No petrol in about 5 of the 7 stations i passed on the way back home from Costco this morning. Costco had just had a delivery and there was around 100 cars in line waiting for fuel. South east USA has been screwed by 1 cyber attack, wonder what would happen if they took down the grid. Looks like were in for an interesting year again.
The thing that gets me, is how/why they didn't have the control systems completely segregated, or at the very least done in such a way that the only data that could be passed from outside to the secure network was through some portal that limited it to a known "safe" set of instructions (IE if you needed to connect remotely only the data for an approved/secure app could be transferred and that only be what was necessary for basic functions).
I suspect it's going to turn out that somewhere along the lines a decision was made years ago to not operate the control/monitoring systems as a standalone/fully protected network as not doing so made it fractionally cheaper or easier.
Disaster planning costs money and accountants look at balance sheets and see millions sitting doing nothing as nothing has gone wrong yet and it gets cut. And then something goes wrong.
Aye, it's like a lot of things, disaster planning, checking recovery/restart plans work by actually powering down a system, checking the data recovery system is actually writing to whatever medium is used, and crucially that it can be read again (if using tapes etc, making sure that it can be read off a different drive and not just the one that did the initial write and verification).
I've seen so many stories over the years of managers/accountants not wanting to lose profits by having a planned shutdown/test when all the necessary personal can be in place and ready to deal with any unexpected issues, but then being caught out when something did go wrong and things didn't work out well because no one was fully ready and key people had left without things being documented (but no one realised that because it hadn't been tried out and spotted).
You get the same with things like customer service/RMA's and packaging.
One of the best example I saw of how a company saved money by ignoring the accountants was a DVD producerwho also acted as a Distribution/RMA centre for other companies, and was their own major retailer so saw the returns percentages for dozens of case types.
The boss of the company explained once why he always specified a certain case type for his releases, the cost was a couple of cents more per unit, but it resulted in a far lower return rate because discs didn't come loose as easily as some cases, and it didn't risk cracking the discs like another type*, as he put it "we get to see how much the different styles of case cost in total allowing for returns, not just how much the case costs".
*I think it was the Scanavo style cases that either didn't hold the disk at all, or over time could crack the disk (or you risked breaking the disc as you took it out) as it had somehting like 6 prongs and they were often extremely stiff.