Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

berthub.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 286 posts

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#61

Post by rainworld »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #56
roenxi wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, sure. But the US chooses who it integrates with militarily. An alternative approach would have been to say "hey, yeah we can see why you'd want to join - but this will foment tensions with Russia, so you can't". That is the kind of diplomacy would have prevented Russia from invading its neighbours. It would have been difficult to get worse outcomes with that approach than what the powers that be managed to get…

I don't think Russia invaded Ukraine because it threatened to join NATO. Russia invaded Ukraine because it threatened to have a color revolution leading to a viable democracy in a culture/society that was similar to Russia's. Putin, personally, could not allow that to succeed. It threatened him, personally, too greatly.

>it threatened to have a color revolution leading to a viable democracy

Threatened? They tried that two or three times but Ukraine never stopped being Ukraine. Always losing a couple million people between these attempts.

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#62

Post by vundercind »

croes wrote: post #34
gds44 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well US is not dependent on anyone for her Energy needs. Unlike China. Its quite vulnerable on that front if a few pipelines blow up ala nord stream. This is also why the US has such a large presence in the middle east.

But you can pretty easily bring down their power grid

Good point. Factories ain’t shit without power.

If we can’t get stuff from China, that hurts, a lot. If China can’t get stuff from China, they’re dead.

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#63

Post by hugh-avherald »

Rygian wrote: post #23
mikewarot wrote: post #19

When I recently asked some air traffic controllers what would happen if GPS became unavailable, it was grumpy sounds all around. I understand a scramble to vector everything to land everything would result in a very busy day for them, because suddenly most planes would be unable to safely navigate, and thus effectively grounded. Cutting the budget for ground based navaids is nuts, in my opinion.

I was under the impression that GPS was a non-critical asset for aviation, ie. any plane can safely stop using it at any given time and keep flying with VOR and other navigational aids. This article [1] introduces some of the scenarios where pilots rely on GPS only: * GPS-based waypoints to optimize routing based on favorable winds and more direct routes even in the absence of VORs. * RNAV departures and arrivals tha…

It's not safety-critical for a plane, in the sense that if a plane's GPS fails it can still get by safely.

It's safety-critical for aviation, because if all GPS fails, then the additional workload across the system means that a crash is likely.

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#64

Post by rustcleaner »

nickpeterson wrote: post #14

As an outsider on most IT security so take the rest of this with a grain of salt, but I think reliability is a good way to view this topic. Complexity is the enemy of reliability and security. Most organizations seem to operate under the delusion that you can brute force your way to security through audits and policy. They're trying to 'test the quality in' so to speak. Think of the legion of security admins who dili…

Knowing how frail software out there really can be, I made moves to Qubes OS and GrapheneOS as my primary operating system distributions over a year ago. Haven't looked back since the first month!

PC users should be using some kind of segregation like VMs these days; you most likely don't have a MAC policy protecting your files from your porn site bunker-busted browser, so your data is likely going up the pipe to North Korea (but you did make sure to be a user so at least it can't install the printer driver wrapped rootkit).

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#65

Post by atemerev »

z3phyr wrote: post #53
atemerev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autocracies are inherently unstable and dangerous in this regard. They have every incentive to be irrational and unwilling to negotiate. They call it “sovereignty”, which it isn’t — just a sparkling dictatorship. Autocracies have no place in the modern world.

And yet autocracies are historically the most "successful" types of governments. Humans always and eventually end up selecting autocracies with thunderous applause.

History is young, there’s too little data to go for meaningful conclusions yet, particularly post-industrial revolution.

But yes, I agree, autocracy is a natural state of affairs. Democracy is a miracle to keep.

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#66

Post by dweekly »

wkat4242 wrote: post #24
mikewarot wrote: post #19

When I recently asked some air traffic controllers what would happen if GPS became unavailable, it was grumpy sounds all around. I understand a scramble to vector everything to land everything would result in a very busy day for them, because suddenly most planes would be unable to safely navigate, and thus effectively grounded. Cutting the budget for ground based navaids is nuts, in my opinion.

They do have other ways to navigate. Like land-based beacons (VORs). Unfortunately these are being used less and less and even deprecated in favour of GPS waypoints. Even when they are still around the pilots have less experience with them because they no longer use them every day.

The good news here is that the fine folks at the FAA have spent a lot of time thinking about how to keep aviation secure in a GPS denied environment, which is their basis for the build out of the VOR MON.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/at...

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#67

Post by toomuchtodo »

tambre wrote: post #60
distances wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPS is now often unavailable in eastern/northern parts of Europe due to Russian jamming. Some smaller airfields already had to update their systems not to rely only on GPS.

Finnair at the end of last month suspended service between Helsinki and Tartu due to Russia's GPS jamming [0]. DME is being added next week and they'll resume service next month [1]. [0]: https://news.err.ee/1609328058/finnair-suspends-flights-to-t... [1]: https://news.err.ee/1609343694/finnair-restarts-tartu-flight...

Would it be accurate to say that DME is the equivalent of the deprecated US LORAN nav system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#68

Post by throwaway22032 »

Tough times create tough men comes to mind.

Leadership in the UK is absolutely pitiful. Yes, you can work on multiple problems at once, but in reality both the public and private discourse is focused on utterly trivial and stupid stuff.

The top level goals of a government are to ensure that the state exists and can protect its' citizens. We enacted income taxes on that basis in the first place for wars.

Now we have people arguing the toss over whether cars should emit a particular thing because it reduces life expectancy by a few months or landlords should put triple glazing in because tenants would pay slightly less on their bill or men can pretend to be women or whatever else. Fiddling over 0.1% issues whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

I fear that there's going to have to be a big shock and we'll wake up from this collective delusion much like in the early days of Covid when everything just... stopped.

Re: Cyber Security: A pre-war reality check

#70

Post by koonsolo »

roenxi wrote: post #47
kibwen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US not having a policy of signing new people up to the anti-Russia military alliance every few years Weird how all of Russia's neighbors are eager to join a military alliance protecting them from Russia. I wonder if that has something to do with Russia's actions towards its neighbors? No, no, surely the US is to blame for that...

Yeah, sure. But the US chooses who it integrates with militarily. An alternative approach would have been to say "hey, yeah we can see why you'd want to join - but this will foment tensions with Russia, so you can't". That is the kind of diplomacy would have prevented Russia from invading its neighbours. It would have been difficult to get worse outcomes with that approach than what the powers that be managed to get…

So what was first, Russia invading neighbors, or neighbors wanting to join NATO?

I'll give you the answer: Chechnya.

Thinking that Russia would never invade an independent Georgia or Ukraine is very naive, to say the least.

If you want a "neutral" country, take a look at Belarus. A neutral country in Russia's eyes only has connections with Russia, not with the West. They make it very clear which countries they want "under the influence sphere of Russia".

Ukrainians want a sovereign democratic country, and they are willing to pay a very high price for that.

Post reply on HN