NSA Considers Its Networks Compromised 239
Orome1 writes "Debora Plunkett, head of the NSA's Information Assurance Directorate, has confirmed what many security experts suspected to be true: no computer network can be considered completely and utterly impenetrable — not even that of the NSA. 'There's no such thing as "secure" any more,' she said to the attendees of a cyber security forum sponsored by the Atlantic and Government Executive media organizations, and confirmed that the NSA works under the assumption that various parts of their systems have already been compromised, and is adjusting its actions accordingly."
Which is the sane thing to assume (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which is the sane thing to assume (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well what I think the poster was getting at is the idea that, if you're closing off all insecure ports on all your machines themselves, then firewalls shouldn't really being doing anything anyway. It's not an either-or proposition, is it? Either you have a firewall or you have unpatched computers running with all ports open?
In a certain way of thinking, what a firewall does is to block traffic to unauthorized ports on improperly secured machines, so if you secure your machines then the firewall shouldn't
Re:Which is the sane thing to assume (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that's not really all that a modern firewall does.
And this is why the original poster is wrong.
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
A Firewall can be useful, as you said, to proxy various protocols or block certain outgoing (or unsolicited incoming) traffic. It can also be used if potentially-harmful traffic belongs on the network, but not going to or from certain hosts (ie, remote administration of servers might be desirable, but only from certain hosts).
The point is, yes a Firewall isn't The Solution to all security problems, and it can be misapplied, but that doesn't mean it's not a useful device in the right situation.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're just relying on a Firewall to block access to ports you shouldn't have open anyways, then yeah, you don't need the firewall: just close the ports. But in that scenario, it's really just a misapplication of an otherwise useful security device.
Not really. Redundancy and backup systems are an important part of security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except that your OS (even Windows if properly locked down) is likely to be more up to date than your firewall/router software.
Routers rarely get updated software loads, even when significant bugs are detected in the kernel the are built with.
In many cases, the redundancy provided by an ancient linksys is a false one, and the router may already be owned by the hackers.
Re: (Score:2)
In a certain way of thinking, what a firewall does is to block traffic to unauthorized ports on improperly secured machines, so if you secure your machines then the firewall shouldn't be necessary.
And Darth Vader really did betray and murder Luke's father, from a certain point of view. I use firewalls all the time, because I've got ports that don't need to be world accessible (and trusting tcpwrappers for everything is silly). Also, just because daemon foo is "secure" now doesn't mean it will be a month from now. If you need the port locally, but not externally, firewall it completely off from the outside and be a little happier.
Re: (Score:2)
And Darth Vader really did betray and murder Luke's father, from a certain point of view.
Yes, that's true. I think you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Well what I think the poster was getting at is the idea that, if you're closing off all insecure ports on all your machines themselves, then firewalls shouldn't really being doing anything anyway. It's not an either-or proposition, is it? Either you have a firewall or you have unpatched computers running with all ports open?
Except that you generally don't "close off insecure ports". You're not disabling them, you're just setting them to "not open yet". A large part of the point behind a firewall is to make sure nefarious programs can't open the ports without your knowledge.
Re:Which is the sane thing to assume (Score:5, Funny)
You're actually cutting edge. You've out-sourced your personal information security and set up a fully flexible payment schedule to support it. You're clearly executive material and deserve that Rolux you've had your eye on.
Re:Which is the sane thing to assume (Score:5, Insightful)
What I can't fathom is that there is still people out there believing that a firewall is all the protection they need. Or that it is a protection they need, even.
A firewall is reasonable protection for most people, just as a dead bolt on the front door is reasonable protection for most homes. If you're the online equivalent of a jewelry store - that is, a high profile target - then obviously you need much more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
A firewall is reasonable protection for most people, just as a dead bolt on the front door is reasonable protection for most homes.
Most homes are protected not just by the deadbolt, but by a variety of factors including your presence. Just see what happens if you're gone for an extended period of time with nobody checking up.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live to expect your house to be broken into if you're gone?
I mean, I take some precautions (like redirecting my mail), but I can leave my home for three months straight without checking up on it and I'm pretty confident nothing will happen to it.
In fact, the only time a house was burglarized here was when the thieves were "friends" of the house owner (they knew the house and her vacation schedule, etc).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have on your computer: ... you are an electronic jewelry store.
- access to online banking;
- personal information;
- spare CPU to do somebody else's processing;
- spare bandwidth to store or handle someone else's illegal data;
- company confidential information;
- etc...
Re: (Score:2)
I just read "A fireball is reasonable protection for most people". Time for coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
Every one of my family members is behind a firewall. Every single damn time I go home I have to spend hours rebuilding their computers because they've been compromised yet again.
Burglarizing a house is a physical act that requires you to go there and put yourself in great physical danger. Breaking into a computer is as easy as a few clicks on a keyboard.
They are not the same thing. A firewall is NOT enough, and it is NOT comparable to a locked front door.
Re: (Score:3)
I2P sports end-to-end encryption. Arbitrary tunnels between computers. Darknet capabilities. Integrated bittorrent. Anonymous and encrypted websites. P2P naming services.
If you need transparent encryption between nets, while preventing sniffers and MITM-attacks, I believe I2P can be a great fit. I wonder what performance a custom version restricted to the LAN might yield, given that it's already many orders of magnitude faster than FreeNet?
I2P: http://www.i2p2.de/ [i2p2.de]
Re: (Score:2)
My focus was not to stop freedom of information (ie. promote police-state to enforce war against "information wants to be free"), but rather secure the network even though it has been compromised with untrusted clients. This is what the article was talking about. I2P already supports encrypted communication between trusted and arbitrary clients. You can have fixed tunnels between clients, or provide encrypted and anonymous services to arbitrary, or a selection of clients, inside the darknet.
The way most LAN
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, IMHO, you should -always- consider your network to be compromised in some fashion. Always keep an eye out for clues of infiltration--strange network traffic, odd lack of response, uncharacteristic behaviors--and, though you'll doubtless waste some time on false positives, you'll
NSA (Score:4, Funny)
Not Secure After-all
Definition of security (Score:4, Interesting)
Security is achievable provided you start with good parameters. Believing your systems are "unhackable" is silly. No physical security is impenetrable, why would electronic security be different? But what you can do is make the cost of breaching that security more than the value of whatever it is being protected. Keep in mind though that what you're protecting also includes access, not just the data itself.
Problem is, in the private sector you have all these companies trying to control the internet, instead of keeping it as a public commons. The net result is that the cost to access it is often the main price consideration, at least in the United States.
Re:Definition of security (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the NSA has, or at least it believes it has and other believe it has, information whose value is essentially beyond price. Therefore they feel reasonable expecting that other parties will pay nearly any cost for access. The whole dynamic of "make it more expensive to get than it's worth to have" goes out the window when what it's worth to have is essentially infinite. Then it becomes "protect it as much as possibly can and hope it's enough".
Don't get me wrong, I typically agree with you, and I've posted that very thing quite recently in response to something else recently. It's just that the theory kinda goes out the window when you have bad actors with the resources of an entire nation behind them as your most likely threat vector. Now of course everything that the NSA protects isn't that valuable, and much of it is probably protected with precisely the theory you promote. The rest is just protected with every possible resource they can think of.
So much for the cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of sticking all my data out in cyberspace on somebody else's servers always seemed a little fluffy anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
First rule of security: never do anything anyone wants to know about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of organizations are uncomfortable with high value data being out of their control.
But are your IT guys better than their IT guys? Do you patch, monitor, secure, more than they do? Maybe, maybe not. It pays to ask questions but the cloud isn't a worse place for data, necessarily.
That said, top secret data like NSA has is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
The only secure system... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a co-worker ask me for some computer advice yesterday, since she was "tired of all the viruses [she] seems to keep getting." I gave her two options:
1. Stop clicking on every blinking banner, spam email, and "RESPOND NOWZ0RZ!!1!111!" message she gets on facebook. Install a quality anti-virus and software firewall, as well as set up a hardware firewall, and remove all privileges from the account she logs onto her computer with.
OR
2. Unplug the computer from the wall, go to CVS, and buy a legal pad an
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
CVS - Concurrent Versioning Software.
VCS - Versioning Control Software.
CSV - Comma Separated Values
Any more confusion ? :-p
Re: (Score:2)
"Look, yes, I have banged hundreds of broads, internationally...but know this, I wrap my rascal TWO times, cause I like it to be joyless and without sensation, as a way of punishing supermodels." -Shake
Re: (Score:3)
They’re for the ethernet plug, silly. What did you think he meant?
Re: (Score:2)
There’s absolutely no reason to try to remove or rename the executable. Replacing the shortcuts on the desktop and start menu and setting Firefox as the default browser should be adequate.
Re: (Score:2)
I did that with my technophobic grandmother, actually...I even set the Firefox shortcut to use the Internet Explorer icon. When it loaded up and looked different she asked why it looked like that. I told her I had updated her to the lastest version, and they had upgraded the visual style because people liked it more.
She agreed :)
Re: (Score:2)
I did that with my technophobic grandmother, actually...I even set the Firefox shortcut to use the Internet Explorer icon.
Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. How I would put it is, "security" is not a binary state. It's not that a computer is either "secure" or "not secure". Security is a process, or maybe a context, and the main concern is not about making something "absolutely secure" but a balancing act. You need to balance the restriction of access by unauthorized personnel with the enabling of access by authorized personnel.
Or to use another metaphor, security is like a constant ongoing war. You simply can't devote enough resources to protect e
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the lead shielding ..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about a computer on a space probe that doesn't have transmitting equipment? Getting it back or even sending something to catch it would be near impossible.
For now. What's the future value of that system?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would certainly expect space travel (barring an unforeseen disaster that returns us to living in caves) to improve on a nonlinear scale. The probe, being subject to the sun's gravity, will have a decreasing velocity and therefore be a consistently easier target to reach as time marches on.
Think of systems as prisons (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, no internal trust. You eliminate all assumptions in-house with the requisite sandboxes, minimal privileges, etc. Like prison: no one is your friend, you merely have alliances that can be severed at the moment that trust is no longer needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The operative philosophy is "need to know" you tell nobody anything that they don't!
One of the best simple firewalls is just non routable internal addresses.
Now for TSA to make the same realization (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD THIS GUY UP (Score:2)
Wish I had points myself.
Re: (Score:2)
I just watched the documentary "Why we fight" based on Eisenhower's exit speech warning us about the Congressional Military Industrial Complex. One of his quotes was, paraphrasing, the pursuit of absolute security will bankrupt this country. It's just not achievable. Working over a guy's package just to get on a plane accomplishes nothing.
Now for DOD, CIA, NSA to make a bigger realization (Score:2)
From: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmill
Quick question (Score:2)
Isn't that one of the most basic rules?
Always assume that a device on your network could become compromised. That's why the gods of microchips and junk food gave us the gift of layered security.
I Swear! (Score:2)
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Any good security policy assumes that, if the system has not already been penetrated, it will be soon. There must be procedures for detecting intrusions, repairing weaknesses and plugging holes, and compartmentalizing data so as to minimize damage once a part of the system has been breached. And there needs to be ongoing R&D into the various techniques the enemy could use to break into systems and applicable countermeasures.
What scares me is that the NSA is "adjusting its actions accordingly". They should have been thinking this way from day zero.
Good for them (Score:4, Interesting)
If you've played around with any rootkits you know how devious an attacker can be with your system. If you read about the Gawker story, they had a couple signals that their systems were compromised but nothing catastrophic had happened so they carried on their merry way.
This is how most businesses are approaching IT security: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
It almost takes a govt organization to sit down and say "wait a minute, we could be hacked and not even know it". Especially a very, very high profile target like the NSA. They're facing legions of hackers funded by foreign governments. This isn't the dawn of the Internet anymore, it has to be taken seriously.
Levels of security (Score:5, Insightful)
What considering "the assumption that various parts of their systems have already been compromised" means is that you go away from that model.
There can be multiple levels, walls between various areas, zones according to task, etc. And the auditing system can be much more complex than a firewall.
Think of something like the "unusual activity" trigger software for your credit card. Low ranking security person reading a low level cable? -fine. Reading 10000 cables in one hour? very unusual.
The NSA know their stuff, I see this talk not as someone admitting that they are compromised, but as someone talking shop.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the problem is basically a new tyranny of numbers problem.
As systems get more and more complex the harder they are to deal with. In this case to secure.
At one time you had a lot of physical security and frankly at best dial up speed or frame relay connections to deal with.
Now so many systems are interconnected that security is a completely different game.
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA know their stuff, I see this talk not as someone admitting that they are compromised, but as someone talking shop.
Correct. Any intelligence organization of any value always assumes they could already have been compromised, and not just electronically. Every task, every group, every department is compartmentalized and separately secured both physically and in terms of networking.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You mean there's another option?
Any network administrator worth half their income should always consider their LAN to be compromised. That's why you use secure transfer protocols to transfer any data containing any sensitive information between company systems. That's why you have active network monitors that turn off network ports when they encounter an unknown MAC address. That's why you don't allow anonymous logins to your active directory, and you strictly control access to everything by at least department.
Security is done in layers. Firewalls can and will be breached. If it is, your goal is to slow the attacker down until you can detect the breach and close it. Honeypot servers, data encryption, network segmentation, network resource security, all of these things are vital.
Re: (Score:2)
I will be happy the day I don't have to give a user admin right on the local machine to be able to use some database software that is just pulling UNC path files.
Re: (Score:2)
If only my company paid attention to this...
This sounds familiar... (Score:2)
They didn't say they had been penetrated. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There, I fixed that for you. The problem is that groups like DOD, FBI and DHS are both pretty worthless when it comes to Security. And yes, all 3 are in that group because they use things like WIndows as well as standard systems from China, even equipped with open USB and ignored NSA recommendations. Even when NSA said ABSOLUTELY NOT TO USE WINDOWS ON ANY NETWORK, All 3 of the others did and continue to use it
Manufacturing is key (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that we outsource chip fabrication ought to be a clue as to why they can't pretend any more.
OT: It's even money that every piece of military hardware with computers has an illicit kill switch embedded in it.
Game over USA.
Re: (Score:3)
Security (Score:4, Insightful)
This is news? (Score:2)
>no computer network can be considered completely and utterly impenetrable
C'mon, this is news? Have we learned nothing in the past 30 years? When I did military design in the eighties, "secure" was keeping the computer in a locked, shielded, windowless room with an armored door and NO NETWORK CONNECTION.
Data transfer was done extremely carefully via disk packs, with many checks and balances.
Once we had to push out a huge (for the time) amount of data to the staging equipment cage, more than we c
'There's no such thing as "secure" any more' (Score:2)
Seriously, there never was. There are just more attack vectors now.
This has more to do with equipment (Score:2)
Organization size (Score:2)
Any organization with 50 people or more should consider the network compromised an segment it into isolated sections (That is VPNs not VLANs).
Signals intelligence (Score:2)
I've been reading James Bamford's /Body of Secrets/, a gigantic tome about the history of the NSA, circa 2001. When you think about the kind of stuff that the NSA and other government's signals intelligence services were able to listen in on in the early 1960s, it is absolutely no surprise that they have trouble hiding secrets today.
Even before they had microcomputers to do the work, they were pulling off incredible stuff. They used to look for radar signals reflected off of Soviet test missiles in order to
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is to.... kill all humans?
Bender is posting on Slashdot!
Re: (Score:2)
Demonstrating the truth of the saying
"You're not paranoid if people really are out to get you"
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They didn't say their networks are compromised. To be on the safe side, they just assume they are.
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder, though, if the prominence of Wikileaks had anything to do with this, and I don't mean specifically, as in they anticipate a lot of NSA-related document drops in the near future, but more generally, as in the landscape has changed and Wikileaks is a signifier.
Re: (Score:2)
It also pretty much is the closest thing to a statement by the NSA that they can penetrate any network connected at will. Even their own.
After all, if they already have hacks for every thing they use to protect themselves, you can be fairly certain your firewall/router won't inconvenience them in the slightest.
Re: (Score:3)
Being paranoid? Which is what they should be don't you think?
Re: (Score:3)
Your analogy is a bit of a stretch, and a bit off topic...
To make an analogy of your analogy, it's as if you are trying to equate someone who assumes they already been exposed to the cold virus and is trying to drink lots of juice, eat chicken soup, and look for symptoms to validate the assumption that their health has compromised to someone who assumes their wife is sleeping with the mailman so he shoots the mailman.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't say their networks are compromised. To be on the safe side, they just assume they are.
Yep it's a RIAA/MPAA model. Assume guilt until proven otherwise, in this case compromised until proven otherwise. Makes you wonder what the NSA is really good for.
Wow...you've leaped from a national security organization adopting a policy of extreme care to a comparison with the recording industry lawsuits. Do you have some sort of associative-compulsive disorder or are you really stating there is any relationship between the two? Or are you just bitter?
Re: (Score:2)
SETAC ASTRONOMY?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. One should always weigh the cost of that assumption (and the associated security costs in tech and personnel) against the pain/cost of a less secure network. To always build the most secure network possible is not always cost efficient and therefore not always the right choice. Assuming your network is always in a state of compromise will often be a very expensive assumption, so should only be undertaken if it's worth it in terms of risk to what's on your network. For NSA clearly they've got som
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran thought that, but sneakernets are capable of transmitting viruses behind airwalls.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Open source government? (Score:5, Insightful)
So to me this raises a fundamental philosophical question: why keep secrets at all, as a government?
Because we need the military to protect us. You wouldn't want an enemy country to know all about the military operations in your country. And before you propose to completely eliminate the military, remember 1939.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Take the list of critical US infrastructure that Wikileaks published. There is nothing to be gained by having 100% transparency on that and everything to lose since it's basically a blue print on how to attack the US.
Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
I remember when I was a kid there was a nuclear weapons store a few miles from where we lived. Everyone knew it was there, the USSR could see it on their satellite photos, but strangely it was completely missing from any official maps of the area. Who was that secrecy supposed to be protecting?
Re:Open source government? (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things. And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
Re: (Score:3)
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things.
Assuming that bin Laden actually believes said document and doesn't assume it's disinformation.
And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
Because if someone sees they're working at a place which is officially listed as 'critical infrastructure' then they might take security more seriously? Or, horrors, someone completely unrelated to the operations might come up with a way to make it less critical?
There are plenty of reasons why this openness be a good thing rather than a bad thing. For example, I was reading an anecdote by a British airbase worker
Re: (Score:2)
ok, say that the Russians, or some other actor wanted to stage a raid and try to capture some of those nukes. Should the US government provide them blueprints of the facility, guard rotation and schedules, lists of the COTS items purchased to detect illicit entry, etc? Because apparently you're saying so......
Where?
Oh, of course, I said no such thing, it's just a straw-man you made up.
Re: (Score:2)
except, now that it is public, the people working and managing those facilities now know they must increase security. Do you honestly think before that was leaked that the Gov't went over to Joe Geek Manager and said: "hey you are one of 1000 critical facilities in the US in an event of an attack, make sure to get your IT security up to snuff"
Of course they didn't. They probably couldn't because the IT manager didn't have the clearance.
Now, that IT manager knows, and can use that document as a reason to r
Re: (Score:2)
So to me this raises a fundamental philosophical question: why keep secrets at all, as a government? Unless of course what "we" do as a government is fundamentally evil to begin with? Should government be open-sourced in the sense that it should be fully (100%) transparent? If full transparency works wonderfully in the coding world, why would it not work in the realm of the government...unless again, the things we wish to keep secret are things we are fundamentally evil and immoral, like WikiLeaks had repeatedly proven already?
-1, "begging the question". There is no such thing as fundamental evil. What is evil to someone else (such as eating cows, or men and women with visible faces working in the close quarters of a 2000 sq. ft. open office) might not be evil to us... And keeping secrets away from the people who find you evil when you know in your heart of hearts you aren't evil is exactly why these agencies exist. Sure, it would be nice to not have anyone think you're evil, but I don't really see the USA going 100% vegan, 1
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the USA going 100% vegan, 100% sex-segregated (and probably several other types of segregation too) and giving away all our "capitalist excesses" just to appease our critics.
Vegans are evil: think of all the cows who would never exist if we couldn't drink milk or eat burgers.
In any case, the idea that there's no such thing as 'fundamental evil' is naive: what can you call the deliberate murder of millions in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol-Pot's Cambodia, other than evil?
Re: (Score:2)
what can you call the deliberate murder of millions in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol-Pot's Cambodia, other than evil?
Profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on if you are/were a Nazi/Soviet Communist/ Maoist/Khmer Rougeian... Not many of those people went into it thinking "i sure want to be fundamentally evil". While I am absolutely NOT justifying what they did, the point is that it is very easy to *talk* about drawing an absolute moral line in the sand and much harder to accomplish in practice.
Going through the world thinking you can/should judge everything as "fundamentally evil" or not is pretty damn naive. If there IS fundamental evil, it is in n
Re:Open source government? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you see it's like this... As a former soldier I'd have been a bit miffed to be say, escorting a convoy, only to discover that bad people with guns knew my route, numbers of troops, and level of armament. It really ruins your day when bad people show up in precisely the right place with way more troops and guns than you have. Especially if they set up explosives. That takes things to whole new level of "ruined day". And before you comment on my simplistic view of "bad people", please understand that my overall opinion of you shifts dramatically toward "bad" when you start shooting at me. As far as I am concerned anyone who shoots at me is by definition a "bad person", no matter what their initial motivation may have been.
Re: (Score:2)
If full transparency works wonderfully in the coding world, why would it not work in the realm of the government...
The Coding World is concerned with internal actors whose impact (malicious code insertion) can easily be corrected.
National defense is concerned with external actors whose impact (casualties, property damage, etc) can not be corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but even the trustworthy people can't trust the network, so it's the network itself that is compromised.
Untrustworthy people can do untrustworthy things on a non-compromised network.
Though a compromised network may be compromised in a way that helps them hide their untrustworthy acts.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, talk about bad moderation. 30% troll, 40% offtopic, 30% insightful? Too bad you can't comment in a thread you've moderated in, I'd live to see what's offtopic about the NSA, who the discussion is about, spying on American citizens without a warrant, which the patent rightly says is a violation of his rights? How is that in any way a troll?
Somebody please add another few "insightful" or at least "interesting" mods.
Re: (Score:2)