OH SHIT!! - BRITAIN'S MILITARY SATTELITE - HELD BY HACKERS!!greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
oh no _ THIS ain'T good and what is WORSE is the ministry of defence has NO COMMENT !! - no confirm or deny ?! oOOOOOOOOH SHIT!!!LINK
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/index.sml
LONDON Hackers have seized control of one of Britain's military communication satellites and issued blackmail threats, The Sunday Business newspaper reported.
The newspaper, quoting security sources, said the intruders altered the course of one of Britain's four satellites that are used by defense planners and military forces around the world.
The sources said the satellite's course was changed just over two weeks ago. The hackers then issued a blackmail threat, demanding money to stop interfering with the satellite.
"This is a nightmare scenario,'' said one intelligence source. Military strategists said that if Britain were to come under nuclear attack, an aggressor would first interfere with military communications systems.
"This is not just a case of computer nerds mucking about. This is very, very serious and the blackmail threat has made it even more serious,'' one security source said.
Police said they would not comment as the investigation was at too sensitive a stage. The Ministry of Defense made no comment.
-- sean (venturer@interlog.com), February 28, 1999
More grist for the "terrorism" spin.
Next, "We have to limit Internet access for the good of national security."Thanks, Sean. Will go look at link ...
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 28, 1999.
Sean, that story is NOT at the site you gave.
-- none (none@none.none), February 28, 1999.
Hackers Reportedly Seize British Military Satellitexxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 28, 1999.
Sean,I found it at the site you gave -- worked fine for me. You just had to scroll down and Look for it.
Thank you.
-- Anon (anon@zzz.com), February 28, 1999.
I didn't have any trouble finding the FoxNews item but I couldn't find any reference to this story at the BBC-TV/Radio or ITN-TV sites. I couldn't find any information on The Business newspaper either. If anyone can track down further information on this story, will you please post it? If police actually said the investigation was at too sensitive a stage, then it appears to be true and it's frightening. If someone can penetrate a military satellite, what about all the others up there? There goes The Weather Channel. . .
-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 28, 1999.
Thanks sean,Very short reference made to it. You have to register then dig. -- Diane
The London Times
http://www.the-times.co.ukThe London Sunday Times
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk< /a>London Times Free Registration
http:// www.the-times.co.uk/registration2f.html[Posted Under U.S. Fair Use Copyright Laws]
Last update: 1714 GMT February 28
HACKERS HIJACKED MILITARY SATELLITE
Computer hackers seized control of one of Britain's military communication satellites and issued blackmail threats earlier this month, the Sunday Business reported. The newspaper, quoting security sources, said the intruders altered the course of one of Britain's four military satellites. Then they demanded money to stop interfering with the satellite. "This is a nightmare scenario," one intelligence source said. Military strategists said that if Britain were to come under nuclear attack, an aggressor would first interfere with military communications systems. "This is not just a case of computer nerds mucking about. This is very, very serious and the blackmail threat has made it even more serious." Police are investigating. (1150hrs)
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
See also ...U.K. Newsmedia Hotlink:
http://ajr.newslink.org/ euuk.html
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
Another way to access British news:
http://www.mediainfo.com/emediajs/specific-geo.htm?region= england
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
I think more than y2k is going to hit the fan soon!
-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), February 28, 1999.
Without sounding prudish ... please cut the profanity. Thanks.Tim
-- tim daniels (tim@commonsense.com), February 28, 1999.
There is a fuller discussion of this on Slashdot.HERE
-- (someone@somewhere.com), February 28, 1999.
Nothing to confirm anything yet - there are signal methods that are put on satellites (by the NRO) to allow the fed's to take over commercial satellites in time of war. These encryption and communication boards (devices, radios, chips) are part of what was taken from the satillites by the Chinese after several of the US comm. satellites failed and crashed during launch using Chinese rockets. (Ref Loral and Clinton payoff's, Chinese funding of Clinton's campaigns.)
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.R@csaatl.com), February 28, 1999.
Thanks, someone,Interesting little site, will explore later. Still trying to find some alternate U.K. news. -- Diane
For the record ...
http://www.slashdot.org/articles/99/02/28/1037229.shtmlPosted by Hemos on Sunday February 28, @10:36AM
from the isn't-this-goldeneye dept.
Xmas writes "Early breaking news? British officials report the seizing of a "military" satellite and a subsequent demand for money. At least the British government can admit to being cracked... and blackmailed...even if it took them two weeks to release the story. " The news story has no comment from the British Ministry of Defense, while Police refused to comment because of the sensitivty at this stage of the game. What is known is that the Brits have 4 such satellites, and the crackers reportedly "altered its course". I'll be watching to see if anything more develops with this-like more then an anonymous cow...er-source is cited.
References Yahoo News again ...
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ts/ story.html?s=v/nm/19990228/ts/hackers_1.html
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
hey TIM YOU ARE A DUMB FUCK!!!!FUCKING WHORE-BREATHED COCKSUCKER YOU ARE!!!!!!1
-- johnny rotten (stevo@uwwc.com), February 28, 1999.
hey tim.....sorry about the rough language...I don't mind you liking cocks....it's the part about you being dumb I don't like
-- stevo (johnnyrotten@ucsc.com), February 28, 1999.
Try this:
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/0228/n_rt_022 8_59.sml
-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), February 28, 1999.
Sort'a having a "spin" on the U.K. web-sites. Just up for air.Although "off-topic" I find this an interesting info release on the same day as the hostage satellite.
I sometimes wonder WHY I kept noticing this stuff, but, oh well!
Do you ever wonder why this news is released now? Lets see, the FBI has their new little computerized center, now the CIA does. Wonder if its all Y2K compliant, or not.
And then there is the satellite news.
Diane
FOX News
Under ... as of 12:00 p.m. ET (1700 GMT)
http://www.foxnews.com/js_index.sml?content=/news/wires2/ index.sml
CIA musters state-of-the-art anti-terrorism center
11.55 a.m. ET (1656 GMT) February 28, 1999
By John Diamond, Associated Press
McLEAN, Va. (AP) Much of CIA headquarters lay deserted for the weekend. But behind a heavy door, along a drab sixth-floor corridor, secure phones rang with alerts from overseas, computer screens flashed dispatches from operatives, and analysts pored over spy satellite photographs.
This was no drill. Working through the night were 15 counterterrorism specialists monitoring the minute-by-minute flow of a highly classified operation against an international terrorist cell. They were using the newly opened Global Response Center, command post of the CIA's clandestine war on terrorism.
In an executive conference room behind a sliding glass partition, CIA Director George Tenet spoke by phone with his counterpart at a foreign intelligence service involved in the operation, according to two senior intelligence officials involved in counterterrorism.
The CIA refuses to reveal details of what countries or terrorist groups were involved, but, days afterward, allowed a reporter from The Associated Press the first glimpse at the new command post.
With its wall of video monitors, gray carpeting, high-tech work stations and curving operations table, the suite of rooms has the look of a state-of-the-art military command center, "The Global Response Center will permit members of the intelligence and law enforcement communities to communicate faster, coordinate better and be more thorough,'' Tenet told his colleagues in a private ceremony opening the center. "Unfortunately, I expect it will be used frequently.''
The CIA has had a counterterrorist organization since 1986 but lacked a well-equipped center for gathering in-house experts and representatives from the FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency, State Department and other agencies during crises.
See also ...
CIA's secret anti-terrorist weapon: disruption
11.41 a.m. ET (1642 GMT) February 28, 1999
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
By John Diamond, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Frustrated by restrictions on using military force against terrorists, the United States is turning to a lower-profile tactic. The CIA calls it "disruption'' working with foreign law- enforcement services to harass and hamper terrorists around the world before they can pull off major attacks.
Least well known of counter-terrorist weapons, disruption involves using new or long-established clandestine alliances with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement services in the tracking down, breaking up and knocking over of international terrorist cells.
There are no headlines when the job is done and no fingerprints.
The CIA keeps its role secret, and the foreign countries that actually crack down on the suspects carefully hide the U.S. role, lest they stir up political trouble for themselves. Moreover, the CIA sends no formal notice to Congress once a foreign law-enforcement agency, acting on CIA information, swoops in and breaks up a suspected terrorist cell.
The key to disruption is that it takes place before terrorists strike, amounting to a pre-emptive, offensive form of counterterrorism, Richard Clarke, President Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said.
"If we have an opportunity to disrupt a terrorist cell that could potentially threaten us, we do it,'' Clarke said in a recent interview. "We are no longer going to wait for the attack. We are going to pre-empt, we are going to disrupt, and we have done that a very great deal.''
Paul Pillar, deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, said in a recent speech that disruption focuses on impeding "the recruitment, the cell-building, the moving of men, money and materiel and the mere maintaining of a (terrorist) presence in a foreign country.''
Disruption has the advantage of utmost secrecy, hiding the hand of the United States and avoiding the cumbersome congressional reporting requirements that go with CIA-directed covert operations. If foreign law enforcers get rough in smashing a suspected terrorist cell, the CIA would have no direct control, and human rights organizations would have no way of identifying a CIA role.
"If it's something major, a significant development, then Congress is informed,'' said a U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But there's nothing formal, there's no monthly `disruption report.'''
U.S. counterterrorism officials increasingly use disruption because other options are so few.
Only occasionally, and with great difficulty, do U.S. authorities succeed in arresting suspects after a terror act occurs. The United States is still trying to find perpetrators of the 1996 Khobar Towers attack on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And Osama bin Laden, alleged mastermind of last summer's U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, remains at large.
Though U.S. officials often threaten military reprisal against terrorists, the option has been used only three times: the 1986 bombing of two Libyan cities, the 1993 cruise missile strike on Iraq and last year's attack on suspected terrorist strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan.
By contrast, disruption of terrorist cells represents the nearly daily business of the CIA's new Global Response Center, a high-tech, Tom Clanceyesque command center on the sixth floor of the agency's headquarters in suburban Virginia.
A senior Clinton administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said U.S. intelligence has conducted successful disruption operations in as many as 10 countries in the last six months, mostly in the Middle East.
The recent arrest by Turkish forces in Kenya of Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan is one of the rare examples where the disruption tactic gained public notice. The CIA and other intelligence agencies refuse to comment on whether they played a role in assisting Turkey. But other U.S. officials say the United States provided Turkey with critical information about Ocalan's whereabouts.
Disruption entails tedious hours poring over lists of names and photographs of suspects. Typically, a disruption operation begins with a scrap of information an intercepted cell phone call, word that a known terrorist has crossed into another country, a report from a field surveillance team.
The CIA might provide a cooperative foreign intelligence or law- enforcement service with evidence that could provide the legal pretext for an arrest, such as information that a terrorist cell crossed a border with false papers or illegal arms.
The idea is early intervention.
"It's rare that we foil a plot that is advanced enough to be clearly identified as a plot,'' said a senior intelligence official involved in counterterrorism. The aim is "making professional life difficult for a terrorist group or cell.''
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
Tim, you remind me of my cat. During a terrifying flue fire, in the dead of winter, with snow on the roof, he was worrying about getting his MEOW MIX. We're talking about a hacker holding a military sattelite hostage and you're worrying about the word SHIT!
-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), February 28, 1999.
Thanks for digging and posting the sources and results, particularly Diane (was one of your forebears named Sherlock, by any chance?). Interesting how FoxNews reported:"Police said they would not comment as the investigation was at too sensitive a stage."
The London Times simply remarked:
"Police are investigating."
and Hemos said:
". . . Police refused to comment because of the sensitivity at this stage of the game."
Slightly different wordings, completely different meanings.
-- Inquiring-minded Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 28, 1999.
Think we've got to wait about 8 hours or so for the U.K. to "wake up." Took a look at many of the main papers. Nada.Started exploring web-sites. I've got "tons" of U.K. Defense & Military links now, plus some great international stuff. Don't quite know what to do with it all.
Fascinating what you'll find surfing.
Diane
Just a sample ...
UNITED KINGDOM
UK Ministry of Defence MOD
http://www.mod.uk/Press Releases -- Feb. 1999 (Nothing yet)
http://www.mod.uk/news/ prs/feb99.htmLinks -- Global Ministries / Departments of Defence (Interesting)
The MOD has a consolidated list of links covering a broad range of defence-related organisations around the world. We do not accept any responsibility for the reliability or content of the linked pages. Listing on this page does not imply MOD endorsement.
http://www.mod.uk/links/ links.htmLinks -- MOD Directory of the Worlds Armed Forces (Subset)
http:// www.mod.uk/links/links.htm#Armed ForcesMore Links -- Academic and Non-Governmental Organisations (A Goldmine)
http://www.mod.uk/links/ links2.htmRoyal College of Defence Studies -- Links for Members (Very Interesting)
http://www.mod.uk/ contacts/rcds/links.htm
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 28, 1999.
okay, so now that everybody has panicked, what's the big deal? The worst they can do is knock it down, and then it's just one less element of big brother overhead. Remember all they appear to have done is gained limited control over the maneuvering controls, and even if they have managed to grab onto some of data channels it's just more encrypted data... in fact I'll bet those poor crackers now have more encrypted data than they every dreamed existed in one place...so what?Personally I'm with Tim, there's nothing here that justifies profanity, except to the terminally naive.
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 28, 1999.
My concern stems from the fact that there's more than just that one military satellite up there. Telecommunications, for one thing, television for another. Weather. Ship navigation. Star Wars stuff to knock down any accidentally launched missiles at Y2K. Oh I don't know what else, but there's literally tons of stuff in orbit. If this story is true and hackers can interfere with (one would think) a very secure military satellite, then what havoc could they play with the other satellites? (Including the one that carries the data transmissions allowing this conversation we're having right now.)
-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 28, 1999.
OG,what's to prevent them from messing with the comsats? nada, other than that most of them aren't very challenging targets techincally. OTOH, I guess this is a bit more of an obvious example of just how fragile our technological civilization really is. Remember that a true saboteur would only need to gain access to *one* of the attitude control thrusters in order to totally neutralize a satt - just keep the thruster turned on until it expends all of it's fuel, and voila' one dysfunctional comsatt. Since the crackers in question have already succeeded in maneuvering the satt while maintaining control over it, they've got a great deal more access than simply one thruster control....
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 28, 1999.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAI can just hear the meadia singing"We want you Big Brother!"
Now what??
-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), March 01, 1999.
If s--- offends you, then pretend it's poopie, or better yet, don't read it.
-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), March 01, 1999.
WorldNetDaily has picked up this story.
allaha@earthlink.net), March 01, 1999.
It sounds like the Reichstag fire in space.
-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 01, 1999.
Has anybody considered exactly how many of those secret military sats are sleeping EMP weapons awaiting targeting and detonation instructions?
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), March 01, 1999.
Nik, why bother worrying about that - all they really have to do is grab three or four of the comsats and send them out of orbit - remember when they lost *one* last year, and all the pagers went down? much simpler to take out the commercial satts ...and more socially disruptive - just think what would happen if all of the network satt feeds went down on a Friday morning - a whole weekend without network television for all the couch potatoes!"we'll catch the people who did this to you, but we may just need to, uhm, not worry too much about some of the more picky elements of the criminals' civil rights..." see where that goes?
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 01, 1999.
Time Magazine -- DigitalMonday, March 1, 1999
http:// cgi.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/Did Hackers Hijack a British Military Satellite?
That's what the news wires say, but in the world of computer hacking, truth is a slippery thing
The Reuters news service reports that according to a British newspaper, computer crackers have taken over a British military satellite and are attempting to ransom it back to the government. If the reports are true, the incident marks a new level of sophistication and audacity in the activities of cyberterrorists. But when you're dealing with computer hacking, where boasting and manipulating the media are as much a part of the culture as Mountain Dew, and where the real action goes on deep in the subdirectories of classified computer systems, can we really be sure of the truth?
The facts as reported are as follows: Two weeks ago, British aerospace authorities noticed an irregularity in the position of one of their satellites, a military communications satellite belonging to a group of four known as Skynet satellites. Shortly thereafter, they received an anonymous message demanding money in exchange for control over the satellites guidance systems. "This is a nightmare scenario," an "intelligence source" told Reuters. "This is not just a case of computer nerds mucking about," said another. "This is very, very serious and the blackmail threat has made it even more serious."
The online hacking journal AntiOnline is taking the story at face value. "The current views," writes AntiOnlines Michael Buonagurio, "are that the take-over was an inside job. Either a few lines of corrupted code were created as a backdoor in the system's initial programming, or the command keys were sold by an individual(s) as part of an espionage ring."
Others took a more skeptical point of view. On the tech insider news and community site Slashdot, "X-Files"-esque conspiracy theories were the order of the day. "I'd guess that the satellite was cracked by our own -- or the US! -- security service (assuming it actually happened)," wrote one poster, who claimed to be British. "The resulting publicity is an attempt to push up budgets." Another chimed in with accounts of other "documented" cases in which satellites had been hacked. Still others argued that the encryption and security software available to the military is just too strong to make an incident like this one plausible.
Strange as it sounds -- and the whole affair bears a suspicious resemblance to the plot of the James Bond movie "Goldeneye" -- acts of cyberterrorism are on the rise. Last summer, hackers attacked government computer systems in India to protest nuclear tests, and a similar incident, linked to the Chiapas independence movement, occurred in Mexico . The hacker journal 2600 keeps an ever-growing index of web sites that have been hacked, ranging from the New York Times to the "Varsity Blues" web site. But its a long way from rewriting a web page to hijacking a satellite -- even AntiOnline concedes that "The ability to change satellite attitudes is... not a common skill."
-- LEV GROSSMAN
See also Time reference ...
AntiOnline
http://www.antionline.com/cgi-bin/ News?type=antionline&date=03-01-1999&story=satel.newsHackers Take Control Of Satellite
Sunday, February 28, 1999 at 16:26:09
by Michael Buonagurio - AntiOnline Staff Member
According to the Sunday Edition of the Times of London an unknown band of crackers/extortionists have seized control of one of the United Kingdoms Skynet 4 military communication satellites. The individual(s) involved apparently altered the course of the satellite from its previous geo-synchronous orbit. This incident occurred a little over two weeks ago, and was apparently detected by NORAD and other space monitoring agencies.
The UK government has received a ransom demand for an unspecified amount for return of satellite control. It is presumed that if the demand is not met the current controller will burn all on-board fuel thus rendering the satellite inoperable.
The main question is how did this occur? In order to take control of the satellite the extortionists would have had to bypass numerous electronic security arrangements including the encrypted command codes necessary to change the satellite's attitude. They would then have to crack into an up-link facility, keying it to the specific transmission wavelength of the satellites operational systems. Once that was accomplished they would have to be able to ensure control of the satellite in order to achieve their goals.
The current views are that the take-over was an inside job. Either a few lines of corrupted code were created as a backdoor in the systems initial programming, or the command keys were sold by an individual(s) as part of an espionage ring. The ability to change satellite attitudes is also not a common skill. The extortionists have changed it just enough to make their point, but not enough that the UK could not put it back in position. Additionally, the fact that the UK military cannot apparently isolate where the commands are originating from indicates a well financed operation that includes its own satellite up-link facility. Due to the satellites geo-stationary orbit this facility is most likely located within Europe.
It is not known if the UK has regained control of the satellite or if they are in the process of paying the ransom. As this incident falls under both cyberwar and cyberterrorism definitions it is doubtful that the UK will pay. If they do this will set a dangerous precedent for any future incidents of this type.
The UK Ministry of Defense has no comment on this report.
Data of Skynet series:
The UK's main military communications satellites are the Skynet series. These satellites are needed for the prosecution of all types of conflicts- including nuclear war- for the European Theater. A total of five have been launched and designated Skynet 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D. Of these the original Skynet has been retired with 4A, 4B and 4C to be replaced by 4D, 4E and 4F, respectively. It is believed that the satellite taken over is the -4D which was launched January 10, 1998 using a Delta 2 rocket.
All Skynet systems use digital encryption, UHF- and EHF- transmission bandwidths. The -4D, -4E, and -4F satellites transmit and receive in the 254-318 MHz UHF-band, have two transponders, a power of 50 W, steerable spot beam SHF antennas, and a bandwidth of 25 KHz.
Last known locations were 34: West (inclined) for the -4A and 53: East for the -4D.
In addition Time references the SlashDot site already linked earlier in this thread, and also links to the SlashDot comments. (You need to read it over there) ...
http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/02/28/1037229&pid= 0#176And Time finally mentions the Hacker Journal 2600 that keeps a list of hacked stuff ...
http://www.2600.com/ mindex.html(Wierd place).
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 01, 1999.
Diane, you are truly amazing. Thanks again for digging and retrieving. Oh. Didn't mean to make you sound like a terrier.
-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 02, 1999.
Here is some info from the Apollo Operations Handbook which may prove useful in kidnapping a satellite.http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~wilms/computers/apollo.html
And about embedded chips on Apollo 13 -
".... but at some point before the manned lunar missions, the Bus A and B voltages were increased from +28 VDC to +65 VDC. This had grave implications for Apollo 13: the thermostatic switch for the heater in the oxygen tanks was never upgraded from +28 VDC, it shorted out during a manufacturing test using +65 VDC, causing the heater to fail on for 8 hours, baking the inside at 1000 degrees F and exposing the bare wires which shorted out so explosively in space."
-- Northerner (picking.up@thepieces.com), March 02, 1999.
From above:<
The current views are that the take-over was an inside job. Either a few lines of corrupted code were created as a backdoor in the systems initial programming, or the command keys were sold by an individual(s) as part of an espionage ring. The ability to change satellite attitudes is also not a common skill. The extortionists have changed it just enough to make their point, but not enough that the UK could not put it back in position. Additionally, the fact that the UK military cannot apparently isolate where the commands are originating from indicates a well financed operation that includes its own satellite up-link facility. Due to the satellites geo-stationary orbit this facility is most likely located within Europe. >> Again, all consistent with what was stolen from the satellites that failed in China - the targets might not just be the British, but the US satellites as well. Can't establish any conspiracy of course, but it is enough to make you curious. The controlling antenna could be on a merchant ship - if one wished to hide it, or use it only for a couple of hours, then move on.
-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 02, 1999.
Hhhmmm, this isn't the first time we've read something and thought "It's a good thing Robert PE is on the right side of the fence :-)"xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), March 02, 1999.
I would agree that it's an inside job, probably from a disgruntled employee. It takes only 3 birds to "see" the entire globe, so the others can be maneuvered for total communications. This fourth bird might still be used if it remained in a geo orbit, highly unlikely. I wonder if the comm data could be relayed through TDRSS so that it could continue its mission.My guess is that this "terrorist" doesn't know what else is up there and the maneuvering of this satellite could put it on a collision course with other stuff up there.
-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 02, 1999.
FWIW, I was just reading an article on Tony Blair and Y2K, and came across this article...http://www.excite.co.uk/news/news_story/technology/tech6.txt
SATELLITE HACK 'DID NOT HAPPEN'
last updated 05/03/99 05:22
Hackers did not take control of a UK military satellite, contrary to recent reports, according to a Ministry of Defence spokesman. Stories about the alleged hack circulated widely on the Internet in the last three days after the original story was printed in a UK newspaper.
But MoD officials stressed: "The story is absolutely incorrect. It's rubbish."
To gain access to a satellite control system, a hacker would have first had to break into high security MoD establishments first, the spokesman said.
MoD computers are run on a closed network with no outside access whatsoever, he stressed.
He said there had been attempts to hack MoD web sites, which the police were investigating, but there had been no attempts at reaching any military satellites.
The story has found its way on to various newsgroups, web sites and discussion lists since being picked up by other media.
It claimed a hacker had changed the orientation of a satellite and demanded money from the authorities afterwards. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 05, 1999.
This is just one more link in the world wide conspiracy to switch the problem from one of y2k to one of cyber terrorism. Once everyone believes that the y2k phenomena has been cleared, then the only solution to understanding why we still have problems is cyber terorism. someone to blame, people to scapegoat. Here it comes!
-- Glenna Kamoroff (kamoroff@hotmail.com), March 05, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ