4 ms·

The position of the US government as far as I can tell was that this was such little fish at the time that was the reason they didn't pay much attention compare

by th0ma5 3y ago

The position of the US government as far as I can tell was that this was such little fish at the time that was the reason they didn't pay much attention compared to the ongoing direct network attacks against more valuable assets.

p_l 3y ago
The position was that it was new enough they had no idea what to do. Direct network attacks weren't yet a thing, kremvax was still a joke that provoked because just the idea of having soviet machine on the same network was spooky. The direct result in government from "KGB Hack", combined with Morris Worm, was to essentially kickstart the whole Network Security Monitoring and creation of agencies that actually took in network security as core mission. Before, best chance would be that you could try hitting up your friendly neighbourhood fed who was pulling the duty of security officer for your facility. It was pretty damn new that one could connect from as far, and this was still dependant on modem lines. Far cry from the freedom some enjoyed in USA, that if one knew how to phone into a local TIP they could get onto ARPAnet and some places wouldn't ask for passwords at all. Before, the security was more concerned with what you did locally on specific machine, and in some more expensive cases, complex access controls so people could cooperate on files with different permissions.
- th0ma5 3y ago
  My original post, and comment, was that the view of the government at the time was everyday boring security principles that we still use today that mirror a lot of physical security principles. The video goes in detail. I'm sorry I thought you had watched that... If you can make time for it I highly recommend it. It doesn't quite gel with the narrative you have... On public cable television networks nationally, in 1989, senior members of the government spent hours discussing this openly and honestly using the same terms we use today while Mr. Stoll was taking amateur, incomplete conclusions to extremes in the tabloid media.

by th0ma5 3y ago

p_l 3y ago

The position was that it was new enough they had no idea what to do. Direct network attacks weren't yet a thing, kremvax was still a joke that provoked because just the idea of having soviet machine on the same network was spooky. The direct result in government from "KGB Hack", combined with Morris Worm, was to essentially kickstart the whole Network Security Monitoring and creation of agencies that actually took in network security as core mission. Before, best chance would be that you could try hitting up your friendly neighbourhood fed who was pulling the duty of security officer for your facility. It was pretty damn new that one could connect from as far, and this was still dependant on modem lines. Far cry from the freedom some enjoyed in USA, that if one knew how to phone into a local TIP they could get onto ARPAnet and some places wouldn't ask for passwords at all. Before, the security was more concerned with what you did locally on specific machine, and in some more expensive cases, complex access controls so people could cooperate on files with different permissions.

th0ma5 3y ago
My original post, and comment, was that the view of the government at the time was everyday boring security principles that we still use today that mirror a lot of physical security principles. The video goes in detail. I'm sorry I thought you had watched that... If you can make time for it I highly recommend it. It doesn't quite gel with the narrative you have... On public cable television networks nationally, in 1989, senior members of the government spent hours discussing this openly and honestly using the same terms we use today while Mr. Stoll was taking amateur, incomplete conclusions to extremes in the tabloid media.