Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security United States

LANL, Sandia Report Losing Classified Data 149

Posted by timothy from the butthead-next-to-you dept.
dread minerva writes "This week, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories publicly reported that sensitive material stored on removable data storage devices was missing." In Sandia's case, "According to the Las Vegas Sun, this 'prompted the lab to halt all classified work Thursday while officials conduct a wall-to-wall inventory of sensitive data.' Sandia also reported that a 'computer floppy disk was missing.' However, according to the Albuquerque Journal, 'lab officials said they don't believe it contains any weapons information or any other information that could harm national security,' only admitting that the material on the disk was classified. Due to these latest events, LANL has shut down all work on classified projects as of Friday." (Read more below.) Update: 07/17 21:21 GMT by T : A correction -- research was shut down only at LANL (not, as I mistakenly claimed, at Sandia) -- and an update: Sandia's missing disk was recovered.

"These snafus have led the government to open up the labs to defense-contracting bids for the first time in their 60+ year history (until now the labs have been run by UC-Berkeley). As NPR reported on Friday, the researchers at the labs were upset by this move, as they are afraid of the labs losing their academic nature. Perhaps the best question to ask in this situation is why these labs are still using removable data storage devices to store sensitive information."

(Other institutions, including The University of Texas system, are also angling for a share of the lab's management.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LANL, Sandia Report Losing Classified Data More

LANL, Sandia Report Losing Classified Data

Comments Filter:

  • Cursed iPods :) (Score:5, Funny)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMspamgoeshere.calum.org> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:04PM (#9726046) Homepage
    It's all those iPods that the techies bring in.

    • Re:Cursed iPods :) (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rd4tech ( 711615 ) *
      So... I was trying to figure it out but failed, how can you plug/hide a floppy in a iPod? :)
      • So... I was trying to figure it out but failed, how can you plug/hide a floppy in a iPod? :)
        Empty out the insides of the iPod and put the shell back together so it looks whole. Then carefully pry apart the floppy disk, and discard the plastic shell. If you very carefully bend the little magnetic disc, you can probably fit it inside the iPod. However, you probably run the signficant chance that you just borked all the data on the disk!

    • Re:Cursed iPods :) (Score:2, Informative)

      by Makoss ( 660100 )
      I'm aware that it was in jest, but I don't think iPods are much of a problem. As they and all other "personal electronic devices capable of transmitting information and/or data." are on the controlled articles list and are not permitted in a LANL security area.

  • Sandia Labs is like (Score:5, Funny)

    by kensai ( 139597 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:06PM (#9726048) Homepage
    the 7-11 of government agencies.

    Terrorist: I'll take two hard drives with weapons research on them.
    Sandia: That'll be $2000. Thank you and please come again.

  • Should know better.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by maharg ( 182366 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:07PM (#9726058) Homepage Journal
    You write "classified" on the floppy disk - that should be enough warning to people to not steal it, right ? Jeez..

    • Re:Should know better.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're right, despite the joke. That is exactly what you do with US government classified material -- stick a big, brightly colored label on it that screams "Top Secret".

      The idea isn't to hide the disk on top of your desk,, "Purloined Letter" style. The idea is to make sure it's completely obvious to anyone that sees it that the disk is classified, must be handled as classified, and no "but I didn't know it was classified" excuses.

      The bad guys are already going to know what they're after. It's usually
  • I was hoping that somewhere research was being conducted without being attatched to an organization with sports teams.

    • Re:Still associated with university? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:13PM (#9726102)
      Colleges and universities are largely dependent on alumni donations (which should tell you all you need to know about their money-management skills). Athletics are a way to keep alumni involved for years and years after they graduate, and consistently strong programs can keep them going for decades. Even more, strong sports programs create national awareness of the school, which can encourage academically gifted students to attend as well. You may be surprised at the number of kids who decide which school to go to based on the quality of the sports program. I know I was.
      • You may be surprised at the number of kids who decide which school to go to based on the quality of the sports program. I know I was.

        I'm not looking to start an off-topic flamewar or anything, but that's silly. If you plan on playing on the sports team, sure, but to fill the stands? I was divided between two schools with similar academics and chose my school because of its proximity to Mt. Baker, where I get to enjoy my sports in the first-person, not where I get drunk in the lodge and watch from a safe
      • > Even more, strong sports programs create national
        > awareness of the school,

        What happened to strong academic programs that create a national awareness? Though I would have to admit that this might be tough since it seems sports are more popular than intellectual activities here.
      • Of course, you're right. I never would have heard of MIT if it weren't for the national coverage of their basketball teams.

    • Re:Still associated with university? (Score:5, Funny)

      by rd4tech ( 711615 ) * on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:17PM (#9726113)
      Really? So what do you do when the power grid fails? I'm telling you, you can screem all you want, but all those sport-types can come handy providing high RPMs for that old generator in the basement.

      Furthermore, they'll probably be happy with that new kind of exercise for the muscles. They would only require chocolate powerbars to go on. You can create the design for powerbar in 5 minutes (sugar, wheet, chocolate), give it to them, and have electricity to spend on all those more important projects (neverending-quantum-etc).

      They'll of course have food and be together (males and females) in a sweaty environment which is all that disgusting, isn't it. Of course when feromones kick in they'll assure the continuity of the species AND have the design for the powerbars plus to feed their babies (which will be stronger).

      See, it's a perfectly good example of evolution at work in these modern times.
    • Well, certainly math is involved.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Remind me again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:08PM (#9726070)
    Remind me again of what form of strong encryption they were using for said data? Oh wait a minute... Really great when people who are trusted with info this sensitive (I'm glad they seem to be _mostly_ certain that it did not contain weapons information) are not held to certain standard security practices.

    What is it with computers that they are magnets for incompetent people? Before everything was stored electronically somehow I doubt people obtained sensitive info just because someone forgot to lock a vault door...

    • Re:Remind me again... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by (negative video) ( 792072 ) <.moc.ocax-ocet. .ta. .em.> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:47PM (#9726238)
      Remind me again of what form of strong encryption they were using for said data? Oh wait a minute...
      Repeat after me: Encryption is not magic pixie dust.

      Sprinkling it around at random does not necessarily improve security. Encryption can actually reduce security by distracting people from higher-risk threats. It also increases the probability of irrecoverable data loss unless unusual redundancy measures are taken.

      Before everything was stored electronically somehow I doubt people obtained sensitive info just because someone forgot to lock a vault door...
      Read Richard Feynman's accounts of the operational security of LANL. Their security has leaked like a sieve since the Manhattan Project days.
      • increases the probability of irrecoverable data loss unless unusual redundancy measures are taken.

        Yeah, like floppy disk's are such a great media for avoiding data loss *cough*.
    • Before everything was stored electronically somehow I doubt people obtained sensitive info just because someone forgot to lock a vault door...

      Feynman was once able to crack the only safe at Los Alamos that held the collective classified data of the Manhatten project in a matter of seconds.

      The Colonel in charge of the project never changed the safe combination from the default. He didn't even know you could do that.

      KFG
    • I doubt anyone would be able to make much sense or use of the data anyway. The government classifies so much stuff, who knows what it is? Telephone numbers? Ionization cross sections of some rare earth elements?
      • I would assume the data is self-describing somehow. It may be a spreadsheet, for example. I doubt that anyone would just write 1.4 MB of raw data onto a floppy. And in any case, even if the data is not obvious to decode, if someone takes it then this person probably knows what it is.

        In this case, though, it's more likely that the floppy was used just to send some data between researchers, and once the data was copied onto computer the disk was destroyed, but the guy forgot to record the fact.

  • Stale news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jurgen ( 14843 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:10PM (#9726080)
    This is stale. They've already found the data again...

    See here [cbsnews.com].

    In any case it's not newsworthy.

  • Classified Data (Score:5, Informative)

    by batboy78 ( 255178 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:13PM (#9726095) Homepage
    Technically anything that touches their Classified LAN is then considered classified to the highest level of the data on the system. Some tech could have brought in a new desktop background on floppy from the unclass side.

    "Oh my GOD where is my Britney Spears pictures!!!."

    • Re:Classified Data (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually it is only classified if the disk is not write-protected. You can insert a write protected disk to copy unclassified information to a classified machine and then remove it as an unclassified disk.
      • It depends on facility-specific rules. Given the fairly high sensitivity of the work at LANL, I would not be surprised that unclassified information can only come in, but never leave (except through the official deslassification channels, where it will be reviewed and logged.)

        As related to your scenario, the floppy write protection is optical in nature, and it is easy to hack the drive so that it sees all floppies as write-enabled.

  • I wouldn't worry too much about it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#9726109)

    The missing data was stored on Zip drive floppies.

    In other words, the media itself will fail in about 6 months, and there wont be any Zip drives still working by then to read it.

  • Small but Important (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CygnusXII ( 324675 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:16PM (#9726110)
    While the loss of a floppy, might seem trivial to some, you might want to consider this fact. That single floppy could have contained the results of years of experimentation. Thus allowing anyone that obtained it, to forego that same xperimentation, and advance their studies further at the exspense of the United States Tax Payer. Just because a Secret is small, doesn't make it any less vital, or costly.

    • Re:Small but Important (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:40PM (#9726205)

      That single floppy could have contained the results of years of experimentation. Thus allowing anyone that obtained it, to forego that same xperimentation, and advance their studies further at the exspense of the United States Tax Payer.

      Huh? At the expense of nobody.

      If the citizens of the USA pay for research, and then somebody copies that research, it doesn't cost the citizens of the USA any more at all. They already paid for the research to be done, and they already have the benefits of the new knowledge. Somebody else having that same knowledge doesn't take it away from them or cost them anything.

      I'm a UK citizen. You may have read the recent stories about the BBC opening up their archives under a Creative Commons license. That material was paid for by UK citizens. But people outside the UK copying it as much as they want doesn't cost the UK anything. I'm pleased that the BBC are taking these steps.

      • You are entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ. If the data, were important enough, that the Tax Payer, has to pay additionaly to defend against the results of the data, if it is developed to the extent, that a defense is needed. Like I said it may seem trivial, but in essence it is not. Loose lips sink Ships. I believe is how the old adage went. Also this is not some IP entertainment, that is meant to be shared, aired, or otherwise disseminated. This was TOP SECRET Data, that was never intended for
      • The problem I see with the hysterical attitude is that atomic and nuclear secrets are not really secrets anymore. The secret of splitting the atom to build devices is well spread throughout the world. What the good ol' US of A has an edge in (now that the Russkies are on the skids) would probably be in the areas of higher yields, lower fallout and/or miniturization. All of which take more sophistication (read billions and billions of dollars) than your average nuke power or wacked out terrorist has.

        The one

      • If the citizens of the USA pay for research, and then somebody copies that research, it doesn't cost the citizens of the USA any more at all.

        Ultimately tax payers pay for the military advantage that classified research can give them. True, they pay the same amount whether or not a copy is made. However, the value of what they spent their money on is diminished if the information falls into the wrong hands.
    • It doesn't cost us more, it costs them less. That's the idea behind open research: I research something, tell you about it, you get an idea, research it, tell someone, they get an idea ...

      Keeping research findings holed up is a good way to waste a lot of effort duplicating others' findings. No need to have every country individually figure things out.

  • One floppy disk, eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:19PM (#9726123)

    A:> unrar moab_blueprint_1.2.3.rar
    Unpacking...
    Please insert medium containing moab_blueprint_1.2.3.001 in drive A:
    [A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail, [G]o home and drink soup?

    - Seth

  • What? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by addaon ( 41825 ) <addaon+slashdot@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:24PM (#9726147)
    If it doesn't contain any data that can be used to endanger national security, WHY is it classified? Classification is a way for the government to get around its responsibilities for disclosure in the few cases where disclosure presents a real danger... we all know that the government has been abusing this ability for ages, but this is just blatantly wrong, no?

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) *
      >> If it doesn't contain any data that can be used to endanger national security, WHY is it classified?

      Who ever said the data couldn't be used to threaten national security? There are other ways to threaten security other than just weapons data; infrastructure information, intelligence reports, and even science that nobody is quite sure what to make of at this point.

      • Re:What? (Score:2, Informative)

        by addaon ( 41825 )
        Who ever said the data couldn't be used to threaten national security? There are other ways to threaten security other than just weapons data; infrastructure information, intelligence reports, and even science that nobody is quite sure what to make of at this point.

        From the summary: "lab officials said they don't believe it contains any weapons information or any other information that could harm national security"

        • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

          by ID10T5 ( 797857 )
          From the summary: "lab officials said they don't believe it contains any weapons information or any other information that could harm national security"

          Aren't these the same lab officials who thought they had adequate security to protect classified data?

    • If it doesn't contain any data that can be used to endanger national security, WHY is it classified?

      That would be due to the fact that stupid information propagates faster (less content, thus smaller mass), so it's vital to keep it in check. Now that you read this classified explanation, please do not leave your current premises - you will be contacted shortly with a choice of being moved to a secure location or a quick and painless death.

      Security team,
      Sandia Labs.

    • Re:What? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Classified storage media and classified information are two different things. When a floppy disk, hard disc, or any other media is marked classified, it means that it is used in a classified environment, not necessarily that there is any classified data on it. Since its marked classified, its treated as if the information contained on it is -- regardless of what's actually on it.

      Whenever a disk touches a classified machine, it automatically because as classified as the information on that machine -- agai

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I can't speak for this particular case, but in general it is due to the logistics of the security plan. Say I have a computer that is certified for processing clasified data. Because there is classified information on that computer, any read/write media that is connected to the machine (harddrive, floppy, usb keychain, network) is now tainted and that peice of media is classified from that point out. Meaning that you cannot connect that media to any system that is not authorised for processing classified o

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brandonY ( 575282 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:54PM (#9726274)
      There are a lot of things that aren't by themselves critical secret knowledge (schematics to a nuclear weapon), but are still not a good idea to share. Let's say they contain software for helicopters that controls the interface for missile detection. It's probably not dangerous to give out, but there might be a bug in that software that some country exploits to build missiles that won't be detected. Things like that.

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You have to understand how security works. Having worked in a classified environment... anything that goes in that *might* be able to classified data, becomes classified. I remember in our classified area's, the only way I could bring OUT anything was if I had brought in an original say Visio CD or something, installed it, and left. And even then it was virus scanned with several different products by security, and I had to return that CD (yes, it was labelled "unclassified") to the security office.

      Remo

  • Culture of fear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:24PM (#9726148)
    Nobody wants to become the next Wen Ho Lee [wikipedia.org]. So when they make a small mistake, they probably are afraid to report it, even though failing to report will get them in even bigger trouble. This could explain why missing hard drives, instead of being turned in when found, mysteriously turned up behind a photocopier, a spot that had previously been checked.

    Of course it's appropriate to be anal about security when dealing with this type of stuff. But it takes a special kind of person to function well in a culture of fear, and such people are very rare, even more rare when you also require that they have advanced scientific degrees. So LANL has to strike a delicate balance between instilling fear to enhance security, and dealing with the unwanted, paradoxically security-degrading consequences of that fear.

    When Wen Ho Lee backed up his work data, it was not even classified. It was designated "Protect As Restricted Data" (PARD), which is not a classified designation. The government retroactively classified it to prosecute him. Imagine working in that kind of environment. Not fun.

    • Failure to Report (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:51PM (#9726991) Homepage
      Failure to report a loss is a very bad idea. I worked at an installation where the security officer routinely removed pages from classified documents, just to keep us on our toes. If you didn't detect and report the missing pages, you were in big trouble.

    • Re:Culture of fear (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When Wen Ho Lee backed up his work data, it was not even classified. It was designated "Protect As Restricted Data" (PARD), which is not a classified designation. The government retroactively classified it to prosecute him. Imagine working in that kind of environment.

      First, PARD does not mean freely distributable. He was still legally obligated to protect the data.

      Second, you claim he made a back up. But what you failed to mention is that that back up has never been found. Lee claims he tossed the

    • It was designated "Protect As Restricted Data" (PARD), which is not a classified designation. The government retroactively classified it to prosecute him.

      PARD is never intended to be a permanent marking. All PARD must be properly identified and marked with the appropriate level of classification in relatively short order.

      Why do you believe that marking Wen Ho Lee's PARD as "classified" (SRD, presumably) was out of line? What is "retroactive" about the normal procedure of handling PARD?

  • Why use removable media for sensitive information (Score:5, Informative)

    by multiplexo ( 27356 ) * on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:31PM (#9726173) Journal
    Timothy writes:

    "...Perhaps the best question to ask in this situation is why these labs are still using removable data storage devices to store sensitive information."

    I worked on projects that collected classified data and spec'd systems with removable storage. The reason we used removable storage was because it was easier to get DISCO (Defense Industrial Security Clearance Organization, yes, that really is the acronym courtesy of the Department of Defense Overly Contrived Acronym Certification Agency (DODOCACA)) to certify a system for classified use if we could show that all of the storage could be removed from the system and securely stored. Of course this relies upon having people who aren't going to lose the secure storage, which is another thing entirely. Given advances in storage since the 1990s when I was administering such systems I'd be surprised if any classified system wasn't built around removable storage systems. You can get a 320Gb firewire disk for $350. Of course you could also do your work on laptops and then lock them in your classified safe at the end of the day too.

  • only in America... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tisme ( 414989 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:32PM (#9726174)
    This would never happen in Canada. Not because of our state of the art security systems, but simply because we don't invest money in developing weapons, and we have no information that anyone wants. hehe... :P

  • Bigger news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:33PM (#9726179) Journal
    Who cares about some stupid 'classified' data at a nuclear lab? That pales in comparison to this - U2's new album has been stolen! [bbc.co.uk] I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Is there no God?!

  • Really just a cynical ploy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @02:41PM (#9726209)
    "These snafus have led the government to open up the labs to defense-contracting bids for the first time in their 60+ year history (until now the labs have been run by UC-Berkeley)."

    Given that the disks have already been found, and never left the possesion of those authorized to have it, why make such a fuzz about it? Why do we see this on the news (I did)? Why shut down all work? Wouldn't you want to keep the fact anything is missing quiet, if only to cast doubt in the mind of any one being offered stolen secrets as to whether they really are genuine?

    And why suddenly decide to break open the bidding for the contract, within days/hours of an incident?

    How convenient.. Perhaps.. a bit too convenient?
    • > > "These snafus have led the government to open up the labs to defense-contracting bids for the first time in their 60+ year history (until now the labs have been run by UC-Berkeley)."
      > And why suddenly decide to break open the bidding for the contract, within days/hours of an incident?

      It sounds too convenient because that statement is wrong. The contracts for LANL and LLNL had already been opened up. LLNL has been granted an extra two years under UC management, but LANL's contract will be go
    • And the winner is...Haliburton.
  • Is this classified data something that could be embarrasing?

    What I'm getting at is this, the secret on nuclear weapons is out. Everyone in the world knows HOW to make them, the problem is that it isn't easy to get fissionable materials. Biological and Chemical weapons are even easier to make. Anyone here could mix up lethal chemical or biological weapons in their garage.

    The genie is out of the bottle, so what kind of information has been lost?

    LK
    • Data on exactly how to turn that plain old atomic bomb into a fusion boosted core with a second fusion stage topped with a natural uranium jacket all built for the maximum possible explosive and radioactive effects for the specific materials is probably still sensitive.
    • Because nukes are like any other weapon. We've spent years and billions of dollars researching how to make them most effective. The genie is out of the bottle yes, but we haven't shown the world all the steps in how we got him out.
      No matter what we want our equipment to be the most effective out there, no matter what. Being in the military I know that when I'm out there, I'm using the world's best equipment and gear, and personally I'd like to keep it that way.

  • Sandia isn't run by UC (Score:3, Informative)

    by casuist99 ( 263701 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @03:05PM (#9726335) Homepage Journal
    Sandia National Labs, unlike Los Alamos, is not run by the University of California system. Rather, Lockheed-Martin (and before that AT&T) ran the Labs after they were split from Los Alamos as a separate division.
  • What about the missing plutonium? Or the supplies of Pu and U in parts of the former Soviet Union that are almost certainly inadequately guarded? Who needs the essential data to design a deep bunker buster bomb when help from an NZ cruise missile designer, a few kilos of plutonium, plenty of TNT and a good machine shop would allow you to build a weapon which, while it might not fission, would be able to kill large numbers of people a long way away?

    A few terrorists with box cutters have got us to the state t

    • His .sig contains "French"!!!

      He's one of them there white flag bearing terrorists!

      *snort*
    • "few terrorists with box cutters have got us to the state that the US government is now prepared to shoot down a commercial aircraft if its transponder and radio systems fail."

      At the risk of going slightly offtopic, I don't think that risk is too high. If a commercial airliner has lost all radio contact they would not be able to get through to air traffic control at the airport, making the landing dangerous. Under the new provisions military jets would be scrambled and attempt to divert the plane to a sec

      • Re:Never mind the data (Score:4, Informative)

        by tftp ( 111690 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @08:34PM (#9728120) Homepage
        If a commercial airliner has lost all radio contact they would not be able to get through to air traffic control at the airport, making the landing dangerous.

        It is possible, but not very likely, to lose radio contact. A commercial aircraft usually has several generators (one per engine) and at least one battery. The battery is never used, except in emergencies. Normally all generators work and all the equipment is powered up. If one or several generators fail then automatically some equipment is disconnected, in order of importance. The radio stays on even if *all* generators fail (it is then powered from the battery, and will last for long enough to land the aircraft. The battery will also provide electrical power to the engines (fuel pumps etc.)

        In any case, if the radio indeed fails, the ATC on the ground will know it before even the pilots do. And as soon as pilots realize that they have no contact, they will take some safe course until instructed by any means possible to land. Any other aircraft may be instructed to approach and to lead them, not just a military one.

    • Re:Never mind the data (Score:3, Informative)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 )
      Who needs the essential data to design a deep bunker buster bomb when help from an NZ cruise missile designer, a few kilos of plutonium, plenty of TNT and a good machine shop would allow you to build a weapon which, while it might not fission, would be able to kill large numbers of people a long way away?

      A dirty bomb has two main effects. First, it's a large explosion, just like a conventional bomb, and that blast can kill people. Second, people are incredibly afraid of "radiation" and "nuclear", so it ha

  • Purposeful disinformation dissemination (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Corpus_Callosum ( 617295 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @03:41PM (#9726529) Homepage
    The quickest and easiest way to keep your spying WMD researching evil enemies at bay is to ensure that from time to time they get weapons and research data that is entirely fake and will result in billions of dollars and many years of fruitless research and development on the part of your enemy.

    To ensure that they believe that what they have is real, it is quite important to ocassionally make a big stink about the faked data that was lost. However, if you loose real data, it is better to keep it quiet and even produce lots of alternative data sets (a form of data denial of service attack) that pop up around the acquirer...

    Don't you guys know anything about information warfare?

  • Classifed? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:04PM (#9726703)

    Considering the way that Congress classifies even the most mundane stuff these days, and assuming that this practice has spread (as it helps the CYA crowd) there's probably a good chance that this information really wasn't of any importance. For all we know, it could have been someone's list of Pr0n sites.

  • Slashdot Article is Wrong! (Score:4, Informative)

    by BitchKapoor ( 732880 ) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:17PM (#9726786) Homepage Journal
    What are you talking about, dread minerva? LANL isn't run by UC-Berkeley in particular, it's run by the University of California System. See the University of California office of the President [ucop.edu] -- "10 campuses, 5 medical centers and 3 national labs." Secondly, Sandia isn't run by the UC at all, it's run by Lockheed-Martin, and, as another poster pointed out, was previously run by AT&T. Jeeze, when one of your points is that there's a management problem, you'd think you'd actually check who the management is.
  • Sandia's missing disk was recovered.

    And then what? It turned out to be a MS DOS 3.3 boot disk that someone was gonna throw out? I wouldn't be surprised.

    • It would cost $100,000 to review every byte of this disk to ensure that it has no classified data on it (even in encrypted form in unused blocks.) On the other hand, it will cost $0.30 to shred the disk. That's why it is just cheaper to call all such disks classified and deal with them accordingly.

  • Hey, at least now it's again being considered a... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...cause for alarm - as opposed to a political statement.

    From http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArt i cle.asp?ID=12701

    "Most notoriously, Clinton appointed an anti-military, environmental leftist Hazel O'Leary to be Secretary of Energy, a department responsible for the nation's nuclear weapons labs. O'Leary promptly surrounded herself with other political leftists (including one self-described "Marxist-Feminist") and anti-nuclear activists, appointing them as her assistant secretaries with resp

  • Cowboys are getting to be a real problem (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) * on Saturday July 17, 2004 @06:01PM (#9727326) Homepage Journal
    Los Alamos Lab director Pete Nanos, tired of security lapses at the northern New Mexico facility, has brought nearly all work there to a standstill and is calling scofflaw "cowboys" out for a final showdown.

    ...
    Nanos blamed "cowboys" who are disobeying rules on the handling of sensitive material and said: "I don't care how many people I have to fire to make it stop."
    A lot of people, 'specially you eastern folk, probably don't realize what life is like here in New Mexico.

    You see, the researchers used to be able to roam all over the 'Net. Was a time you could drive a meg of bytes all the way from MAE West to Atlanta. But then, what happened was, these firewalls started popping up and the days of free range data transfer were over.

    Naturally, a lot of cowboys were sore about what happened to their livelihood, and they're in an ornery mood. You tell 'em they have to follow these here procedures and they all, "haw haw, listen to the uptight city slicker try to tell us rules!"

  • why do i think this is just a power grab? lanl gets lots of research dollars. if i ran some defense contractor i'd want a piece of that. i might even donate to people that might make that happen.

    if i was a reporter i'd go investigate that. bummer news organisations gave up on hiring reporters.

    ah well, it's not like a democracy needs a strong press. oh, wait, it's dictatorship that doesn't need that. huh. ah well, the trains run better in those, so who really cares?

  • When I was in the US Navy... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Like2Byte ( 542992 ) <Like2Byte@NoSPaM.yahoo.com> on Saturday July 17, 2004 @08:42PM (#9728159) Homepage
    I was in charge (as an E-4, woo. :| ) of a detail of other E-1s through E-4s monitoring people entering and leaving the building. One of our responibilities was to check all bags leaving the building.

    One day, some contractors came through the desk - on their way out - while I was there. My man asked them what was in the box and they said, "Nothing. Just some test equipment."

    My man almost let them through when I told them we'd need a look inside. They became a little annoyed and started pleading their case in the hopes that we lowly E-4s and below would just back down; but, I was incistant.

    When the box was opened it contained two classified manuals. The base commander, several 'real' security guards and the civilian's boss chewed them out on the quarter deck in front of everyone.

    Turned out, they had clearance and even had authorization to carry classified information (but they forgot their cards.) Thinking they'd just brow-beat us they attemted something stupid.

    I got an 'atta-boy' for that one. {sigh - oh well.}

  • Because removeable media works. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps the best question to ask in this situation is why these labs are still using removable data storage devices to store sensitive information.

    Because it's fairly cheap to purcase a safe large enough to physically secure a single disk. Yes, you can also use a diskless computer to access data over a network, but if your workflow requires a computer with disk (for data caching, OS loading, swap, whatever), then that disk needs to be tracked as classified media (inventoried, placed in a secure reposit

  • University of Texas will get the contract to run Los Alamos, and will start doing real nuclear weapons tests again. Expect more dirt on Los Alamos until this transfer is completed.

    --jeff++
  • and now this... [wired.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close