<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;siemens&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:13:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Are We Talking About 'Cyberwar' Or Massive Incompetence?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/11314715390/are-we-talking-about-cyberwar-massive-incompetence.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/11314715390/are-we-talking-about-cyberwar-massive-incompetence.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Rich Kulawiec points us to the news of Dillon Beresford of NSS Labs recently discovering (and revealing) that the Siemens control systems targeted by Stuxnet have <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/08/siemens-hardcoded-password/" target="_blank">massive security holes</a>, including a <i>hardcoded username/password combo</i> ("basisk" for both, in case you were wondering).  As Kulawiec noted:
<blockquote><i>
We have been treated, over the past few years, to an increasing chorus of hysteria and hype about "cyberwar".  Some of that has come from governments eager to justify their increasing invasion of citizen privacy.  Some of that has come from government contractors, eager to score more $100M do-nothing contracts.  And since Stuxnet has come to light, it's been held up repeatedly as an example of the extreme cleverness of attackers.<br />
<br />
But while Stuxnet is pretty darn clever, that's not the real problem.  The real problem is that the incompetent morons at Siemens allowed this piece of crap to get out the door and into production environments.  Thus the storyline isn't so much about the devious and subtle craft of Stuxnet's creators, as it is about the jaw-dropping negligence of Siemens: how could their QA miss this?  How could they allow such a rudimentary, obvious mistake to pass?<br />
<br />
We don't need to spend billions (or trillions) on elaborate cyberwar initiatives.  We need to stop making fundamental mistakes.  We need to stop doing the stupid things that we KNOW are stupid.
</i></blockquote>
But that kind of stuff isn't quite as sexy as declaring "cyberwar" and asking for billions of dollars from the government.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/11314715390/are-we-talking-about-cyberwar-massive-incompetence.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/11314715390/are-we-talking-about-cyberwar-massive-incompetence.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110804/11314715390/are-we-talking-about-cyberwar-massive-incompetence.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>perhaps-more-the-latter...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110804/11314715390</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:33:06 PST</pubDate>
<title>Secretive Patent Holder Sues Lots Of Companies For Remote Activation Software</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=thehackman">Brian</a> points us to the news of <a href="http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/mongo_patent_infringement_suit/" target="_blank">yet another questionable patent lawsuit</a> filed by yet another shell company, yet again in Eastern Texas against a ton of software companies.  The patent in question (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=yCZ8AAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,222,134" target="_blank">5,222,134</a>) is for a "secure system for activating personal computer software at remote locations," and was originally filed back in 1991 and granted in 1993 -- meaning that the patent is actually nearing end of life.  Odd, then, that it was suddenly noticed that all these companies were infringing.  The lawsuit is filed by a shell company called BetaNet, and no one seems willing to speak.  The lawyers representing BetaNet won't say who is behind the company, or how they even got the patent.  This is typical.  Many of these types of lawsuits are filed by shell companies to hide who is actually behind them.  As for the defendants, here's the list:
<blockquote><i>
Adobe, Apple, Arial Software, Autodesk, Carbonite, Corel, Kodak, IBM, Intuit, Microsoft, McAfee, Online Holdings, Oracle, Rockwell, Rosetta Stone, SAP, Siemens, and Sony.
</i></blockquote>
Obviously, none of those companies could have come up with ways to remotely activate software without this patent (yes, that's sarcasm).  As the Register notes in the link above, even some of the software products listed as violating this patent don't seem to involve activation at all, raising serious questions about how they could possibly violate this patent.  This sounds like yet another case of someone having read the book <i>Rembrandt's in the Attic</i> and deciding to go <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080224/162013330.shtml">trolling</a> for companies to sue with a meaningless patent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091216/0819597385.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>gotta-get-it-done-before-bilski</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091216/0819597385</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>