Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 276 +-   800 Break-ins at Dept. of Homeland Security on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:26AM

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:26AM
from the well-i-feel-safer-already dept.
security
usa
WrongSizeGlass writes "Yahoo is reporting about the computer security nightmare going on at the Department of Homeland Security. Senior DHS officials admitted to Congress that over a two year period there were 800 hacker break-ins, virus outbreaks and in one instance, hacker tools for stealing passwords and other files were found on two internal Homeland Security computer systems. I guess it's true what they say ... a mechanic's car is always the last to get fixed."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

800 Break-ins at Dept. of Homeland Security 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I'll only say... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by damn_registrars (1103043) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:29AM (#19579537) Journal
    That ending line is far too kind.

    "a mechanic's car is always the last to get fixed"
    Assumes that the DHS is somehow competent to fix anything at all.
    • Gotta agree with that. If they were competent, they'd have their own house in order.

      Just as anyone here who's competent with a computer has their systems up-to-date and tuned.

    • The department of "homeland security" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by danpsmith (922127) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:28AM (#19580619)
      I think the reason that people see any irony at all in these type of stories is the fact that they actually expect that the government is as good as its hyperreal image [wikipedia.org]. Of course government agencies aren't infallible, but to suggest this is to deny this hyperreal, overemphasized "we're efficient, intelligent and we know things about you you don't even know" public persona. Without a sufficient belief in the agencies like the CIA and the FBI, and the belief that they are actually more informed than the masses and that the government is more in the know than anyone is aware (unless they are in the government), people would want to know where all this security spending is going (which is a problem for anyone). The government is an inept, massive body of people that is unable to act upon information quickly due to its many layers of bureaucratic bullshit and the legality of everything. The only solution to this problem is to eliminate some of the bureaucracy (firing people, which, of course, can't be done), or to eliminate the red tape (legislation, which, if you eliminate too much becomes a Bush-like grab for power), neither of which will ever be done due to the nature of the politicians in charge. So the federal government, no matter what the politicians say will continue to grow as a monolithic, insecure and ineffective beast while feeding you the image of a secure, fast, intelligent and best of class organization and terrorists with their small but efficient plans will continue to find gaping holes in the system. And that's why irony in this case can be saved for the naive and the uninformed, the rest of us see things like this coming a mile away.

    • Re:I'll only say... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Intron (870560) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:32AM (#19580703)
      Never mind competent. What exactly do they do? I can understand the purpose of the FBI, CIA, NSA, Treasury, FDA, FAA and SEC in law enforcement. What does DHS do that isn't covered already? The only thing I can find is publishing the threat level (currently Yellow = Run and Hide, except the airline industry is at Orange = Don't Bring Juice). Does anyone pay attention to that?

      Do we really need a whole beurocracy to make the various departments share information and cooperate with each other? Aren't they run by grownups?

      • Re:I'll only say... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by statusbar (314703) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:45AM (#19580953) Homepage Journal
        Homeland Security = Homeland Insecurity

        What they DO is they bring insecurity to every sector of government and society that they touch, in the name of "Security"

        It is all about optics... It doesn't matter that their computers are insecure... obviously the problem is that the fact that their computers are insecure should be a top-secret fact. It is not something that they feel needs to be fixed. They are only there for the illusion.

        --jeffk++

      • Re:I'll only say... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hachete (473378) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:50AM (#19581063) Homepage Journal
        At times of great political crisis for the Republican Party, the threat level goes up.

        Troll or humour, I don't know meself.

      • Re:I'll only say... (Score:5, Funny)

        by bberens (965711) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:50AM (#19581073)
        You see, the Department of Homeland Security is the 'People Person' of the national security industry. They take the top secret files from the FBI to the CIA. Usually their secretaries do it, but sometimes they do it personally. This is an important task so that the FBI doesn't have to deal with the CIA.

      • Homeland Security means: (Score:5, Informative)

        by droopycom (470921) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:29PM (#19584063)
        TSA (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)
        FEMA
        Customs and Border Protection
        Immigration (Former INS)
        Secret Service (Not covered by CIA, FBI or any other Law Enforcement)
        Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)

        I'm no fan of them, but how about you take a look at their website if you want to know what they are supposed to do:

        http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0644 .shtm [dhs.gov]

        • Already covered.... (Score:4, Informative)

          by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @02:31PM (#19584979)

          Secret Service (Not covered by CIA, FBI or any other Law Enforcement) Treasury Department, which is why they go after counterfiters

          Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement) Commerce Department, except during times of way, when hey become part of the DOD.

          And FEMA used to be independent and have an almost cabinet level leader.

        • Re:Homeland Security means: (Score:4, Interesting)

          by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @02:57PM (#19585325) Homepage Journal
          "TSA (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)>

          FEMA>

          Customs and Border Protection>

          Immigration (Former INS)>

          Secret Service (Not covered by CIA, FBI or any other Law Enforcement)>

          Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement)>

          >

          I'm no fan of them, but how about you take a look at their website if you want to know what they are supposed to do"

          Well, they don't seem to be doing very well at many of their tasks....

          • TSA - Mostly act at a PITA, and don't seem to know or want to show the applicable laws (like not having to show ID)
          • FEMA - First hand observation of them and their continued incompetance in New Orleans. Fortunately I've not had to deal that much with them myself, but, I feel for the people that have. I worry for the next community that gets hit by a disaster, if NOLA is any indication how they act, you're in for a lot of trouble and heartache.
          • Customs and Border Protection - Well, I think we ALL know how bad a failure this is....the people flooding in from down south hasn't slowed a bit, even though the majority of the US wants the borders secured.
          • Immigration (Former INS) - Well, this obviously doesn't work at all. People wanting to get in legally can't seem to hardly work the system, and we're certainly NOT deporting people here illegally we find and catch. I think the last reference to this working was in the original Cheech and Chong movie, Up in Smoke. The INS gave them a free ride to Mexico, last time I heard of INS every sending someone home that wasn't here legally.
          • Secret Service (Not covered by CIA, FBI or any other Law Enforcement) - Ok...they seem to do ok, but, then again, they were great before DHS oversight.
          • Coast Guards (Not covered by CIA, FBI or other Law Enforcement) - Good before DHS, and so far, no signs of bastardization...keep up the good work boys.

          YEah...lots of progress with DHS. Lots of nothing....

  • Big assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tony (765) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:30AM (#19579557) Homepage Journal
    I guess it's true what they say ... a mechanic's car is always the last to get fixed.

    That's very true.

    Especially when the mechanic is incompetent, and more interested in throwing around political weight than actually trying to accomplish anything useful.

    • Re:Big assumption (Score:4, Informative)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:41AM (#19580875) Journal

      Especially when the mechanic is incompetent, more interested in throwing around political weight than actually trying to accomplish anything useful.
      You show me a mechanic who has to deal with multiple bureaucracies to get things done & I'll show you a mechanic who has to build up and throw around 'political' influence in order to get results.

      If the Dept of Homeland Security was a car, it'd have incompatible parts from every car manufactured over the last hundred years.

      What's with the car analogies anyways?
      They usually suck.

      • Re:Big assumption (Score:4, Insightful)

        by misanthrope101 (253915) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:55AM (#19581209)
        Not only that, but the car would be made of incompatible parts that the auto makers coughed up when they were directed to hand over parts to a competing agency--i.e. the parts that the company found least useful and valuable. There aren't many bosses who, when told to give up people, wouldn't use it as an excuse to jettison all the incompetents, whiners, bullies, and troublemakers they couldn't manage to fire earlier. So the DHS is comprised of rejects, and has no discernable mission, and has to deal with bureaucratic infighting.

        • Re:Big assumption (Score:4, Funny)

          by dgatwood (11270) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:11PM (#19583757) Journal

          I can see it now.

          DHS Mechanic: Umm... why does this car have five steering wheels and no brakes?

          FBI Engineer: Oh, it's okay. We determined that you didn't need brakes. All you have to do is put your feet down through the missing section of floor there and drag them until you stop.

          DHS Mechanic: Won't that break your legs?

          FBI Engineer: Oh, you wanted a safe car? You should have specified that on requisition form 27B-6.

          Yeah.... Our government at its finest.

      • Re:Big assumption (Score:4, Funny)

        by An ominous Cow art (320322) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:14AM (#19581599) Journal

        What's with the car analogies anyways?
        They usually suck.
        A good car analogy is like a car that lasts many years, without excessive maintenance bills, gets good mileage, is safe, roomy, and stylish.

        A bad car analogy is like a lemon.

  • One thing is for sure. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot.exit0@us> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:33AM (#19579617) Homepage
    The people that are smart enough to really do this IT stuff properly for the DHS are smart enough to earn more money elsewhere.

    • Re:One thing is for sure. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 (410832) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:50AM (#19579975) Journal
      "The people that are smart enough to really do this IT stuff properly for the DHS are smart enough to earn more money elsewhere."

      And even if the pay was the same, there's still the many months and ungodly amount of paperwork involved in trying to get a government job. Are you going to go for the offering that's available next month or next year?

      • Re:One thing is for sure. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jofny (540291) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @11:19AM (#19581671) Homepage
        And lo! Slashdot accidentally discovers the reason for the lucrative concept of "government contracting". Of course the government cant compete with pay - they also cant hire or fire in any reasonable manner, so most of the staff consists of long term contractors...which partially negates the "blame X on government employee salaries" habit in a lot of these conversations.

    • Re:One thing is for sure. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:19AM (#19580425) Homepage
      Further, the people who are likely to be seriously interested in infiltrating the DHS are quite able to find and finance someone with the capability to do so.

  • Thank god we fixed a 40 billion dollar bureaucracy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:34AM (#19579631)
    ...that failed to deliver when it came to 9/11 warnings by layering on a new bureaucracy on top of the failed bureaucracy.

    Clearly what we need is a new Dept. of Homeland Security Security.

  • 800 is a lot compared to who? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jofny (540291) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:34AM (#19579637) Homepage
    Point 1: Considering the complete inability of standard technical solutions to security problems to prevent a significant number of attacks/infections from being successful, this is not like the mechanics car getting fixed last. It's called "the security industry and standard methodologies continue their long history of consistent failure at organizations, both public and private"

    Point 2: Those numbers are a completely meaningless abstraction without tying them back to type of attack, actual damage, importance of the data on those systems or their roles in launching further attacks, what kind of infections occurred and their damage potential, and finally what those numbers look like compared to other orgs of the same size.

    Point 3: Homeland Security is comprised of multiple mostly-independant sub orgs (like Coast Guard, TSA, etc)....so..saying DHS had so many attacks is misleading without clarification

    Point 4: Not saying theyre not making mistakes, just that those "facts" dont tell you either way what the actual state of things is.

  • When you are a primary target (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ngarrang (1023425) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:35AM (#19579657) Journal
    When you are a primary target like the DHS, I would imagine that the attacks they face are probably harder and longer than most possible victims. I would be interested to know how many hack attempts failed to see what kind of success rate such a high profile agency has. No security is perfect.

    ""What the department is doing on its own networks speaks so loudly that the message is not getting across," Thompson said."

    Meh, whatever. This seems to me to dismiss the high profile nature of the DHS. Most other businesses might not even survive the onslaught faced by the DHS and other government sites.

    Could they do more? Sure. There is ALWAYS more that can be done from the user level up to systems and network admin.

    "All the problems involved the department's unclassified computer networks..."

    That is good to know.

  • even by Slashdot pundits, when we learned of the huge Dell and Microsoft contracts that were being awarded by the DHS.

    Those who wanted the DHS to be a braintrust of security were sorely disappointed, and indeed we can see that it is nothing more than another bureaucracy more interested in distributing taxpayer funds to corporate friends than really doing anything for the health and welfare of the nation.

    This is how Rome fell.

  • Well, it makes sense (Score:5, Informative)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:38AM (#19579709) Journal
    DHS was started by a number of folks from the marines (I worked for one). They were ALL windows believers ( but the ones that I knew were very so-so in the tech work). They were adamant about not being like NSA in spite of the fact that NSA has 2 missions; 1) obtain any info that they can on others 2) secure our boxes. NSA has a LARGE number of mathematicians as well as computer geeks. And windows is only allowed in none secured arenas or have their network capability severed at a hardware level (i.e. no nic or usb). If DHS had been ran by professionals and not politicians from the military (ALL of the tops one were W.s, Cheney's and esp. Rumsfeld's friend), then they would not have had the break-ins.

  • 1-800-Break-Ins (Score:4, Funny)

    by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:38AM (#19579719)
    That was how I read the summary and it made me think - Dang the Dept of Homeland Security is so (dis)organised that you can phone in break in requests to their systems

  • Out of Context (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WarpSnotTheDark (997032) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:38AM (#19579733)
    Look at any government agency or corporate IT infrastructure - 800 break-ins is not a big number. I have been conducting information security analyses for many years for corporate networks and government entities and 800 is not a high figure. What you have to find out before considering this a valid story is; was integrity, confidentiality or availability of their infrastructure effected by these break-ins or was it just dorks poking their nose through the DMZ to see what they could find.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jofny (540291)
        Considering the fact that there IS monitoring going on, Id say the 800 figure is probably much closer to the "truth" than a lot of other organizations' numbers who DONT monitor. Exchange often attributed to an anonymous officer at DoD: "My systems have never been broken into!" "How do you know, have you looked?" -Silence-

  • Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:39AM (#19579759)
    That's nothing. A password cracker is included in the OS load of every server here. Our security auditing program uses it! Better yet, it would normally be detected by our antivirus program, but a guy here is paid to remove it's pattern from the vscan updates before they're sent out. When an unedited vscan pattern file manages to make it's way on to the machine somehow, it nukes the audit program. How's that for "administratively broken"?

  • Usual illiteracy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Otter (3800) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:39AM (#19579761) Journal
    800 Break-ins at Dept. of Homeland Security

    No, there were over 800 incidents ranging from a single (if I'm understanding correctly) break-in to other problems from malware and less.

    By the way, seven comments already and not one anguished wail from a 14-year-old pretending to be a grizzled veteran upset about the changing meaning of "hacker"? Get a move on, guys!

  • Break-ins at Homeland Security (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:44AM (#19579847) Homepage
    Article needs the following tag:

    Irony

  • My brief experience in DHS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:55AM (#19580053) Homepage
    This is no exaggeration. As with virtually any other government employment, the DHS is filled with people who just want titles and a paycheck. Most morons know how to install windows and office and a few of those can even install a server and exchange email. Whether they know anything useful or not, they don't really care about doing more than the bare minimum to keep their paychecks flowing. I blame the way government pays and oversees people for this. There is not much in the way of pay or advancement by merit in government employ. Everyone's too afraid of descrimination suits and the like. So the only measured basis one can use safely is time in service really. Other than that, the culture is to keep your head down and do the bare minimum.

    And if you think the creation of DHS was a carefully planned and well-thought-out move, I think the historical evidence speaks to the contrary.

    The only solution is for detailed requirements for security and data handling. It would be more effective than not having any... they really don't have much in place now. How secure can they be with Microsoft everything running their offices?

  • It is to be expected ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by arthurpaliden (939626) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:03AM (#19580177)

    When the first question out of the DHS pruchasing agent after the demo is 'And the name of your Congressman is?'

    Yes, this really happened, it is recorded in my lab book.

  • They have holes in their security... (Score:5, Funny)

    by athloi (1075845) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:13AM (#19580341) Homepage Journal
    ...that you could fly a 747 through!

    Oops, that was in bad taste.

  • FUD Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Evil W1zard (832703) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:32AM (#19580689) Journal
    Ok so here is the deal. DHS' network is a mesh of multiple other networks that were already in existence. This is problematic in itself as it involves a heavy amount of integration and also borders upon borders of perimeter security (each disparate agency is part of the whole but may have its own controlled interfaces for some level of separation...

    Now lets go to the article. To the laymen you say 800 compromises and they go into "WOW THAT IS SO BAD" mode, but seriously come on. The compromises are mostly workstations. Now that doesn't mean they get a free pass, but its not like they have had their core servers owned by foreign states... What they should be doing is not only scanning apps, DBs, and servers and patching/hardening them appropriately, but also client-side firewalling, config control of workstations, baseline security mechanisms for remote users, centralized virus/vulnerability patching... This article does not surprise me what-so-ever and it really is not an indication that DHS security is horrible. Its not the best, but 800 is not that bad.

  • Salient FACTS (Score:4, Informative)

    by N8F8 (4562) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:49AM (#19581055)
    The DHS has around 200,000 employees.

    The article actually says "800 hacker break-ins, virus outbreaks and other computer security problems over two years".

    These numbers are remarkably low, if true. I once cleaned over 1000 virii, rootkits and spyware apps off the computer of a busy, filesharing teenager. 800 from 200,000 employees is pretty low. Not to mention that these are on public terminals since the real important data passes across private DoD networks (SIPRNET [wikipedia.org] and JWICS [wikipedia.org]. another clueless article written by another clueless reporter spreading FUD to the clueless liberal masses.

    • Apparently cyber-terrorism isn't important then?
    • Part of their mandate and jurisdiction is Information Security; they are charged with protecting the computing infrastructure of the country.

    • They're not a group of IT guys or white hats.

      Thank you for that clarification. I feel so much better now knowing that the department in charge of protecting the U.S. from terrorists has no technical skills.

          • Re:Homeland Security != Information Security (Score:4, Informative)

            by encino (537081) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @01:36PM (#19584185)
            I am assuming you mean S&T, not DHS overall. Science & Technology is the primary research and development arm of the Department - we're different from other science-related organizations like NIH, NSF, etc., in that our work must have clear line-of-sight to security applications. Not to say we don't have some focus in the basic sciences, but rather to say that it's only about a 20% focus. We also have a portion of our research budget that goes to high-risk things that will probably fail. Thankfully our leadership hear in S&T understands that in science, you need to have at least some fraction of your research portfolio 'on the edge' - that's where you find the home-runs, and not always in the 'safe' stuff. This is hard to defend though, since Congress doesn't hearing that you're spending research dollars on 'risky' projects expected to fail. In addition to research, the 'T' in S&T means that we develop technologies for the first responders and other users (i.e., interoperable radios and communication, Chemical and Biological detectors, other miscellaneous cool widgets, etc.) You may also (correctly) guess that any significant effort to prevent terrorist use of WMD requires top-notch scientific and technical expertise as well, so we do a lot of WMD-related work. Hope that helps.

    • Re:Homeland Security != Information Security (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eln (21727) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:21AM (#19580451) Homepage
      DHS was created in response to the 9/11 attacks as a purely political move to make it look like we were serious about fighting terrorism. It created a huge bureaucracy, gave it an impossibly broad mandate, and made it more difficult for existing agencies (that were moved under DHS because they were at least tangentially related to protecting the country against various things) to do their jobs. As a result, the government is far less capable of intelligently defending against attack than it was before. It is only capable of wildly overreacting to perceived threats (like someone slipping through airport security with 4 ounces of hand soap rather than the mandated maximum of 3), again so it can appear as if it is on top of things.

      DHS was a bad idea that was implemented poorly out of a panicked need to do *something* following the attacks.

      • Would you support another breaucracy to take care of electronic threats?
        Perhaps the EPA - I'd imagine even those tree-huggers could do a better job of securing networks than the clowns in the DHS.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Reverend528 (585549)

      In other cases, computer workstations in the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration were infected with malicious software detected trying to communicate with outsiders; laptops were discovered missing; and agency Web sites suffered break-ins.
      I'll admit that "discovered missing" was probably a poor choice of words, but the article pretty clearly states that there were lost laptops.
Search
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest. -- Alexandre Dumas, fils

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.