• marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    I mean, it’s kinda obvious. But it’s also not a bad thing. No secure system will be affected, because secure systems are designed to be impossible to fail.

    Lots of “secure” systems designed by hacks that took money selling half-cocked nonsense to dumb people will fail, and it’ll probably be revealed there’s trillions of dollars of investment by these dumb people into insecure systems that should outrage everyone.

    • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      There are literally thousands of water infrastructure facilities that are on Shodan now. I take your meaning, but it’s a very bad thing.

      • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Exactly my point. Corruption, stupidity, and complacency allowed that to happen despite experts warning for years it was a terrible idea. This isn’t some new threat, the only ‘new’ part of it is democratization of otherwise arcane knowledge. This is like getting mad that a thermite recipe is being passed around. Yeah, some people will do bad things with it, but generally anything that needs to be secure should be built to be secure against it.

        • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s not exactly accurate. The problem is that everything in infrastructure was working just fine, and so they figured they could make it more efficient by reducing the staff. And to do that, they put everything online, so it was controllable by fewer people. And they kept doing that year after year. The funding went down and down and down, and there are literal, uh, literal policies that keep them from switching to better stuff. So it’s much more complex than the way you draw it.

          For example, US water infrastructure would need $2.1 trillion or something around that amount to actually become current and fully repaired.

          Where exactly would that come from? It’s not an easy answer. It’s a much more complex problem. That’s all I’m saying.

          • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            For example, US water infrastructure would need $2.1 trillion or something around that amount to actually become current and fully repaired.

            Source?

              • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Okay, now provide a source that isn’t biased AF.

                I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

                No, that’s not on you. You’re the one making the claim. You get to prove it.

                • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  First, I apologize for sounding dismissive. That wasn’t the intent.

                  Honestly, given the obvious low effort of your reply and the low quality of the content of your reply, I am not inclined to acquiesce to this request. Try harder.

                  For example, if you were to list specifically why it is “biased AF” and give a detailed analysis instead of just throwing words around. I might respect your viewpoint or opinion, as it is I do not.

                  I didn’t come here seeking to prove anything, and if that’s what you want, you can do it on your own time.

                  Also, you response is too abrasive to elicit the action you request.

                  Actually, I even question the motives behind your words, so perhaps you can make those clear as well.

                  Please note, the link to the original report is within the source you dismissed.

          • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 days ago

            Where exactly would that come from?

            Well we could start by nationalizing water services so the inefficiencies that are inherent to monopolistic capitalist entities could be eliminated, drastically reducing costs. And we could pay for it over time with some sort of fee… one that might target those that have hoarded over 98% of all wealth produced over the last 50 years which should have gone into infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. We might even, if we’re really clever, directly seize the wealth of the companies that sold these solutions to these water companies given they’ve compromised national security and public health.

            That all would drastically reduce the inflated $2.1 Trillion number which isn’t the actual cost, it is the price for private contractors to do it for the government, to something you could reasonably pay for with the wealth already accumulated or that could be accumulated by actually fairly taxing those that have actively harmed society.

            • ɔiƚoxɘup@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              If I recall correctly, the amount came from a national study of the technical debt, if you will. For example, my city is a fairly large city, more than a million people, and it’s using pipes that are over 100 years old, so that’s probably not good, right?

              Its a typical situation.

              I do agree, we should tax the rich. Even if we magically had the funding yesterday, there are an astonishing number of complexities involved in fixing the aging infrastructure, not the least of which is the zero downtime tolerance.

      • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Implanted medical devices require pretty much skin to skin contact to adjust, the few that do use bluetooth to adjust settings. But yes, it is terrible that we use wireless technology in medical implants. We should, you know, sue the companies that made them knowing they were using naturally vulnerable technology to make them.

        • T. Hex@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          the few that do use bluetooth to adjust settings.

          That may be the intended use, but it does not imply the system is secure.

          Here’s an example of an insulin pump vulnerability from a few years ago that enabled attacks from up to six meters away. Think about how many potentially-compromised devices you’re ever within six meters of. The vulnerability enabled remote control over the insulin pump, which IIUC can be deadly.

          https://www.aha.org/h-isac-reports/2021-11-29-h-isac-tlp-white-vulnerability-report-researchers-identify-high-severity

          My point being — it’s not a good thing to be in the midst of a hacking epidemic! Real people will be harmed as a result of increased hacking.