LONDON — An extensive cyberattack struck computers across a wide swath of Europe and Asia on Friday, and strained the public health system in Britain, where doctors were blocked from patient files and emergency rooms were forced to divert patients. The attack involved ransomware, a kind of malware that encrypts data and locks out the user. According to security experts, it exploited a vulnerability that was discovered and developed by the National Security Agency. The hacking tool was leaked by a group calling themselves the Shadow Brokers, which has been dumping stolen N.S.A. hacking tools online beginning last year. Microsoft rolled out a patch for the vulnerability last March, but hackers took advantage of the fact that vulnerable targets — particularly hospitals — had yet to update their systems. The malware was circulated by email; targets were sent an encrypted, compressed file that, once loaded, allowed the ransomware to infiltrate its targets. Reuters reported that employees of Britain’s National Health Service were warned about the ransomware threat earlier on Friday. By then, it was already too late. As the disruptions rippled through hospitals, doctors’ offices and ambulance companies across Britain on Friday, the health service declared the attack as a “major incident,” a warning that local health services could be overwhelmed by patients. Among the many other institutions that were affected were hospitals and telecommunications companies across Europe, Russia, Asia and beyond, according to MalwareHunterTeam, a security firm that tracks ransomware attacks. Spain’s Telefónica and Russia’s MegaFon were among the targets. Attacks were being reported in Britain and 11 other countries, including Turkey, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, with the majority of affected computers in Russia. The computers all appeared to be hit with the same ransomware, and similar ransom messages demanding about $300 to unlock their data. The attack on the National Health Service seemed perhaps the most audacious of the attacks, because it had life-or-death implications for hospitals and ambulance services. Tom Donnelly, a spokesman for N.H.S. Digital, the arm of the health service that handles cybersecurity, said in a phone interview that 16 organizations, including “hospitals and other kinds of clinician services,” had been hit by a cyberattack. Officials later updated that number to at least 25. As of 3:30 p.m., 16 organizations within N.H.S. England had reported being affected, the statement said. (It did not immediately appear that the N.H.S. systems in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland had been hit.) According to the BBC, hospitals in London and Nottingham, the town of Blackburn and the counties of Cumbria and Hertfordshire had been affected. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/europe/uk-national-health-service-cyberattack.html
I tell you what, those Russians are clever! hit a few of their own computer systems as well, no-one will believe they did it! (this world is computer nerd heaven!)
It's difficult to see how it will change, for every virus there's a patch, for every patch there's a new virus. Bring back Matron, she's harder to hack!
Seems like there's a patch for this one, Its just they have been running unsupported versions of XP so didn't get them!
Is the NSA hackware they used to shut down Iran's nuclear setup for a while a couple of years ago? Or just one that UMBRAGE was working on.
One thing that would help the NHS would be not having plenty of PCs still running Windows XP - which has been unsupported for four years or so IIRC. Vin
I think you do remember correctly. I seem to remember some time after I went from XP to windows 8 that XP only had a year or so left where Microsoft said they were going to stop supporting it and that must have been circa 2012, maybe 2013.
You are mostly correct. The NHS took until very recently to update from XP mainly because of all the client-server systems, of which there are dozens in every hospital, not being compatible with Windows 8. They had to wait until all the subsidiary software was updated before they could update Windows, and that process is still going on. I did hear a spokesman for the NHS cyber security people saying, however, that this malware didn't have a problem attacking Windows 8 either!
On the XP thing I was holding off getting rid of XP (on a desktop back then) as at the time didn't like windows 7 on the wife's laptop. Eventually the desktop started having problems and the new laptop came with 8 on. Took some getting used to but I used it in classic mode anyway so it looked the same. Was it win 8 or win 8.1 that the cyber security person was on about? Windows 8 didn't last long before they rushed out the 8.1 version for free (amidst rumours of lots of security weaknesses.)
What he was saying was that this ransomware was so sophisticated it didn't matter what OS was in place, it could get through. Obviously the antivirus software on the NHS networks and PC's hadn't been updated to protect against it either, which is always going to be a problem. The NHS is very strict about uploading data to network PC's from external sources like CD's and USB sticks, and most network PC's don't allow it to non-admin users. The feeling is that the ransomware must have been lurking on the server of a legitimate website which NHS users had a valid reason for going into, and the bug got in that way.
Because that is not their goal. Or if it is, then it should be privatised because there is no need for them to do it. You and I both want some good or service. It costs $1000k to provide this per person. I have $1800, you have $200. (Sorry, I can put S's in words, but the pound sign is a pain). In the private market, no one is going to sell for $200, because that is a huge loss. They can TRY to sell for $1800, but someone will undercut their pricing. In the long run, profit is $0. You will buy the good for $1000 which is enough for the seller to break even and survive, Guy with $200 is out of luck. Now, suppose the government wants to provide this service to both of us. They will have to collect $800 from me, and give it to you, so we both have $1k. To do this, there is overhead costs associated with collecting the money from me. There are overhead costs associated with making sure no one steals the $800. There are overhead costs associated with making sure the right person gets the $800. And more costs associated with making sure they spend it on the good rather than walking off with it. So it would be impossible for the government to provide that service for $1000 per person or $2000 total. It will cost them like $2100. So the price for the good is higher, but more people get the good. That;s the trade-off. The free market guarantees efficiency, which means goods are exchanged for the minimum amount possible. The government supports equality, which means everyone gets something. If you want equality, and you want checks and balances on government power and safety nets then you don't get efficiency. When you talk about streamlining, you're talking about economies of scale. And yes, the government can lower costs because of economies of scale. But the WAY they gain the economies of scale (forcing people to give them money and redistributing it) is inherently inefficient. I believe in basic economic theories. I just don't believe that efficiency is the only goal of society. There are some things that you can't put a price tag on. Those are the things that government should be doing, and because those things won't happen naturally in a free market, it will cost more to make them happen.
Well sure. I'm certainly not saying it's impossible for government agencies to do a crap job. Or that any particular government agency can't be run much better. I'm just saying don't expect them to provide things cheaper than one would pay in the free market. They obviously can subsidize costs for a certain group to make things cheaper for that group. But the subsidy is money coming from someone else.
Your first sentence was the key. That is not who's goal? straight away there you are at the point of the argument. It is not the goal of who? I don;t believe that efficiency is the only goal either. I do however believe that private wants to provide as good a service as they can get away with for the money while the state service provides a great service at seemingly (and I will say seemingly with honesty rather than in jest) higher than it should cost price. You are not actually understanding what I am saying. I am not arguing about what does happen whether we have left or right in. I am arguing about what "should" happen. The problems we have with politics is we know what "normally" happens and therefore we don't trust the right because we think they will be in favour of business and we don;t trust the left because we think they will want too much for normal folks. That does not affect what I was saying. I am talking about what SHOULD happen not what always DOES happen. Will we ever reach a scenario where we can turn what DOES happen into what SHOULD happen? and if not then why the hope for the future?
Come off it . You have your American head on here and think everyone should have 50% profits. Everything in the world is a pool. Everybody buys the same product and they'll get it cheaper. Everyone pays car insurance and those who claim get the payout. everybody pays into health and those who need get the payout. That is the deal. We aren;t arguing over who gets more in this scenario. We are all putting into the pool and hoping we don;t need our own money. In the UK we all pay into the pot via tax and NHS. Not many privates over here. The last time I personally needed hospital was in (thinking) 1998/9. Am I moaning about how much I put in without needing it? No, because its a pool. The $200 and $1800 guy pool together because that is what happens. $1800 guy can moan all it likes, let him moan.but that is how the system works. It is no good to talk about sellers when we are the owners as well as the customers and yes in that scenario we probably are much more critical however we are paying to run the service that we are receiving from. overheads are also paid by us. Ther is absolutely no diffference. State orgs are not run from cloud money. They re run from state money. Our money., So we pay in. Your analysis of "making sure people don;t walk off with the $800 or spends it on the right person gets the $800 worries me about your idea of America. If that is what you think of the US system then WOW." Your trade off seems to ignore lots of people ensuring something bad doesn;t happen that soak up the money while the private sector doesn't need these actions? I don;t buy it and it is probably a culture difference and national differnce more than your statement or mine being wrong. Over here what are we on about? someone getting an operation they didn;t need? Your analysis does not work over here where healthcare is "free" (although of course we pay into the pool so it isn;t free) no-one is making a profit so operations are only done for those that need operations.
It's not an American thing. It's just basic economic theory. Some guy from the UK invented it. I hear London has some kind of school to teach it.
Yes. There is a limited pool of resources. It is a zero sum game. In economic terms, you can call this the production possibility frontier. Which is why expecting the government to generate more than that is kind a fool's errand. Correct. And on average no one gets back what they put in. Because to stay solvent the insurance company has to cover both the net cost of damage claims and overhead administrative costs. And you do not buy insurance because it is cheaper than just getting a car fixed on your own. You buy it to reduce risk. Odds are, you lose money. But if you ever get in a horrible accident, you will be better off than with no insurance. The government can be viewed as a giant insurance company. That is the safety net function. If you live a happy life, you will put more taxes in than you get serviced out. But if you run into bad luck, lose your job, get sick, you are covered. This is exactly why universal healthcare cannot get passed in the US. People expect it to reduce costs for everyone and do not understand why they should subsidize some other guy. The reason is, someday that other guy could be you. You are not paying for healthcare. You are paying to avoid catastrophe. The people who are not are covered by insurance are high risk. There is no profit in it for insurance companies. If you add them to the pool, the risk is greater and the costs rise to compensate. Simple. Doesn't matter what you are arguing. Fact is, someone gets more and someone gets less. You are trying to control who gets more or less. Private market is like water flowing. It goes where gravity dictates. You want water for everyone, expect to incur dam costs. Doesn't matter what you are moaining about. Costs increase, that is the way it is. You can moan about gravity or not moan about gravity. Things are still gonna fall. No. I'm taking that into account and you are not. That's exactly why it costs more, dude. The government has to make sure everyone is covered while the private sector does not deal with those who do not generate revenue. That extra cost is EXACTLY why you cannot expect government to do things cheaper than private business. No one makes a profit in the free market either. In the long term, profit is $0. It's that way because the market responds purely to money. You vote with your money. If someone is taking too much money from you, then you will give money to their cheaper competitor instead. In a Democratic government, you can vote if you have no money at all. And your vote counts as much (or should, anyway) as much as a billionaire. So the response is that the government prioritized satisfying the largest number of voters, not the offering the cheapest price. Which is as it should be. You trade equality or safety in exchange for efficiency/cost. That is how government works. When people stop having unrealistic expectations from the government is when they will stop believing every asshole who promises a pot of gold, and we will finally have more useful leaders.
Yeah, but school or no, we've been dumbing down for years. Now thats an American thing that caught on over here.
