Thread

'We hacked the FBI:' Hackers say they have data on all FBI employees

817 points · 614 comments · spenvo

tencentshill · 1790104162 · focus · HN ↗
Well that's a big one.
Perhaps firing expertise and hiring incompetents wasn't a good idea.
1. nateb2022 · 1790107107 · focus · HN ↗
  There's incompetence in every major company including Oracle. PeopleSoft isn't known for being the most modern or secure thing out there. Less reliance on 3rd party software like this will be a good thing going forward.
  1. lenerdenator · 1790108690 · focus · HN ↗
    That's assuming that the result of this will be to switch away from PeopleSoft.
    nateb2022 · 1790108957 · focus · HN ↗
    I think enterprise software in this vein used to have a quasi-monopoly due to the sheer work required to build software of its size (not enough engineers exist in the government to do so), and the difficulty for competitors to enter regulated markets and so pretty much 1-2 options to choose from.
    AI now makes it possible to build this kind of software in-house, offering a 2nd choice, though it'll only be as good as the standards of the teams using it. Only time can tell.
    sarchertech · 1790109552 · focus · HN ↗
    Enterprise software is complicated mostly because of number of customers it can support.
    Bespoke software can be orders of magnitude less complex. There are many reasons companies choose to use vendor solutions, but for large organizations it’s usually not “we literally can’t hire enough engineers to build it.”
    There are so many counter examples.
    0cf8612b2e1e · 1790109963 · focus · HN ↗
    Considering how bad most enterprise software is, I assumed the only real relevance was if the sales team ponied up some lavish perks to the right VP who only has to sign checks and never actually interact with the software.
    nateb2022 · 1790112626 · focus · HN ↗
    > Bespoke software can be orders of magnitude less complex.
    Not in government. For payroll/HR, we're talking about hundreds of pages of legislative mandates, union bargaining rules, Title 5 statutory compliance, and FISMA/NIST regs. Just customizing something like PeopleSoft to fit is a large task in itself, let alone trying to implement bespoke software using an engineering pool that isn't even large enough to modernize the software it currently owns.
    Bespoke sounds nice and works well in startups but that's not the context we're discussing. Check out Phoenix Pay: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system and understand the US is even more complex.
    toyg · 1790117210 · focus · HN ↗
    This AI phase reminds me of the early web, when "my cousin coulda done it in a week". Folks fail to appreciate the complexity of commercial realities.
    sarchertech · 1790121958 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ve worked on HR software. There are currently at least 3 large scale, bespoke, homegrown payroll/HR systems in use by the Federal government. There used to be many more. There are many reasons to outsource software but the government can’t hire enough engineers is not one of them. It’s clearly been done before.
    >Just customizing something like PeopleSoft to fit is a large task in itself, let alone trying to implement bespoke software
    Customizing large enterprise software in many cases is harder than writing software from scratch. You end up paying enormous vendor margins on top of the costs for something that is effectively bespoke software anyway.
    There is so much bespoke software out there that is at least as complex as government payroll software.
    Zigurd · 1790109968 · focus · HN ↗
    Not even the FBI has hostage negotiators good enough to get you out of an Oracle contract.
    quickthrowman · 1790110752 · focus · HN ↗
    I imagine Oracle lawyers to be identical to the Cylons pointing guns at President Gaius Baltar and forcing him to sign death warrants on New Caprica.
    <a href="https://youtu.be/2_nUztwPiEY" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/2_nUztwPiEY
    BLKNSLVR · 1790121421 · focus · HN ↗
    Anyone that signed an Oracle contract has volunteered as a hostage, though, so you have to negotiate with both the hostage-taker and the hostages. Stockholm-syndrome-esque.
2. mc32 · 1790107743 · focus · HN ↗
  Do you think this is a consequence of the seemingly quarterly RIFs at Oracle? Is it that offshoring wasn’t such a good idea?
  1. lenerdenator · 1790108601 · focus · HN ↗
    The irony, of course, is that this will likely have a negative impact upon Oracle's reputation, which will have a negative impact upon its value, which will then be resolved with more RIFs.
    It's okay. Larry got another island.
    jmclnx · 1790110776 · focus · HN ↗
    I doubt it, look at all other breaches over the years.
    If anything Oracle will "contribute" a lot to congress people's midterm reelection and in a few months all will be forgotten and Oracle will get more Gov. contracts.
    toyg · 1790117317 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean, the whole business basically started in order to get government contracts. Not even IBM can boast that.
    dylan604 · 1790112423 · focus · HN ↗
    > have a negative impact upon Oracle's reputation
    Do they have any positive reputation left, or is it just more negative from the previous negative position?
    jandrese · 1790112988 · focus · HN ↗
    At this point if Oracle's reputation has any more negative impact it is liable to roll over and suddenly have an amazing reputation.
    Tangurena2 · 1790113641 · focus · HN ↗
    So. The beatings will continue until morale/profitability improves?
    lenerdenator · 1790193124 · focus · HN ↗
    > implying that morale mattered in the first place at Oracle
3. Betelbuddy · 1790108461 · focus · HN ↗
  Lets hope the Epstein files see the light of day, thanks to AI...
  1. [deleted] · 1790110340 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
4. rayiner · 1790108612 · focus · HN ↗
  Doesn’t seem new. Do you remember the 2015 OPM hack? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Manag.... My data got leaked in that.
  1. freejazz · 1790110467 · focus · HN ↗
    Probably just one of the new recruits clicking on a link while viewing beastiality
  2. consumer451 · 1790110774 · focus · HN ↗
    Was that the one where due to political grand-standing, we had a government shutdown that led to furloughing the contractors who worked on security, so no one was watching the dashboard? Or was that a different one?
    sneak · 1790154669 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure that breaches are prevented by “watching the dashboard”, but what do I know?
    consumer451 · 1790165765 · focus · HN ↗
    This feels like a lifetime ago, but IIRC evidence of on-going exfil was apparently presented to users who were no longer working.
5. baggachipz · 1790109357 · focus · HN ↗
  I always assumed DOGE + Ka$h would create an impenetrable fortress of strength; a beacon on the hill of brilliance and security.
  1. classified · 1790110921 · focus · HN ↗
    If you use Trump Coins to reflect the Evil Eye away from you, nothing bad can happen to you.
    debo_ · 1790111717 · focus · HN ↗
    It can only good happen.
    BLKNSLVR · 1790120718 · focus · HN ↗
    Reference: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCO-pmB1ktQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCO-pmB1ktQ
    kccoder · 1790129613 · focus · HN ↗
    My absolute favorite Trump imbecility, and there are so so so so so (so)^inf many Trump imbecilities. He’s almost impossibly dumb, just like his voters.
  2. Bengalilol · 1790114200 · focus · HN ↗
    I thank you for your attention to this matter
  3. hduto · 1790117941 · focus · HN ↗
    I know a guy who named his kid Kash (before orange man) and he regrets it.
    ThePinion · 1790122263 · focus · HN ↗
    To be fair, it was a terrible name before Patel.
    aprilthird2021 · 1790143958 · focus · HN ↗
    It's short for Kashyap
    filoeleven · 1790166833 · focus · HN ↗
    Fitting; he yaps for cash
    [deleted] · 1790143306 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
6. Romanulus · 1790109748 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
7. sippingabonedry · 1790112549 · focus · HN ↗
  > Perhaps firing expertise
  The expertise that told them to buy PeopleSoft years ago, or do you actually believe the FBI home-rolled its own HRMS in the last year?
  Are they related to the expertise that was supposed to lead to the immediate, irreparable offlining of Twitter after they were all fired?
8. Rotdhizon · 1790140224 · focus · HN ↗
  FBI in this past year has been desperate for hires. To the point they have ran campaigns to do 1 interview to hire. I've had a few recruitment calls to interview for positions but their pay is far below market rate for cybersecurity professionals. To the tune of like 30-50k/yr below what you could get elsewhere for analyst work. Add that in with the horrible reputation they have now, it's a grim situation.
  1. Frieren · 1790154344 · focus · HN ↗
    > pay is far below market rate for cybersecurity professionals. T
    And there is no glamour on sense of duty when your main job is to make sure that the Epstein files are not revealed so USA citizens are in the dark about who were the rapists and criminals in the list. An awful job.
    gosub100 · 1790172255 · focus · HN ↗
    One of the girls who reported sexual assault to NYPD who was told to stand down by the FBI. It's absolutely sickening

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.