Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 30 2017, @08:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the turn-a-blind-eye dept.

Over a hundred surveillance camera storage devices operated by the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia were hacked just days ahead of the Inauguration. Ransomware was found on some of the devices and officials said the extortion effort "was localized":

Hackers infected 70 percent of storage devices that record data from D.C. police surveillance cameras eight days before President Trump's inauguration, forcing major citywide reinstallation efforts, according to the police and the city's technology office. City officials said ransomware left police cameras unable to record between Jan. 12 and Jan. 15. The cyberattack affected 123 of 187 network video recorders in a closed-circuit TV system for public spaces across the city, the officials said late Friday.

Brian Ebert, a Secret Service official, said the safety of the public or protectees was never jeopardized. Archana Vemulapalli, the city's Chief Technology Officer, said the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline, removing all software and restarting the system at each site.

Also at The Hill.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Monday January 30 2017, @03:14PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Monday January 30 2017, @03:14PM (#460665)

    Brian Ebert, a Secret Service official, said the safety of the public or protectees was never jeopardized.

    Archana Vemulapalli, the city's Chief Technology Officer, said the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline

    If both of these statements are true, then the logical conclusion is that the safety of the public is not jeopardized by taking these devices offline.

    In other words, even the people who advocate these systems as a non-negotiable component of public safety, and to hell with your privacy concerns, admit we're perfectly safe without them.

    But don't worry - they're back online serving their vital function again.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Informative=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 30 2017, @04:24PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday January 30 2017, @04:24PM (#460689)

    Archana Vemulapalli, the city's Chief Technology Officer, said the city paid no ransom and resolved the problem by taking the devices offline, removing all software and restarting the system at each site.

    Nice sentiment via selective omission, but the implication is that the safety of the government officials was the only concern.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 30 2017, @04:27PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday January 30 2017, @04:27PM (#460690)

      Although...how does one "remove all software" from something then restart it? Obviously somebody doesn't know what they're talking about here. Either they wiped the devices then powercycled them, at which point the hardware does nothing; or they reset them to factory settings, probably leaving the vulnerability open; or they overwrote the software with a fixed version.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @06:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30 2017, @06:39PM (#460739)

      The GP has done some very selective editing. However, they do have a point you failed to address by pointing that out. The statement of the police asserted the following two facts:

      1) The cameras were disabled for a period of time (due to malware and/or and the restoration efforts).
      2) The safety of the public was never in jeopardy.

      The implication is that turning cameras off for a while does not put the public in jeopardy.

      This leaves out other possibilities (e.g. extra police on the street during the period of time, if cameras are off for x time it is safe but x+1 becomes dangerous, cameras can be off as long as people think they are on, etc). However, on the surface, the logic holds true.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday January 30 2017, @07:47PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 30 2017, @07:47PM (#460761) Journal

        If turning the cameras off does not put the public in jeopardy, then maybe they should just stay turned off.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31 2017, @05:10AM (#461059)

    Well no - your argument doesn't hold water because when the fire truck breaks down, you don't drive it to the fire, it won't drive. You still try to serve your populace but when some tools are unavailable you go without until maintenance can happen.

    Not that I'm in favour of surveillance. To the contrary, I hope that your incorrect argument isn't repeated as a straw man.