View Poll Results: Should we get 'big business' out of the electoral system?
- 16. You may not vote on this poll
No I think everything is fine like it is
Yes Give our country back to the people
I don\'t vote, so I don\'t care
I live outside the U.S., and your system is fine
I live outside the U.S., but your system is screwed up
July 23rd, 2002, 08:10 AM
"Unhackable" hard drives?
I found a very interesting article here. If, for some reason, it doesn't work for you, go here and click on "Twin-head hard disk...." under "Today in Technology".
I think the idea is very good. They seem to be marketing it for web servers, but I think it would also be very advantages for other servers, including file servers, so that "disgruntled employees", etc. can't start deleting files or rearranging things on the file server.
Scarabs claims that it has developed a hard disk drive (HDD) with two heads that prevents disk files published on the Web from being altered by hackers.
Scarabs put two heads on a HDD, a read-only head that is connected via one cable to a Web server for people to browse content on the disk file and a read/write head that is connected by another cable to a PC for administrators who renew the data.
What do you think? Do you see a future for this technology? Would you spend the extra money for the added security? Do you really think it'll be as secure as they claim? I want to hear your opinions... I've read a few articles about this lately, and I find it very interesting and want to hear other's opinions on it.
July 23rd, 2002, 08:15 AM
yeah if it's true it would be great
July 23rd, 2002, 08:35 AM
Read the article and appears to be a great idea.
Not being an expert in this field, I would guess the adminstrators machine would have to be "unplugged" at the end of each update because while it was connected to the network the hackers would target that machine and eventually find a backdoor into the system.
From what I have read the only unhackable computer is the one pulled from the power supply, surrounded by a cubic meter of concrete and buried in your backyard ... then dont be too sure
Whichever way, if the project gets off the ground it is certainly going to be challenge for our little graffiti artists of the WWW.
July 23rd, 2002, 09:12 AM
yeah, intresting article
July 23rd, 2002, 09:29 AM
There isn't, never has been, and never will be a machine that can't be hacked, notwithstanding the condition that it is a functionable machine that serves a purpose.
Any machine that allows user input and processes that input can and will eventually be compromised.
Think of it this way. By default, a computer does everything you tell it to, period. If I am not allowed to access a machine, then someone has to create a set of criteria that tells the machine to not communicate with me (an access list, for example). I send a packet to a computer (computer being either a pc or a network device/node), and it checks the header to see if it is allowed to process my request for information. If not, it discards this information and sends a notice to me that my request was rejected. Too late, homey. I crafted my packet perfectly and exploited a buffer overflow in the packet header I learned about after two months of researching and 'scouting' that machine. Peace out to that machine.
If you followed that, the point being, there is always a way around security provisions as long as you are able to send information to a machine. It may take a lot more time, patience, and intellectual-crunching than most want to put into it, but it can be done. The admin in the example above should have been able to detect/stop me in the 'scouting' stage, and I probably would have given up and moved on to a more 'open' target on the same network as my primary target, maybe in its DMZ
Hope this made sense, and it didn't really apply to your hardware security topic directly, but it was an example of how anything is possible in the world of 1's and 0's.
---....Loading: 1x 2x 3x
July 23rd, 2002, 09:42 AM
ummm didnt you get that off slashdot??
if you read the article on their it tells you a little bit about why it will be hacked but deter most script kidde defacments
July 23rd, 2002, 11:14 AM
i aggree with comjo nothing is unhackable if a really skilled hacker want to get in to that hard drive s/he would nothing much would stop them if they were determined to root the box interesting article though thanks for the link avden
By the sacred **** of the sacred psychedelic tibetan yeti ....We\'ll smoke the chinese out
The 20th century pharoes have the slaves demanding work
July 23rd, 2002, 01:33 PM
I have heard things like this time and time agian "UNHACKABLE" sure it will keep sKiddies off for a time but then someone will make tools to help them play with that type of box.
July 23rd, 2002, 05:40 PM
Rioter > The article I found was at Computer Weekly (www.cw360.com) as posted above. This article, nor either of the other articles I read stated anything about the hard drive being hacked into. The only way it would be possible for this hard drive to be hacked into is if someone were to gain access via the storage provider's local area network. Any sort of attempt through the web server would be thwarted by the fact that the user would only be able to access the read only head.
July 23rd, 2002, 06:30 PM
pretty neat idea and I think it could make it harder to hack but it is by no means unhackable. If you hacked into the PC with control of the read write head then it really would not matter. Just my cheap $.02
A squirrel with no nuts will soon starve.