Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude has warned that the London Olympics will not be immune to cyber attack. The man who urged all Blighty to start stocking up on petrol by pouring it into jerry cans said that a crack team has been set up dedicated to guarding the Games against attack. "The Beijing Olympics saw 12 million …
team on crack?
Is ANYTHING immune to cyber attack ?
Is your cat chipped?
Or connected via CAT5?
Makes no odds. Any data obtained from hacking a cat will be corrupted by your observation of it. It's a known cat thing, caused by their inherently quantum nature.
"The internet after all has flourished precisely because it has been shaped by its users, not by governments," he said.
MP in common sense statement shock.
In other news: Lucifer complains his legions are not equipped for such icy conditions.
I was looking for the 'Two-Faced Bastard' icon.
"...private organisations working in partnership with each other, government and law enforcement agencies, sharing information ..."
I wondered how long it would be before we saw signs of a UK equivalent of CISPA.
They can stop Dwaine Chambers getting at his test results.
AC for obvious reasons.
I'd like to know how they arrived at the "12 million attacks" figure. Wouldn't a single botnet be capable of this?
Na, just a 13yr old who's left his Lego-hack kit running while he has his supper.
Store a bit of extra "internet" in a hard drive in the garage.
...and don't try copying it to a usb stick in the kitchen...
"the government was going to resist the temptation to over-regulate the internet and try to take control of it."
Well natch - the government model for over-regulating and controllling the internet is to let their mates do it for lots of folding green stuff.
Maybe that ought to be a new event: Who can crack the web site and get themselves a free ticket to the upcoming sports days.
What?! There's actual sports going on during these "Olympic games"? I was convinced is was just one big marketplace for selling stuff...
Do they realize no-one has called anything a cyber-something with a straight face since around 1997?
then don't connect it to the internet then.
But... but.... how could you build a system without internet access??? how would middle management monitor performance from home?
I think the safest thing for Ministers to do is to keep their mouths shut. Using Francis Maude as an excellent example, each time they open their mouths they demonstrate how little they know about the subject at hand. They should stick to the dictum, 'Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.'
Of course the other benefit would be that I wouldn't have to listen to their drivel.
"a crack team has been set up dedicated to guarding the Games against attack"
That'll be a group of NEETs trained to pull the cables out of the routers/switches if the lights start flashing too quickly.
That'l be part of an Apprenticship scheme which of course will lead to a well-paid job in computing.
if you think you're hard enough?
We have Typhoons at Northolt, Rapiers on the rooftops and now the SAS in the server room.
Despite the prevalent myth of the Superhacker, there's plenty of solid evidence that most breaches are total pushovers. Just for example, Verizon's 2012 report (on 2011 data) concluded that 96% (4% more than the previous year) of attacks were "not highly difficult" and that "97% of breaches were avoidable through simple or intermediate controls".
So what we really need is not a few expensive cyber whiz kids on short term assignment for the duration of the London jamboree, but for ordinary IT staff at all levels to be competent in basic security housekeeping. It would be much safer and vastly more cost-effective, and would also release the real experts to protect us against the occasional attacks that are not so trivial.
However, it's not in the interest of the attackers, the defenders or indeed many security researchers to point out how easy cyber attacks currently are to accomplish, as they would all lose face (and, in many cases, huge revenue streams or big salaries). So we are kept in ignorance by an informal (and albeit uncomfortable) collaboration of deception on the part of pretty much all those who know the real situation. It would be incredibly difficult for government to justify proposed levels of expenditure on "cyber defence" if it was well known that the vast majority of their appallingly frequent security problems stem from the incompetence and slackness of the implementers and defenders of their systems. But we are up against a very determined adversary, so we have only one real choice - face facts or lose.
What a good idea.
After all it's important to protect the Olympics from the traditonal forms of crime which are so common in cyberspace - drug abuse, drug dealing, political extremism, bribery, corruption, money laundering, bogus charities, corporate fraud.
They don't want anyone muscling in.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017