backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 69 comment(s) - last by Fracture.. on May 12 at 10:18 AM

U.S. military had counterfeit Cisco networking gear in its secure networks

For many in law enforcement and national security in the U.S. security concerns are very big after the FBI discovered that the U.S. military had bogus computer gear in use in its military networks. The fear is that counterfeit networking components could introduce Trojans and possible security breaches into secure networks in America.

According to The New York Times, the FBI ran an investigation called Operation Cisco Raider that has so far led to 15 criminal cases involving counterfeit products that were bought and in use by U.S. military agencies, military contractors and electric power companies in America.

Operation Cisco Raider uncovered 3,500 counterfeit Cisco network components, with an estimated value of $3.5 million. According to the FBI’s briefing of the Office of Management and Budget, the counterfeit equipment could allow the remote jamming of networks thought to be secure and possibly could allow access to networks remotely.

A Cisco spokesman told The New York Times, “We did not find any evidence of re-engineering in the manner that was described in the FBI presentation. We know what these counterfeiters are about."  Cisco believes that the counterfeiters weren’t attempting to get products into the market that would allow intrusion into secure networks. Rather Cisco feels that the counterfeiters were simply trying to produce copies of popular products to make fast money.

The threat of gaining access to secure systems via backdoors and exploits in hardware is real. Researchers at the University of Illinois were able to modify a Sun Microsystems SPARC processor by altering a data file on the chip. The chip altered was used in automated manufacturing systems and the modifications allowed the researchers to steal passwords from the system the processor was used in.

The issue of compromised hardware used in defense systems was highlighted with the bombing of the suspected Syrian nuclear plant by Israel. In that recent example, security analysts believe antiaircraft weapons were compromised and were turned off remotely prior to the attack.

Compromised hardware isn't the only source of security breaches for secure networks. A simple phishing attack on one of the countries most prestigious research laboratories allowed the breach of information from networks at Los Alamos.



Comments     Threshold


But...
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2008 11:48:40 AM , Rating: 5
I thought if you pay 40,000.00 for a router (which retails for 3000.00), you are guaranteed that it will be of highest grade materials, workmanship and most important, genuine product that is very secure.

In addition, if you spend 10,000 apiece for the replacement screws you will insure your device free from remote espionage manipulation...




RE: But...
By mvpx02 on 5/9/2008 11:55:05 AM , Rating: 3
You'd think so, but really almost all that extra money goes towards gold-plating the entire device.


RE: But...
By MrBlastman on 5/9/2008 12:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think the reality of things is the Cold War has never really died. It is still going strong to this day.

The only difference is our enemies are not as clearly defined and the layers of subterfuge have increased. I give credit to our enemies for perhaps coming up with this scheme but I'm also glad our government has caught some of the contraband.

The question remains though, how much other compromised equipment within our government remains? I'm sure there is something, somewhere that we don't know about which contains a backdoor or trojan that could be utilized in a devastating manner in the future.


RE: But...
By dickeywang on 5/9/2008 12:23:57 PM , Rating: 3
I think the reality is, even though the Cold War has ended, the CIA and all the arm dealers are still trying their best to create another one. Let's face it, the United states are spending about 600billion USD a year on military expenditures, which is about 50% of the military expenditures of the entire world and that's at least 8x as much as any other country in this world.

It will be a doom to those arm dealers and CIAs if we are in a situation where there is no opponent in this world.


RE: But...
By afkrotch on 5/9/2008 1:01:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let's face it, the United states are spending about 600billion USD a year on military expenditures, which is about 50% of the military expenditures of the entire world and that's at least 8x as much as any other country in this world.


Umm...the actual budget (as of 2007) was $440 billion. I rounded up too. $111 billion of that went to just paying the DoD's military personnel.

Now there is a budget for stuff like war, which would bring the total up to around $627 billion. But hey, helping rebuild two war torn countries is expensive. Also providing military training to various countries, natural disaster relief, and so forth goes in there too.


RE: But...
By dickeywang on 5/9/2008 3:17:28 PM , Rating: 4
You were talking about the 2007 numbers, the 2008 budget is $587 billion(according to the DoD website: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/... and the total budget for all the countries in the world is $1.2trillion. And for the money that was suppose to be spent on "rebuilding" countries, what they have done after 5 years into the war in Iraq?
You put it in a way sounds like involving in wars is a good thing for America, which is totally nonsense. Wars are only good for one kind of people -- arm dealers. Unfortunately, the U.S. government is also the biggest arm dealer in the world. Speaking of the war we are involving now, where did all those weapons used by Al Qaeda come from? Where did Sadam get all those weapons from? The all come from the U.S.. Speaking of stabling the middle east, have you seen that U.S. is selling weapons to both sides, Israel and Saudi Arabia?
It's all about money, and a war is only good for one particular kind of people, arm dealers.


RE: But...
By BladeVenom on 5/9/2008 3:30:49 PM , Rating: 1
The majority of Al Qaeda's and Saddam's weapons were Soviet weapons.


RE: But...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: But...
By jlips6 on 5/9/2008 4:23:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote: "Within the span of a few years Afghanistan and Iraq have had free elections, for the first time ever. A citizen appointed government. They are without a doubt better off than they were before the " war ". Did we do it just for them ? Of course not. A stable democratic middle east is totally within our best interest for national security."

:|
...
Wasn't their a bunch of news about how that election had a lot of problems with everybody rigging it?

And a stable democratic middle east is within our best interests for national security, yes, However, just because we want it, doesn't mean we will get it.

You seem to be quite the realist about wars. So am I. However, you seem to be under the illusion that this war will actually get anything done. So I won't hesitate to say this to you. that country needs a civil war, and it will have it regardless of whether we are there or not. We can spend billions on nothing, and waste countless soldiers, or we can let the dam break and at least get out of the way instead of delaying it. A stable, democratic Middle East Will. Not. Happen. For two reasons.

1. it must be democratic.
2. it must be stable.

democracy as we think of it will not exist there for awhile. and by awhile, I mean for a decade or two. The illusion of democracy we have their is pathetic.
Stability. That's a good one. I don't even have to say anything about that. The middle east and stable haven't been used in the sentance since Saddam was dictator.

You make me sick when you talk about this war. Like it actually might do something. You seem realistic in all sense but this. Name One thing that we are fighting there for beyond G dublya's pride that we will actually get. They don't want us there. We don't want us there. (those of us that have grey matter in their heads.) We won't accomplish anything there. Why are we fighting?

...


RE: But...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2008 7:00:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wasn't their a bunch of news about how that election had a lot of problems with everybody rigging it?


Well hell it was their first one ever. We have been doing it for 200+ years and we STILL have rigged elections. Just the fact that they could even attempt such a thing is a huge milestone.

quote:
And a stable democratic middle east is within our best interests for national security, yes, However, just because we want it, doesn't mean we will get it.


So the alternative is... do nothing ? Yeah thats a great plan.

quote:
So I won't hesitate to say this to you. that country needs a civil war, and it will have it regardless of whether we are there or not.


Sounds like it would be a civil slaughter to me. I actually agree that they need a civil war, but it just wouldn't happen. Those people would be simply slaughtered.

quote:
We can spend billions on nothing, and waste countless soldiers, or we can let the dam break and at least get out of the way instead of delaying it. A stable, democratic Middle East Will. Not. Happen.


I can't agree with that. You don't have a crystal ball. You want to make a self fulfilling prophecy. Last time we stepped back and let the damn break, it spilled out onto our shores. The biggest mistake was pulling out after the first Gulf War. If we had done then what we are doing now, you and I would not be having this discussion.

quote:
You make me sick when you talk about this war. Like it actually might do something. You seem realistic in all sense but this. Name One thing that we are fighting there for beyond G dublya's pride that we will actually get. They don't want us there. We don't want us there. (those of us that have grey matter in their heads.) We won't accomplish anything there. Why are we fighting?


I'm sorry to sicken you. I really am. I can't answer your questions satisfactory, because people like you simply don't believe there is ANY cause worth going to war to. At all. Ever. The fact that you believe a president could legally wage a war for his own personal pride alone is really depressing.


RE: But...
By hashish2020 on 5/10/2008 2:41:43 AM , Rating: 1
Democracy is not mob rule.

It requires the preconditions of a free press (which we do not allow them) protection of minority rights (the only minorities that get rights in Iraq are those that kill and maim for it) and many other things

This so called democracy in Iraq WILL FAIL---name me one democracy that did not have such preconditions at one point in its history(Japan, Korea were not democracies, but one party states, for 50+ years after their respective wars, and Germany has a history of having SOME of these basic rights---Iraq HAS no history thereof, and we NEVER installed the structure in civil society to CREATE such conditions---we simply moved to elections and the mob rule, cronyism, and violence, state sponsered and otherwise, that we have up until today and we will have whether we stay or not)

Not to mention, if you want to sent my friends in the military for your little humanitarian democracy missions, ENLIST YOURSELF, because I'll tell you, they, and ESPECIALLY the marines, are sick of Iraq, whose ONE STANDING MOTIVATOR that has not changed is installing democracy and human rights

Curious how you accuse those above of being liberals, when the war YOU SUPPORT is nothing more than an interventionist Wilsonian BLEEDING HEART (should I say bleeding PURPLE heart) mission


RE: But...
By A5un on 5/10/2008 5:51:55 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your general statement, but I do want to point out that democracy should be defined solely as the "majority rule." It's neither good nor bad. It's just whatever the majority wants, which can be good or bad. The Salem witch-hunt was a result of democracy, and that can hardly be interpreted as anything good.


RE: But...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2008 7:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention, if you want to sent my friends in the military for your little humanitarian democracy missions, ENLIST YOURSELF, because I'll tell you, they, and ESPECIALLY the marines, are sick of Iraq, whose ONE STANDING MOTIVATOR that has not changed is installing democracy and human rights


I have a reconstructed left knee with 50% strength and mobility and have had chronic back problems since I was 20. Knowing I would not be accepted, when the war started I still tried to enlist. Because I honestly believe that something can be more important than myself. Don't accuse me of being some internet air bag.

And how dare you speak for all those men and women and tell us they are " sick of being there ". They aren't " your friends " with all due respect. They made a choice knowing full well what it was. If they really were your friends you wouldn't disgrace them in this manner.


RE: But...
By hashish2020 on 5/11/2008 1:37:05 AM , Rating: 2
Ha, yea ok.

Did you even try to enlist? I'm guessing no.

Nope, my buddies are proud of me, they don't want to be sent to war for chairjockeys and chickhawks like you, and they like how I try to stop it from happening again.

I don't speak for all of them, just my buddies.

Though a lot of people tend to agree with them in the services

Military Times poll of active duty troops

Just as telling, only 41 percent of the military now say the United States should have gone to war in Iraq, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects beliefs of the general population — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today-Gallup poll.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/...

Mouth, open. Put in foot.

Don't tell military people what to think, LISTEN TO THEM


RE: But...
By hashish2020 on 5/10/2008 3:28:55 AM , Rating: 4
"The fact that you believe a president could legally wage a war for his own personal pride alone is really depressing."

Not for his pride. For his popularity.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

It has happened before. It may happen again. But with your shocking lack of historical and political knowledge, I ain't surprised you wouldn't know this.


RE: But...
By jlips6 on 5/11/2008 3:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So the alternative is... do nothing? Yeah thats a great plan.

if doing nothing means helping our country out of national debt and saving hundreds and hundreds of soldiers lives, I'm all for it.

quote:
I can't agree with that. You don't have a crystal ball. You want to make a self fulfilling prophecy. Last time we stepped back and let the damn break, it spilled out onto our shores. The biggest mistake was pulling out after the first Gulf War. If we had done then what we are doing now, you and I would not be having this discussion.


you do realize you create your own little crystal ball when you say this, right?

quote:
I can't answer your questions satisfactory, because people like you simply don't believe there is ANY cause worth going to war to. At all. Ever. The fact that you believe a president could legally wage a war for his own personal pride alone is really depressing.

wrong. Wars are neccesary, and in many cases unavoidable. I do not however, believe it is the united states job to jump in to every damn war that occurs every decade often times in countries that don't affect us at all. I would prefer we send our troops to darfur instead of Iraq, where we could actually make a difference. If we go to war, it should be for a cause worth a war. Not at the drop of a political hat.
We have to have stable country of our own before we can make other countries stable. Thanks to this war, China owns the US. Great job W. Great job.

Do I believe George Bush would go to war for his own sake?... Halliburton and Katrina.
Uh, yeah I do. The fact that you still believe in him is depressing.