SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recently launched and not yet operational, the HMS Queen Elizabeth's computers are running Windows XP.
The ship's officers defend this, claiming that the ship is secure, but the phrasing of their comments suggests that they really don't have a clue:
"It's not the system itself, of course, that's vulnerable, it's the security that surrounds it.
So the security is vulnerable?
"I want to reassure you about Queen Elizabeth, the security around its computer system is properly protected and we don't have any vulnerability on that particular score."
Apparently, where you buy your computers makes Windows XP more secure:
"The ship is well designed and there has been a very, very stringent procurement train that has ensured we are less susceptible to cyber than most."
He added: "We are a very sanitised procurement train. I would say, compared to the NHS buying computers off the shelf, we are probably better than that. If you think more Nasa and less NHS you are probably in the right place."
Didn't they learn from recent events how even air-gapped computers can be compromised?
Also covered at The Register, The Times, and The Guardian.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:20PM (11 children)
What could go wrong?
I realize that for some reason (cough *kickbacks* cough) they chose Windows, but couldn't they use something that was a little more current? Windows 7 was released eight years ago. Surely they had enough time during the years of planning and construction of this ship to figure out how to use an OS released within the last decade.
(Score: 4, Informative) by KGIII on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:57PM (10 children)
Security is a process, not an application.
XP can be kept in a secure(ish) condition, like any other OS. No OS is completely secure. No computer is completely secure - assuming it can be powered on.
I have minimal skills but, if allowed physical access - for example, I own your system, unless you've taken rather robust precautions.
With security, there's a trade-off between it and usability. I used to take a subset of my employees to Defcon. It's absolutely amazing to see how little security is in place and how trivial it is to bypass many of the things they have in place. There's no such thing as a secure system. However, there are some that are really, really close to it. I have no idea if this is one such case, but it isn't impossible to make XP as secure as any other OS. You control ingress and egress on the network, you control physical access, and you give limited permissions.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:49PM (1 child)
I mean, let's be honest, the computer systems are probably all hard airgapped, from basically any attack vector that doesn't have direct physical access to the hardware. Military contractors might be corrupt shitbags, but they probably still have engineers somewhere in their orgs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @02:05AM
Doesn't help when there is a keyboard.
The US Navy's "Smart Ship" program used Windoze last century.
They had ridiculous failures.
Testbed Gets An F-Minus [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wired.com]
N.B. "stalled in port" is not the story that is typically told.
"system failures had required Yorktown to be towed back to port several times" is the usual narrative.
A guy typed in a bad number on ONE MACHINE and it TOOK DOWN THE WHOLE NETWORK.
"Dead in the water" [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
The Royal Navy could have decided to use FOSS back in 2004 when this choice was being made--after USA's humiliating failures.
...but Noooo.
Windows for Warships [google.com]
...and as c0lo notes below, this isn't even the software that will be running on the thing when it becomes operational.
(I also read that, days ago, at El Reg.)
So, they're wasting time and money testing something that won't even be used.
...and MICROS~1 junk at that.
...and OBSOLETE MICROS~1 junk on top of that.
What a complete farce.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by i286NiNJA on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:00PM
This a long argument in defense of a statement that uses "our cyber". You can safely assume that everyone involved in this project is a fucking moron.
The cooler someone feels about the word "cyber" the more of a fraud and outsider they are. It's a good quick and effective rule of thumb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:57PM
It should simply be illegal for the government to use proprietary software. It's extremely bad for the government to be dependent upon a particular entity to develop a piece of software that they rely on; they should be able to hire anyone to develop it, and only free software gives them that option. Governments should also encourage education and self-reliance, and clearly depending on the goodwill of proprietary slavers does neither of those things.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday June 28 2017, @07:27PM (3 children)
This is false. Newer OSes have protection against attacks that will minimize or prevent an intrusion through a vulnerability. DEP, ASLR, SEHOP, etc..
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:25PM (2 children)
Not an issue so long as you control it. The same methods apply to all of them.
One exception, user access control. Pre-XP Windows will be less secure by default, as everyone is an administrator.
It all boils down to access, physical and networked.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:56PM (1 child)
No, the same kernel-level protections do not apply to XP.
Someone once said something about this:
I wonder who?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by KGIII on Wednesday June 28 2017, @11:23PM
Me. You're overlooking the basics. You can make XP as secure as any other OS. It even has the built in mechanisms.
This means controlling who has physical access and ensuring the data in and out are controlled. You may think that a more modern OS is somehow more secure but it really isn't. The biggest security risks are in the chair.
Yes, newer OSes have greater protection. No, that doesn't matter - if your goal is security. If you want secure, the user can't install anything. If you want secure, every packet is inspected and routed to only specific addresses. If you want secure, the actual computer is behind a locked door. If you want secure, the user can neither plug in anything nor change a single setting.
Anything less, is not secure. The root OS is insignificant, provided it has user access controls. A newer OS will provide you with greater security without doing those things. That is irrelevant. Without doing those things, you are inherently insecure.
Thus, as I have said; security is a process, not an application.
If you're curious, I used to employ people who gave talks at Defcon and have worked in secure environments with clearance. You can make XP as secure as you can 7, 8.1, 10, or even any flavor of Linux. If I can physically access your system, I own it - and you will not be any wiser for it. Do not let that happen, of security is your goal. If I have time to send malformed packets, I'm going to smash my way out of your virtualization and have escalated privileges. ASR? Chances are, your RAM is pretty well occupied, all I need to do is hop the stack and I now have access to control the memory.
And I'm not even a security professional. However, I've employed a whole lot of them. I've also dabbled quite a bit, but have no formal training.
Once again, control access and you can make XP as secure as 10. By thinking that 10 is more secure than it is, you open yourself up to a world of hurt. It is not if, but when, your data will leave your control. If you want secure, control access - physically and via the network, preferably air gapped. Anything less and you're largely playing a game of chance.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
Parent post describes the situation exactly. Unfortunately, que the drooling security blanket hugging consumertards who only believe what Twitter tells them to believe. "Oh noes, Windoze XP is insecure because an advertisement told me so! And it's oooooollld, and anything old must die! Because they said so on TV!"
Anyone who thinks it is impossible to secure older systems needs to go stare at some bright blue LEDs until their heads melt, assuming they aren't already.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday June 28 2017, @09:12PM
E.g., the most secure system I know of in current use runs a copy of MSWindows 95A without the extensions. Of course, it has no network access...
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:21PM (1 child)
Blah blah blah, Blue Screen of Death.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:45PM
That's actually a less facepalmy statement than most of the quotes in TFS...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:21PM (8 children)
The Chinese likely are still running their cyber on CP/M, so our cyber beats their cyber!
(Score: 3, Informative) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:41PM (3 children)
They say that Windows XP makes this ship less susceptible to cyber. Smart move! I like ships that are less susceptible to cyber. Checking into getting Windows XP for #USA's Ford class of aircraft carriers. So the EMAILS system, the catapult, can't be hacked. Very important for when we fight China & Korea! #MAGA
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:33PM
Wait, you're not into cyber? You should try it some time. They let you just grab them by the private message.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:12PM (1 child)
Not quite Trumpy enough. Take 2: "Bigly sources tell me XP has the best cyber. I like ships who don't hacked. Let's make America's cyber great again so we don't get #FakeEmail and fake carrier catapults. Hate those! Very very important when taking on looosers like Iran and that Kim Junk Uug fellow, believe me."
(Score: 5, Touché) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:20PM
Are you mocking me? Malcolm Turnbull mocked me. He's looking for trouble. I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is, but we are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, that I can tell you. To totally obliterate Canberra. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet. #WINNING
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kilo110 on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:38PM (3 children)
I really really hate the word "cyber" in any of its forms.
Hearing that word is a red flag that signals that person has no fucking idea what he's talking about.
(Score: 3, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:04PM
Hey baby, let's cyber.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:13PM
The military-industrial complex obtuseniks slinging that term around have beaucoup bucks, even people that know better will adapt to their lingo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:11PM
I really really hate the word "cyber" in any of its forms.
"So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them."
Donald J Trump (the real one...)
(Score: 5, Informative) by WizardFusion on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:26PM (17 children)
Taken from Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/6js5ab/britains_largest_warship_uses_windows_xp_and_its/djgnkp5/)
So … lots of opinions and absolutely no facts. While I cannot go into specific details in the HMS Queen Elizabeth, I can speak to the OS of choice and why something outdated is used on a new ship.
Before all that, my understanding and experience comes from working for a defense contractor with joint United States and U.K. ships and systems updates and operations to include new ship design and manufacture as well as integrated ship systems.
One of my tasks while working was to develop a universal database structure that could be ported to all ships of a specific class in fleet with strict limitations on software that could be used. My reference material was an approved (by both U.S. and U.K. military services) list of software. Most of the software was outdated and had no original design elements to properly allow us to design, distribute, and update the database.
In all cases, the specific versions of software were tested and certified by the combined militaries, which is often a years long approval process. My desire was to use open source software (MySQL and PHP) as the backbone, though the native approved support of software, while approved, wasn't supported on all systems on the ship. Therefore, we ended up using older Microsoft Access DB software.
The reality of the military and military used software is, first, it doesn't get updated often or for no reason. Literally, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Since there are multi-million dollar maintenance and support documentation contracts for all systems, the cost is more than just a software patch or upgrade as it includes entirely new, step-by-step documentation and testing before anything can be rolled out. Even then, all updates are rolled out on a schedule and only after (often) years of testing, updates, training, and approval across many different groups.
Second, while it's true Microsoft doesn't update XP or other software for the public, it's not true that Microsofts contract with the combined militaries allows the company to stop updating the ship systems. Those systems are patched and updated, even 20 years on.
Also, in all cases most ship systems are literally firewalled from outside access and may as well exist as air-gap systems. Yes, there is some ability on ships to email and use the internet, though that's severely limited and exists on different internal network systems than the core, mission critical aspects of the ship.
While it's nice to assume old software isn't being updated or old programmers aren't working the same bits of software, that's also false as most everything in the hierarchy of defense software updates and contracting has both a lifecycle and handoff procedures. Yes, in some cases some software can be orphaned, the mission critical software is named, numbered, tracked, tested, and verified at least yearly and often more often than that.
The purpose in all of this is to ensure any sailor can pick up a manual and do any job (literally step-by-step down to the smallest action and what is looked at and when) and that the software and hardware continue to work as planned, designed, developed, and promised.
So, Windows XP while old is still safe and secure and updated as well as supported, tested, and developed against until the military finds an alternative and starts to work that into new ship systems, designs, and deployment.
Which is the case, but not in ways the public will see in the immediate future.
tl;dr, software has to be approved, it's still supported under contract, people are still developing for it, newer software takes many years to get approved. Ship is still safe.
Source: worked as a defense contractor in documentation and database development covering both legacy and next-gen joint US and U.K. ship design and deployment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:39PM (6 children)
So why don't they get started with approving some BSD or Linux? and for database there is postgresql.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:04PM
Nobody's being paid off to approve free software.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:20PM (1 child)
As much as I am loath to admit the fact, Microsoft is arguably more likely to deliver support for 20 yrs forward than any of the big three Redhat, Suse, or Canonical. IBM could certainly pull it off, but they do not seem to be interested.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:13AM
Somehow, I would like to think of buying a support agreement for open source software is like buying a support agreement for a hammer.
Proprietary stuff, by its very nature, is intended to be understood by the very few privy to its inner workings, so if it stops working, very few have the knowledge to fix it.
Whereas Open stuff, by its very nature, is intended to be understood by many, so if it stops working, open the hood and fix it.
Car analogy: One brand of cars can only be fixed at the dealership. You agree in advance by buying the car that you accept any terms the dealership may dictate. However the public car design can be fixed by anyone. You do not have to fix it, but you are free to have anyone else who can do so.
Although businessmen seem to love the idea that all labor is fungible and hate labor unions where one union boss controls their access to labor, they seem to love the idea that one company can control their access to computational systems. So we now have a nation full of lowly paid fast food workers, and computer systems that can't be trusted to open an email.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)
They would approve not BSD or Linux, but a particular version of BSD or Linux. So, in the end, If they were using Linux they would be using 5 years ago kernel and versions, packages and all that stuff. And probably that approved version should be used for any new project for the next ten years.
New versions fix bugs and add new feature. Probably they don't need new features, they aren't early adopters. New features add new bugs and they prefer a solid rock system with backports to fix bugs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:54PM
When I worked for a major navy, we had Redhat for scientific work and Windows for the paper pushers.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:55PM
Or, put picolisp on a unikernel. You have got all you need, lisp, prolog, db, coroutines, ways to obfuscate the hell out of it...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:17PM (2 children)
I worked in military procurement, back in the Stone Age, and the parent comment is pretty sane and correct.
That said, aside from sticking to the tried and true, military procurement faces two enormous, intertwined problems: bureaucracy and politics.
When you are awarding $huuuge contracts, politicians cannot resist the opportunity to see that some of that money flows to people who will, in their turn, support the politicians. Call it "crony capitalism", or just flat-out "corruption". It's not a surprise that most Congresscritters (in the US) and most members of Parliament (in the UK) are millionaires. If they aren't when they arrive, they generally quickly figure out how to fix the problem.
The same corruption hits the bureaucracy, for example, with the revolving door problem. I'll make sure that your company gets this contract; you offer me a nice job in a couple of years. Who knows, maybe I'll go back to government service after that - at a higher level, of course, due to my "industry experience". Rinse and repeat.
Finally, as the icing on the cake, you get all the regulations that the government has put in place, because politicians can't resist pandering to special interest groups. The rules about awarding some percentage of contracts to woman- and minority-owned businesses are part of this. You get these shell companies that are 51% owned by some figurehead, that do nothing but take government contracts and pass them on to other subcontractors that can actually do the work. After skimming a percentage off the top, of course.
What does this have to do with obsolete technical stuff?
It makes the contracting process incredibly cumbersome. You chop a project up into enough little pieces that you can place at least one subcontract in every important political district, locate those shell companies and ensure they pass their contracts through to someone who can actually do the work, and find workarounds for all of the incompetent subcontractors you cannot get rid of (because of politics, revolving doors, minority status, whatever). By the time you have this whole wobbly contractual edifice actually teetering on the edge of stability, despite a constantly changing political landscape, the last thing you want to hear is that some actual technical component might require you to start all over again.
Ok, I'm cynical. Worse...I'm not sure there's a better alternative.? If you remove politicians from the process, and just hand $100 billion to some contractor, all you'll do is privatize the corruption. With so much money in play, too many people cannot resist temptation. Greed is part of human nature. With pseudo-democratic governments, we can force some degree of transparency, which at least limits the damage.
That military procurement works, sort of, despite all of this - that's the real surprise. At least the end products usually work, which is better than what happens elsewhere (ref [worldbank.org], ref [sciencedirect.com]), where corruption often leaves projects barely started, when all the money has been sucked out of them.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:22PM (1 child)
So, if I'm following you correctly, we should probably trust governments to do what's best for the people because government people have none of the character flaws of those goddamn capitalists.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:49PM
I don't think that's what I said, no... Capitalism didn't enter into my comment anywhere.
We're talking about military procurement, which is the government handing out money. More specifically, about really big projects, like the HMS Queen Elizabeth. The problem that needs addressed is this: How does a government handle a big project like that?
My experience in military procurement (in the US) is pretty much as I described: A horrible, unwieldy, politically driven contracting process. The wonder was that anything useful came out of the other end.
But: how else do you do it? The government can't just hand out gazillions of dollars without oversight. But with government oversight, you automatically get politics, and bureaucrats, and all the problems described.
So I'm grousing, without having an answer...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:27PM (4 children)
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This is very good advice in many situations but not when dealing with software. Programmable computers have been about for seven decade now and we know that software, in general, is imperfect and although you can test, validate, verify etc. unexpected defects are still likely to be found. Software, like hardware, requires on-going maintenance, but for different reasons.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:36PM
The truth is that a lot of shit that came later probably had a lot more intentional back-doors built into it. What military would actually need is its own, secure, hardware and software division that builds all the hardware and software for all military things. But due to the nature of private sector contracts for military (since military never builds its own equipment) this is impossible.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:01PM
Yes, software is imperfect and to solve it, they fix bugs. What they don't do is upgrade to new version each year because new versions come with a gift of a lot of new bugs.
I would love Gnome and Linux guys stop releasing new versions. Instead they should sit down for two years just ticking off the list of bugs with no new fancy wonders.
Military (and usually any embedded system) are not very fond to CADT Model [jwz.org]
(Score: 2) by WillR on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:21PM (1 child)
It's especially bad advice here considering that Windows XP *is* broke, and it's broke in ways all of the Royal Navy's potential adversaries (and anyone else who can google "XP 0-days") know about.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday June 28 2017, @04:01PM
Broken by design, just to add to the injury..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:40PM
People that have a good case for sticking to XP (and yes, good cases can be made for certain applications) may find there's an even better use case for ReactOS.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:21AM
Many industries suffer this same problem: established/entrenched change control processes which take extremely long to execute. As complex as a warship is, going with XP may have accelerated their time to launch by months or years as compared to doing the same job with "modern" software/OS.
Is it as secure as a new OS? Well, that's kind of the point of most of the procedures, to ensure to the best of their ability that it is secure as possible. In some light, you might say that the systems are more secure using XP than they would be if a newer OS had been rushed through the process to meet the same launch date. In the cold, hard light of a clear Brighton winter's day: the processes themselves are the bloated children of Kafka's inspirations and serve primarily to make work for the people who execute them, contributing little of merit and grinding the spark of life from every cog in the machine into cold black cinders that coat everything associated with the endeavor in layers so thick that the shape and form of all components in the system is unrecognizable, buried in the detritus of soulless conflict, conflict without reason or resolution.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:46PM (3 children)
If we get really really antiquated with out technology, perhaps going backwards is the best defense against new age attacks. Ever seen a binary DOS attack? I think not!
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:39PM
That's my rational when I use my old powerpc macs on the internet.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:27AM (1 child)
It was called stoned, and at its peak it infected 90%+ of floppy booting DOS based PCs in the mid 1980s.
There were others, but stoned was the first I personally encountered.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:33AM
I remember those days well. Never lost a machine to them though, albeit I did end up reformatting drives and restoring from backup.
It taught me a lot of what it takes to make a robust resilient system if I was going to trust putting something like critical infrastructure under control of a machine.
Although I feel I can construct "bulletproof" machines, there is something even harder to do... that is to get support of management. They seem to drawn to the most complex things possible, where I tend to the simplest things possible.
They seem so drawn to impressive images instead of substance. Much like "dress codes" where a three-piece suit trumps integrity.
Most industrial stuff I run across is quite easily controllable by an Arduino, or in some cases arduino/parallax propeller hybrids, albeit I would run a HMI to interface for presentation to management. The thing I love about these little microcontrollers is that I feel I can actually trust one not to have a backdoor where others are having more control over the machine than I do. Although the later machines are far more powerful, I see them like having workmen in my house that I cannot trust.... I know they are working for someone else who is casing the place, selling off anything he can get for his own profit.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:50PM (2 children)
I'm pretty sure when WXP came out, MS said "this is the most secure version of Windows ever".
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:18PM
The put it on the install screen: image [jimguckin.com]
(Score: 1) by WillR on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:40PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:56PM (2 children)
This makes me think. What OS do the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese etc use on their warships?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday June 28 2017, @10:07PM
I've heard of one called Steam OS. I hope they don't have that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @10:14PM
OS2/Warp
[ducks and covers]
(Score: 3, Funny) by EvilSS on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:10PM (3 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by BsAtHome on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:24PM (2 children)
With a grain of salt. The perfect electrolyte.
No wonder why they still need to learn to navigate with charts and sextant. No water-gapped computer ever survives the harsh mistress of the sea.
;-)
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:36PM (1 child)
"They told me they'd run faster with all them being water-cooled!"
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:29AM
The three of you can now team up and split the cost of a new keyboard for me. The Dr. Pepper nose hose......
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kaszz on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:21PM
Recently launched and not yet operational, the HMS Blue halt's computers are running Microsoft XP.
The ship's apologists defend this, claiming out clue deficit that the ship is secure because it's protected by security that surrounds it that is properly protected. This enables us to assure you there is no problem here or there.
Our splendid wisdom has enabled a well designed ship with a very, very stringent procurement train that has ensured we are less susceptible to cyber than most except our knees get weak for Microsoft salesmen with long tie. We use a very sanitised procurement train with a lot of soap. In comparison, it could be said that NHS suck and we are better than them. Think more NASA, like Challenger because our ability to make the right choice.. is challenged.
Our brains are like, air gapped between the ears. We make totally uncompromising shit choices.
(Score: 2) by lx on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:25PM (1 child)
I had a case of the cyber once.
Couldn't sit for days. It was horrible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:59PM
You should always use protection when cybering. When somebody asks you a/s/l, think of the character you want to play and give an answer based on that. One day you can be 19/m/Iowa, and the next day you can be 17/f/Portland.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 28 2017, @03:36PM
Is this counter-'cyber'.
Show a picture with winxp in background, then see who is trying to break into a winxp system?
You know, set up a few CCTV's around the computer with winxp honeypot... thats security, isn't it?
Check the logs once in a while...
MEANWHILE, the Russians/Chinese/N.Koreans/some fat guy sitting on a couch slip a few magnetic mines into the water in front of the thing and 'blooooey!!!'
Let's see MS support THAT blue screen of
waterboarddeath hole in the bow, muthafecka's!--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @05:49PM (3 children)
As an engineer, I've learned to stay away from oscilloscopes that run Windows. This boat has got to be orders of magnitude worse. I can just imagine them sitting dead in the water, waiting for the systems to reboot. OK for practice drills, but not if there's a real enemy.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 28 2017, @06:43PM
How many more years before that carrier actually has working planes? Until then, it's pretty much dead in the water, regardless of XP.
Aptly named, it's about as useful as the Queen: parade around, make an impression ... but without planes it's just a giant target needing protection, with less actual firepower than the ships protecting it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:50PM
Imagine no longer because it has already happened [wired.com]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:44AM
I just bought a GUI panel from Saelig.... only to discover it was running Windows.
I do not know if I can trust the damned thing, or if it will wait till I am 100 miles from nowhere then insist on an internet connection.
So, I put it back in the box, and going Nextium.
When I am taking this thing 100 miles into the desert, I flat can not trust "business grade" systems on this kind of thing.
"Business grade" stuff belongs in an environment where no-one gets hurt if it fails.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:43PM
step 1 put XP on a warship.
step 2 warship inevitably fails, gets captured
step 3 enemy examines the systems to get info
step 4 enemy finds XP
step 5 enemy dies of laughter
you win.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday June 28 2017, @08:46PM
ElReg TFA, bottom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday June 29 2017, @12:11AM (3 children)
When the Cylons attacked, the Galactica was one of the few ships that survived because it used outdated software. All of the new ships in the fleet were taken over and neutralized in seconds.
It's essential that we keep systems like WinXP around, as any self-respecting Cylon wouldn't be caught dead using that. It's our only defence against the upcoming AI war. I assume that this would also hold true for the other players - Skynet, the Lawnmower Man, the Matrix and that AI from Ghost in the Shell (the anime, not that crap movie).
Geez, it's going to be a shitstorm soon - perhaps I need to break out my old Commodore 64 again...
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday June 29 2017, @06:19AM (2 children)
Can you imagine the frustration of hacking a Commodore64?
You spend all this time trying to get your code in the machine... you execute it and the ship begins to malfunction.
The captain sees it, realizes he no longer has control, goes to the C64, turns it off, unplugs the remote, and turns it back on.
In less than a minute, he's back at the helm, and you no longer get any response whatsoever from your link. The other end is laying on the floor somewhere where the captain dropped it.
Remember those old game cartridges for the C64, which were usually a pair of 27C64's? I often bought game cartridges just for the case, then put my own custom code in them for machine control. Unfortunately, the original C64 was unfit for industrial usage due to overheating VIC chips. But good ol' Don Lancaster figured out how to make video streams using yet another 65C02, which he described in his "TV Typewriter Cookbook", which I found extremely useful.
I was able to fork off a derivative design which used two 65C02. One for processing, the other for keyboard scanning and video generation. Monochrome. Ran quite happily on flashlight batteries.
( Don Lancaster was one of my idols... along with Steve Ciarcia, Robert Pease and Jim Williams. I really looked up to those fellas. High priests of the trade in my book. )
At the time, Rockwell was making 65C02 chips and had an impressive architecture similar to the C64 known as the AIM series. I was in love with that design. There was so much I wanted to do with this thing. After the woes of discrete, RTL, DTL, then TTL, CMOS was a dream come true. I felt 74/54CXXX and 4XXX CMOS was the ultimate in logic. Bye-bye kilowatt power supplies so heavy I could not lift 'em. Hello systems I could run on flashlight cells.
Times change. I can now buy the functional equivalent of an entire AIM system on one ATMEL 328P.
Which lets me keep my minimalist designs with now ever simpler hardware.
Sure, go ahead and make the presentation layer as fluffy as you want, as long as its built on a sturdy frame. If something comes along and eats up all the fluff, I want the foundation staying put and running no matter what.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @07:40AM (1 child)
...who crashed his trusty old VW bug on the way home from Jim Williams' funeral and died.
Whoa. Too much like Russian nesting dolls.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:29AM
Yeh, he loved his old VW bug.... he was always writing about it in "Pease Porridge" column.
I considered those two people to be probably the most knowledgeable folks in the analog world. I sure miss reading the stories they posted in the technical magazines.
I was quite envious of them being able to find employers that tolerated their quirks and let them do what they did best: innovate and build wonderful new things.
Every attempt I made to be creative only seemed to aggravate the suit guys, who seemed to relentlessly push me for the most expedient solution, no matter how inelegant and half-baked.
Both of these men were peas of the same pod... quite colorful and individualistic.... traits hardly tolerated in the rigid military-industrial complex environment I was in at the time. I wanted so bad a job I would actually enjoy instead of feeling like the monkey with the cup as the organ grinder woo'd the three letter agencies.
It was a sad day indeed to lose them.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]