back to article UK Cabinet Office spokesman tells House of Lords: We're not being complacent about impact of SolarWinds hack

The British government has denied being "complacent" over the Solarwinds hack as a fed-up peer of the realm urged a minister to "answer the question". Lord True, the government's Cabinet Office spokesman in the House of Lords, described the attack as "a complex and global cyber incident" and said UK.gov was "working with …

  1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

    Largest attack?

    The article states: "The Conservative minister had been answering questions from the House of Lords over the SolarWinds hack, the largest supply chain security breach in recent years."

    Shouldn't that be "the largest KNOWN supply chain security breach in recent years"?

  2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    The Enigmatic Endemic Novel Security Systems Start-Up Problem

    Replying for Her Majesty's Government, Lord True said: "The government is certainly giving attention to that, seeking to promote cyber skills and seeking to encourage a sustainable pipeline of homegrown cyber security talent."

    The difficulty government and Her Majesty's Government has is that it can all too easily catastrophically fail to recognise homegrown cyber security talent* and in so doing encourage it to exercise its skillsets elsewhere and for others, and that may not be necessarily in the best interests of a homeland.

    * ..... because of the extremely strange and peculiarly unusual nature of its effective disciplines.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What's the worst that could have been exfiltrated? The "off button" for the domestic internet? The abort command for Trident? Some embarrassing expense claims? Got to frame it in terms that can be readily grasped. Cyber-this and hack-that doesn't really cut the mustard.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Or possibly your tax returns, your medical history, your DVLA record, your police record, any bank details you may have given a government dept. Ditto for the rest of your family. Nothing to worry about.

    2. Blazde Bronze badge

      Apparently the nation's current most secret data are the vaccine contract details. If those ever leaked half the cabinet would literally explode from all the gloating. So we're told.

      We can certainly be sure there's nothing more secret because if there was it's existence would already have leaked like literally everything else does these days.

  4. Peter Prof Fox

    Meh

    I thought Government plans were kept on the back of a fag packet. They 'lose' those all the time and just jot down something new as they're told. You know, "Schools MUST reopen for one day before Christmas."

  5. 45RPM Silver badge

    Recent governments, and the Tory party in particular, seem to have a real problem with ‘experts’ - whether those experts are scientist, engineers, whatever. What they seem to like are populists and their blandishments, regardless of how based in reality those blandishments might be. We’ve seen it with the covid response (which has lead to the highest death rate per capita in the world), with Brexit (which is only mildly inconvenient and expensive at the moment, at least compared with the raging storm of financial loss and disaster that it will become over the next few years), with the NHS (which absolutely won’t be sold off - oops).

    Populism be damned. Let’s now listen to the science, pay attention to the evidence - and put any exceptionalist and jingoistic ‘feelings’ on the back burner for a while. Someone needs to hold our Government’s feet to the fire - and if it’s the LibDems then so be it (but, ultimately, this is a bigger issue than any one party).

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      We’ve seen it with the covid response (which has lead to the highest death rate per capita in the world),

      Not correct, Belgium and Slovenia have higher rates, and several others are so close that the differences in how deaths are counted makes a bigger effect.

      In any case, that's down to a lot more than government. A lot depends on the general obedience of the population, which varies a lot. Can you see the general British population tolerating the French lockdown requirements to carry signed papers to show to the police when you're stopped? If a UK government tried that I suspect we'd see people burning them in the streets. The UK is also a lot more densely populated than other countries (Belgium is higher) which encourages spread of any virus, and it has a larger proportion of overweight people which increases mortality rate.

      When you compare the government actions & death rates across most countries the most striking thing is how little difference government policy has made, outside of the totalitarian countries where people are conditioned to obey government "or else" (and where the publicly announced figures are suspect in any case).

      1. veti Silver badge

        Australia and New Zealand say hi.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Australian population density is 3.2 people per km² (Melbourne is much more, but only has 5m people in it) and NZ is 18, compared to the UK's 275 and Belgium's 380.

          1. veti Silver badge

            OK, then shall we talk about South Korea? Or Japan?

            Or, at the other end of the scale, Sweden? (Population density 25.4 per km2, about one-third higher than New Zealand.)

            Competent government makes a huge difference in a public health emergency. If you pretend otherwise, you're just providing cover for politicians who, for one reason or another, fucked up royally.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let’s now listen to the science, pay attention to the evidence - and put any exceptionalist and jingoistic ‘feelings’ on the back burner for a while.

      The problem is that the scientists go too far the other way, they are interested only in minimizing the numbers, and they don't care about the economic and social damage that it does, that is someone else's problem. Governments have to find a middle ground.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        The scientists' role is to provide the best estimates of numbers on the basis of knowledge available at the current time. Ditto the economists. The decision as to how to react and combine the two is up to the government. And one of the worst attitudes to adopt is "It couldn't be as bad as that, could it?" which is why, after all the vacillating, we're in the hole that we are because it's led to reacting too late every time.

        1. 0laf Silver badge

          Well it's much more efficient to shoot the messeger and then deny the issues.

          We don't do cover ups any more, they are expensive and need skill. Dumb denial works just as well.

        2. theblackhand

          "The scientists' role is to provide the best estimates of numbers on the basis of knowledge available at the current time. Ditto the economists. "

          The problem is that for most experts in any chosen field, there will be those with alternative views.

          If we take Coronavirus, there have been scientists saying we aren't locking down fast enough based on very little evidence (that may later prove to be correct) and scientists that are saying we should lock down gradually as they want overwhelming evidence that it is the right thing to do.

          While the tendency has been to blame the Government/SAGE, the role of the media where the are choosing multiple options and then pointing at the one that is viewed as most correct is easy.

          I'm not trying to give the government a free pass - I think they have clearly made mistakes all through the handling of this crisis. Where I am a little more lenient is in distinguishing between being presented with evidence, letting departments/minsters discuss it and producing a resulting action. Historically this would have taken weeks or months but is being done in days or sometimes even hours.

          Saying things has always been easier than doing them, particularly when many layers of bureaucracy is involved. And that is backed up by countries with devolved power doing better than those with centralised power.

          1. veti Silver badge

            Once again:

            When scientists say things like "we should do this", "we must do that", they are exceeding their remit. Their job is to say "If we do this, then based on the current data and models, the outcome will be this".

            Ditto the economists. They too don't get to say what we should do, just what is likely to happen if we do it.

            It's the politicians' jobs to look at these outcomes and decide which ones they would prefer to head for. That's what we elect them for.

            1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

              @ veti "When scientists say things like "we should do this", "we must do that", they are exceeding their remit. Their job is to say "If we do this, then based on the current data and models, the outcome will be this"."

              It is also to whom they say it. When they say in public that "if we have a relaxation over Christmas we are likely to have a couple of weeks in January which average over 1000 deaths per day", the Government took belated action and reduced the relaxation to just 25th December. Advice given in private can be ignored, or dithered over, but predictions of disaster made by government advisors in public generally have to be responded to.

              I well remember at the unveiling of the tiers, Chris Whitty saying in front of Boris Johnson that he did not believe that Tier 2 was sufficient to control the virus. For a public servant to contradict the Prime Minister on live TV showed how concerned he was, but that the politicians were taking the decisions, not the scientists.

            2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              "It's the politicians' jobs to look at these outcomes and decide which ones they would prefer to head for."

              Their preference is all too often the one that wishful thinking points them towards.

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            "Historically this would have taken weeks or months but is being done in days or sometimes even hours."

            The one thing that's certain about epidemics is that time always counts against you. If the doubling time is 3 to four days and you take a week to decide your problem is already four times as big and it will stay that way until you finally get on top of it - which is, of course, already four times harder to do.

      2. 45RPM Silver badge

        I’d argue that if the science had been followed then there’d be less societal damage than we’ve seen. Further, the Tories have shown no interest in expert advice from economists either. The only opinion that they’ve shown any interest in is that of the pollsters and the Murdoch press.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Is that why the UK is streets ahead of most other countries in rolling out vaccination? 5x the EU rate at the moment.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            I'm conflicted on this one. SWMBO & myself have both had our vaccinations. That wouldn't have happened yet if HMG hadn't decided to stretch the interval between first & second doses. I can't see any scientific basis for stretching that - the clinical trials didn't look at this so there's no evidence that it won't lead to less effective immunity overall. However they obviously realised that having more people wit limited immunity results in less pressure on the NHS and, at lest in the short term, fewer deaths than would be the case if fewer people had better immunity.

            The trade-off personally is that we're going to be in this intermediate state sooner at the expense of being in it for longer. The risks might be off-set if the vaccines protect against being infectious; fewer people in an infectious state reduces our risks but it's not yet known if it has this benefit.

            Inevitably there'll be a percentage of people who've had a single dose taking more risks over a longer period and consequently some of them will catch COVID whilst waiting for their second dose and a few will die. That will have a perfectly foreseeable political impact but I doubt BoJo & Hancock will have looked that far ahead. It also risks having a lot of people with an even longer wait if there's any interruption to supply.

            I can't imagine that this is anything more than political expediency over scientific advice.

            1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              SWMBO & myself have both had our vaccinations.

              Not being in the UK, I haven't had even one dose yet. My wife, who has asthma and is therefore at a higher risk, is hoping to get a vaccination sometime but not really expecting it before the summer. I'm not expecting one until maybe September. If we were in the UK we could expect it within the next 2 months.

              I can't see any scientific basis for stretching that

              I think that's not entirely accurate, the trials showed that considerable immunity for several months was conferred after one dose, and many other authorities (CDC etc.) have agreed that some spacing will not detract from the efficacy. There is some disagreement over the amount of spacing, true, but given the supply issues that some manufacturers are hitting, anything which keeps the vaccinations on track while those issues are resolved will help.

              However they obviously realised that having more people wit limited immunity results in less pressure on the NHS

              Well, less pressure on the NHS because fewer people are ill, which is surely good? Looking at it purely as a political game to play the NHS numbers is a bit unfair, those numbers aren't just targets, they mean something in terms of reduced deaths.

              Inevitably there'll be a percentage of people who've had a single dose taking more risks over a longer period and consequently some of them will catch COVID whilst waiting for their second dose and a few will die.

              Equally some people who wouldn't have been vaccinated would die without it, it's a question of probabilities, and the scientific opinion is coming round to accept some additional spacing, up to 42 days.

              That will have a perfectly foreseeable political impact but I doubt BoJo & Hancock will have looked that far ahead.

              They're politicians, everything they do is based on possible future political impact, at least up to the point where they don't expect to be around to handle it.

              I can't imagine that this is anything more than political expediency over scientific advice.

              Political expediency in what way? Are you suggesting that possibly saving more lives is being done just for expediency? That's reaching a bit, and scientific advice is not against this. This whole situation is new, and the scientists are no more expert than anyone, yet. They are naturally (over)cautious, and government has to look at the big picture & do what it thinks is best on the whole.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                If those vaccinated can still become carriers of the virus then the risk of the long gap before the booster jab is that it may make it more likely for vaccine-resistant mutations to develop.

                The other risk of course is that in the intervening period politicial moves or other events make it much harder to get new supplies of the same vaccine - I don't think using two different vaccines has a known outcome.

                1. theblackhand

                  "If those vaccinated can still become carriers of the virus then the risk of the long gap before the booster jab is that it may make it more likely for vaccine-resistant mutations to develop."

                  While this is possible, the question is how do you deal with a limited supply of vaccine? Do you dose only the people you have two doses for or do you give lower levels of coverage to the largest group possible and hope that supplies increase to allow you to reduce the gap between doses?

                  Ethics/fairness suggest providing the greatest coverage is more important than "what if" risks givel the 40%+ mortality rates in the over 80s. Particularly when the "ideal" situation isn't possible.

                  As an approximation to the UK rollout (i.e. ignoring slow starts/acceleration as doses increase) of 2m doses a week, the "second dose within 12 weeks" delivers 65% coverage of the 13m target population within 7 weeks and 2nd doses within 8 weeks for a completion in 14 weeks. The "ideal" situation delivers 65% coverage of this same population within 14 weeks and completion in 16 weeks. Combined with patient transport/vaccine storage issues/scaling up vaccine supply chains/contingency in the event of vaccine shortages, I'm not sure there is any real argument for an alternative to the current method.

                  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                    "While this is possible, the question is how do you deal with a limited supply of vaccine?"

                    What's being planned for is a steady ramping up of supply and delivery capabilities. One consequence of this is that at any particular time the number of people vaccinated four weeks ago is a small proportion of the current capability.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      "What's being planned for is a steady ramping up of supply and delivery capabilities."

                      We might be able to reach 3m vaccinations/week by sumer if we are lucky - realisticaly we will be around 2m/week after the initial ramp up period. There is also likely to be a tail in some areas due to a slower ramp up in terms of hitting vulnerable groups.

                      Either way, you end up with 4m in the next 4 weeks with a 2 week delay or 8m in the next 4 weeks with a single dose and that is a significant advantage at 65% effectiveness. If it turns out that the effectiveness continues to rise aftr the two week period as is believed, that effectiveness may be even higher.

                      As long as the 12 week figure isn't reached for most cases (i.e. delays only due to individual circumstances) it was likely a worst case for limited vaccine supply and better than creating panic if supplies were not available.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "I can't see any scientific basis for stretching that - the clinical trials didn't look at this so there's no evidence that it won't lead to less effective immunity overall."

              Graph the two roll outs, compare the areas of each and expected mortality rate within the two groups and choose the option that results in the least deaths.

              The evidence that we have at present is that the doses should be given within 2 weeks of each other (from the clinical trials where a 2 week gap was targetted) and 4 weeks (WHO based on current testing of those who have had the vaccine), it is likely that the most ethical option is to deliver the vaccine to the most people possible to minimise serious cases and argue about the ideal dosing period when more doses and information is available.

              I suspect the 12 week period is too long if it does become the norm - as long as doses are available I do not expect it to become the norm but correcting the message from 12 to 4 to 8 to 6 weeks would be counter productive. One message, one target that can likely be met based on information at hand at the time.

              1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

                "I can't see any scientific basis for stretching that - the clinical trials didn't look at this so there's no evidence that it won't lead to less effective immunity overall."

                According to many of the interviews of immunologists I've heard on the BBC, there is evidence that in general a longer gap between the first and second inoculations of vaccines produces a stronger immune response in the end. I also heard that the Oxford-Astra Zeneca vaccine has been tested over a longer period between first and second jabs and was found to be effective.

                Of course the issue of whether the prioritising of different groups is correct, those most a t risk of death rather than those most at risk of getting the disease is one for the epidemiological modellers to advise on. But I'm in the 7th group (at time of typing), so I'm not holding my breath.

                1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  "According to many of the interviews of immunologists I've heard on the BBC, there is evidence that in general a longer gap between the first and second inoculations of vaccines produces a stronger immune response in the end."

                  I believe the BMA have been arguing the opposite.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "The only opinion that they’ve shown any interest in is that of the pollsters and the Murdoch press."

          And a coterie of their back-benchers. I wonder how the members of that overlap with the back-benchers who brought is Brexit.

    3. AW-S

      The logical metric to use

      One logical metric to use in measuring response to the plague in 2020 is excess deaths and the increase in deaths (against the previous five years). Figures below for England & Wales only

      2020 excess deaths: 75.031 people

      2020 increase in deaths over normal 5-year average: 14%

      Put another way, we could have expected 539,083 people to die in 2020 (as normal each year), but we had 614,114 die. All deaths were very largely in the normal age/gender/race brackets. COVID did not change the age groups dying during 2020, hence the plan to vaccinate from the eldest down.

      Politically that 14% increase in annual deaths needs to be weighed against the economy and also the elephant in the room - future excess deaths from undiagnosed/untreated illnesses occurring during 2020, be ignored due to lockdowns and cancelled screenings.

      The above figures are updated every Tuesday morning and available at ons.gov.uk. I have yet to find another country which such a detailed analysis of deaths stretching back over 20 years.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: The logical metric to use

        Agreed, and I think the real effect, worldwide, will only be seen over maybe 5 years as those other factors come into play. I can't help but think there's a lot of PhD material there.

  6. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
    Coat

    Lord True

    Can we hope that there's a Lord False on the other side of the house?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Lord True

      Lord True can become Lord False quite easily. It's just a matter of flipping a bit.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Lord True

        Lord False - That title is reserved for Boris for when he buggers off to the Lords after he gets tired of buggering up the country

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

          Re: Lord True

          There is a Lord Pannick, will he do?

          https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/lord-pannick-qc/

          1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Lord True

            As Lance-Corporal Jones would say..

            "Don't Panic!"

            "They don't like it up 'em!"

            It was Lord Pannick who struck cold legal steel up Boris in the case of the prorogation of Parliament in September 2019.

            "Pannick successfully led the team working on behalf of Gina Miller in R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent),[21] arguing against the legality of the Government's prorogation of Parliament in September 2019.[22] In the ruling on the morning of 24 September 2019, the UK supreme court unanimously judged that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson had given unlawful advice to the Queen.[23] "

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Pannick,_Baron_Pannick

            1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

              Re: Lord True

              Just discovered there is also a Lord Flight, who is in some Economic 'Think Tank' for the Tories:

              "The IEA, whose advisory board includes Tory peers Lord Flight and Lord Borwick as well as donors such as Alexander Temerko, has long argued for free-market solutions to policy."

              from

              https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/institute-for-economic-affairs-nhs-nothing-special-myths_uk_6021b667c5b6c56a89a3b4ed

              https://members.parliament.uk/member/4211/contact

      2. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: Lord True

        There was a Lord Null as well but he's gone missing...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Lord True

          Considering the competence levels of the current set of idiots-in-charge, I'm afraid the only one who will be of any use to us in our current straits is Lord Elpus...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Lord True

            He's a cross-bencher.

        2. Eclectic Man Silver badge

          Re: Lord True

          If you visit the House of Lords web site, you can check on who is a Lord. I once did that and was rewarded with the response:

          "Found, 781 of 780"

  7. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Once again it's up to the noble Lords to provide expertise that the Commons always seem to lack.

    1. Martin Gregorie Silver badge

      Once again it's up to the noble Lords to provide expertise...

      This is only to be expected once you realise that the career path followed by all too many MPs has been:

      studied politics at University --> an MP's gofer --> party researcher --> MP

      while a large proportion of the Lords were ennobled after successful professional careers in a variety of fields. So, of course there is more real world experience assembled in the Lords than there is in the Commons.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        So, of course there is more real world experience assembled in the Lords than there is in the Commons.

        Which I've always thought is the biggest argument against an elected second chamber. Electing them just adds another step to your career path

        -> retire to become a senator

        1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
          Coat

          So, of course there is more real world experience assembled in the Lords than there is in the Commons.

          I am surprised the government hasn't rolled out Baroness Harding to sort this SolarWinds malarky - she has some of that real world experience of getting hacked

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Brushing off suggestions we were affected

    Well from my own experience the public sector cunningly avoided the Russian hack by employing the strategy of starving IT of resources which lead to non-shiny back office systems like SolarWinds being left unpatched for years in favour of getting iPads issued to staff that don't need them.

    Myself I have been having some difficult conversations to explain that aulthough by not patching SolarWinds the Russian supply line attack was avoided, not paching is not an effective mitigation against cyber attack.

    I suspect there will now be a strong argument to move the network to windows 95 since the Russians will be putting all their effort into hacking W10.

    1. osakajin Silver badge

      Re: Brushing off suggestions we were affected

      You mean upgrading to win95?

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: Brushing off suggestions we were affected

        My father has a PC running some early version of Windows. It is completely immune to most viruses because:

        1). It is only connected to his printer and the mains power supply

        2). He stores things on 3.5" floppy discs, which nobody else uses, so no transfer of data from ay other PCs.

        (Yes the screen is a CRT, he's 93 and doesn't see the point in investing in long term items, just the same as when he was 80.)

        As I kept reminding my customers, if they really want to avoid Internet related security weakness there is only ONE effective means (apart from turning the thing off at the mains, of course).

  9. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    Still didn't answer the question

    So, how many UK government institutions are impacted ?

    First element of response : all of those using SolarWinds' product. That doesn't necessarily mean they were hacked, but it does mean they might have been.

    But we still don't know the number.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Holier than thou......as usual.........

    Quote: "....the NCSC is working to mitigate any potential risk...."

    *

    Link: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/21/british-spies-hacked-into-belgacom-on-ministers-orders-claims-report

    *

    ....and of course "the NTSC" and their chums in Cheltenham know all about hacking.....'cos they do it all the time (see above).

    *

    So was the SolarWinds episode actually engineered in Cheltenham? We keep hearing about "the Russians" or "the Iranians" or "the Chinese".....but where's the evidence that it wasn't a training project in Cheltenham "...seeking to promote cyber skills...." here in the UK?

    *

    Oh....and why do the folks in Cheltenham need to hack the secrets of Belgian chocolate? I think we should be told!!

    *

    "The paranoid is a person who knows a little about what is going on." William Burroughs

    1. TimMaher Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Holier than thou......as usual.........

      They had to hack Belgian chocolate manufacturers because...

      ... on the one hand you have Cadbury’s Dairy Milk and on the other Neuhaus, Daskalides etc.

      Mine’s the one with the Pralines 58 in the pocket.

      1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Holier than thou......as usual.........

        @TimMaher

        On the subject of continental chocolate manufactures, and Brandy (have you still got any left?), I was thinking the other day that I've not seen any Lindt Cognac liqueur chocolates recently. Found some listed on amazon.de, but not available for delivery to UK

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Holier than thou......as usual.........

      "Oh....and why do the folks in Cheltenham need to hack the secrets of Belgian chocolate?"

      The chocolate being the handsets of all EU foreign secretaries when they went to meetings in Bruxelles. The focal point for all EU planning.

      Having inserted code into hubs controlling GPRS roaming data, all sorts of things could be gleaned.

      GCHQ likely followed instructions from the US, who clearly knew what was going on.

  11. Mixedbag

    This sort of thing is exactly why I pay as much attention to managing outbound access from our systems as inbound.

    Good services we work with very readily have the necessary documentation to tell us exactly what domains, IP's and ports need to be made accessible.

    Poor ones go 'Why do you restrict access out to the internet? I'll have to go and ask some other team if we know'.

  12. Zippy´s Sausage Factory
    Joke

    I can imagine the scene...

    "Complacent? Of course we're not being complacent, minister, not a bit of it."

    "Well, what are you doing?"

    "The usual - issuing a robust defence of our position, which will lead to some new guidelines. Eventually there will be an internal enquiry which, in two years time when everyone has forgotten all about it, will report back that the government did everything that could possibly be done and nobody was to blame if anything untoward did happen, which of course would be a matter of national security if it did and therefore couldn't be confirmed or denied, minister."

    "You mean you're covering the whole thing up?"

    "I think 'cover up' is such a loaded phrase, minister. I prefer 'damage limitation exercise' myself"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021