Thread

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

817 points · 614 comments · spenvo

jacobgold · 1790110395 · focus · HN ↗
At this point, no one seems capable of keeping a large database safe. I assume all medical and biographical information that exists is in the hands of the major state actors.
China hacked 22.1 million records of US government employees:
<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...
1. coldpie · 1790111715 · focus · HN ↗
  It is unthinkable to me that anyone believes there is such a thing as computer security after so many years of nonstop hacks and leaks. If you have a computer and it is connected to a network with access to the Internet, assume that computer is semi-public. Meaning, if someone was interested enough in accessing your computer, they could do it. Do not hook any computer with access to anything that would be devastating if it was made public to the Internet. Do not put anything that would be devastating if it was made public onto someone else's Internet-connected computers.
  For example, do not hook your goddamn water or traffic or electricity infrastructure up to the goddamn Internet, and then, do fire the guy who suggested it.
  The correct analogy for computer security is not locks and keys and doors and gates. It is a house in a floodplain. Your house will not survive the flood of it hits you. Do not store anything critical or irreplaceable in that house.
  1. josephg · 1790114976 · focus · HN ↗
    > It is unthinkable to me that anyone believes there is such a thing as computer security after so many years of nonstop hacks and leaks.
    Of course there is. For example, SeL4’s security and reliability proofs still hold in the world of LLMs. The problem is that most software isn’t written on that firm foundation. Instead, most software is made by people with the philosophy of “if it looks like it works, ship it”. You don’t get secure software by working like that, because security vulnerabilities aren’t visible.
    We - humans - know how to write secure software. Just like we know how to make safe aeroplanes. The problem isn’t that we lack the capability to make secure computers. The problem is we don’t have a culture of security. Secure software is - somehow - niche. And as such, it’s much more expensive. And nobody wants to pay.
    flohofwoe · 1790145807 · focus · HN ↗
    > ...there is such a thing as computer security...
    > Of course there is. (...continues to talk about software security)
    A bit over-optimistic when looking at hardware vulneraribilties like Spectre/Meltdown.
    Secure software isn't worth much when it runs on vulnerable hardware (at least Spectre/Meltdown could be worked around in software though, but at a cost.
    josephg · 1790146633 · focus · HN ↗
    There's "no such thing as computer security", because this one time computer security researchers found vulnerabilities?
    You know that's their actual job right? That and fixing the problem. Which they did in both software and hardware.
    farlight · 1790147788 · focus · HN ↗
    One time? lscpu on my system lists two dozen CPU vulnerabilities known to the kernel. I stopped tracking them a long time ago when it felt like every week brought another information leak or bypass.
    josephg · 1790148215 · focus · HN ↗
    When I run that on my computer I see a big list of CPU vulnerabilities. All of them are either mitigated in software or fixed at the hardware level.
    Looks to me like the security researchers have been doing their jobs.
    hashstring · 1790152731 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, except that they haven’t been able to fix this completely in sw and the community knows this.
    josephg · 1790156597 · focus · HN ↗
    Fix what?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.