NHS computer systems hacked!?

neil_g · 14 May 2017 at 19:47

Greebo said:
Well at Xmas it was 90% so they have done well to get it from 90% to 4.7% in 5 months. You got a link to the NHS statement please?

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...-trusts-are-still-running-windows-xp-machines

EDIT: Goggle search only brings up Amanda Rudd saying 4.7%

So obviously Fallon is using the same info. Will be interesting to see how many it really is.

Sure. Funnily enough it's on the NHS digital site.

https://digital.nhs.uk/article/1493/UPDATED-Statement-on-reported-NHS-cyber-attack-13-May-

StriderX · 14 May 2017 at 19:54

Jesus christ, whats the real number if a guy (whom we should likely trust as working at NHS digital previously) is saying >10% and NHS digital is saying otherwise?

Nasher · 14 May 2017 at 21:03

I REALLY wouldn't want to be the guy that gets caught for this, seeing the other organisation that were hit. Assuming the Russians haven't already had him killed

Rroff · 14 May 2017 at 21:05

Nasher said:
I REALLY wouldn't want to be the guy that gets caught for this, seeing the other organisation that were hit. Assuming the Russians haven't already had him killed

Good chance it was either the "Russians" or North Korean semi-state sponsored. Or some kiddie living in Bournemouth or whatever now ******* himself.

StriderX · 14 May 2017 at 21:09

Yes because the Russians would attack their own interior ministry? Sounds counter productive.

Freakbro · 14 May 2017 at 21:12

StriderX said:
Yes because the Russians would attack their own interior ministry? Sounds counter productive.

Did they "target" anything though? I thought it just got in to any system that was vulnerable and then just went off at a predetermined time

StriderX · 14 May 2017 at 21:17

Freakbro said:
Did they "target" anything though? I thought it just got in to any system that was vulnerable and then just went off at a predetermined time

Still doesn't fly with me, the Russians aren't the main culprit when it comes to global authority with regards to the internet. They have little to gain from such a blind attack.

Rroff · 14 May 2017 at 21:18

StriderX said:
Still doesn't fly with me, the Russians aren't the main culprit when it comes to global authority with regards to the internet. They have little to gain from such a blind attack.

It was in quotation marks as the "Russians" are often the tag used to blame groups generally from that part of the world - even if they are actually from Ukraine or whatever.

Freakbro · 14 May 2017 at 21:25

We'll have to wait for the film to find out who (allegedly) dunnit

neil_g · 14 May 2017 at 21:52

StriderX said:
Yes because the Russians would attack their own interior ministry? Sounds counter productive.

Well they said they were infected..

Rroff · 14 May 2017 at 22:11

neil_g said:
Well they said they were infected..

LOL good point.

Nasher · 14 May 2017 at 22:23

Rroff said:
Good chance it was either the "Russians" or North Korean semi-state sponsored. Or some kiddie living in Bournemouth or whatever now ******* himself.

Russian government systems were hit too.

This wasn't a targeted attack, it was intended to hit everything. But they have ****** off all the big players, so they are as good as dead now. They will be found, or someone will turn whoever it is in for a massive bounty. You can't make that much of a blip on the radar and get away with it.

Rroff · 14 May 2017 at 22:27

As per neil's post above its not hard to claim and make it look like you were hit also

While not appearing to be a targeted attack itself I do have to wonder if it is smokescreen something more specific.

Nasher · 14 May 2017 at 22:35

Rroff said:
As per neil's post above its not hard to claim and make it look like you were hit also

While not appearing to be a targeted attack itself I do have to wonder if it is smokescreen something more specific.

Well some guys that seem to have reverse engineered it said the coding is quite amateurish and tacked on to an already existing virus. So it won't be state sponsored.

Caged · 14 May 2017 at 22:38

It's a bit of a waste of a good exploit to be honest

Nate--IRL-- · 14 May 2017 at 22:47

Caged said:
It's a bit of a waste of a good exploit to be honest

Oh there's plenty more.... unfortunately

Nate

neil_g · 14 May 2017 at 22:51

Caged said:
It's a bit of a waste of a good exploit to be honest

Lets see what next week has in store first..

Destination · 14 May 2017 at 23:00

Freakbro said:
Did they "target" anything though? I thought it just got in to any system that was vulnerable and then just went off at a predetermined time

How come masses of single user computers are not affected?
This all seems to be large scale organisations, or am I missing saomething?

Deleted member 77746 · 14 May 2017 at 23:02

Hikari Kisugi said:
How come masses of single user computers are not affected?
This all seems to be large scale organisations, or am I missing saomething?

Because businesses choose when to apply patches and upgrades. Home users (most are forced or scheduled updates). This is how I see it.

Rroff · 14 May 2017 at 23:05

mrbell1984 said:
Because businesses choose when to apply patches and upgrades. Home users (most are forced or scheduled updates). This is how I see it.

Tons and tons and tons of home users are on unpatched or poorly patched Windows 7. As I mentioned before though this seems to have been crafted with at least some focus on getting into and infecting organisation's networks.

Possibly it has got in through that recent issue with attachments being able to deliver their payload without a user even opening the attachment which mostly affected corporate networks but I'm starting to think there is something about this infection that we haven't seen/are aware of yet as the way it has spread through businesses especially seems suspicious to me - I'm seriously starting to wonder if they have exploited a previously unknown vulnerability on the server class vPro CPUs which are less common in a home environment and its then leapfrogged from that.