I really need to learn how to reply for the list and not just the person posting, sorry for the duplicate, bud.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">DUDE DUDERINO</b> <<a href="mailto:ihasshovel@gmail.com">ihasshovel@gmail.com</a>><br>
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:14 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] n3td3v has a fan<br>To: n3td3v <<a href="mailto:xploitable@gmail.com">xploitable@gmail.com</a>><br><br><br>I applaud your contribution to the discussion of comptuer security. But really, posting a reply to a news blog isn't telling anyone anything, you're just chiming in your own comments. I would love to see CNet News publish your wrods, but I don't think that will happen. I could comment on a wide number of things, but that doesn't make me an expert. I see your point, but you don't really offer a solution. That's like standing on a corner with a sign that says something like "you're going to hell," but not trying to save us. In the end, aside from being a comment on a news blog, and promoting your name, what purpose did that comment have? Any monkey with half a brain could realize that computers that aren't on the internet are still susceptible to attack. It's just that your chances of attack are increased (albeit minimally) with the volume of people who have access to it (more people = people on the internet). How do we protect against the threat you were making everyone aware of?<br>
<br>I smell FUD...<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:49 PM, n3td3v <<a href="mailto:xploitable@gmail.com" target="_blank">xploitable@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:06 AM, <<a href="mailto:malix@hush.com" target="_blank">malix@hush.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> First, learn the proper use of the English language before choosing<br>
> to mouth off with it.<br>
<br>
</div>People think english and spelling matters, but its what you say that<br>
counts not the way you say it.<br>
<br>
This is a concept many have failed to grasp in recent times.<br>
<br>
For instance, I went on Cnet News last night and told them about<br>
offline machines:<br>
<br>
Connected to the internet?: reader comment from n3td3v<br>
<br>
Posted on: April 8, 2008, 8:10 PM PDT<br>
Story: Breaking into a power station in 3 easy steps<br>
<br>
Computers don't need to be connected to the internet to get infected<br>
with the latest and greatest zero-day, someone, a rogue employee<br>
downloads code from the internet or makes his own, then uploads it to<br>
his memory key, then walks into power station, plugs it in with the<br>
intent to infect and hey presto, your infrastructure gets compromised.<br>
Valuable lesson: _ALL_ your computers need to be patched against the<br>
latest zero-day threats, not just online ones BUT offline systems too.<br>
Even computers which will NEVER have an internet connection _still_<br>
need to be patched. The threat from rogue employees and the inside job<br>
is far greater than an internet facing computer. Is anyone listening?<br>
I've been repeating this for years, the internet isn't the threat, the<br>
real number one threat to cyber security is the inside job. Got the<br>
message yet? The national infrastructure terrorists want to attack is<br>
*permanently offline* and the terrorists know this, but what they also<br>
know is those offline systems are *permanently unpatched* because the<br>
administrators think the bugs being released by security researchers<br>
on-the-internet won't touch offline-machines, think again. The<br>
terrorists aren't trying to hit your internet facing stuff, they are<br>
far more interested in going after your offline machines, as these are<br>
the most important ones. All the best, n3td3v.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.news.com/5208-10784_3-0.html?forumID=2&threadID=36712&messageID=396611" target="_blank">http://www.news.com/5208-10784_3-0.html?forumID=2&threadID=36712&messageID=396611</a><br>
<br>
[/snip]<br>
<br>
Now it may look like the above isn't written correctly, but I think I<br>
got my point across pretty well.<br>
Weather the english, grammar, spell checker police take it seriously<br>
is another matter. ;)<br>
<br>
My online friend who worked in the US Navy for 6 years in cyber<br>
security said I should have wrote it like this:<br>
<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: Chris Mills <E-mail Removed><br>
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:07 AM<br>
Subject: Try this<br>
To: <a href="mailto:xploitable@gmail.com" target="_blank">xploitable@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
Computers don't need to be connected to the internet to get infected<br>
with the latest and greatest zero-day malware.<br>
<br>
Insiders are one of the greatest threats to any enterprise: business<br>
or government.<br>
<br>
Consider This:<br>
An employee with any amount of access can download code from the<br>
internet or make his or her own. With a simple copy to his USB memory<br>
key, he then walks into power station, plugs it in with the intent to<br>
cause harm. An unpatched, offline system IS vulnerable.<br>
<br>
Valuable lesson:<br>
All your computer systems are vulnerable. They all need to be patched<br>
against the latest threats, just as you would patch your internet<br>
connected devices.<br>
Even computers which will never have an internet connection still<br>
need to be patched. The threat from rogue employees and the inside job<br>
is far greater than an internet facing computer. This has been seen<br>
over and over in news articles and threat reports published by the top<br>
security companies.<br>
The national infrastructure terrorists want to attack is permanently<br>
offline and the terrorists know this, but what they also know is those<br>
offline systems are permanently unpatched because the administrators<br>
think the bugs being released by security researchers on the internet<br>
won't touch offline-machines. This is a dangerous assumption on the<br>
part of security administrators. The terrorists aren't trying to hit<br>
internet facing devices, they are far more interested in going after<br>
offline machines which control far more important devices. This is<br>
their gold mine.<br>
<br>
All the best, n3td3v.<br>
<br>
[/snip]<br>
<br>
But I don't agree with him because its not got the same punch and passion.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
n3td3v<br>
</font><div><div></div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.<br>
Charter: <a href="http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html" target="_blank">http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html</a><br>
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <a href="http://secunia.com/" target="_blank">http://secunia.com/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></div><br>