Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Government Security Transportation United States

Railroad Association Says TSA's Hacking Memo Was Wrong 121

McGruber writes "Wired reports that the American Association of Railroads is refuting the U.S. Transportation Security Administration memorandum that said hackers had disrupted railroad signals. In fact, 'There was no targeted computer-based attack on a railroad,' said AAR spokesman Holly Arthur. 'The memo on which the story was based has numerous inaccuracies.' The TSA memo was subject of an earlier Slashdot story in which Slashdot user currently_awake accurately commented on the true nature of the incident."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Railroad Association Says TSA's Hacking Memo Was Wrong

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:12PM (#38834055)

    I really wish the /. crowd would lose the dissonance about huge governemnt.

    Hate the TSA.

    Hate the Patriot Act.

    Hate the loss of privacy and freedom.

    LOVE the idea of even more government power by putting it in charge of health care.

  • by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:15PM (#38834085) Homepage Journal

    There's a difference. Putting them in charge of health care is a matter of ensuring our wellbeing. The others are about violating our rights.

  • by pseudofrog ( 570061 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:22PM (#38834163)
    Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.

    We're all better served by folks with pre-existing conditions being denied basic coverage, huh?
  • Re:Lying again? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Suki I ( 1546431 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:23PM (#38834185) Homepage Journal

    I'm not surprised... TSA is a cancer.

    Just like the rest of the government.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:31PM (#38834273)

    Oh yeah. Cause for-profit industry is doing a great job bringing affordable health care to the masses.

    The government isn't going to make health care more affordable, they're just going to make someone else pay for it.

  • by X0563511 ( 793323 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:33PM (#38834291) Homepage Journal

    You need them to keep the invaders at bay? What, you expect to breathe air, not soot? You mean you expect to not get shot for your boots when you go to work? Clearly you need a nanny.

  • Re:Fearmongering (Score:4, Insightful)

    by plover ( 150551 ) * on Thursday January 26, 2012 @06:55PM (#38834471) Homepage Journal

    After this little incident, and last year's "Russian Hackers Remotely Destroyed Your City's Pump, So Panic Now" incident, renaming them to be Minitrue [] might be more appropriate.

  • Re:Lying again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamstar7 ( 694492 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:10PM (#38834607)
    No, TSA is just justifying its budget. Nothing to see, move along, move along.
  • Really TSA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:16PM (#38834643)
    Was this really TSA? Let's see:
    • False story... check
    • Spreading FUD... check
    • Blaming hackers... check
    • For something that didn't happen... check

    Yep, TSA alright.

  • Actually, in most countries with socialized healthcare, the government DOES make healthcare more affordable. This is due to the fact that since they're footing the bill and are already in debt, they don't want to have to spend more on healthcare than they need to -- because unlike other budgets, it's hard to kick back some of the healthcare budget into perks for government employees without a huge backlash from the electorate.

    So what you get is big pharm saying "here are these drugs for $X." and government saying "Not if you want to sell them in this country, they're not. You get our contract only if you sell them for $Y*."

    *usually, YX.....

  • by Dishevel ( 1105119 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @07:55PM (#38834895)

    The government should be restrained from doing anything that not only the government can do.
    The government is wasteful and slow. everything it does can be done better, faster and cheaper by private enterprise.
    There are of course no exceptions to this rule. There is however a problem. There are certain things that ONLY a government can do.
    Defense being just one. Only a federal government can be effective dealing with foreign governments. You need a federal government to dole out the radio spectrum. You need a federal government to make the state governments play nice. You need government to protect your rights. The government has to do these things.
    It still does them at great expense and badly. Still it is government that needs to do them.

    Health care.
    Let me start by reminding people what "rights" are. "Rights" are things that the government should never be allowed to take from you and that the government should protect from being taken from you. They are not things that are given. I have a right to my spiritual beliefs. I have a right to speak my mind. I had a right to bear arms to protect myself, my neighbor, my community and my country if need be. I have a right to a fair hearing before my rights are taken from me. I have a right to not be compelled to incriminate myself. These and a few more are rights.
    I do not have a "right" to your car. I do not have a right to your money. I do not have a right to health care. These things would be nice. I am not saying they are bad. They however are most certainly not rights.
    That which is given to you can be taken from you. Protect your rights and stop giving them up for your wants. It feels good now but as all governments do. This government will continue grow and take your rights. They will offer you candy for your rights. You will give them up. When you finally see what they are doing it will be to late. You will have given up freedom of speech to protect suicidal teenagers from mean high school bullies. You will have given up your right to a gun in a vain attempt to take them away from evil people. You will have given up your right to a fair trial to protect yourself form scary terrorists. You will have given up your rights. They will not taken them from you. You will give them up. Then you will have no protection left.

    Understand the difference between what you want and your rights. Then make sure you do not give up your rights for warm feelings inside.

  • Re:Lying again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) <jwsmythe@jws[ ] ['myt' in gap]> on Thursday January 26, 2012 @08:41PM (#38835229) Homepage Journal

    You are absolutely right. If there is no threat, there is no job. So they will make themselves worthwhile any way they can.

        Consider the current "Terrorists want to blow up your plane with binary explosives!" []. You can't carry [] a soda on a plane, unless you purchased from a TSA approved vendor inside of the security perimeter. And dear god, a mother can't bring a bottle of breast milk [].

        Even lighters [] were banned for a while, but after enough complaints, they again allowed them.

        Terrorists must be anyone who isn't an old rich white guy. If they talk funny, look different, or behave differently due to cultural differences, they must be terrorists. The evil enemy that all Americans must fear.

        The terrorist behind every Bush fear subsided. Then we killed the leader of the terrorists we were told to fear.

        They are trying to find the next threat. If there isn't a threat, there isn't a need for DHS, is there? Those new threats will keep coming. They may be foreign nationals with a misguided grudge. They may even be regular, but insane, Americans. []

        If they don't get enough real threats, they'll overstate some minor threat. They weren't clear what the real threat was. It could have been a local kid, who bounced through an off-shore server, who managed to log into a control box.

        My question is, why the hell would they leave those controls accessible by the Internet in general? Why was it connected to the Internet at all? Assuming there was a good reason for it, why weren't they restricted to select IPs? Rather than freaking out and blaming "the terrorists", why don't we focus on the problems like "our infrastructure shouldn't be accessible by the whole Internet".

        Hell, when I stick a server online with a previously unused IP, I get people trying to hit it in no time. If you want some entertainment, put an older unpatched distribution up with root logins enabled, and set the password to "password". I'd give it 10 minutes before it had new people running it.

        Lets not forget who the new terrorists are. All those people who agree with, or fall into the category of 99%. Domestic terrorism is our greatest threat. They must be stopped. We're going to need bigger prisons and more guys with badges and guns.

        Oh wait.. I forgot the right line. "I trust our government. Terrorists are behind every Bush. Protect me government. I'll give up any rights you ask me to."

  • by fizzer06 ( 1500649 ) on Thursday January 26, 2012 @09:40PM (#38835593)
    Have you noticed how far this thread has strayed from original subject of a railroad signal system being hacked?

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun