7 ms·

Chickens, cows, threatened in Ransomware on Canadian farms

90 points by cameron_b 4y ago

uhtred 4y ago
Sad for the animals. But what do people reading the article think is going to happen to the animals anyway? They are going to get killed so you can eat them. Have you seen how they kill chickens? Hang them by their feet and slit their throats. Nice. All because YOU demand it every time you buy that pack of chicken breasts for your unimaginative "lean protein hurr durr" meal of chicken and broccoli. Maybe stop eating meat and the poor things wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
- ccooffee 4y ago
  Agreed. This isn't really a threat from the perspective of the animals. (Or, well, it is, but the magnitude of the loss isn't very high. Maybe it's like a death row inmate dying of covid instead of lethal injection scheduled for a month in the future?) The animals are going to die regardless. This is a ransomware threat to the profit-making which requires the animals to die in the "right" manner. Granted, the article DOES NOT discuss this issue as the title (and your comment) suggests. The article talks about how ransomware is a sneaky threat to Canadian national food security. I'd not considered ransomware and food security too closely intertwined, so that's nice I guess. If all of the livestock in the country dies, there's probably not enough rice, beans, and potatoes for everyone .
- kulahan 4y ago
  Because there's a difference between millions of animals being murdered for no reason and then wasted vs millions of animals being slaughtered for food. For one, nobody is going to eat those animals because many of them were not ready or there is simply too much supply for the demand at that time.
modzu 4y ago
that photo of the chicken barn is terrifying
- ffhhj 4y ago
  Lots of beings trapped in four walls with artificial light all day, just like the office... oh.
  - FeistySkink 4y ago
    People are being murdered in offices by the billion?
    - thebetatester 4y ago
      No, in many cases it's a much slower agonizing death. But you might get a gold watch at the end!
      - ackbar03 4y ago
        That's what they told those chicken too
      - moremetadata 4y ago
        [dead]
      - dathos 4y ago
        You'll have to look up agonizing, I bet going through a machine with the sounds of your companions dying all around you is a lot more agonizing than choosing an unhappy life and living with those consequences
        b112 4y ago
        I would agree, but I've seen cattle being offloaded into an abattoir. A few trucks in a parking lot, one unloading into a corral, with a bridge/ramp headed into the building. I've seen startled cattle, and I've seen frightened cattle. None of these were. Yet inside, the sound of dying cattle could be heard, with a "Bam!" from the gun used to euthanize by nail-to-the-brain, and a "thud' of the cattle falling afterwards. I presumed, at the time, that the lack of concern was due to a lack of panicked sounds. The cattle simply died instantly, without exhibiting any pain response, or noise, first. So no.. at least for cattle, it seems to be without the experience you describe.
mberlove 4y ago
"Farms are now complex technical operations that use networks of remote monitors that measure soil moisture, or robotic milkers that can detect an infection in a single teat, or environmental control systems that maintain the precise indoor temperature and air filtration needs of a poultry barn." Both a completely understandable and even desirable outcome of advancements in animal husbandry, and an unacceptably vulnerable solution to a massively important system where low-tech solutions are well available. Modern massive farming requires tech to be efficient? That feels like a reasonable statement though I have no proof of it. Maintaining or improving farm output at scale requires massive centralized farming? That feels like less of a reasonable statement, and again, I have no proof one way or another. Are there studies on this? Can we decentralize, downscale, without compromising outputs? Just ruminating here (pun definitely intended).
- Vrondi 4y ago
  If you're going to do the high tech intensive route, though, then you must needs also have a security expert on staff, and I bet you that's a rare thing.
  - isk517 4y ago
    Forget a security expert, from what I've witnessed in a lot of industries security can be improved 100 fold by simply listing to what any half decent IT staff would recommend. So many business still think its ok to have a single login off a vital system with a 4 character password shared amongst 30 employees.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Pretty much every production improvement in either farming or manufacture since the 19th century has been: - scaling up is more efficient, because the production increase has a better "slope" than the increased capital investment - increasing uniformity is more efficient, through the means of statistical process control, which requires more information and information processing
- Waterluvian 4y ago
  Is there any goods-producing industry that is more efficient by being decentralized? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm really not sure. And I don't mean software, media, IP, etc. but stuff like milk or meat or lumber or micro chips.
lockhouse 4y ago
Can cryptocurrency just hurry up and die off already? I can’t think of any technological development that has been more of a net negative for society than cryptocurrency.
- eptcyka 4y ago
  Nuclear weapons? Leaded petrol?
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    We haven’t had World War III since nuclear weapons were invented. I’d consider that a net positive. Leaded petrol enabled transportation on a grand scale until it was discovered to be harmful and replaced with unleaded. Again, cryptocurrencies are so much worse.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      > We haven’t had World War III since nuclear weapons were invented. I’d consider that a net positive. Not to take away from your point about crypto (which I agree with) but I wouldn't call that a positive. WW3 is near certain to happen some day. It's only been 80 years and we've already had multiple extremely close calls that we escaped by pure luck. 80 years is not a very long time when it comes to weapon history. How long was the sword and spear in use? We've avoided an atomic holocaust in spite of nuclear stockpiles, not because of them.
      - lockhouse 4y ago
        I disagree, mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War relatively cold for decades of hostilities between two superpowers. EDIT: Also, don’t underestimate how many people (Soldiers and civilians alike) would have been killed in an amphibious assault on Japan itself by the allied forces. This was the reasoning behind using atomic weapons at the end of World War II in the first place. I am quite certain that nuclear weapons have saved lives overall.
      - 4y ago
1970-01-01 4y ago
>Twice, Dehghantanha has seen hackers break into a farm system and threaten to kill livestock — chickens in one case, cattle in another. And in about a third of the investigations his team as conducted over the past year, he has found evidence that state-sponsored hackers from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have figured out how to quietly gain access to a control system inside a farm. ... >For example, a hacker could gain control of a thermostat and threaten to turn up the heat and kill an entire flock of chickens. More info needed. Are they actually hacking into the HVAC and bricking it, or is a website getting popped and then a scary message is displayed? Or both? These are always separate systems with separate creds. Maybe this is the way farmers realize you don't use the same password for your s3 bucket and "prod" chicken barn thermostat.
- cameron_b 4y ago
  Speculation warning, since no devices were directly referenced... These setups use PLCs to control water circulation, ventilation actuators, augers, and the like. I've even seen Honey Bee feeding set up with PLC interfaces just because they're common and easy. But if they're on the internet with a dashboard, they are likely the "soft belly" as we've seen in lots of industrial ransomware incidents. I've worked in similar ( not the same sector ) automation control environments where the programmers involved live in time-crunch "copy-pasta, change the labels" environments and security is relegated to network models. How many control systems have been impacted by scope creep and are now on the network when they weren't initially? How many of those are on the internet because someone wanted access from their iPad? I'm fairly bothered that the only hope I have in some of the equipment I've worked on is that if it is accessible from the internet one day, it has far too many indistinguishable peers to be a "particular" target and it would take a lot of research to determine any value.
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  I've a neighbor who is a chicken farmer. The thermostat can be controlled remotely, so I suppose it's possible to hack it.
maartn 4y ago
Looking at the photo I wonder if those animals will be worse off if these “farmers” aren’t willing to pay…

90 points by cameron_b 4y ago

Sad for the animals. But what do people reading the article think is going to happen to the animals anyway? They are going to get killed so you can eat them. Have you seen how they kill chickens? Hang them by their feet and slit their throats. Nice. All because YOU demand it every time you buy that pack of chicken breasts for your unimaginative "lean protein hurr durr" meal of chicken and broccoli. Maybe stop eating meat and the poor things wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

ccooffee 4y ago
Agreed. This isn't really a threat from the perspective of the animals. (Or, well, it is, but the magnitude of the loss isn't very high. Maybe it's like a death row inmate dying of covid instead of lethal injection scheduled for a month in the future?) The animals are going to die regardless. This is a ransomware threat to the profit-making which requires the animals to die in the "right" manner. Granted, the article DOES NOT discuss this issue as the title (and your comment) suggests. The article talks about how ransomware is a sneaky threat to Canadian national food security. I'd not considered ransomware and food security too closely intertwined, so that's nice I guess. If all of the livestock in the country dies, there's probably not enough rice, beans, and potatoes for everyone .
kulahan 4y ago
Because there's a difference between millions of animals being murdered for no reason and then wasted vs millions of animals being slaughtered for food. For one, nobody is going to eat those animals because many of them were not ready or there is simply too much supply for the demand at that time.

modzu 4y ago

that photo of the chicken barn is terrifying

ffhhj 4y ago
Lots of beings trapped in four walls with artificial light all day, just like the office... oh.
- FeistySkink 4y ago
  People are being murdered in offices by the billion?
  - thebetatester 4y ago
    No, in many cases it's a much slower agonizing death. But you might get a gold watch at the end!
    - ackbar03 4y ago
      That's what they told those chicken too
    - moremetadata 4y ago
      [dead]
    - dathos 4y ago
      You'll have to look up agonizing, I bet going through a machine with the sounds of your companions dying all around you is a lot more agonizing than choosing an unhappy life and living with those consequences
      - b112 4y ago
        I would agree, but I've seen cattle being offloaded into an abattoir. A few trucks in a parking lot, one unloading into a corral, with a bridge/ramp headed into the building. I've seen startled cattle, and I've seen frightened cattle. None of these were. Yet inside, the sound of dying cattle could be heard, with a "Bam!" from the gun used to euthanize by nail-to-the-brain, and a "thud' of the cattle falling afterwards. I presumed, at the time, that the lack of concern was due to a lack of panicked sounds. The cattle simply died instantly, without exhibiting any pain response, or noise, first. So no.. at least for cattle, it seems to be without the experience you describe.

mberlove 4y ago

"Farms are now complex technical operations that use networks of remote monitors that measure soil moisture, or robotic milkers that can detect an infection in a single teat, or environmental control systems that maintain the precise indoor temperature and air filtration needs of a poultry barn." Both a completely understandable and even desirable outcome of advancements in animal husbandry, and an unacceptably vulnerable solution to a massively important system where low-tech solutions are well available. Modern massive farming requires tech to be efficient? That feels like a reasonable statement though I have no proof of it. Maintaining or improving farm output at scale requires massive centralized farming? That feels like less of a reasonable statement, and again, I have no proof one way or another. Are there studies on this? Can we decentralize, downscale, without compromising outputs? Just ruminating here (pun definitely intended).

Vrondi 4y ago
If you're going to do the high tech intensive route, though, then you must needs also have a security expert on staff, and I bet you that's a rare thing.
- isk517 4y ago
  Forget a security expert, from what I've witnessed in a lot of industries security can be improved 100 fold by simply listing to what any half decent IT staff would recommend. So many business still think its ok to have a single login off a vital system with a 4 character password shared amongst 30 employees.
pjc50 4y ago
Pretty much every production improvement in either farming or manufacture since the 19th century has been: - scaling up is more efficient, because the production increase has a better "slope" than the increased capital investment - increasing uniformity is more efficient, through the means of statistical process control, which requires more information and information processing
Waterluvian 4y ago
Is there any goods-producing industry that is more efficient by being decentralized? This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm really not sure. And I don't mean software, media, IP, etc. but stuff like milk or meat or lumber or micro chips.

lockhouse 4y ago

Can cryptocurrency just hurry up and die off already? I can’t think of any technological development that has been more of a net negative for society than cryptocurrency.

eptcyka 4y ago
Nuclear weapons? Leaded petrol?
- lockhouse 4y ago
  We haven’t had World War III since nuclear weapons were invented. I’d consider that a net positive. Leaded petrol enabled transportation on a grand scale until it was discovered to be harmful and replaced with unleaded. Again, cryptocurrencies are so much worse.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    > We haven’t had World War III since nuclear weapons were invented. I’d consider that a net positive. Not to take away from your point about crypto (which I agree with) but I wouldn't call that a positive. WW3 is near certain to happen some day. It's only been 80 years and we've already had multiple extremely close calls that we escaped by pure luck. 80 years is not a very long time when it comes to weapon history. How long was the sword and spear in use? We've avoided an atomic holocaust in spite of nuclear stockpiles, not because of them.
    - lockhouse 4y ago
      I disagree, mutually assured destruction kept the Cold War relatively cold for decades of hostilities between two superpowers. EDIT: Also, don’t underestimate how many people (Soldiers and civilians alike) would have been killed in an amphibious assault on Japan itself by the allied forces. This was the reasoning behind using atomic weapons at the end of World War II in the first place. I am quite certain that nuclear weapons have saved lives overall.
    - 4y ago

1970-01-01 4y ago

>Twice, Dehghantanha has seen hackers break into a farm system and threaten to kill livestock — chickens in one case, cattle in another. And in about a third of the investigations his team as conducted over the past year, he has found evidence that state-sponsored hackers from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have figured out how to quietly gain access to a control system inside a farm. ... >For example, a hacker could gain control of a thermostat and threaten to turn up the heat and kill an entire flock of chickens. More info needed. Are they actually hacking into the HVAC and bricking it, or is a website getting popped and then a scary message is displayed? Or both? These are always separate systems with separate creds. Maybe this is the way farmers realize you don't use the same password for your s3 bucket and "prod" chicken barn thermostat.

cameron_b 4y ago
Speculation warning, since no devices were directly referenced... These setups use PLCs to control water circulation, ventilation actuators, augers, and the like. I've even seen Honey Bee feeding set up with PLC interfaces just because they're common and easy. But if they're on the internet with a dashboard, they are likely the "soft belly" as we've seen in lots of industrial ransomware incidents. I've worked in similar ( not the same sector ) automation control environments where the programmers involved live in time-crunch "copy-pasta, change the labels" environments and security is relegated to network models. How many control systems have been impacted by scope creep and are now on the network when they weren't initially? How many of those are on the internet because someone wanted access from their iPad? I'm fairly bothered that the only hope I have in some of the equipment I've worked on is that if it is accessible from the internet one day, it has far too many indistinguishable peers to be a "particular" target and it would take a lot of research to determine any value.
BenjiWiebe 4y ago
I've a neighbor who is a chicken farmer. The thermostat can be controlled remotely, so I suppose it's possible to hack it.

maartn 4y ago

Looking at the photo I wonder if those animals will be worse off if these “farmers” aren’t willing to pay…