svag 15y ago

I suppose the virus is one of the 18 keyloggers that the virus encyclopedia of Kaspersky has... http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/find?objs=virus&words=keyloggers http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/find?objs=virus&words=keylogg...

0x12 15y ago

Disinformation at work. Either that or gross incompetence but my money is on the former.

kmil 15y ago

It scares me thinking that mortal drones are running on Windows.

bilban 15y ago

Attack of the drones.

shabble 15y ago

From Rule 34[1]: Ever since Filipino Jemaah Islamiyah hackers pwned an MQ-9 Reaper and zapped the governor of Palawan with USAF-owned Hellfire missiles, the Americans have gone back to keeping a human finger on the trigger: not because a state governor from a foreign country was killed, but because of who was in the armoured limousine right behind him. (The prospect of having to utter the term collateral damage in the same sentence as President of the United States before a congressional enquiry had focussed a few minds.) [1] http://www.amazon.com/Rule-34-Charles-Stross/dp/0441020348/charlieswebsi-20 http://www.amazon.com/Rule-34-Charles-Stross/dp/0441020348/c... (his referral tag, not mine)

code_duck 15y ago

If this was true, the last thing they would do is put out a press release about it.

perlgeek 15y ago

So they wipe it off without actually patching the exploit which the virus uses...

Hyena 15y ago

How difficult would t be for the DoD to make an OS just for themselves with no public distribution or documentation? That seems like the permanent solution here.

astrofinch 15y ago
Well they'd also have to port Microsoft Office, etc.

Havoc 15y ago

Try disabling autorun for USB drives. These guys don't sound qualified to fly a paper plane let alone drones...