Hackers had 'full functional control' of Nasa computers | Hacker News Reader

Hackers had 'full functional control' of Nasa computers

bbc.co.uk

51 pointsed20917 comments

Why are foreign subnets even allowed to access JPL systems? Sure it's not going to prevent someone from using a compromised system on a non-banned subnet as a proxy but it seems like a simple step that would make it a little harder.

They may be collaborating with the European, Russian, Japanese space agencies. They have researchers traveling the world at any given time.

That said they certainly could restrict more access. It's a big challenge because NASA is ultimately a research facility where freedoms of researchers have to be carefully balanced with security and access control. Each department and project has its own needs so it has a very varied attack surface. It's not as simple as simply putting a giant international firewall up.

And they do have strict restrictions in place but it takes a single project, or sysadmin to drop the ball causing this sort of embarrassing situation. Clearly it needs to be even more effective.

That kind of limitation is pretty pointless, since it would not stop a determined attacker.

From what I understand, it was a hackers playground to hack nasa computers back in the day (90s). It used to be the easiest to get into and some of the biggest systems to play around in.

Its no surprise that since it was so easy in the past, its still easy today.

I'd like to know what "key NASA computers" means. This could mean a computer that can send commands to sattelites and rockets, or it could just mean a central e-mail or file server used by office workers.

The problem about the fact is that,if the hacker can break the NASA computer security so easily then what would happen if this hacked information goes to terrorists?I can't believe the top class US authority like NASA can blow their head under the Hackers.

What terrorists? If there were terrorists skilled enough to hack into "key NASA computers" they'd be skilled enough to successfully blow things up in the US. Which isn't happening.

This isn't the 90's anymore, NASA computers aren't a revolving door anymore.

> they'd be skilled enough to successfully blow things up in the US. Which isn't happening.

I really agree with you on that, but I am a little bit concerned about ignoring the possibility that there may be something going on we just haven't seen yet.

I really agree with you on that, but I am a little bit concerned about ignoring the possibility that there may be something going on we just haven't seen yet.

With seven billion people on the planet, there are lots of things going on that we just haven't seen yet, but most of them are benign. Excessive worrying about the unknown will only lead us further down the path toward (and/or beyond, depending on where you think we are now) a ubiquitous surveillance society.

> Excessive worrying about the unknown will only lead us further down the path toward (and/or beyond, depending on where you think we are now) a ubiquitous surveillance society.

I think we should keep an eye on that too ;-)

I have a problem that the word "hacker" was used in this context. Cracker (as coined by RMS), or criminal is more appropriate.

I've just read Sam William's RMS biography, and the word hack has been used since the 1950s for all things not done in harmful way.

And after all this is hacker news...

Downvoted for what? WTF?

You are repeating a discussion that has happened literally thousands of times over the last thirty years.

As someone who has not lived that long I would like to ask why and when the word "Hacker" got a bad meaning attached to it?

It is mentioned as the 6th definition of "hacker" in the original jargon file [1], so at least by 1988.

1: http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html

The movies "Hackers" and "The Net" were released in 1995. "Hackers" used the term to mean "someone who penetrates computer security". The one use of the term in in "The Net" [1] was ambiguous as to whether it meant this sense, or Paul Graham's sense of the word[2]; but 90% of the movie was about security and counter-security. So I'd say that the [counter]security connotation was common usage by that time.

[1] http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/n/net-script-tran...

[2] http://paulgraham.com/gba.html

The "good" meaning -- someone who enjoys figuring things out for themselves, taking things apart, analyzing and manipulating systems -- is implicitly bad from an authoritarian perspective. What more do you need to know?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com