Computers the control the power grid have been hacked
 

I find this worrisome.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...-hackers_N.htm

What pisses me off is the electric companies, having be given the monopoly that has made them rich, won't do this on there own. It's going to take an act of congress, literally, to protect us. WTF?

Extremely, I saw this days ago, but didn't post it as I have been labeled and extremist.

That doesn't offer me any comfort either.

Can you imagine the trouble and panic if power went out for entire regions and if it lasted more than a day or two? I bet it would do more damage to our country than dropping a bomb.

I don't think it's extremist to be concerned about this.

Neither do I. The things that are controlled by the grid and the "collateral damage" a shutdown or major disruption would cause is very, very serious.

Worry about space storms.

Nice grammar you idiot (stated in a tone only you understand).Not that I care. A wacko like you are so critical of other's grammar when you cannot even write to meet your own wacko standards. Meanwhile, does not matter if you posted. You admit to thinking extremist fears anyway.

Now for issues that extremists cannot understand. This is for the intelligent among us: Put the whole thing into perspective. How many computers that actually operate the grid are compromised

If an LMP system has been compromised, that would do nothing to crash the grid. Only interfere with the marketing of electricity. Require them to switch to a backup system that they periodically use anyway: phones. And yet that would also be reported as a potential destruction of the entire grid. Then get promoted by the foolish as some major attack on America.

Having said that, we also know where the grid is most likely at risk. NE blackout occurred because (among the many reasons) First Energy would not upgrade their computers for years - to cut costs. A defect fixed by software many years previously would disconnect the computer from all data sources; then keep reporting the last read number for days as it everything was OK.

This is the same company also did not properly clean out their nuclear reactor which resulted in a hole in the containment building for Davis Besse. A reactor with a Three Mile Island problem that also had a compromised containment building just outside Toledo. These are not accidents. Theses are directly traceable to that management - the real threat.

Where the grid is probably at most ; top management does not even have basic engineering knowledge. Where the top man is a business school graduate. Who will not implement simple security upgrades only because it will increase costs.

If software has been placed in critical computers, it would be located with the first audit. But audits also cost money. Therefore some companies with bean counter mentalities will not perform what can easily identify security breaches. Another fact that the news report forgot to mention.

The entire grid is not at risk. But even a hole in Davis Besse and the NE blackout created by the same company were greater threats. The entire report takes on a completely different (and more relevant) meaning once we include the details.

Conficker crashed all computers in America on 1 April. More hype and fear. Notice how the Millennium Bug destroyed society. Worry like extremists want. Or put reality into perspective. Only then can we 1) appreciate where the real problems exist, 2) understand what is needed to avert problems, and 3) not have more "Saddam has WMD" lies promoted by extremists.

Enemies are not lurking under every table trying to kill us all. Only extremists make those claims. We simply have some companies run by people who don't come from where the work gets done. Who subvert workers that would otherwise eliminate such threats with simple solutions.

tommy boy . . . you still haven't responded to this or this

Before you continue your rants, attacks and lies, perhaps you could take care of those. tommy boy - you constantly have been called out and NEVER back your bullshit up. You are now on report!

WHO FILED THIS DAMN REPORT THAT MADE MY 1980s STYLE BEEPER GO OFF? Oh, The Cellar. You people are on your own. You lost your accreditation when lumberjim made those comments about the bicyclists that got run over by the drunk driver.

Ya lost me, Flint.

wackoboy is a teenager so extremist as to subvert another topic. The topic is the grid. Some only fear enemies hiding everywhere to kill us all. So extremists as to hype hate, fear, and myths. So trivial is the threat. So different is its source. Where does wackoboy post any facts on the topics? Instead wackoboy must again attack one who exposes his myths justified by extremism.

wackoboy has little grasp of reality. George Jr is no longer in office. Therefore we are all doomed. So wackoboy does what Limbaugh calls normal behavior - attack non-extremist so that foolish fears based only in a political agenda are not exposed.

Wackoboy - what happened to the paragraph where you also blame Obama and Geithner for all this?

Soon you will post about terrorists conspiring to kill us all with Cessnas. OMG. We must be all doomed. Blame it all on Obama. Or first reject fear and wacko politics - then realize it was a trivial event similar to car theft. But that means wackoboy cannot post more daily personal attacks.

Nice diversion attempt tommy, but that game has already been played out. Its time to face the reality that you have been called out and are too small a man to admit when you are wrong. You are a transparent as they come.

No emotion in that last post?
No attacks of other posters?
I'm done with you and your petty shit. Back on ignore you go. What little, if any, credibility you had is gone.
All that is left is your blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Former CIA operative Robert Baer:I think I'll take the opinions of those who actually know something about this than some blowhard on the internet.

This is a serious concern.

How do you do that? How do you routinely disbelieve yourself? What page of the wacko extremist handbook tells you how to do that?

Being childish, as well as wrong, certainly isn't helping your credibility. :eyebrow:

Bullshit. Without going into a long, boring explanation, suffice it to say that there is no way you can tell which country the hackers are coming from. For example, someone in the US could route the hack through a Chinese state computer to make it look like China was behind it. I wouldn't even put the US Government past doing that for political ends.

Either Baer is an idiot or he thinks we are.

Yepparoo. THAT really irks me as well. It's not like they don't have the money, and they haven't known this needed to be done. And... this is yet another fucking example of why we DON'T have a true capitalist system. HA!

While we're on the subject, another thing that totally pisses me off, is the electric company heads have actually come out and said, if Obama passes cap and trade, they will simply pass that cost on to their customers. WTF? They have known FOR YEARS this would eventually come if they didn't get their act together, but now they want more time? Are you fucking kidding me? grrrrrr :mad2:

It's not like they haven't known FOR YEARS that we are vulnerable to this kind of attack...

From 2003: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cyberwar/

Excellent link Flint, thanks.

I look at Tech Republic every day.

So read what is written: How can this be if enemies are lurkering everywhere as classicman says?

Reality: risks to the grid are typically traceable to companies with a history of bad management. One company that has long been a concern is First Energy whose president (Anthony Alexander) did not even know how the grid works. Who was even in Seaside Heights NJ blaming those local blackouts on the township - and then the lights went out again while he was speaking.

The real risk to the grid are companies that do not implement industry standard practices. Not some evil being hiding under every bed as wackoboy claims. And yes, wackoboy - I am doing exactly what you were doing for months. However my facts come from reality - not from Rush Limbaugh and his peers.

With all due respect you are quite wrong.

I respectfully disagree.

The NSA with the cooperation of various national governmental security agencies can track the origination of most anything. There have been a number of really good books over the years that documented how they do it. I could reference them if you are interested.

I am interested - just pick the top one or two in the interest of time.

Sorry I can't reciprocate but my info comes from less than official channels.

This was an early book that came out and much of the stuff this guy discovered lead many DOD computer systems to change the way they did business. It was a pretty good read.

The Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer Espionage

http://www.amazon.com/Cuckoos-Egg-Tr...470921&sr=1-11

This was a great read about how the NSA works, esp overseas in the UK and Aust.

Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping

http://www.amazon.com/Chatter-Dispat...9471074&sr=1-2

This is a long assed read but well researched.

The Puzzle Palace: Inside the National Security Agency, America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization

http://www.amazon.com/Puzzle-Palace-...9471153&sr=1-4

I think that pretty much sums it up.

IMO, the greatest failure of the last eight years in the area of national security was the near total lack of focus on securing the critical infrastructure - electric grid, water treatment facilities, nuclear plants, etc.

The failure resulted from a total reliance on voluntary compliance by the private industries in question...another failure of the free market that put profit above national security.

I would hope to see more federal spending and more mandatory infrastructure security requirements implemented.

So what you are saying is that the answer to almost ever discussion on the board is more Gov't control.

Not quite.

I am saying that there are areas in which government regulation (not the same as government control) would, IMO, be more effective than relying on the private sector ("free market") participation in voluntary guidelines.

National security issues relating to the nation's infrastructure would be one of those areas.

Wall Street (banking/financial services) is another...as are environmental protection, food safety.....

AKA, Big Government = Better.

Not exactly.

Reasonable government regulation = better than voluntary industry compliance of essential services in order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens.

Previous attempts at that have created big bloated bureaucracies, inefficiency, and cost over-runs. Sorry, I don't buy into that.

Time will tell with the intervention and take over of the numerous banking, credit, and insurance sectors, and now with the auto industry. But they have failed miserably in health care.

It succeeded with protecting the environment. It succeeded with protecting food and drug safety and other consumer products. It succeeded with ensuring workplace safety and basic workers rights. It succeeded with ensuring the safe transportation of hazardous material by rail or truck as well as airline passenger safety (I could go on) ....to no detriment of the regulated industries.

And no one is talking about government "taking over" anything for the long term.

It is fear mongering to compare government regulation with government take-over or government control.

Environment- yep, till Bush got into power, then no.

Food and Drugs- Nope, not under either Bush or Clinton.

Workplace safety- 50/50. Pretty good job.

IMHO it is not fear mongering when the President of his minions can have the president of a major US Automaker step down. It is not fear mongering when you watch as the Government slowly takes over or gains influence over the major banking, credit, and lending aspects of the private industry while it bankrupts our grandchildren's future with deficit spending.

A case could be made that if not for the deregulation of banking/financial services by Reagan/Clinton/Bush....perhaps we would not be in this mess where even more stringent short term measures were deemed by many to be needed to right the ship.and those additional deficits avoided.

And government regulation still does not equal government control.

Certainly.

It depends. When the government has the power to dismiss a major US car maker and it controls a major portion of our banking, insurance, and credit market, I would disagree.

You can't blame the government for that, it's the result of those industries fucking up bigtime, because nobody regulated (controlled) them. Now the government has to step in and straighten out the mess, which is hardly what the government wanted.

I want to believe that. You have to admit it does set a very dangerous precedent when the government can intervene in a free market like that rather than letting some of those places just fail outright. Now here we are after throwing all that money at GM and it looks like they are going to have to go to bankruptcy anyway. How much did that cost us?

I don't think bankruptcy for GM was ever not an option from my perspective. The money went to keep their hundreds of suppliers from going under also. Saving all those small/medium businesses from folding, through no fault of their own, and the millions(?) of jobs that go with it, was necessary unless you want a depression that would take decades to recover from. It still may take that long.

Well now that bankruptcy looks more inevitable what about their hundreds of suppliers and all those small/medium businesses? Isn't much of that going to happen anyway? I watched an interview with the interm CEO and he said they are going to produce only one pick-up truck in all of the GM family. That alone is huge. Not to mention re-tooling costs, etc. Not to say it is not an inevitable evil anyways, just that we poured billions of tax payer $$ into a hole that would never have been saved in the first place. I don't know. But I am not happy about it.

Government intervened to create the public corporation, so I see it as a wash when government intervenes in the operation of such.

Yea, but at that cost to the people? Hell, they should have just gone in and nationalized them. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.

They may, or may not, fail in the future, but they were paid for what they produced in the past. I'm sure some will fold, some will survive by changing their product line, and some will continue to make autoparts, but at least they're starting into the future without being in an impossible hole.
I think they are talking about eliminating either the Chevy or GMC line of trucks, which were identical except for trim anyway. I can't imagine not having the choice between 2 or 4 wheel drive, that would suck. Eliminating the choice of 2 or 4 door, maybe. Long or short bed, probably.
More likely they are talking about one line, rather than one truck.
It wouldn't be additional tooling but eliminating some existing tooling, other than changes, which is possible.

Yea, I meant for the re-tooling of the plant that lost the trucks, if they can do that. He did mention the line they were keeping but I can't remember which one. I imagine the Chevy would make the cut over the GMC.

Also note that Ford did not take any bailout money. So far they are the best positioned to make a great comeback.

It would have to be Chevy rather than GMC.

Yeah, retooling the plants (the ones that don't close) from trucks to marketable vehicles will be very expensive, but it's necessary and will pay for itself if they are sucessful... big if.

Ford has been through a number lean times, with subsequent management changes, in the recent past and looks like they now have people running the show that know something about cars and the market.

The longer that GM puts off the inevitable, the worse a bankruptcy becomes. Had GM done bankruptcy in 1991 (they were only 4 hours away), then GM may have fixed itself back then. Nobody (except executives) were harmed. But GM played money games for almost 20 years to avoid bankruptcy rather than fix the company. Even shorted the pension funds; then claimed unfair competition due to legacy costs. As a result, bankruptcy becomes almost inevitable and must now be quite painful.

Many are now talking about GM as only Chevy and Cadillac. I suspect that would be too ruthless. Buick should also survive. Not much more. For example, GM should have to sell off its locomotive division. GM has stifled innovation for so long that only ruthless and painful bankruptcy will save it (or something equivalent). That is the only salvation for its suppliers.

As we can see from the latest news reports, Wagoner again pretended it could all be fixed. His denial of problem was down to GM could maybe sell off a few divisions. Nonsense. Who wants divisions that were restructured so they could not be sold? Those denials only meant GM must downsize even more; that employees must even lose jobs. That many suppliers must also face bankruptcy. A disaster that would not have occurred had GM been forced into bankruptcy long ago when Wagoner was earning a reputations in 1991 GM as a shrewd finance guy who could 'make the spread sheets say what they had to say'.

Then we should be reviewing GM’s accounting for fraud prosecution. Why is this any different than Jeff Skilling?

Ford recognized they were in trouble when Jacque Nasser was running Ford into the earth. The fights between William Clay and Nasser were said to be so violent that on two occasions, security was called. Because Nasser was removed, Ford started designing a 70 Horsepower per liter engine. That engine has only recently come to market (little hint to those who learn that investing is all about the product). Therefore Ford does not need bailout money. It may be an ugly car (Futura), but it is one of few American cars worthy of a consumer's attention. Why does Ford not need a bailout? Unlike GM, Ford suddenly started innovating again some 7(?) years ago.

Chrysler has no hope of survival. Fiat may buy its pieces. But Chrysler is gone the same way that AT&T disappeared. Another trophy for the MBA Nardelli. And a slap in the face of Cerebus Capital who ran to the government and who has nothing in the Chrysler innovation pipeline. Chrysler even had a hybrid in 1999. Where is it? Cerebus also played money games rather than innovate. Welcome to why Chrysler's bankruptcy must be even more severe.

Government intervention and regulations are directly traceable to how that corporation or industry was run. Some industries must be heavily regulated due to their history. Others that have a long history of innovation - that are more interested in the product than profits - require minimal if any regulation. Learn from history. Finance industry and auto industries deserve heavy regulation according to their history. Auto no where near as stringent as finance. Finance industry historically being one of the most corrupt requires the heaviest of hands. Semiconductor an example of a resposibile industry that requires so little government oversight.

I agree with you, but I really want them to have to do it on their dime, and not be able to pass that expense on to their customers.

Yea, it's just too bad many of those things have been compromised over the past 8 years.

Hackers stole data on Pentagon's newest fighter jet
Oops

They also stole info on the helicopters that we aren't funding now. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to create a new military
command to coordinate the defense of Pentagon computer networks and
improve U.S. offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare, according to current
and former officials familiar with the plans.
The initiative will reshape the military's efforts to protect its networks
from attacks by hackers, especially those from countries such as China and
Russia. The new command will be unveiled within the next few weeks,
Pentagon officials said.
The move comes amid growing evidence that sophisticated cyberspies are
attacking the U.S. electric grid and key defense programs. A page-one
story in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that hackers breached
the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike
Fighter, and stole data. Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee wrote to the defense secretary Tuesday requesting a
briefing on the matter.
Lockheed Martin Corp., the project's lead contractor, said in a statement
Tuesday that it believed the article "was incorrect in its representation
of successful cyber attacks" on the F-35 program. "To our knowledge, there
has never been any classified information breach," the statement said. The
Journal story didn't say the stolen information was classified.
President Barack Obama, when he was a candidate for the White House,
pledged to elevate cybersecurity as a national-security issue, equating it
in significance with nuclear and biological weapons. A White House team
reviewing cybersecurity policy has completed its recommendations,
including the creation of a top White House cyberpolicy official. Details
of that and other proposals are still under debate. A final decision from
the president is expected soon.
A draft of the White House review steps gingerly around the question of
how to improve computer security in the private sector, especially key
infrastructure such as telecommunications and the electricity grid. The
document stresses the importance of working with the private sector and
civil-liberties groups to craft a solution, but doesn't call for a
specific government role, according to a person familiar with the draft.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to announce the creation of a new
military "cyber command" after the rollout of the White House review,
according to military officials familiar with the plan.
The Pentagon has several command organizations structured according to
both geography and operational responsibility. Central Command, for
example, oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Special
Operations Command is responsible for operations involving elite
operatives such as Navy Seals.
The cyber command is likely to be led by a military official of four-star
rank, according to officials familiar with the proposal. It would, at
least initially, be part of the Pentagon's Strategic Command, which is
currently responsible for computer-network security and other missions.
Pentagon officials said the front-runner to lead the new command is
National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander, a three-star Army
general. In a rare public appearance Tuesday at a cybersecurity conference
in San Francisco, Gen. Alexander called for a "team" approach to
cybersecurity that would give the NSA lead responsibility for protecting
military and intelligence networks while the Department of Homeland
Security worked to protect other government networks. His spokeswoman said
he had no additional comment.
Former President George W. Bush's top intelligence adviser, Mike
McConnell, first proposed the creation of a unified cyber command last
fall. The military's cybersecurity efforts are currently divided between
entities like the NSA and the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is
responsible for ensuring secure and reliable communications for the
military. The Air Force also runs a significant cybersecurity effort.
Advocates believe the new command will be able to avoid duplication and
better leverage the technical expertise of the agencies and the military
services' cyberwarriors.
Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so
the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense
efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command
supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters.
The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed,
established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a
cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final
year.
NSA's increasingly muscular role in domestic cybersecurity has raised
alarms among some officials and on Capitol Hill. Rod Beckstrom, former
chief of the National Cyber Security Center, which is charged with
coordinating cybersecurity activities across the U.S. government, resigned
last month after warning that the growing reliance on the NSA was a "bad
strategy" that posed "threats to our democratic processes."
Gen. Alexander countered in his speech Tuesday that the NSA did "not want
to run cybersecurity for the U.S. government."
—August Cole contributed to this article.