Britain's Nuclear Powered Submarines Running Windows XP

a reply to: face23785

I'm from your 51st state. LoL

If you cant see the hypocrisy regarding what your nation spends on its military and military actions across the planet then may i suggest a trip to the opticians may be in order.

57% or 15-20% is a ridiculous sum of monies to be laying out to ensure freedom and security of any nation. And the stupidity of the matter is that freedom and security are not exactly synonymous with one another to begin with. LoL

But like i already said my own nations not exactly squeaky clean, i mean after all we can afford to shell out £205bn for the likes of Trident, which will most lightly cost us our national health service, so win some lose some eh?

a reply to: andy06shake

Do you know what "hypocrisy" means? What hypocrisy are you referring to? Have we been telling other countries they spend too much on their military?

What you deem too much is irrelevant. Defending its citizens is one of the only things our federal government is actually responsible for according to our Constitution. We spend the majority of our money on stuff that's not the federal government's responsibility, like social programs. It's all in the links I sent you on the last page.

Seeing as how o.s.' are ridden with holes/backdoors, and obsolete 1 year after introduction -

What the hell does it matter?
Atomic/nuclear energy does not require digital anything to function - nor has it since it's inception in the 50's.
Why does everyone have some addiction to digital bullsh#t.
Computers can be hacked, an analog gauge can not.

From the original link.....

About Rick Falkvinge

Rick is Head of Privacy at Private Internet Access. He is also the founder of the first Pirate Party and is a political evangelist, traveling around Europe and the world to talk and write about ideas of a sensible information policy. Additionally, he has a tech entrepreneur background and loves good whisky and fast motorcycles.

Rick Falkvinge is the person who wrote the article.

There is a response to the link in the link....

Wally Anglesea • 25 days ago

The nuclear subs will be airgapped and not connected to the outside world in any way and will have tempest rated hardware and software. The versions of XP are not what you and I use. Having said that, the idea of using off the shelf operating systems on warships has always struck me as stupid.

It makes no sense to consider that just because some one needs to be fired at a hospital that British submarines are not secure.

In so far as running XP on a Nuclear Powered Submarine The XP version being used is classified. The above responses do not take that into consideration and all things considered the "Submarines" are secure.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I just find it funny to see such a masterful piece of equipment running XP machines on it.

It is funny to see.

Why is it funny? It works and is secure.

a reply to: seagull

Seconded
If the RN keeps it patched what is the problem no more vulnerable than any other network in the world, dint some aspergers guy hack the us defense system not so long ago?
hacking electric grid could cause chaos more easily prob more vulnerable as well

a reply to: face23785

"Do you know what "hypocrisy" means?"

Was he not one that unleashed all those ludicrous Greek tragedies upon us? LoL

Yes im perfectly aware of the etymology of the word, but thank you kindly for asking.

What a load of tripe.

Your own gooberment don't even really know what gets spent in the entirety or even where for that matter said pennies end up.

Such is the nature of the multitude of black budget operations that take place all over the globe.

Just a thought.

a reply to: andy06shake

You can continue to think whatever unfounded things you want, I won't further derail the thread. Your information was grossly inaccurate, I corrected it, you really have nothing else to say besides pontification.

On topic, I agree with the above posters, who cares if its the latest OS as long as it works and they can keep it secure?

XP was great in It's day...

but with all support pulled away... running XP was no longer for internet use

still got my XP in the studio, it is on a 2004 HP desktop...drivers are an issue

a reply to: SolAquarius

Linux scared the p1ss out of MS when it came out. Especially WINE.

I like your thinking. Copy your dll's over to WINE and run things that way. Everything is going virtual anyway so why not XP?

Heck, they don't want you to know but MS itself is developed using Open Source tools! Why? Because they work better.

Only problem I see with using XP on a submarine is the length of time it remains up and running. MS issues recommendations and XP is something like, "reboot monthly" or some such.

originally posted by: face23785
While obviously not as critical as nuclear, I can confirm our fuel inventory systems were still using 56K modems in the US Air Force in 2016. The government usually doesn't have the latest and greatest of anything, takes too long to get approvals and we just don't have the money to buy new stuff all the time. But the VA can still afford this nonsense.

it's more to do with the fact that it's just not worth the cost and risk of upgrading legacy systems:

1) they work. they have stood the test of time without any catastrophic bugs. that's very important

2) they're written in archaic languages with paradigms that make for very confusing and complex code

3) attempting to "upgrade" (for no real reason other than "because") can cause all sorts of headaches wrt bugs, stability, etc.

4) it's very expensive to do 3) and result in 1), particularly given 2)

a reply to: face23785

"You can continue to think whatever unfounded things you want"

Why thank you kind sir.

You can continue to think whatever the hell you wish also, at least for the time being.

Prove my information is grossly inaccurate? You corrected nothing, all you did is present another statistic that you still refuse to accept as excessive.

Like i said remove those rose coloured glasses or at least seek a new prescription.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

"You can continue to think whatever unfounded things you want"

Why thank you kind sir.

You can continue to think whatever the hell you wish also, at least for the time being.

Prove my information is grossly inaccurate? You corrected nothing, all you did is present another statistic that you still refuse to accept as excessive.

Like i said remove those rose coloured glasses or at least seek a new prescription.

OK I wasn't gonna reply to you anymore but I actually did correct you and I want you to understand that so you don't continue to think that 57% number is accurate and spread that lie to other people. That number is incorrect, and it's off by a lot. The US doesn't spend anywhere close to "57% of the federal dollar" on military spending. Please acknowledge that, and do not push that number because that number is a lie. Excessive is an opinion. The numbers are not open to debate. 57% is not right or anywhere even close to right.

a reply to: face23785

That's your proof???

Night, night sweetheart, don't be late for school tomorrow.

Like i said i'm inclined to believe in the 57% statistic but ether 57% or 20% its still a horrendous amount to spend on the military and security that does not exist.

And you are free to believe what ever figure you wish. x

a reply to: DaveEngland

That's a fairly common occurrence, or so I'm lead to believe by folks who used to do DOD computer stuff. No particulars, of course, not that I'd understand what they were saying anyway, but they take their security clearances fairly seriously.

a reply to: seagull

Taking down englands power grid would be easier and cause more chaos winter would be best as most geezers heating and water boilers need electric to run.
Thats more likely and much easier no water either if it takes out the pumps and the backup genny's run out.

a reply to: andy06shake

I sent you a bunch of proof on the previous page, you're just in denial. If you believe that 57% number you're being willfully ignorant. What source would you believe? No matter where you like to get your news, I they've probably done some reporting on the US federal budget before. 57% is a lie, plain and simple.

so nuclear weapons submarines have internet access do they ??
I think not once underwater only the low band can reach the sub .
Can see it now alert alert ( dude at the button staring at porn ( alert alert lol )

a reply to: midnightstar

I feel compelled to point out that lack of internet access doesn't necessarily mean your system is invulnerable to hacking. But it would take a subject matter expert who knows about the sub's systems and how they are maintained to determine if there's any way malicious software could be introduced into the system otherwise. Are they linked to a mainframe while they're in port? Do they do software updates via removable media, which could obviously carry malicious software? Etc, etc.

Its not just about having to buy a new OS/PC and installing it. Before anything is used in the military it has to pass several tests, and become combat ready. They can't just buy Windows 10 and install it on the machine and go back to work. The Navy would have to conduct a long and laborious process of finding all security vulnerabilities, understanding all the new functionality and testing backwards compatibility, understanding all new potential issues, and document and test all new configurations for security, etc.. They have already done all this for their special Government Issue Windows XP setup and I am assuming they don't want to go through that again just yet with a newer version.

Second, they might even use special software / drivers for certain hardware they integrate with that may or may not be compatible with Windows 10 without having to make changes to the code and recompile said software / drivers. That too would be a long QA process and combat readiness testing.

If it works, don't fix it.