As far as I know though they were purist hackers.. Purist hackers merely break into things to say they did.. They don't destroy or profit, its about the challenge.. Granted

I suppose the concern was that the could have.

they'll have to scour the system to ensure nothing malicious went down, but on the plus side, whether they find trouble or not, atleast they're now aware of a security hole that could be abused worse in the future..

The "many eyes" philosophy does apply here. That said, you would think a system that is managing probably the most expensive and potentially dangerous system in the world would be vetted extensively prior to implementation. There are some systems that you just don't expect to be hackable/hacked - this is one of them (I know all systems are hackable at some level).

Dave

 

They hired a group to try to hack the US election polling computers, and they walked all over the security.. The only way to truly protect a system is to physically isolate it.. From my understanding, this is more of a 'post processing' computer that would need the ability to forward data to outside computers.. (Inserting prank data for them to decipher though could be hilarious).. I would hope the systems that actually control the h/w are isolated.. This is a perfect example of why thats important..

 

I'm not sure how the BBC website is viewed outside of the UK - after all we pay a license fee towards the BBC so there are restrictions to viewers from non-UK IP addresses.

I have never come across a link in the BBC that I did not have access to since being outside of the UK.

 

I have never come across a link in the BBC that I did not have access to since being outside of the UK.

When I tried the link I was at work, now I am at home, and I am able to view it with no problems... So I am to assume they set up the firewall so we cannot view BBC, but I did not have problems with any other web-sites ...

 

I have never come across a link in the BBC that I did not have access to since being outside of the UK.

Well that's good to know. I assume you aren't able to access things like the iPlayer?

Btw, do I read you right, are you an ex-Pat?

Dave

 

They hired a group to try to hack the US election polling computers, and they walked all over the security.. The only way to truly protect a system is to physically isolate it.. From my understanding, this is more of a 'post processing' computer that would need the ability to forward data to outside computers.. (Inserting prank data for them to decipher though could be hilarious).. I would hope the systems that actually control the h/w are isolated.. This is a perfect example of why thats important..

Yes I agree, there is almost certain a privilege level to the systems that control the LHC - the low-level stuff will be mostly (if not completely) isolated I would imagine. I still think it is concerning that even part of the high-level system was penetrable. The first rule of network security is that it starts from the bottom and works across the system unbounded - this doesn't appear to have happened here.

Dave

 

There are some systems that you just don't expect to be hackable/hacked

The most intelligent ppl know that isn't the case.. They're usually paranoid that their tin-foil hat won't be sufficient isolation..

And I agree, its a pretty dismal sign regarding their security as a whole, it obviously sounds like that computer would be well beyond any gateway to the public..

 

The most intelligent ppl know that isn't the case..

Oh I know that, but its the same expectation that doesn't expect the nuclear power plant down the road to go into meltdown

Dave

 

And I agree, its a pretty dismal sign regarding their security as a whole

Nail. Head. Bang.

It is the sign it gives that is important. When we have people killing themselves, and lawsuits going through the European Courts because of the potential dangers, the last thing needed is weakness in a core part of the infrastructure.

Dave

 

I suppose the concern was that the could have.

...world would be vetted extensively prior to implementation. Dave

In my experience, I never had a computer software vendor realize the importance of validation (vetting?) prior to implementation of a change.

As just one (almost) humorous anecdote, our vendor of a clinical laboratory system installed an update without my knowledge or approval. That update named laboratory results by sequence, not by some tag. They thought it was an insignificant change and installed it.

Well, one of our units was a cancer unit and had decided a certain blood count result was not needed, so it was deleted from their routine report. That moved all of the other results "up one notch." The result was that a typically normal value was moved to a very abnormal name. Fortunately, the physicians in that unit realized not all of their leukemia patients could relapse overnight and called me. It was the first indication I had of the update. I will spare you the details, but the vendor never did that again.

Vendors tended to think that validation meant running a few hundred (maybe) test cases. I meant running in parallel for tens of thousands. They hated me, because I made them do it. I suspect things are not that much different elsewhere. It never ceases to amaze me how the biggest and most sophisticated organizations can over look a seemingly simple principle.

That attitude explains the occasional note from some place to wit, "Oh, BTW, all of your personal data were lost. Don't worry, we don't think it was malicious. But, just in case, we are offering free credit monitoring for the next two years..."

John

 

In my experience, I never had a computer software vendor realize the importance of validation (vetting?) prior to implementation of a change.

As just one (almost) humorous anecdote, our vendor of a clinical laboratory system installed an update without my knowledge or approval. That update named laboratory results by sequence, not by some tag. They thought it was an insignificant change and installed it.

Well, one of our units was a cancer unit and had decided a certain blood count result was not needed, so it was deleted from their routine report. That moved all of the other results "up one notch." The result was that a typically normal value was moved to a very abnormal name. Fortunately, the physicians in that unit realized not all of their leukemia patients could relapse overnight and called me. It was the first indication I had of the update. I will spare you the details, but the vendor never did that again.

Vendors tended to think that validation meant running a few hundred (maybe) test cases. I meant running in parallel for tens of thousands. They hated me, because I made them do it. I suspect things are not that much different elsewhere. It never ceases to amaze me how the biggest and most sophisticated organizations can over look a seemingly simple principle.

That attitude explains the occasional note from some place to wit, "Oh, BTW, all of your personal data were lost. Don't worry, we don't think it was malicious. But, just in case, we are offering free credit monitoring for the next two years..."

John

Been there and done it myself John.

A couple of years back I was involved in a project designing some software for mesh-mapping brain images. Since the image-data was constrained to the head region there was redundant space around the EIT data images so I decided that in order to optimise the algorithm I would implement a form of the Qhull algorithm to constrain the data searching for the mesh-mapping to a defined region.

Worked brilliant on full EIT head models, until we hit one with patched data, i.e. a head model with a(n infinitesimally small) cavity region. Suddenly, the practitioners were getting images of half a head - seriously bad form as they were doing functional imaging of brain responses to auditory and visual stimuli as the time!

To discover the bug, I had to design a model of a car crankshaft (Why? Think how Qhull would apply to a crankshaft and you will see how it uncovered the problem). Needless to say, we re-engineered the algorithm and published it, and thankfully it has worked flawlessly since!

Bit of a diversion from the LHC, but hey!

Dave

 

It never ceases to amaze me how the biggest and most sophisticated organizations can over look a seemingly simple principle.

You mean like when the cable/telephone company calls me on my home line, and confirms my identity because I know the address of the house I'm standing in?

 

Not really a diversion. I think the director at LHC should be explaining why he should keep his job. Big jobs have big responsibilities.

Personally, I am not particularly concerned. We lived through the fears that atomic blasts would ignite the atmosphere. But, the director at the LHC has a responsibility to 6.7 billion people, and he dropped the ball.

John

 

Not really a diversion. I think the director at LHC should be explaining why he should keep his job. Big jobs have big responsibilities.

Personally, I am not particularly concerned. We lived through the fears that atomic blasts would ignite the atmosphere. But, the director at the LHC has a responsibility to 6.7 billion people, and he dropped the ball.

John

I think that is fair comment John.

Dave

 

The first major experiment (the ones that are potentially the dangerous ones) is scheduled for 21st October.

It is worth noting that the safety consultation was many years and concluded the experiments posed negligible-to-no risk.

Dave

I agree, the LHC was built to be capable of energy levels of around 5TeV, but the recent, initial firing-up of the machine had an injection energy of about 0.45 TeV....so the big tests are yet to come.

I also think that theoretical micro black holes being created within the collisions is a bit of a shaky grounds on which to cause an uproar about armageddon, and is probably something the media has taken out of proportion in news articles, although I'm definately no expert on theoretical particle physics.

Mainly I love the LHC for being such a feat of engineering.

 

Was there another collider test a few years ago.

 

They are a few particle accelerators out there. But the LHC can handle about 7 times more energy than the Tevatron.

 

What was the result of the Tevatron. Any information on the results.

 

A magnet failure has halted the LHC for "at least two months": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7626944.stm

Dave

 

I was coming to post something similar. All I can say is... damn.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26802846

At least it wasn't legal action. That can be more damaging in the long run.