Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Re: MI-5 was hacked using a Google search engine running on theLinux platform.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: MI-5 was hacked using a Google search engine running on theLinux platform.

 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:53:49 -0400, Pussy Filters Poaster wrote:

> http://www.securitymanagement.com/ne...-hacked-005976
>
> Yeah right, Chrome, Goggle, Linux and 'cloud technology' is swiss-cheese
> in the making.


Big ****ing deal: "However, the website is hosted separately from MI5's
back-end systems and is not connected to sensitive data"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:42:01 -0400, Pussy Filters Poaster wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:53:49 -0400, Pussy Filters Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.securitymanagement.com/ne...-hacked-005976
>>>
>>> Yeah right, Chrome, Goggle, Linux and 'cloud technology' is
>>> swiss-cheese in the making.

>>
>> Big ****ing deal: "However, the website is hosted separately from MI5's
>> back-end systems and is not connected to sensitive data"

>
> And you know this how, since you're not a technical person as you say?


In the same way you know about the vulnerability- from the story in the
link you posted, except I copied and pasted a quote from that page. Our
sources are the same. Any other questions?

> If data is being searched on the MI-5 site, the solution is coming to
> the back-end to do the search of data on databases, count on it.
>


Are you trying to say that all the publicly available webpages of
government departments in the UK are probably also connected to their
databases which contain sensitive data?

> It makes no difference if the data is sensitive or not, because the data
> is not being searched on a front-end Web servers where the UI exist.
> Some Web developers are ignorant to allow the front-end Web server or
> Web server farm at the UI to connect directly to the databases, which
> is exploitable, but I doubt that's the case at MI-5.
>


Your FUD subject line implied that the breach was much more severe than it
actually turned out to be, according to the article.

> But that's not the point anyway. It's the fact that Web clients with a
> browser came to the site and got hacked because the site was hacked,
> which is using Linux and a Google search engine on the network.
>


Almost anything is hackable. Your point?

> And if MI-5 can't protect its site, then how easy would it be for a
> hacker to hack a 'cloud' site provider and exploit sensitive data or
> exploit identity information?


I have misgivings about cloud computing other than within intranets too,
and it could even be unsafe within those..

> Chrome, Goggle and Linux are not
> bulletproof.
>


When used in conjunction or as separate entities?

> And I guess identity theft is not a big deal to you, because you as a
> client that visited what was supposedly a secure site, huh, a MI-5 site,
> got hacked?
>


A public website. They get hacked all the time. I'd be somewhat more
concerned if it had been their intelligence database that had been hacked.
A guy with Asperger's hacked the US military database, you know? Now
*that's* serious.

> There would be no way I would use services from a 'cloud technology'
> provider, as a home user, because it's not a secure situation, not with
> Web and browser technology as it stands now.
>


No disagreement here with those sentiments.

> It's not the fact the MI-5 got hacked. It's the fact that the technology
> being used of Linux and Google, as a software coding provider, and a
> browser that's not going to fly, with 'cloud' technology open to the
> public consumer, because THEY CAN'T SECURE IT. Who are they kidding with
> this?


It seems to me that it's a secure OS with two insecure technologies tacked
on. Two out of three don't engender confidence in the system's security.
Are you trying to say it would have been more secure if the server was IIS
or something else M$?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William Poaster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:12:24 +0000, above the shrieking, whining & FUDding
of the trolls Aardvark was heard to say:

> It seems to me that it's a secure OS with two insecure technologies
> tacked on. Two out of three don't engender confidence in the system's
> security. Are you trying to say it would have been more secure if the
> server was IIS or something else M$?


References: <(E-Mail Removed)

It's your old nymshifting friend, the level3 troll, Duh-Inane Asshole, in
case you were wondering.

--
It takes time, this. One slight error in any of my thirteen billion
calculations and we'll be blasted to smithereens.
Here we go, then: 10, 9, 8, 6, 5--
--Holly - Red Dwarf--
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:29:37 -0500, William Poaster wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:12:24 +0000, above the shrieking, whining &
> FUDding of the trolls Aardvark was heard to say:
>
>> It seems to me that it's a secure OS with two insecure technologies
>> tacked on. Two out of three don't engender confidence in the system's
>> security. Are you trying to say it would have been more secure if the
>> server was IIS or something else M$?

>
> References: <(E-Mail Removed)
>
> It's your old nymshifting friend, the level3 troll, Duh-Inane Asshole,
> in case you were wondering.


I wasn't
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:18:54 -0400, Pussy Filters Poaster wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:29:37 -0500, William Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:12:24 +0000, above the shrieking, whining &
>>> FUDding of the trolls Aardvark was heard to say:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that it's a secure OS with two insecure technologies
>>>> tacked on. Two out of three don't engender confidence in the system's
>>>> security. Are you trying to say it would have been more secure if the
>>>> server was IIS or something else M$?
>>> References: <(E-Mail Removed)
>>>
>>> It's your old nymshifting friend, the level3 troll, Duh-Inane Asshole,
>>> in case you were wondering.

>>
>> I wasn't

>
> You make sure you wipe ass, wash his ass, you brush your teeth and comb
> your hair before you pucker-up and kiss Peak-a-Boo, hide behind others,
> Pussy Filters Poaster's ass.


Making as much sense as ever, DUH-ane, my adorable little troll-thing.

So glad to see you back.

Your brightest supernova.

Aardvark.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
Reply With Quote
 
Aardvark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:36:57 -0400, DUH-ane wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:18:54 -0400, Pussy Filters Poaster wrote:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:29:37 -0500, William Poaster wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:12:24 +0000, above the shrieking, whining &
>>>>> FUDding of the trolls Aardvark was heard to say:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me that it's a secure OS with two insecure technologies
>>>>>> tacked on. Two out of three don't engender confidence in the
>>>>>> system's security. Are you trying to say it would have been more
>>>>>> secure if the server was IIS or something else M$?
>>>>> References: <(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>
>>>>> It's your old nymshifting friend, the level3 troll, Duh-Inane
>>>>> Asshole, in case you were wondering.
>>>> I wasn't
>>> You make sure you wipe ass, wash his ass, you brush your teeth and
>>> comb your hair before you pucker-up and kiss Peak-a-Boo, hide behind
>>> others,
>>> Pussy Filters Poaster's ass.

>>
>> Making as much sense as ever, DUH-ane, my adorable little troll-thing.
>>
>> So glad to see you back.
>>
>> Your brightest supernova.
>>
>>

> Aardvark, you are an ass kisser plain and simple. How long have you been
> kissing his ass like this?


DUH-ane, DUH-ane, DUH-ane. Now you're referring to yourself in the third
person now. Those new meds I advised you to get from your psychiatrist
don't seem to be doing the trick, do they?

With my concern for your mental wellbeing.

Your shiniest shiny thing.

Aardvark

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 
Reply With Quote
 
hwf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2009
In message <(E-Mail Removed)> , Pussy Filters
Poaster wrote:
>It's a serious drug
> my worst enemy.


Narcotics Anonymous wants *you*.

^_^

--
Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
http://www.ramusa.org/
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people
by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations.... The means of defense against foreign danger historically
have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
-James Madison

 
Reply With Quote
 
hwf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2009
Pussy Filters Poaster <(E-Mail Removed)> pinched out
a steaming pile of<(E-Mail Removed)> :

REDACTED

^_^


--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
.Net Search Engine - Has anyone used dtSearch .Net Engine? Sasha ASP .Net 3 05-22-2007 04:20 PM
Google search engine lost a salasky Firefox 2 07-11-2005 02:37 AM
Google Search engine in Firefox not in my language Thomas Firefox 5 02-12-2005 04:11 PM
is google hacked? search for "weapons of mass destruction" alfa1 Computer Support 7 07-05-2003 07:40 PM



Advertisments