Crackers Cause Pentagon to Put Computers Offline

Anarchysoft writes "As many as 1500 Pentagon computers were brought offline on Wednesday in response to a cyber attack. Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported of the fallout both that the attack had 'no adverse impact on department operations' and that 'there will be some administrative disruptions and personal inconveniences.' When asked whether his own e-mail had been compromised, Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

Keyboard Infestation

[pipingguy (566974)]

I recommend a less-crumbly type of snack, like carrot sticks or celery. Dip is right out.

Re:Keyboard Infestation

[It'sYerMam (762418)]

I'm handing in my geek card. I actually thought this story was referring to food.

Re:Keyboard Infestation

[Dahamma (304068)]

I'm handing in my geek card. I actually thought this story was referring to food.

That's ok, you were closer than me, I thought it meant that honkeys took over the Pentagon!

i guess it's true, then

[zaunuz (624853)]

...that the hairdresser's hair is the one with the ugliest haircut.

Gates onto something??

[Actually, I do RTFA (1058596)]

Gates responded, 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person.'"

Actually, this makes Gates sound stupid but as a general rule don't put sensitive information on computers connected to the internet. The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place. At the top levels of government, where nation-states are trying to install spyware, intercept and decrypt your packets, and otherwise penetrate your defense, maybe having one of a thousand aides sneakernet it is a good solution.

Re:Gates onto something??

[Icarus1919 (802533)]

You're right, nothing could ever go wrong having someone physically carrying a message.

Re:Gates onto something??

[BrokenHalo (565198)]

It explains a lot, doesn't it?

For once, I'm with him.

Email is often ignored these days - in fact, its principal virtue seems to be the fact that it is so easy to ignore until such time (if then) as it suits you.

Mr Gates probably gets more done (as do I, in fact) by picking up the phone.

Re:If anything can go wrong....

[by Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright infringement isn't theft." Is copying another state's secrets theft if the original copy of the secrets is still in the original computer?

No, that's still not theft. That's espionage.

Re:Gates onto something??

[Belacgod (1103921)]

In 1914 General Joffre, commander of the French forces, refused to use the telephone, claiming he "didn't understand the mechanism." Therefore he spent hours driving back and forth to the British army headquarters in the middle of a desperate campaign to stop the Germans. It is believed that he feared his words being recorded on the other end without his knowledge.

Re:Gates onto something??

[Divebus (860563)]

The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place.

Ahhh yes... the air-gap firewall - works better than anything.

I'm sure Cisco has one for $40,000 they can sell the DHS (empty box with two RJ-45s). They need it. [slashdot.org]

Re:Gates onto something??

[commodoresloat (172735)]

The best security is not having the damn wires there in the first place.

Exactly. Wi-fi is the only safe way to transfer information safely. Get rid of the wires and we can all relax. And if you can't have wireless, at least make sure there's more space than a nomad. What were we talking about again?

Re:Gates onto something??

[Karrde45 (772180)]

Gates calling himself low tech is most likely an attempt to deflect further questions. It was well known in his time at Texas A&M that he would personally respond to many emails from students, and as he was leaving the university he made it known that he frequented a popular aggie message board. http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_i d=768382&forum_id=5 [texags.com]

Re:Gates onto something??

[gruntled (107194)]

As a general rule, sensitive information is already prohibited on military computers that are connected to the Internet. If you've ever seen an office in, say, the Department of Homeland Security, you'll notice that they have two or even three systems on each desk; that's because none of those computers are connected to each other. Computers that can touch the Internet can't have anything sensitive on them; computers that might have something sensitive on them can't touch the Internet.

Re:Gates onto something??

[idontgno (624372)]

In the classified processing facilities I've seen, the PCs have no writeable removable media (CD-ROM drive only, no floppy drive, etc.) and the USB, Firewire, and unused I/O ports are filled with epoxy. And the cases are locked shut with the tamper-detection switch active. And reporting to something like Tivoli or HP OpenView.

Did I mention the network switches also administratively disable any network port that shows a significant interruption in ethernet link status (or change in attached MAC address)? So don't bother trying to switch out PCs either.

Ultimately, I'm sure it can be worked around. Just not very easily, and failing means an espionage trial and a few months or years in federal pound-you-in-the... well, you know.

Bad news, sir...

[Dirtside (91468)]

Scene: Secretary Gates's office - dawn

A PERSISTENT BEEPING breaks the stillness.

SECRETARY GATES stumbles in from an adjoining room, bleary-eyed. Another all-nighter of trying to keep the world safe for democracy.

SECRETARY GATES: What the blazes is it now?

He picks up his Big Red Phone.

SECRETARY GATES: Gates here. What is it?

TECH #1: Sir! This is Collins at Central. We've got a situation -- massive DOS, widely distributed. One of the worst yet.

SECRETARY GATES: Damn! Tell me it's not--

TECH #1: Bad news, sir. It's your brother.

BILL GATES: Mwa ha ha ha!

SECRETARY GATES: Curse you, Bill! What infernal scheme have you cooked up now?

BILL GATES: By making Windows insecure and ensuring its worldwide adoption, I now have an army of millions of zombie computers at my disposal! I will instruct them to PERMANENTLY destroy your computer network unless you pay me... <pinky>one hundred BEEEELLYON dollars!</pinky>

SECRETARY GATES: But... you already have billions of dollars!

BILL GATES: Yes, but Mother always liked you better, so now I'm overcompensating. Top of the world, ma!

JAMES CAGNEY'S GHOST: Cut that out!

There's modern reporting for ya

[kungfoolery (1022787)]

I could think of a million important questions to ask in a situation like this if I were a reporter:

"What specific systems were attacked?"

"Do we have an idea as to who the attackers were? Al Queda? The Chinese?"

"Were any intelligence reports lost? What steps are being taken to ensure the safety of individuals whose data may have been compromised

etc, etc, ad naseum....,

Instead, we get a single insipid question pondering the Secretary of Defense's private email habits and his moderately disturbing technophobic response. Sheesh.

Quit with the "cracker/hacker" bullshit

[venomkid (624425)]

It's hacker, okay? Hacker. When someone is able to write code to get a computer to do something awesomely good, that person is a hacker. When someone manages to get a computer to do something is awesomely evil, that's also a hacker. If someone builds a spice rack for Gandhi, or a spice rack for Stalin, they're still both carpenters. Trying to frontload the term with your own moral judgment is just a little too newspeak for me.

Flamebaiting the digerati

[Shohat (959481)]

Now, every other person online will mock him for not knowing how to use email, and being "low tech".
There is no reason why a person should use such new technology, when most of you probably spend all your time sitting of furniture you have no idea how to build (most have no idea how to build a chair that lasts a week), spend a life inside a home with no understanding of architecture or even the most basic ability to alter your surroundings, no ability to fix a broken toilet, repair a frozen refrigerator, fix a broken washing machine, or just replace a window in your house with a new one. And these are things that people live with from their early childhood, unavoidable parts of everyone's lives."Low tech" so to speak.
But when a person doesn't use email? OMG ROFL ROFL ROFL WHAT A DUMBASS NEWB.

Email? Why should he?

[crucini (98210)]

Quite a few posters here seem to think Gates is a fool for not using email. To me, that shows an inability to understand his role. He's not a sysadmin or middle manager; he's the head of a huge federal agency. To me, that implies:

• He's very busy.
  
• He has too many documents to read, and too many meetings to attend.
  
• He's supported by able subordinates whose only goal is to increase his effectiveness.
  
• Someone else keeps his schedule.
  
• Someone else types any emails or memos from his office.
  What could someone like that gain from personally using email?
  
  Actually, I wonder how many CEOs use email.

Re:oh lord

[macdaddy357 (582412)]

The dude who pulled this off was black! But The Man will never give credit for something this big to a brother.

Re: 'I don't do e-mail. I'm a very low-tech person

[janrinok (846318)]

And why is the ability to use email now a yardstick for someone being capable to do their job? I flew aircraft, using email was totally irrelevant. Nor is it a critical skill for a shopkeeper, a gardener, a fireman or a million other tasks. Sure, they can all use it if they wish to do so, but it does not affect their ability to do their job. I commanded large groups of people and I didn't need to use an email to do it. Lots of information had to be written down but an email was NOT an acceptable format for a set of orders, an intelligence assessment, a personal report on a subordinate or a request for leave. In my environment, you had to be able to write correctly and accurately, using a big boy's pen. Yes, it could be typed, using a traditional typewriter or a computer, but it still didn't need an email to do it. For security reasons, the vast majority of the computers that I used were either standalone or on very limited networks. The email facility, if used at all, wasn't always high up on the list. You probably work in something connected to computers, hence your interest here on /. You are probably interested in technology and other geek pursuits. It might be important to you, but that doesn't make it important to others.

Re:Gate's quote

[Centurix (249778)]

If you're a member of the military with some rank, shouting is a much more effective mode of communication. I imagine Microsoft producing specialized keyboards for the military, such as the MS Multimedia Sergeant Keyboard, which defaults to caps lock being always on.

Hammer

[freedom_india (780002)]

The hammer in question was Platinum. Because only platinum does NOT produce sparks [of fire] when struck against other metals in a flammable environment.
The congress critter who displayed the hammer for all to see conveniently failed to mention it was platinum.
Now since platinum looks more or less like highly polished steel from a distance, people took it as ripping off..
The military may be an idiot in many ways: Paying contractors and money? I don;t think they are that dumb.
And the toilet seat incident? It was a bolt-down toilet for a transport plane with ability to prevent automatic regurgitation when the plane does a hoop-a-hoop (throwing poop on crew is NOT advisable in war].
Yes, the military was overcharged. But not to the degree you think. The contractors overcharged by 15% on platinum and 12% on toilet seats.
And the military got the money back.

Re:You know what bothered me most about that story

[CRC'99 (96526)]

What in Hell are those guys doing if taking 1500 'puters off line doesn't affect operations? Should those 'puters even BE on-line then?

I love it when they get it wrong.... It was 1500 accounts, not computers. Get the story from a real IT news source [news.com.au].

Re:Uh oh

[Mike89 (1006497)]

Another slashdot meme in the making?

"I don't do $technology, I'm a very low-tech person."

I don't do Slashdot memes, I'm a very low-tech person.