On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:04:40 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Crash strike caution
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| If Microfot's Windows operating system crashes and gives you the "blue
>| screen of death", it's a pain in the proverbial, but it's hardly
>| life-threatening. In 1998, however, a United States Navy destroyer, the
>| USS Yorktown, was left stranded and vulnerable when its Windows
>| NT-based control system failed.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| In fact, such networking could be a security risk. Western nations are
>| becoming increasingly vulnerable to cyber-attack from hostile nations,
>| terrorist groups and criminal syndicates, and an increasing reliance in
>| civilian technologies by intelligence and military agencies is having an
>| adverse effect on national security.
> `----
>
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/security/crash-strike-caution/2007/04/09/1175971018555.html
>
> What O/S did Britain's nuclear subs choose to run again...?
>
> Open source software is the only solution here. Visibility is trust.
Man, this old hat never seems to die.
First, it did not happen in 1998. It happened in 1997. Second, They did
not send out tugs to tow it in to port, the Yorktown had auxillary
propulsion systems it used to return under power. Third, The incident was
largely blown out of proportion due to misquoting by the Government
Computer News magazine.
Also, the Yorktown was running an out of date, and obsolete version of the
SMCS software with the data safeguards deliberately disabled.
http://www.gcn.com/print/17_32/33639-1.html?topic=news
>From that article:
"NT played no role in the Yorktownʼs LAN crash, Baker said."
Further, the source of the story, Anthony DiGiorgio, claims he was
misquoted and never said the things the author claims he said.
http://www.gcn.com/print/17_20/33292-1.html
|
|
