Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 28 2017, @01:07PM   Printer-friendly
from the tried-and-tested dept.

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:20PM (1 child)

    by shrewdsheep (5215) on Wednesday June 28 2017, @02:20PM (#532445)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29 2017, @05:13AM (#532830)

    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.