Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security

Nobody Is Sure What Should Count As a Cyber Incident 49

chicksdaddy writes: Despite a lot of attention to the problem of cyber attacks against the nation's critical infrastructure, The Christian Science Monitor notes that there is still a lot of confusion about what, exactly, constitutes a "cyber incident" in critical infrastructure circles. The result: many incidents in which software failures affect critical infrastructure may go unreported.

Passcode speaks to security experts like Joe Weiss, who claims to have a list of around 400 incidents in which failures in software and electronic communications lead to a failure of confidentiality, integrity or availability (CIA) — the official definition of a cyber incident. Few of them are considered cyber incidents within critical infrastructure circles, however. His list includes some of the most deadly and destructive public sector accidents of the last two decades. Among them: a 2006 emergency shutdown of Unit 3 at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama, the 1999 Olympic Gas pipeline rupture and explosion in Bellingham Washington that killed three people and the 2010 Pacific Gas & Electric gas pipe explosion in San Bruno, Calif., that killed eight people and destroyed a suburban neighborhood.

While official reports like this one about the San Bruno pipeline explosion (PDF) duly note the role software failure played in each incident, they fail to characterize them as 'cyber incidents' or note the cyber-physical aspects of the adverse event. Weiss says he has found many other, similar omissions that continue even today. He argues that applying an IT mindset to critical infrastructure results in operators overlooking weaknesses in their systems. "San Bruno wasn't malicious, but it easily could have been," Weiss notes. "It's a nonmalicious event that killed 8 people and destroyed a neighborhood."
United States

Obama To Announce $240M In New Pledges For STEM Education 149

An anonymous reader sends word that President Obama is expected to announce more that $240 million in pledges to boost STEM educations at the White House Science Fair today. "President Barack Obama is highlighting private-sector efforts to encourage more students from underrepresented groups to pursue education in science, technology, engineering and math. At the White House Science Fair on Monday, Obama will announce more than $240 million in pledges to boost the study of those fields, known as STEM. This year's fair is focused on diversity. Obama will say the new commitments have brought total financial and material support for these programs to $1 billion. The pledges the president is announcing include a $150 million philanthropic effort to encourage promising early-career scientists to stay on track and a $90 million campaign to expand STEM opportunities to underrepresented youth, such as minorities and girls."
Google

FTC's Internal Memo On Google Teaches Companies a Terrible Lesson 121

schwit1 writes FTC staffers spent enormous time pouring through Google's business practices and documents as well as interviewing executives and rivals. They came to the conclusion that Google was acting in anti-competitive ways, such as restricting advertisers from working with rival search engines. But commissioners balked at the prospect of a lengthy and protracted legal fight. For a big company, that process may have been enlightening. Agency staffers might find evidence of anti-competitive behavior. But that doesn't mean the firm will face the music in the end. Previous attempts to go after big companies — such as the Justice Department's long-running antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s — loomed large in regulators' minds at the time of the Google probe, according to a former official who worked at the agency then. "Even if we were in the right and could win," said the former official, "it could take a lot of resources away from other enforcement."

Comment Re:Schneier got it right a decade and a half ago (Score 1) 119

Indeed. The problem is that Unicode is far too complex to still be understandable to the average programmer (and the good ones have to waste far too much time on it). Of course, you should always make your assumptions explicit and do explicit rejection of anything you are not prepared to process. But that would be a sound coding practice, and we cannot have that, now can we?

Comment Re:Schneier got it right a decade and a half ago (Score 1) 119

You miss my point: I basically said that as soon as you are interpreting the data as Unicode, you are screwed. As to treating input as permanently dirty, that would be effective if possible, but it is not. For many security-critical functionality, you just have to reject anything that is not 7-bit ASCII, because quite often you need to sanitize input and use it afterwards.

Comment Re:Schneier got it right a decade and a half ago (Score 1) 119

Indeed. That is why I usually add to stay away from Java if you want/need security. Testing is pretty much a non-starter to get secure code though, unless the person doing the tests really understands the code, security and has a generous testing budget. In usual industrial practice, none of the three are the case.

Comment Re:CS != Programming (Score 1) 211

Come to think of it, just recently. (It was AVL vs. red-black though. I went with AVL, despite that being generally discouraged because of code complexity.) When you do advanced stuff, this knowledge and the skills and insights that come with it are make-or-beak. And I should point out that still about 70% of IT projects fail (where "fail" is budget overrun > 2x or not completing the project at all; in many other the results underperform to a serious degree).

The problem is that most programmers are producing code that is creating much less value than it could create or that is outright destroying value due to bugs, insecurity and inefficiency. And that is ignoring function and UI design.

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...