|
feedmegin posted:Speaking as a programmer, this is massive, massive hyperbole. People are (generally) not dumb enough to put the sort of systems that could cause that sort of damage on the internet. If it were that easy to do this kind of thing, people (terrorists) would already be doing it. It's not like say ISIS lacks tech-savvy people, and yet the worst we see out there tends to be websites being defaced and twitter accounts hijacked. http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/paper.html quote:The vast majority of all unprotected devices are consumer routers or set-top boxes which can be found in groups of thousands of devices. A group consists of machines that have the same CPU and the same amount of RAM. However, there are many small groups of machines that are only available a few to a few hundred times. We took a closer look at some of those devices to see what their purpose might be and quickly found IPSec routers, BGP routers, x86 equipment with crypto accelerator cards, industrial control systems, physical door security systems, big Cisco/Juniper equipment and so on. quote:As a rule of thumb, if you believe that "nobody would connect that to the Internet, really nobody", there are at least 1000 people who did. Whenever you think "that shouldn't be on the Internet but will probably be found a few times" it's there a few hundred thousand times. Like half a million printers, or a Million Webcams, or devices that have root as a root password. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 22, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
There's a bloody search engine dedicated to finding that stuff, that's how common it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We are? We just built two shiny new big ones, and per https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nato-summit-2014-pm-end-of-summit-press-conference we're even going to actually operate both of them now. Bit short of planes for them for a few years (thanks to America loving up the JSF) but to say that Britain is getting out of the business is just incorrect. You guys are actually going to crew them? My bad then, last I heard they were both going straight from production to mothballs, which was part of my larger point about the fragility of institutional knowledge. If you're actually going to be crewing them that's great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
IIRC the plan was only ever to lay up the second one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Welcome to the incredibly fragile nature of institutional knowledge. I'm sure one of our actual Navy gurus will chime in with much better info, but as I recall the Forrestal fire was a huge wake up call to the Navy about how much they'd let their damage control techniques slide in the intervening ~20 years . Interestingly the RN flight deck school continues to operate, with ground running Harriers subbing for F35Bs
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
AbleArcher posted:Interestingly the RN flight deck school continues to operate, with ground running Harriers subbing for F35Bs Heh, the F-35B will never fly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Speaking as a programmer, this is massive, massive hyperbole. People are (generally) not dumb enough to put the sort of systems that could cause that sort of damage on the internet. If it were that easy to do this kind of thing, people (terrorists) would already be doing it. It's not like say ISIS lacks tech-savvy people, and yet the worst we see out there tends to be websites being defaced and twitter accounts hijacked. Speaking as someone who works in security  .However anyone that uses the word cyber doesn't know what they're talking about, its still poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Riso posted:Heh, the F-35B will never fly. Well, maybe they can be catapulted, or dropped from a bigger plane?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
scissorman posted:E.g. mucking with Wallstreet or Comcast or whatever could be a perfect terror attack and thus also tie up government resources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Thanks to cosmoline chat, I am reminded I need to clean the dojo cutter I bought recently and haven't had time to use in practice.Rent-A-Cop posted:It really wouldn't because nobody would be terrorized. People would be annoyed and inconvenienced, but not terrorized. Remember that terrorism has two very distinct target populations, the people you're terrorizing, and the people funding you to terrorize them. Neither is going to be particularly impressed with "We cause an internet outage" or "We made a bunch of stockbrokers sad before they rolled the system back 6 hours."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I must know more. Please give us links. Couple of hours late, but this is the best use for WWII surplus tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohz9NzpkrQ8
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
I also want to point out other human elements - Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden being the recent obvious examples. Sometimes people give your secrets away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:That doesn't mean the US military is right. To be perfectly honest I think that the US military is far behind the curve when it comes to cyber stuff and that they're not placing nearly enough emphasis on it, but that's just my opinion. In any case, you're badly underestimating what well resourced cyber attacks are capable of. We're not talking about ISIS here. Smart and resourceful as they are, they don't have the mountains of data, the global intelligence reach, or the monetary resources of a major power's cyber program. Also, I'm not sure what exactly it is you're thinking of in terms of targets, but I suspect you're viewing it through far too narrow an aperture. You don't need to hack JWICS or air traffic control to be disruptive; you can do something as simple as hacking traffic lights. Power facilities have demonstrated vulnerabilities at every level of power distribution. Commercial satellite operations have vulnerabilities both on the network and in the EM spectrum. Most production facilities rely heavily if not exclusively on public networks to run their ERP software. So on, and so on. In any case, Cybercom and I are in pretty violent agreement on this prediction. I'd like to know more about what exactly you mean by "sensitive sites", why these are the only targets that matter, and how physical access is the only means by which these sites can be disrupted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 22:27
|
|
They're as sensitive to hype as any other organisation.
|
Hogge Wild posted:Well, maybe they can be catapulted, or dropped from a bigger plane? I'm sure they'll design a way to gently caress that up too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To be perfectly honest I think that the US military is far behind the curve when it comes to cyber stuff and that they're not placing nearly enough emphasis on it, but that's just my opinion. You just need to compromise the remote support utility for some companies that do SCADA systems. That would give you a plethora of targets. None of which are high value in and of themselves but the combined effects can be bad. loving with traffic lights is annoying but if you combine that with opening up the doors to several prisons in the surrounding area, start messing with some water systems, start screwing with gas pipelines and so forth you can create the kind of situation that makes a Governor scream for the National Guard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:To be perfectly honest I think that the US military is far behind the curve when it comes to cyber stuff and that they're not placing nearly enough emphasis on it, but that's just my opinion. By sensitive sites I mean the sort of thing that can cause serious physical damage in the short term in the event of World War 3, or at least a serious war between First World countries, which is the context here. Messing up traffic lights seriously doesn't count; what was claimed was damage equivalent to WW2 strategic bombing, remember. It's more dams, nuclear power plants etc. Civilian air traffic control for instance isn't something I'd be concerned about simply because civilian air traffic is going to be grounded for the duration 9/11 style. As for physical access to a site, if a site is not connected to the internet, how do you propose to get onto a site's local network without physical access? Again, Stuxnet, as cited earlier on, relies on someone literally getting onto a machine on the local network and plugging in a USB key. No access to the site, no virus, because you can't magically get network access to a machine over the internet that does not have an internet connection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I've done some work on automation and scada in factories and I can guarantee that there is usually one maybe two layers of security protecting the entire factory. It would not be difficult for an intelligence organisation to violently disable a factory from the internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Splode posted:I've done some work on automation and scada in factories and I can guarantee that there is usually one maybe two layers of security protecting the entire factory. It would not be difficult for an intelligence organisation to violently disable a factory from the internet. Being an automation student, yeah, stuff like that scares the crap out of me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Splode posted:I've done some work on automation and scada in factories and I can guarantee that there is usually one maybe two layers of security protecting the entire factory. It would not be difficult for an intelligence organisation to violently disable a factory from the internet. The factory's robots are on the same network as the Internet because why? I mean, my company does production builds of our software on an airgapped network and we just make software. I've worked at companies which make physical stuff too and their production network isn't internet-connected ever because why would you do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The factory's robots are on the same network as the Internet because why? You have powerplants connected to the internet for remote management. Don't ask.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The factory's robots are on the same network as the Internet because why? I don't think you understand the sheer scale of distributed control systems, and how vulnerable they are due to their very nature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
my dad posted:I don't think you understand the sheer scale of distributed control systems, and how vulnerable they are due to their very nature. I don't understand why a factory's robots for instance need to be internet-controlable, because they quite simply don't, and I would love to see some hard evidence that most such robots are in fact internet-controlable. As I say I've worked in companies that do hardware manufacturing and they don't work that way precisely because of the risk that they would be running.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
I think we're talking past each-other at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:what was claimed was damage equivalent to WW2 strategic bombing, remember. I think this is where we're not communicating. I was talking about damage to the economy or other system , not kinetic damage to buildings and whatnot (re-reading the post I see why this was confusing, it wasn't well worded). This is reflecting two facts: 1) there are a whole lot of very important things out there that are not well protected against cyber disruption, and 2) kinetic means are historically not all that effective or efficient at disrupting wartime economic activity, with the possible exception of submarines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The factory's robots are on the same network as the Internet because why? Remote access for maintenance, which saves the factory a poo poo load of money at the cost of exposing them to theoretical cyber warfare attacks. It's secured by a VPN, so it really is only vulnerable to seriously capable organisations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
The Marxist analysis of fascism seems to ignore the fact that it was sold to the general public in Axis countries as anti-capitalist as well as anti-communist. I don't know anything about Italian history but in Germany and Japan people were freaking out about new methods of exploitation inflicted on them by international capitalism (the anti semitic stuff is super tied into this) and the fascist position was basically that the country needed to shake off the yoke of both economic systems and embrace their glorious national destiny (of beating up whatever nearby countries couldn't stop them). This is way oversimplified but I don't think the basic point I'm making is controversial When you try to be all coherent and intellectual about it and cram it into some marxist dialectic you're missing the way that it won people over by NOT being coherent (^^"America is racist... and filled with filthy Jews!!"), by NOT being intellectual. Maybe you're gonna get into this later? But I feel like the high-level discussion of ideologies is missing the common ground of The Actual Thing That Happened That We Are Talking About
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
    I love some of the stranger projectiles, rockets and mines some nations used. Also, since I now have a technical manual on every major nation's projectiles and/or bombs, if anyone's got a request or two, I could oblige. Keep in mind certain I'm missing some small arms rounds, and I believe a lot of Russian bombs, otherwise feel free. Japanese projectiles will continue tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Polikarpov posted:The US was tapping a lot of things, including old APs with inadequate cargo securing gear- the loss of the SS Badger State is a touchstone moment in maritime safety. "The salvage tug opened fire"? Since when did salvage tugs have cannons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Hey guys, Steter's back. And this time his mouth has finally written a check that his rear end couldn't cash. 24 January, 1627. Legnano The Regimental Quartermaster, Wolff Wincklemann, is also the Hauptmann of his own company (this is common for regimental officers; often, they have their Lieutenant actually run the company while they collect both the salary attendant upon their position and the revenue from the company) and this evening, he has invited a bunch of his officers to join him at table. By this, of course, he means that he and they are sitting on the bed, next to the table, in the room that he shares with at least three other people. Wincklemann holds a regimental-level office, he's known the colonel since before this regiment was raised, and about a year ago he almost certainly embezzled almost seven thousand ducats' worth of fabric, but he still has roommates. I'd be willing to bet that there's only one bed, too. Anyway, after everyone has gotten drunk and most of the partygoers have left ("I had a great time with them," reports Wincklemann), in walks Wincklemann's Lieutenant, Felix Steter. He notices Wincklemann's Muster-Schreiber and begins, as usual, to make a huge scene. The Muster-Schreiber got Steter arrested a while back, and he remained under arrest (confined to quarters, probably) for 22 days. He's mad about this, and begins to slander the Muster-Schreiber: "Herr Hauptmann, how can you tolerate the Muster-Schreiber, who is such a frivolous rogue and thief, among your company?" At which Wincklemann cautioned Steter to hush up: "Be mindful of whether you can back up your claims, because the Muster Schreiber is an officer as much as any other, and such a person would not be tolerated at my table. If you do know something about him, you should stay quiet right now because it's no time to talk about things like that--instead, have a drink and enjoy yourself." He didn't; instead, he kept pouring out slanderous words about the Muster Schreiber, as well as swearing by the sacraments. Wincklemann begged him several times: "For God's sake, go home and sleep and let me rest." Finally, a pair of Fendriches, who also live there, threw him out of Wincklemann's room into the hall beyond. (One of them is "Wincklemann's Fendrich," but he's not Hieronymus Sebastian Schutze. Schutze may have switched offices, he may have changed companies...or he may be dead.) According to Wincklemann, Steter drew his stiletto at this point. According to Steter, Wincklemann drew his dagger first. In the ensuing tussle, Steter is stabbed in the side and Wincklemann is wounded on the face--one of the Fendriches and a Gefreyter-Corporal attempt to intervene, and they're cut in the hands. Steter runs out with Wincklemann hot after him. When Steter's intercepted in the street, Wincklemann tells the soldiers who get him to rough him up. (Acording to Steter, this nearly killed him.) He's standing on the front steps of his building with a loaded and wound pistol screaming into the night, and probably would have shot Steter if the guys who are holding him hadn't taken him away. He also shouted that he "wanted to give two thousand ducats to whoever lays Steter's head in front of my rear end." ("Did these people deal with me, their lieutenant, in a Christlike manner?" Steter asks in his complaint.) Verdict: Interestingly, Steter walks. Wincklemann can't prove that Steter drew first (it's entirely possible that he and all his witnesses are lying because Steter is just that disliked), so the tribunal decides Steter had been acting in self-defense when he pulled his weapon. But Steter also "behaved in a despicable manner" against his superior officer. Faced with this dilemma, the tribunal punts the thing upstairs and ends up asking the Oberst-Lieutenant whether or not he should be released. Which he is. In a narrow and technical sense, Steter has right on his side. In retrospect, Hieronymus Sebastian Schutze seems like an unusually timid and circumspect person. Steter might have been picking fights with him for months in a row because he knows that he can, that Schutze won't just try to kill him. Most soldiers are not so gentle; most officers are far more jealous of their authority. Steter "didn't anticipate," as his legal representative says, his word choice possibly betraying more that he had intended to, "that the Hauptmann would use such violence against him and fall upon him with murderous resistance." Meanwhile Steter is chafing against the restraints imposed upon him: as Wincklemann's Lieutenant, he probably already either runs or helps run this company on a day-to-day basis but doesn't make very much; unless he has some sort of side hustle, he has to live off his limited official salary alone, unlike Wincklemann, who's a Hauptmann (runs his company for profit) and a quartermaster (embezzlement) at the same time. For his part, in his defense document Steter mentioned that Wincklemann did not lead the company in combat. And indeed, one of the things Wincklemann yelled at him as he chased him through the hall and out the door was "Am I to command you, or are you to command me?" HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:Speaking as someone who works in security feedmegin posted:And getting to all these non-internet-connected, separate systems how? Stuxnet involved some guy physically and on site bringing a USB key into a secure facility. That doesn't scale, and doubly so in wartime. is right, but  first.Gervasius posted:Couple of hours late, but this is the best use for WWII surplus tanks:
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:Speaking as someone who works in security The cyber-to-wizard plugin is making this discussion even more interesting than it would be otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Honestly, every statement Balfour ever made seems to have hosed things up down the line. Balfour's an interesting fellow, and I know more about him than I should because of my PhD research (he was a good friend of Jackie Fisher, so even after he got stabbed in the back by his fellow Tories in 1910-11 he's getting detailed explanations of British naval policy and new technology from Fisher, who despite being officially retired kept his hand in at the Admiralty all through the last few years before the war in one way or another). He was basically the stereotype of a man who's too intelligent to be a statesman. His greatest service to Britain IMO came after the 1906 General Election, when he kept the Tories from lynching Fisher over the cuts to the naval estimates because he knew Fisher and his colleagues were doing the best they could to fight a rearguard action against the Treasury and the Radical Liberals (whose policies were right, but were utterly lacking in an understanding of how much British naval security actually cost). Cyrano4747 posted:You guys are actually going to crew them? My bad then, last I heard they were both going straight from production to mothballs, which was part of my larger point about the fragility of institutional knowledge. If you're actually going to be crewing them that's great. The British have (or had) pilots at Lemoore flying F-18s to keep their hands in (and since some of their carrier pilots will be on loan from the RAF due to force-sharing arrangements involving their F-35s, so those guys will be tooling around in Typhoons and Tornadoes). The biggest problem with the Queen Elizabeths is the Royal Navy got suckered in to buying STOVL aircraft because of the Lockheed lie machine and thirty years of flying Harriers (practically the only V/STOL plane to ever actually work right). As for institutional knowledge, every single rumor I heard was that this was the biggest thing their Admirals were scared about too, to the point they were negotiating for their flight deck specialists to be seconded to the USN and the French Navies for the time being so they'd be doing something. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:
In addition to saying you're absolutely right: you don't need cyberwarfare to really screw with power facilities. Get a dozen guys, scatter them around the US, they go buy high-power rifles and at the assigned time they start shooting holes in big transformers. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/business/energy-environment/electric-industry-runs-transformer-replacement-test.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:"The salvage tug opened fire"? Since when did salvage tugs have cannons? USS Abnaki, ATF-96, was armed with a 3" gun and two 20mm Oerlikons. She was in active service with the USN from 1944 to 1978, when she was sold to the Mexican Navy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:The Marxist analysis of fascism seems to ignore the fact that it was sold to the general public in Axis countries as anti-capitalist as well as anti-communist. I don't know anything about Italian history but in Germany and Japan people were freaking out about new methods of exploitation inflicted on them by international capitalism (the anti semitic stuff is super tied into this) and the fascist position was basically that the country needed to shake off the yoke of both economic systems and embrace their glorious national destiny (of beating up whatever nearby countries couldn't stop them). This is way oversimplified but I don't think the basic point I'm making is controversial. I don't think you read the marxist analysis, then. It literally explains that exact same phenomenon in some detail: People are struck by poverty and alienated towards their role as producers, and a destroyed left wing could not direct these feelings towards socialism, while fascism provides an easy explanation by pointing the finger at volk-hostile businesspeople, jews and other undesirables. Tias fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
Also that was post one in a long chain of posts. You could write ten thousand pages on Marxist analysis of fascism but I'm probably only going to do one or two more on that topic.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
Also, there are other models. One that D&D is pretty partial to is Eco's analytical 14 precepts of fascism, Eternal Fascism: 14 Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt, found here. It deals a lot more with fascist agency and rhetoric instead of fascist ideology, but is a pro-click regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
100 Years Ago The Canadian Scottish counter-attacks at St Julien under cover of darkness as Second Ypres moves into its second day. Rupert Brooke gets all the attention he deserves as the fleet prepares to sail to Gallipoli. General Nixon decides without reference to anyone else that the Empire really needs to occupy Amara in order to keep Basra safe, General Cadorna begins quietly mobilising portions of the Italian army, and the canine mascot of the 2nd Leinsters comes to a sticky end, prompting Lt Denis Barnett to make a request for a more durable pet from home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Tias posted:Also, there are other models. One that D&D is pretty partial to is Eco's analytical 14 precepts of fascism, Eternal Fascism: 14 Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt, found here. It deals a lot more with fascist agency and rhetoric instead of fascist ideology, but is a pro-click regardless. Cyrano tore into this a few pages back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 05:06 |
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Cyrano tore into this a few pages back. I think he's somewhat right about it too, I'll cover it eventually.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:06
|
|