$10 router blamed in Bangladesh bank hack
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The construction contractors built it thinner, to save costs, and the result is that it cracked.
Because of this, this is how much money they ended spending:
- Initial runway (0.5x cost)
- Removing runway to make room for the new one (0.5x cost)
- Constructing new runway (1.0x cost)
We have a proverb there... "the lazy works twice". This pretty much applies.
"Bangladesh Bank exposed to hackers by cheap switches, no firewall"
"Bangladesh's central bank was vulnerable to hackers because it did not have a firewall and used second-hand, $10 switches to network computers connected to the SWIFT global payment network, an investigator into one of the world's biggest cyber heists said."
Which is completely different from what the BBC is reporting.
BBC: "$10 router blamed in Bangladesh bank hack"
Reuters: "Bangladesh's central bank was vulnerable to hackers because it did not have a firewall and used second-hand, $10 switches"
BBC: "The bank had no firewall and used second-hand routers that cost $10 to connect to global financial networks."
They appear to have arbitrarily changed the word "switch" to "router" and put more emphasis on the cheap networking hardware than on the lack of firewall.
I'm only bringing this up, because pricing for common hardware in other parts of the world are different, and don't necessarily reflect the quality of materials or software used.
"A spelling mistake in one of the transfer orders alerted bank staff and meant the hackers only managed to steal $81m."
Boy, hackers need to be good at spelling too!