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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:21AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday June 29 2017, @03:21AM (#532789)

    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]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2