Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer Spies Breach $300B Fighter-Jet Project

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the we're-still-number-one-at-this dept.

Security 330

suraj.sun writes "Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project — the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever — according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks. Similar incidents have also breached the Air Force's air-traffic-control system in recent months, these people say. In the case of the fighter-jet program, the intruders were able to copy and siphon off several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems, officials say, potentially making it easier to defend against the craft."

cancel ×

330 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A project for our worst enemies (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659205)

Yeah--good luck with polishing THAT turd, China.

Oops, sorry...that was me (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659211)

I thought I was downloading the latest Windows 7 beta candidate
boy is my face red.

(ob: what's that knock on my door, I'll be *NO CARRIER*)

Only a few terabytes? (5, Interesting)

Kayden (1406747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659217)

What kind of connection do you need to have to get away with several terabytes of data before someone notices? Users on my network get pissy when someone downloads a few dozen megs.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (3, Interesting)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659259)

What kind of connection do you need to have to get away with several terabytes of data before someone notices? Users on my network get pissy when someone downloads a few dozen megs.

Probably because they aren't on some residential asynchronous connection. I imagine them to be on at least something near a SONET [wikipedia.org] connection.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659435)

Even if they're on an OC-192, (~10 Gbps) somebody should have noticed. A single terabyte would take some 13 minutes assuming they achieved full line speed. That's a lot of time for their systems to not be paying attention.

Besides, the connection is likely a lot smaller than that. It's not like the DoD wants to send anyone massive quantities to data on a regular basis.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (5, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659563)

They probably trickled it out over a long period. The more interesting question is how long ago the DoD noticed the breach and started providing doctored information. In the Soviet era, it was common to use this kind of thing for misinformation. Once a project has been compromised, you feed plausible-looking but wrong information down the leaking conduit for as long as possible. There was an interesting example of this posted on Wikileaks a year or so ago, of an American nuclear bomb design obtained from the Russians, which contained a few minor and difficult-to-find design flaws that would have prevented the bomb from actually working if it had been built along those lines.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659603)

There was an interesting example of this posted on Wikileaks a year or so ago, of an American nuclear bomb design obtained from the Russians, which contained a few minor and difficult-to-find design flaws that would have prevented the bomb from actually working if it had been built along those lines.

So THAT'S why my nuclear bomb didn't work ;)

Re:Only a few terabytes? (3, Interesting)

Loki_1929 (550940) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659855)

If it was a Plutonium weapon, they likely hid flaws in the implosion timing and geometry designs.

If it was a Uranium "gun" design, your weapon failed because you're an idiot. I mean seriously, a couple first-year engineering students with access to Wikipedia and a few thousand bucks can build those. Weaponizing the ore is the toughest part, and that's not difficult (just dangerous to your health).

Re:Only a few terabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659929)

Yeah, but the leaked data he got didn't mention Plutonium or Uranium. He built a bomb that showers everyone with butterscotch pudding.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659851)

In the Soviet era, it was common to use this kind of thing for misinformation. Once a project has been compromised, you feed plausible-looking but wrong information down the leaking conduit for as long as possible.

A famous example being Concordski [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Only a few terabytes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27660083)

Reading that article, it seems that the only reason to suspect that anything was stolen there was an unexplained crash of one Tu-144 for which several competing theories exist.

But hey, it's obvious that the one theory matching your own political opinion (those pesky Soviets are all lazy and stupid, anyway... they could never come up with anything on their own and had to steal American(tm) technology, just like the French and Chinese do now, right?) must be correct. After all, just look at the plane, right?

Everybody can see it's the same. Nevermind that according to the same Wikipedia article, it's quite different technically.

(As for industrial espionage in general... of course it's happening. And if you believe there's ANY nation AT ALL not doing it, you're even more biased or naive than is already obvious.)

Re:Only a few terabytes? (4, Insightful)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659857)

> you feed plausible-looking but wrong information down the leaking conduit for as long as possible.

I assume it would be quite tricky to generate even a few gigabytes of plausible-looking 'data related to design and electronics systems' even if you had a whole day to prepare, and we are talking about multiple terabytes here, and while you are busy preparing the wrong information, the spies are still downloading the correct stuff. So unless you live in a movie where stuff that normally takes days can be done in 5 minutes when our protagonists start randomly pushing buttons on their keyboard with pretty pictures appearing on the screen accompanied by uninformative beeping sounds, it would probably be best to simply terminate the connection and start improving your security, look for backdoors that might have been installed, and so forth.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (2, Informative)

eltaco (1311561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659991)

espionage, counter-espionage, counter-counter-espionage, etc, are part of the doctrine and thus are usually planned and prep'ed way in advance. all it takes is a flip of a switch.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (1)

Authoritative Douche (1255948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660033)

I wonder how much proactive development of plausible looking data is generated in parallel to be used in such circumstances on short notice for any military project. Can you imagine the CVS admin headaches?

Re:Only a few terabytes? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659867)

They also did that during the Reagan administration with a software package designed to run the valves on a natural gas pipeline.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002

The software was modified to run just fine for a while, but then go haywire. The end result was "...the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space...".

This occurred in 1982. I'm sure they're still doing exactly the same thing today.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660101)

The more interesting question is why the DoD has sensitive information hooked up to the net in any way. The only way of ensuring net based attacks are unsuccessful is by disconnecting from the net. Sure you still have to ensure that the people using the terminals are on the up and up, but that's a lot easier than keeping a large network full of sekrit goberment stuff secure.

I'm always amazed that this sort of information would be stored and used on internet connected computers, it just seems like asking for trouble. Historically the DoD has done a pretty incompetent job of securing its systems, which really makes one wonder how many of these advancements are now in the works in foreign states.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659859)

It's not like the DoD wants to send anyone massive quantities to data on a regular basis.

(Corrected) It's not like the DoD wants to send non-intel agencies massive quantities to data on a regular basis.

Given that agencies are supposed to work together now, I imagine there is a bit more data transfer between agencies today. I'd also imagine that these are only done over secure connections so anything accessible by the public wouldn't get to a critical network by the fact that they aren't connected.

From the article:

The intruders entered through vulnerabilities in the networks of two or three contractors helping to build the high-tech fighter jet, according to people who have been briefed on the matter.

Given this statement though, it sounds as if the problem was improper network security at the (sub)contractor locations. If not a secure network issue, then improper access due to an authorized users making unauthorized attacks (i.e. spy).

Mij

Re:Only a few terabytes? (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659265)

(cue spy mike in the cafeteria a few days ago)

"Bob, is it me or is the network reeeeally slow again t'day?"
"Yeah, wonder what the goons in IT are pissin' with today. Wish they'd tell us that before they start rewiring everything."

Re:Only a few terabytes? (2, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659631)

Same as you needed in 1989.
A few lines of code and a modem.
Its not about downloading "terabytes" in realtime.
You shift it onto other networks and collect it later.
You got in on other networks, other networks can carry your data out.
A few more or less 'terabytes' on many networks is a nights spam.
Nobody is looking. When they do, your data is safe in its new home.

Re:Only a few terabytes? (2, Interesting)

xystren (522982) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659989)

So "someone" had downloaded a few terabytes... Has anyone thought about what if some of the design/code has been changed? I would view that as a major threat also. Imagine a bug in the fire control systems that would prevent a weapon from firing when a certain signal is received? Or a limiter that would impact maneuverability during combat situation? We see this sort of thing with malware/spyware/adware all the time. Is it that inconceivable to see it in this kind of situation? What if the data breech is the red herring?

I personally think this aspect has been missed with the whole DATA BREECH drama. Not saying the data breech isn't important, I'm would also be concerned about the integrity of the data accessed. There seems to be only the concern for reverse engineering of the data, no one seems to be concerned about modification of the data.

Just my thoughts,
Xyst

Re:Only a few terabytes? (2, Funny)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659997)

does it mean that the FBI, NSA and Big Brother AT&T also have a copy of these thanks to wholesale wiretapping?

Why? (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659225)

Why are these sensitive systems connected to the public internet. Either directly or indirectly, whose bright idea was it? If you need a computer in the lab connected to the internet, fine, just keep the infrastructure seperate.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659281)

Why are these sensitive systems connected to the public internet. Either directly or indirectly, whose bright idea was it? If you need a computer in the lab connected to the internet, fine, just keep the infrastructure seperate.

You see, they weren't actually. They were on a private network but they were able to siphon off data by hanging a bucket off of the network cable and cutting a hole in it. The bits fell into the bucket, and the rest is history...

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659353)

Wait..I'm confused. The Internet is a series of buckets? What if the siphon tube gets clogged?

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659405)

No, it's a series of tubes that can be siphoned off into a bucket. Look, kid, you're asking questions that are way above your head here...

Re:Why? (2, Funny)

Kotoku (1531373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659881)

Hey if I'm old enough to work for the government that should tell you I'm old enough to have an intelligent discussion!

Re:Why? (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660049)

No you gotta remember, it's not like tubes but like a spider web all of which leads back to the female spider. Take that out and the rest is history.

Re:Why? (1, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659301)

Because

a) it is easier.
b) it is cheaper.
c) some bigwig from marketing/management "needed it".
d) the el cheapo admins couldn't figure out how to firewall it (or just didn't want to bother because, hey, government job, nobody gets fired just for being lazy).
e) all of the above.

LOOK! the best damn site on the web. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27660141)

Here it is:

http://www.handhewnloghomes.com/ [handhewnloghomes.com]

Re:Why? (1)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659315)

Shhhh... it's a trick. The project plans were INTENTIONALLY put on a Internet-accessible worstation. The computer "spies" have actually downloaded detailed diagrams of a MASHUP of: the Wright Brothers plane, a Porsche 911, the winning America's cup sailboat, and the Apollo 14 command module.
By the time they figure it out, it'll be 2018 and we'll be so far ahead technologically that nobody will catch us.

Re:Why? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659773)

The computer "spies" have actually downloaded detailed diagrams of a MASHUP of: the Wright Brothers plane, a Porsche 911, the winning America's cup sailboat, and the Apollo 14 command module.

I think it would be funnier if their end product became a Winnebago with wings.

Re:Why? (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659911)

You mean, like this one [impawards.com] ?

I dunno, the thought of the Red Chinese flying one of those sounds rather daunting.

WAIT! (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659959)

Here's a better shot. [ign.com]

Still don't wanna see the Chi-Coms coming at me in one of those.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659347)

If you need a computer in the lab connected to the internet, fine, just keep the infrastructure seperate.

You live in the past. Haven't you heard of the new airborne virii?

They're technically called. "I work in a lab and don't know shit about computers so I regularly download all info into my personal portable".

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659421)

the secret data wasn't on the internet, according to the article. It was not compromised. Only "sensitive" data was compromised. So while they might be able to infer information about the fighter, and its capabilities, they don't have the design and code for it.

Not even Jack Bauer can prevent leaks (4, Funny)

patro (104336) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659799)

It doesn't matter if the data is on the Internet. No matter how well you protect your data there always are rogue agents on the roster who have access to everything and can operate undetected for a long period of time.

I'm not kidding. I have my sources. I watch 24 after all.

Re:Why? (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659941)

Sensative as in it will cry if I call it names?

Re:Why? (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659469)

They weren't. Unfortunately, some simpleton decided it was easier to plug his laptop into the secure network without first disabling his Wifi connection to the public network. "Oops."

Re:Why? (1)

lawaetf1 (613291) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659653)

Which assumes there is a open wifi connection in the area. That alone is unacceptable for any building/office that houses even "sensitive" data. 802.11b/g/n should all be jammed as well as the walls/windows lined with RF blocking mesh.

The guys running the .mil networks are a bit like union folk -- not actively seeking to make things worse but not staying up late to keep the holes plugged either. They'll have some laughably lopsided security approach -- pressurized conduit piping for CAT5 but servers running NT 3.5.

Bureaucracy, bloated budgets, Friday's off, consultants/contractors everywhere, protectionist agendas..

Re:Why? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659509)

Because they want to connect multiple areas?

I call bullshit, maybe (5, Informative)

gentlemen_loser (817960) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659729)

Systems containing classified data are NEVER connected to the internet. Any classified data that was siphoned off was left their either maliciously or through stupidity by someone on the inside. In either case, if this really did happen, the person should be tried for treason. Not only are these other networks locked down from the internet, they are also locked down physically - kept away from windows, often in a vault and physical access is tightly controlled.

Any other data that was acquired was probably crap. I strongly suspect that this is another case of fear mongering by an organization trying to get additional funding.

The alternative, which is almost too scary for me to consider, is that we have changed our practices and now leave sensitive information critical to our defense on unprotected systems.

Re:Why? (0)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659849)

Today's young admins only know about Windows.
They understand home computers, ease of use, gui's, accessibility and other monopoly desktop paradigms.
They are lazy, dumb, crazy and have no amount of training will ever make them understand.
A few lines from an East Germany spy master would have saved them.
Dont put expensive, important stuff data together in one place.
People will walk out with it.
The East Germans fixed it by splitting data up.
You wanted something secret, you had a lot of real world face time and running around to do.
Then they went digital, and the CIA walked out with a copy.

Re:Why? (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660055)

haven't you watched the movies?
it's done with a USB disk hidden in the secret screwcap at the bottom of the hot coffee...
I guess they forgot to notice that they weight more when they're full of bits

Sloppy espionage ? (5, Insightful)

Davemania (580154) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659307)

Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659335)

Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.

They're the only ones who get caught.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (2, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659415)

Of course the US routinely penetrates Chinese systems in order to steal military secrets ... and in response we have developed an absolutely airtight national defence against the Mig-19 and all its variants.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659423)

Well, I could be oversimplifying it, but lets take the following scenario... I sit down at my home in the US, run some scripts, hack a Chinese government computer, brag to my friends, etc... Someone from China's government calls someone here in the US, they track my ass, throw me in a detainment cell for an indefinite period of time for being a "terrorist".

Now, I sit down in my home in China, run some scripts, hack a US government computer, brag to my friends, etc.... Someone from the US government calls... wait a minute, no they didn't. No one even cared. But lets pretend they did care and they called some official in China and told them what was going on... *LAUGHTER AND LOTS OF POINTING* from the Chinese side.

That, sir, is the difference.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659635)

Now, I sit down in my home in China, run some scripts, hack a US government computer, brag to my friends, etc.... Someone from the US government calls... wait a minute, no they didn't. No one even cared. But lets pretend they did care and they called some official in China and told them what was going on... *LAUGHTER AND LOTS OF POINTING* from the Chinese side.

I sit down in my home in Spain, run some scripts, hack a US government computer, brag to my friends, etc.... Someone from the spanish government takes a sip from his third coffee of the morning while vaguely rememorating the last time he did some work, many years before. Then, he decides it's a perfect day to go home before noon and leaves.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660021)

Someone from the US government calls and passes a tip about an ETA operation.
Someone from the Spanish government takes a sip from his third coffee of the morning
while vaguely rememorating the last time he did some work, many years before in GAL (Anti-terrorist Liberation Groups).
Then, he decides it's a perfect day to go home before noon and leaves.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (4, Interesting)

CHK6 (583097) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659427)

It probably stems from a few reasons.

1) a foreign country doesn't want to loose face and admit to losing sensitive data.

2) losing such data in a foreign country would mean death for those that were ment to prevent the theft. So they don;t report it.

3) The computer network holding the sensitive data is not connected in anyway to a national or intercontinental network. Thus the need for old fashion spies with feet on the ground.

4) Just as you said, Western techniques are so good, foreign governments don't have a clue.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659985)

It probably stems from a few reasons.

1) a foreign country doesn't want to loose face and admit to losing sensitive data.

2) losing such data in a foreign country would mean death for those that were ment to prevent the theft. So they don;t report it.

3) The computer network holding the sensitive data is not connected in anyway to a national or intercontinental network. Thus the need for old fashion spies with feet on the ground.

4) Just as you said, Western techniques are so good, foreign governments don't have a clue.

5) The nations "the West" would try to infiltrate are generally not as open as we are, and so anything that is discovered but could embarrass the government is covered up as a matter of course. [This could be considered a variation of (1), but the openness of a society has a lot to do with it.]

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659547)

Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.

Perhaps it's not that western countries are better at it, but that their victims (choose your non-western country) don't have the skills/resources to detect said spying?

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659575)

Come now, you've never heard those "such-and-such journalist arrested for spying" [google.com] stories?

I would imagine those are the only ones we hear about. The other "spies" that get caught probably just disappear.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

JerryLove (1158461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659583)

1) Because we are the west

2) For this particular espionage, we are the most vunerable/biggesst target. We spend more on weapons development than the rest of the world combined.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

Talisman (39902) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659743)

Everyone gets hacked.

We're just more open about it.

You really think the Chinese or Russian or Iranian or North Korean governments would admit publicly to getting hacked?

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659877)

well, the US pretty much has the most advanced military tech. china dosent really have much in terms of advanced tech worth stealing.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659927)

It's probably because most of our enemies are using kit we sold them in the first place.

That or they're flying around in what are effectively lumps of turd that we can't learn anything from anyway.

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (1)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660075)

Not to downplay this event but I really wonder why we don't hear much about espionage from western countries ? Are they better at it (rather than using malware or commonly avaliable tools) ? I am sure the Chinese etc have equally vulnerable systems.

Western countries spy (also on each other) using stuff like ECHELON, mainly for industrial spionage purposes, and this fact is well-documented and public knowledge. See e.g. the European Parliament's ECHELON report [europa.eu] (search for "Published cases").

Re:Sloppy espionage ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27660079)

Yes but stealing pens and paper is much harder ;)

oh im sure (1, Funny)

ellenbee (978615) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659317)

More propaganda to make us "scared" of the internet!!! Yes we better lock down dem interenets boys, the internet is a national security threat !

It's the Russians again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659321)

Or Chinese.....

counterinteligence (2, Interesting)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659325)

There is just as good a chance that the information stolen is bad information, as there is that it is good information. Now the Chinese/Russian spies need to determine what is and isn't good information from what they stole

Open source. (5, Funny)

dtml-try MyNick (453562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659387)

2009, the year of the open source Jet Fighter.

Re:Open source. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659503)

If it runs Linux, does that mean 2009 is the year of the Linux Fighter?

Re:Open source. (1)

genkael (102983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659623)

If it's a Linux based fighter it will never crash, fly well, but be missing key features like a fuel guage and gun sites. Oh, and there will be no stick to control the plane, but you will have a command line and scriptable flight controls.

"Quick Ace, j...j I said!"

Re:Open source. (1)

hviniciusg (1481907) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660015)

i can imagine a combat:

jetfigther1244>cd /bin/

jetfigther1244>turn -left 35

jetfigther1244>set altitude= 10000

ALERT: Incoming Misile, do u want to run

contermesures.pl? (Y/N):yyyyyyyyy

Deploying contermes|@#~ââ##

Segfault at SP 0x44444444

Your ship has been hacked by the chinese army,

please stand by while you are trasnported to

our airstrips. the cult of the dead cow

Re:Open source. (1)

pmarini (989354) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660133)

honey, I forgot to duck!

Re:Open source. (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659629)

Actually it won't, and this is one of the reasons a few countries pulled out of the JSF project. The DoD is refusing to release source code for the weapons-control systems and their partners did not want to be flying expensive fighters when they had not been able to audit the code that controlled the weapons and had no idea if the USA had added a remote kill switch (the key for which had then been stolen by enemy-of-the-day and used to disable the fighters).

Security through obscurity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659399)

Food for thought - doesn't this show that "security through obscurity doesn't work" is true in a broader context than just computer security?

If I'd spent 300 billion on a project (3, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659459)

If I'd spent 300 billion on a project that didn't deliver the goods, I might be tempted to stage an internet break in which would force the projects cancellation, saving face for all concerned.

Speaking of, how much money has been wasted on the missile defence shield? 4 years ago, they were saying 50 billion. Today I think it's up to 115 billion. And of course, it still doesn't work. (And most likely never will.)

Will we see a "break in" on that research any time soon?

didn't deliver the goods? (3, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659709)

The F-35 is barely out of R&D. It hasn't had a chance to "not deliver" yet.

Re:If I'd spent 300 billion on a project (1)

OlRickDawson (648236) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659915)

How do you know that the missile defense doesn't work? The program is very young still, and if they have had remarkable success, don't you think the real results would be classified?

Bang for my buck (3, Interesting)

KneelBeforeZod (1527235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659461)

300 Billion taxpayer dollars?!? Do they transform into giant robots?

Re:Bang for my buck (1, Insightful)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659615)

Hey, at least we didn't waste that money on education or something stupid like that..

Re:Bang for my buck (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660117)

Well, it's $300B, but it's not all US Taxpayer money (most of it is). The second biggest backer is the UK, and it's also being funded by Australia, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey. That's why it's called the JOINT Strike Fighter...we are developing it jointly with other nations.

It's been disigned to be quite versatile with several variants. The most unique thing being Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) capability, as it is intended to replace the Harrier in the UK. It also has stealth capabilities, and a very advanced targeting/pilot control system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter [wikipedia.org]

Catching up day by day (1)

Chuffpole (765597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659483)

Can we PLEASE have back the ability to go back to specific days??
Like with http://slashdot.org/index.pl?issue=20090413 [slashdot.org] ???

I'm a week or two behind and want to catch up a day or two at a time without missing anything.

thanks

Re:Catching up day by day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659639)

That's some very Terminator-esque material you suggest, going back day-by-day until you can pin down the minute of the attacks and stop them!

Responsibility (-1, Troll)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659487)

Whoever allowed that data to be connected to the web should have their security clearance yanked, and be fired.

What the fuck will it take a COMMANDER with a god damned sledge hammer to fix the fucking pentagon computer security?

Actually they're likely so corrupt, they would send an airman out to do it.

Pentagon security needs a CLEANSING. Everyone there needs to have their clearance revoked!

And finally, this is the premeditated chronologically timed public news release on how US computer sucks. Now they have enough mainstream fascist seed test articles, with a successful moderated, censored feedback, the next thing they will roll out is the FIX. And you can fucking guarantee they will take some new civil right away to fix it.

They provided the PROBLEM, and now they will provide the FIX.

It's incompetent leadership, letting secrets go. It's GENIUS leadership, to crack down on American civil rights and privacy.

Fuck every one of these fuckers, If I was GOD for a day, I would fire everyone in the Pentagon. I would them a chance to prove their security clearance and potentially get their job back, but NO Iran/Contra people, no Vietnam/Cambodia people, no Rockafella's, no kissingers, enough of this fucking shit already.

CIA warns bla bla about SCADIA every fucking 2 months.

This is a fucking massive setup!

They don't hook DAMS to SCADIA, they have PEOPLE PHYSICALLY THERE! Don't be so fucking gullible, our government is no longer controlled by people, so they lie to us, you want control again?

Outlaw all electronic vote tabulation devices in our elections. FUck your Open source vs Closed source shit. IT IS THE HARDWARE BITCH!

Re:Responsibility (2, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659589)

There Are So many randomly capped wordS in tHAT post, I thought you were posting in code.

Re:Responsibility (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659863)

well since we are correcting my spelling instead of the situation of America. Might as well fix one more thing so we get the story straight.

And finally, this is the premeditated chronologically timed public news release on how US computer sucks.

Should be

And finally, this is the premeditated chronologically timed public news release on how US computer "SECURITY" sucks.

Re:Responsibility (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659749)

Call me a troll. It don't change the facts.

this is the second (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659517)

article blaming china for hacking in the past 6 months. the US must always have an enemy it seems.

first they say "many details couldnt be learned" such as origin, then the article does an about face and implies it came from china...are we just blaming the new kid for everything!?

could this "breech" have been some misinterpretation of say, a backup job being run? the US Navy has a history of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 [wikipedia.org]

Re:this is the second (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27660125)

It's not flamebait. It's a rogue moderator who doesn't want you to hear the truth!

FUD by the DoD (0, Flamebait)

kubitus (927806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659545)

the media are stremed, if not flooded with more and more messages that the bad bad guys are attacking the poor porr USA with their lousy OS with NSA backdoors, trojans, Echelon etc..

Should I lol or weep?

Problem is the average media consumer will swallow the bait with tackle and all!

Power grid threatened by hackers - most likely from China *g*

Poor ol Dalai Lama's Windozw PC infiltrated *g*

Whats going on? Obama tolling up for a big War?:

300 Billion and the rest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659559)

300 Billion and the rest.
Over budget, Late, and making 'partners' bleed with cost overruns.

Whatever they may have took, would be a lesson to run away from ill managed and maligned gold plated fantasy projects that could eclipse the 'risk management' by a few dodgy banks.

I'm sure someone is hoping someone 'copies' and bring about the downfall of an evil rival. Was it the secret that the initial flight report came back as 'better than a Chevrolet Vega'.

Open Air Policy (4, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659561)

Again reinforcing the need to return to the "Open Air Policy" that any secret or top secret network must have a "nothing but open air" between the secure system and unsecure system. Prior to the 90s many secure networks had a single cable, usually with a manual breaker, that would be enable only as a specific scheduled time, and the end point on the unsecure side was a single terminal (2 NICs, 1 to unsecure network on one subnet, then the secure network on another) where both network cards were phsyically impossible to operate at the same time (the reason for 2 NICs is the secure NIC is an encrypted card)

Seriously, you should never be able to tget from A -> B -> C where A is a public network and C is a secret or top secret network.

Hell last weekend I was at a shop where the DEV network was self contained and the only way they got code builds was compiled on the DEV network (12th floor) then sneaker-net'ed to the testing environment via optical disk (8th floor).

P.S.F.F The office on the 9th floor still has token ring... WTF who still uses Token Ring? Seriously? I mean it's friggin Token Ring... I remember working on Norwest Mortgage's (bought by Wells Fargo) token ring to ethernet conversion, what 12 years ago now... Jebus Rice that was a long time ago now it seems...

Overstated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659587)

It is important to remember that none of this is classified data. It could be as serious as "Sensitive But Unclassified" or "For Official Use Only" or "XXX Proprietary" or what have you, but it's not as though top secret plans, capabilities, etc. was obtained. This doesn't make it a non-issue, as it's still quite serious. There has been a lot of talk over the years that this kind of stuff should in fact not be stored on Internet connected (indirectly often times) networks, which I tend to agree with. Anyway...

Maybe one day someone will realize... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659597)

...that not every network needs to be connected to the Internet. It sounds like an almost absurd idea, I know.

The real story (2, Funny)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659663)

I know someone who was involved with this. They stored the project's blueprints on a video game cartridge. It could only be accessed if you played all the way through the end of the game. After that, the blueprints showed, wireframe graphics & all.

Re:The real story (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659777)

It sounds like you may have spent too much time watching Chuck [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27660109)

I know someone who was involved with this. They stored the project's blueprints on a video game cartridge. It could only be accessed if you played all the way through the end of the game. After that, the blueprints showed, wireframe graphics & all.

Unfortunately, the game it was stored on was Desert Bus.

What of the Rebellion? (1)

Binty (1411197) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659665)

General Tagge: What of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of [the Joint Strike Fighter], it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it.

Darth Vader: The plans you refer to will soon be back in our hands.

Admiral Motti: Any attack made by the Rebels against [the Joint Strike Fighter] would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they have obtained. [The Joint Strike Fighter] is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.

What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27659685)

What's the point of the F35? A plane that is its in its experimental phase whereas Europeans have had planes for quite a few years that have roughly the same performance (the Rafale in its F3 version is basically on par with the projected performance of the F35, is qualified for CATOBAR on aircraft carriers, is able to perform a nuclear strike, etc.). It would save taxpayer money to just buy those planes which have been already tested operationally. When money is scarce one has to be pragmatic. Look at what the EU is able to do with half the budget of the US, even losing a lot of spending efficiency by having uncoordinated programs. The US military wastes a lot of taxpayer money for poor results (for the amount of money) in the end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditures

Why China? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659707)

Every time info gets stolen. It's the reds, those commy bastards! Can we please move on its been 20 years. Honestly it could have been one or some of millions of people. Why are we pointing our finger at someone with out even anything pointing to them. There aren't even leads never mind proof. Come on /. I thought we were better than this...

On second thought I didn't but still come onnnnnn...

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659897)

Every time info gets stolen. It's the reds, those commy bastards! Can we please move on its been 20 years.

First the Chinese are always busted with unsubtle spying operations like this, and the Chinese have aspirations of displacing the United States as a superpower. One could argue that the other block, the European Union, would be culpable but they are a JSF partner first, and have better spies anyway. If the Europeans, particularly the British, were spying on us, we just wouldn't know it.

It could be the Russians, but, they tend to have really good ground intelligence and would probably just pay someone to fork over the plans.

Why the hell...? (1)

PontifexMaximus (181529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659765)

Are these plans connected to ANY internet connected network? What kind of dumbass does that? If the damn plane is THAT top secret DON'T MAKE IT INTERNET ACCESSIBLE. Bloody hell, I really do hate being an American now. As my poster says, 'Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.'

The most secure computer is one not on the internet. What 1st year admin doesn't understand that basic concept?

Have to wonder.... (1)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#27659795)

....if this, too, leads back to BAE, and the problems they had surrounding the project a couple of years ago.

Will this delay Half-Life 2? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660011)

The question is, will this delay Half-Life 2?

Oh wait, wrong excuse.

Price drop? (1)

anonymous cowshed (1503301) | more than 5 years ago | (#27660063)

Haven't F-35s been sold to several other countries(or are going to be)? I guess this will affect the price a lot, I can't see anyone wanting to buy it with unknown foreign powers having the code & doubtless trying to engineer a backdoor.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?