Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Bug Medicine Privacy United States

Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov 81

Posted by timothy
from the welcome-to-centralized-medicine-dot-gov dept.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "People who have accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the confounding Heartbleed Internet security flaw." Take note, though; the article goes on to immediately point out this does not mean that the HealthCare.gov site has been compromised: "Senior administration officials said there is no indication that the HealthCare.gov site has been compromised and the action is being taken out of an abundance of caution. The government's Heartbleed review is ongoing, the officials said, and users of other websites may also be told to change their passwords in the coming days, including those with accounts on the popular WhiteHouse.gov petitions page." Also at The Verge
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Preventative Treatment For Heartbleed On Healthcare.gov

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Yea right... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 19, 2014 @10:34PM (#46797909)

    FISMA/SCAP regulations are the main ones. Data stored there is likely SBU (sensitive but unclassified.)

    It is a pretty thorough set of regulations. This is why not many cloud providers (if any!) are FISMA compliant, as it requires random audits by the government.

    I'd love to see a standard in the private industry that had planned and random audits of security, with actual consequences (PCI-DSS3 comes close), but most security in the private sector seems to be "does the vendor say it is secure? OK, it is."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20, 2014 @02:38AM (#46798349)

    nor at understanding the CBO, are you?

    First, let me explain something about the CBO: The CBO is an accounting organization (NOT a true policy analysis organization) that serves the congress by running whatever numbers the congress asks it to run. In other words, if a member of congress asks for a report that says "Assuming I have a warp drive that can propel any mass through space for free at up to 10 times lightspeed, and assuming Jupiter has a solid surface at a height above the planet's core where 1G would be felt, how much will it cost to colonize Jupiter?" The CBO would dutifully calculate costs and project timetables for the endeavor WITHOUT ANY REGARD for whether the specifics I have provided as a "given" are, in fact correct. Citing the resulting CBO report would then look GREAT on a website but would be sheer insanity. The CBO does not question the presuppositions the congress members give it, as a matter of policy, in order to avoid becoming a partisan entity within a political fight - i.e. they'll generate good results based on good assumptions, or a mathematically-solid pile of crap based upon piles of pre-supposed crap, on a bi-partisan and equal-opportunity basis. CBO analysis is almost always wrong (because politicians always feed it rosy scenarios for policies they like and dismal scenarios for policies they hate). For those engineers reading this: CBO numbers should be take as "figures of merit" which may be used to compare competing policy ideas WHEN THOSE IDEAS COME WITH MATCHING BI-PARTISAN GROUNDRULES.

    Second, even though the specific report you linked to was generated with Democrat pre-suppositions, it STILL shows the ACA to be a lie... Obama said the thing would not increase the deficit, but the report you cited says it will cost an extra $1.3 to $1.8 TRILLON over the next ten years with fine-print noting: "These numbers exclude effects on the deficit of provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are not related to insurance coverage." In other words, huge costs involved in oversight and regulation of (1) Insurers (2) hospitals (3) drug companies (4) individual taxpayers and also expenses for things like the website, and the annual marketing to remind people of enrollment periods, plus all the statistical data the plan requires the government to gather and analyze on everybody.... and on, and on, and on is NOT accounted for

    Third, even with it's pro-Democrat bias, the report admits that in the year 2024 (ten years from now) there will still be 31 MILLION uninsured Americans even after we've spent the (ballpark) $1.5 TRILLON (plus not-analyzed-but-acknowleged-other-costs) AND after we've kicked MILLIONS of people off the policies that Obama swore they'd be able to keep and cut-off their access to the doctors he swore they'd be able to keep. "Obamacare" was built on lies, sold on lies, will be kept on life support using lies, and will be devestating to younger Americans who will pay far higher taxes over their lives, get worse healthcare, and have many fewer opportunities. Good policies do not need to be marketed with years of lies .... but then this HAS been a long-term goal of Progressives, for whom "the ends justify the means"

    Fourth, the report admits that the Republican who yelled "You Lie!" at Obama during his State of the Union speech was, in fact, the one who was telling the truth: Under the ACA, illegal immigrants are not required to spend any money or buy anything BUT they get access to our hospitals - so THEY get coverage without ANY of the requirements the law burdens middle-class Americans with.

    Sorry, but I've been reading CBO reports for decades, and I know both how to fully read them and also where to go to see and read the context.... kindly take your dishonest lazy talking points back to Kos and HuffPo where the gullible dupes lurk.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...