Britain - The Official Thread

[Robin]

A lot of people are reeling from the fact that many hospital trusts are using Windows XP, an OS no longer supported.

For consumers it is no longer supported however the UK government, as well as many other governments and businesses, did a deal with Microsoft to have bespoke extended support for XP critical systems among other things in the NHS. This deal was quite expensive but because the cost of let's say replacing a CT scanner that runs on it for example would be even more they went ahead with it. However just having a gander I see the UK only did it to mid 2015, so much for the leeway to move on to 7!

I would choose today to be ill looking at the NHS website a fair bit! Saw the yellow notification of the hack.

 

[Dotini]

Does this hack affect the people in any important way? Or are its affects mainly confined internally to the NHS and its tech people?

 

[TenEightyOne]

A lot of people are reeling from the fact that many hospital trusts are using Windows XP, an OS no longer supported.

Well... it is still supported on huge numbers of Enterprise contracts, it's arguably a more secure platform in many ways. Until today, that is

Does this hack affect the people in any important way? Or are its affect mainly confined internally to the NHS and its tech people?

There were people lying ready for surgery whose operations had to be immediately halted. That's the more dramatic end but at a local GP Surgery level people are unable to access repeat medications.

 

[Dotini]

Will the NHS pay a ransom for a quick fix?

 

[W3H5]

Fox hunting is stupid if you ask me. I don't really have a problem with hunting in general, and if the animal is a pest then it may be necessary. I don't, however, think using attack dogs is civilised which is why I would support upholding the ban. If they hunted in the usual manor and shot the fox like one would a deer I wouldn't have a problem with it.


I'd prefer it if the only hunting taking place was for food rather than sport but that's unlikely to happen.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Fox hunting is stupid if you ask me. I don't really have a problem with hunting in general, and if the animal is a pest then it may be necessary. I don't, however, think using attack dogs is civilised which is why I would support upholding the ban. If they hunted in the usual manor and shot the fox like one would a deer I wouldn't have a problem with it.


I'd prefer it if the only hunting taking place was for food rather than sport but that's unlikely to happen.

Hunting is a necessity to control certain animal populations. Here in Ontario for example, now that most of it's predators are gone, if we didn't cull thousands and thousands of deer every year we'd be overrun by them. You have the same problem in the U.K. with the fox and the fact that it's also a pest is pretty much irrelevant. If it's gotta go it's gotta go and if they do so while spending gobs of money and supporting a small industry, more power to them. In the end the fox is dead anyway so why would it matter if it's chased by dogs or not?

 

[W3H5]

In the end the fox is dead anyway so why would it matter if it's chased by dogs or not?

It's the manor in which they're dispatched; often brutally savaged before the huntsman can finish the job with a gun. Seems barbaric and unnecessary when a rifle would do a cleaner job and reduce suffering.

Yeah it's gonna die anyway, but it seems like adding insult to injury.

 

[Famine]

a rifle would do a cleaner job and reduce suffering

That's not the case.

Foxes are simply not very large animals and around half the time when they're shot they aren't killed. Best case scenario there is it's immobilised (and in pain, if you care about the suffering) while the shooter gets his chance to finish the job. Worst case is that it's just injured and escapes back to its den where it slowly dies of infection (in pain, if you care about the suffering). The same thing applies to snares, only you can add in the fact that they'll catch and injure other wildlife too.

That aside, killing a fox or two with a rifle out where they're hunting isn't exactly population control. The best place to cull foxes is at their dens - and that's where the dogs come in. They're not just tracking a fox. They're tracking its den. And in terms of animal welfare, being shredded by a pack of dogs is marginally better than being shot and dying over the course of two weeks from the wound (and curiously akin to what foxes do to ducks and chickens).

Ultimately, hunting with hounds is - however horrible you find it - the most efficient way of controlling fox populations. Yes, the people who do it are commonly bloodthirsty toffs who couldn't care less about that aspect of it so long as they get to kill something while dressed up in a profoundly stupid fashion, but I think that's rather beside the point. Whether they enjoy it or not, it's the least worst way of performing a necessary-ish task.

 

[Tornado]

They should do it the Far Cry 3 way and hunt them with grenades and exploding arrows.

 

[Biggles]

Ultimately, hunting with hounds is - however horrible you find it - the most efficient way of controlling fox populations. Yes, the people who do it are commonly bloodthirsty toffs who couldn't care less about that aspect of it so long as they get to kill something while dressed up in a profoundly stupid fashion, but I think that's rather beside the point. Whether they enjoy it or not, it's the least worst way of performing a necessary-ish task.

What? I don't personally know any fox-hunting toffs, but I'm pretty sure that most of them do it for the sport - the thrill & risk of charging around the countryside on a horse - & the tradition (who are you to call it a "profoundly stupid fashion"), not because they're "bloodthirsty". In fact, I suspect few of the toffs actually get to see the fox being torn apart by the dogs. Fox hunting may seem pretty pointless now, but consider that hunting on horseback has very ancient origins & was practiced all over the world (wherever there were horses). In the scheme of things, it's only very recently that horses have been replaced by cars as a means of speedy locomotion.

The RSPCA claims that "The overall contribution of traditional fox hunting, within the overall total of control techniques involving dogs is almost insignificant in terms of management of the fox population as a whole."

https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/hunting/facts

 

[W3H5]

That's not the case.

Foxes are simply not very large animals and around half the time when they're shot they aren't killed. Best case scenario there is it's immobilised (and in pain, if you care about the suffering) while the shooter gets his chance to finish the job. Worst case is that it's just injured and escapes back to its den where it slowly dies of infection (in pain, if you care about the suffering). The same thing applies to snares, only you can add in the fact that they'll catch and injure other wildlife too.

That aside, killing a fox or two with a rifle out where they're hunting isn't exactly population control. The best place to cull foxes is at their dens - and that's where the dogs come in. They're not just tracking a fox. They're tracking its den. And in terms of animal welfare, being shredded by a pack of dogs is marginally better than being shot and dying over the course of two weeks from the wound (and curiously akin to what foxes do to ducks and chickens).

Ultimately, hunting with hounds is - however horrible you find it - the most efficient way of controlling fox populations. Yes, the people who do it are commonly bloodthirsty toffs who couldn't care less about that aspect of it so long as they get to kill something while dressed up in a profoundly stupid fashion, but I think that's rather beside the point. Whether they enjoy it or not, it's the least worst way of performing a necessary-ish task.

Fair point.

I wouldn't inagine that rifle hunting would be as inaccurate as you point out though since snipe hunting involved much smaller targets and a high enough calibre shot in the right part of the body should lead to a fairly swift kill.

I don't know any of the facts on rifle kills and success but that's just my feeling on it.

As you mentioned, it wouldn't be nowhere near as efficient as the current method but I can only imagine that there's an easier, more instant method of death that could be though up if people put their minds to it.

 

[Biggles]

Here's a weird coincidence: I haven't given a thought to the issue of "fox hunting" for years - it's not a topic that crops up much in Canada - until I made my comment yesterday. This morning I woke up, went down to my back patio door & found myself looking at two fox cubs peering up from beneath my deck. They've obviously been under there for the last few weeks - this was likely their first foray out of their den. They're cute. I guess this is the end of the colony of chipmunks who also hang out in my back garden.

 

[Lizard]

So May's attempt at getting some support via a Facebook Q&A backfired when Corbyn came and asked her questions.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's not the case.

Foxes are simply not very large animals and around half the time when they're shot they aren't killed.

There's a bit more to it than that. Historically, anyone and everyone would take a shot at a fox because it was vermin and few cared about the outcome so small calibre's like .22rimfire were used. Not a great round, but easy, cheap and doesn't go too far. Also not too loud.

As shooting rifle has become a far more restricted past time, the calibre more commonly used now is .223, a huge step up in accuracy and range and energy.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ian Brady has died. Good riddance but it's sad that the family of his last unfound victim (Keith Bennett) will likely never now where his body is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Further to the above: an interesting ruling from the Coroner that Brady's body will not be released until there are assurances in place that his ashes won't be scattered on the moors. He points out that he cannot legally require this but that it is "morally right". I'd agree

BBC.

 

[Liquid]

Nice of Microsoft to admit that the weekend's ransomware attack was a virus created by the NSA. They say so in an official blog.

The WannaCrypt exploits used in the attack were drawn from the exploits stolen from the National Security Agency, or NSA, in the United States.

 

[Famine]

Nice of Microsoft to admit that the weekend's ransomware attack was a virus created by the NSA. They say so in an official blog.

Not quite a virus written by the NSA, rather one written to take advantage of the NSA's exploits.

Essentially the NSA found a flaw in Windows and, rather than tell Microsoft, added it to its arsenal of exploitable flaws it's never told anyone about but instead uses for its own purposes.

In a bout of weaponised irony, the NSA found its exploits being dumped on Wikileaks last month. A relatively furious Microsoft released a patch to fix the flaw but, inevitably, large businesses don't patch all that quickly because their computers can't be turned off all that often. WannaCrypt was written - by parties unknown - to exploit that.

 

[daan]

It would also seem that Microsoft wrote patches for it in February, and released them for W7 W10 etc, but didn't release the XP patch (which was also written in February) until Friday 12th May.

 

[Dotini]

It was negligent for the NSA to lose control of its weapons. But also negligent for administrators to run Windows XP. Or so says this blog, with blame to go around.

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/16...ide-ransomware-outbreak-militarism-and-greed/
As the worm, known as WannaCry, has been contained, more free time has opened up in which to argue and assign blame beyond the anonymous hackers who used leaked NSA code to assemble the virus, and whatever party decided to turn it into ransomware. Microsoft isn’t holding back.

In an unusually bold and forthright post by president Brad Smith, the company called out the NSA by name for not just creating, but “stockpiling” — and then, like Cyber Frankenstein, losing all control over — the attacks that made WannaCry possible:

This is an emerging pattern in 2017. We have seen vulnerabilities stored by the CIA show up on WikiLeaks, and now this vulnerability stolen from the NSA has affected customers around the world. Repeatedly, exploits in the hands of governments have leaked into the public domain and caused widespread damage. An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the U.S. military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen. And this most recent attack represents a completely unintended but disconcerting link between the two most serious forms of cybersecurity threats in the world today – nation-state action and organized criminal action.

 

[UKMikey]

It was negligent for the NSA to lose control of its weapons. But also negligent for administrators to run Windows XP. Or so says this blog, with blame to go around.

I don't see anything in that blog blaming the NHS for the outbreak because they run old software. Rather it appears to me to puts the blame on Microsoft for not making the security patch available to businesses and hospitals still running the old software on an enterprise basis.

When Microsoft responded to the startling initial reports of ETERNALBLUE’s public release by noting it had already inoculated Windows against the threat via software patch, it did not mention that XP users were not included. Using an operating system after its expiration date is unwise, but in fairness to the millions of people around the world still using old versions of Windows, expecting consumers to regularly buy expensive software of uncertain quality is unwise too. It’s only relatively recently that Microsoft has started to shake off the stink from Vista (and the confusing Windows 8).

 

[Liquid]

Not quite a virus written by the NSA, rather one written to take advantage of the NSA's exploits.

Essentially the NSA found a flaw in Windows and, rather than tell Microsoft, added it to its arsenal of exploitable flaws it's never told anyone about but instead uses for its own purposes.

A good distinction well made.

Still, it's another one of those things which leaves me reeling but the general populace seems to not care.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It was negligent for the NSA to lose control of its weapons. But also negligent for administrators to run Windows XP. Or so says this blog, with blame to go around.

I didn't see it blaming admins or organisations for running XP? It's essential to run XP in some environments and it's (normally) as fully-protected as any other Enterprise level Windows OS. However, questions will indeed be asked about why there was a delay in issuing the XP patch compared to the other OS patches.

 

[Dotini]

Still, it's another one of those things which leaves me reeling but the general populace seems to not care.

It's being well reported in the US media. Perhaps the effects visited upon corporations and enterprises are not yet felt on Main Street? Perhaps in the US the computers are more up to date?

Edit:


@TenEightyOne
From the article cited:

"If letting a computer network in you administer run Windows XP is negligent, it’s surely a negligence that pales compared to losing a military cyberweapon, or abandoning vulnerable customers whose computers work more or less fine."

 

[Dotini]

DP

 

[TenEightyOne]

"If letting a computer network in you administer run Windows XP is negligent, it’s surely a negligence that pales compared to losing a military cyberweapon, or abandoning vulnerable customers whose computers work more or less fine."

Which all hinges on the first clause: "If letting a computer network...run Windows XP".

That's a big if. It isn't negligent to run XP Enterprise so the point is moot. If any negligent act causes forseeable large scale chaos then of course it's a large negligence, in this case it isn't. The only caveat to that (as raised by @daan and noted by me in my previous post) the question of why MS didn't release the XP Enterprise patch as quickly as they did for other OS.

MS will doubtlessly say that the patch wasn't ready to go into the wild and I expect their lawyers to prove it beyond any subsequent jury's doubt.

 

[BobK]

A major reason why organizations still run XP is because they have mission-critical software that won't run on anything newer. Not because they can't b e bothered to upgrade.

 

[Scaff]

That's not the case.

Foxes are simply not very large animals and around half the time when they're shot they aren't killed. Best case scenario there is it's immobilised (and in pain, if you care about the suffering) while the shooter gets his chance to finish the job. Worst case is that it's just injured and escapes back to its den where it slowly dies of infection (in pain, if you care about the suffering). The same thing applies to snares, only you can add in the fact that they'll catch and injure other wildlife too.

That aside, killing a fox or two with a rifle out where they're hunting isn't exactly population control. The best place to cull foxes is at their dens - and that's where the dogs come in. They're not just tracking a fox. They're tracking its den. And in terms of animal welfare, being shredded by a pack of dogs is marginally better than being shot and dying over the course of two weeks from the wound (and curiously akin to what foxes do to ducks and chickens).

Ultimately, hunting with hounds is - however horrible you find it - the most efficient way of controlling fox populations. Yes, the people who do it are commonly bloodthirsty toffs who couldn't care less about that aspect of it so long as they get to kill something while dressed up in a profoundly stupid fashion, but I think that's rather beside the point. Whether they enjoy it or not, it's the least worst way of performing a necessary-ish task.

I used to go with my grandfather many years ago to carry out pest control on foxes, a rifle is a perfectly capable way of doing it, causes far less associated destruction of fences, hedges, etc. It's also far more efficient in terms of kills to time ratio.

Hunting with hounds is not an effective way of maintaining pest control over foxes, and certainly not in comparison to the use of a rifle.

He had a .22WMR with a sound moderator and a scope, and it was ideal for pest control for rabbits and foxes. I would however suspect that .17HMR may be more common these days.

 

[ExigeEvan]

He had a .22WMR with a sound moderator and a scope, and it was ideal for pest control for rabbits and foxes. I would however suspect that .17HMR may be more common these days.

You'd probably lose your licence if you shot fox with .17HMR. Only .17 Remington is suitable.

 

[Scaff]

You'd probably lose your licence if you shot fox with .17HMR. Only .17 Remington is suitable.

My bad, it's been many, many years.