back to article Modem-wiping malware caused Viasat satellite broadband outage in Europe

Tens of thousands of Viasat satellite broadband modems disabled in a cyber-attack some weeks ago were wiped by malware with possible links to Russia's destructive VPNFilter, according to SentinelOne. On February 24, as Russian troops invaded Ukraine, Viasat terminals in Europe and Ukraine were suddenly and unexpectedly knocked …

  1. arthoss

    NATO being attacked?

    Yeah, so it won't be long till this shit will be considered an attack if done from Russia towards a NATO country. We're lucky we didn't have a storm in Germany, which could have destroyed turbines.

    1. Paul Crawford Silver badge

      Re: NATO being attacked?

      Surely the wind turbines would have autonomous safety features to limit speed independently of any communication link being up?

      Had they re-programmed limits, etc, in the Stuxnet manner it would be a rather different kettle of fish.

      1. arthoss

        Re: NATO being attacked?

        really? ok that's nice, thank you

  2. Death_Ninja

    Ukrop

    Given that "ukrop" is a derogatory term used by Russians to describe Ukrainians... I think its a bit of an obvious one.

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Ukrop

      I had just assumed it was short for "Ukraine operation", and that the Russian word for operation (or similar) must start with 'op'.

      But more like naming WWII malware binary "jap" if computers had been in wide use 80 years ago I guess?

  3. Mike 137 Silver badge

    "modems were commanded by their compromised support servers to run destructive malware"

    Oh, the joys of automatic updates!

    Every administrative task should always be actively authorised at the recipient side, so updates should be offered but not automatically installed.

    1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

      Re: "modems were commanded by their compromised support servers to run destructive malware"

      I'm still a fan of a hardware or local software switch to physically enable the flashing of firmware.

      I need a placard to march on Downing Street, "Bring back jumpers! (Tank tops are good too)"

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: "modems were commanded by their compromised support servers to run destructive malware"

      >Every administrative task should always be actively authorised at the recipient side

      So millions of unpatched phones and cable modems on the internet until Granny remembers it's patch thursday, after her bridge club.

      1. Mike 137 Silver badge

        Re: "modems were commanded by their compromised support servers to run destructive malware"

        "until Granny remembers it's patch thursday"

        or preferably, the vendor's devs were to make fewer crass coding errors in the first place. It's not as if modem firmware is generally a humungous piece of code. Many reported 'vulnerabilities' have been such - e.g. hard coded credentials - as should never have been perpetrated.

        As I've said before, the common assumption that it's acceptable to release broken software must change.

    3. DS999 Silver badge
      FAIL

      So what you're saying is

      You rather see these modems never get a security update? That's what would happen.

      Because most sites with satellite modems won't know its password. They pay Viasat for a service, and Viasat manages the hardware that provides that service. That's also true for stuff like firewalls for small businesses - do you think e.g. a restaurant that has a firewall device to protect their POS network from hackers has someone on staff qualified to login to it and decide when to update? No, the company that supports their POS system supports the firewall.

      Nevermind if the policy applied to consumer gear. Why do you think we went the route of automatic updates? It was because if we didn't then most stuff would never see a single update. Even if you have disabled automatic updates, most of the time you will be "reminded" every few days of available updates because otherwise many people would never update them.

      Now theoretically if you had some modems apply the fix on the day it was available, some apply it a day later, and the rest three days later then something like this would hit fewer people assuming it was caught and stopped in time. It would also leave more people vulnerable if a 0 day had been found and fixed - because someone looking at the fix can probably determine what was fixed and therefore what the hole is, and attack the poor slobs you are getting the fixes on a delayed basis.

      There is no "best way" to do this, but requiring the end user to apply fixes is the dumbest thing I've heard on the Reg in a while, and that's saying something.

    4. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: "modems were commanded by their compromised support servers to run destructive malware"

      "Every administrative task should always be actively authorised at the recipient side, so updates should be offered but not automatically installed."

      By the owner? Maybe the kit is leased. That make either the ISP or ViaSat the owner.

  4. Justthefacts Silver badge

    Data backhaul Redundancy?

    So, critical energy infrastructure like wind turbines doesn’t have dual-redundant data backhaul? That’s completely unprofessional. No gas or nuclear generator would even be allowed onto the grid like that, in the U.K. certainly.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

      First of all, wind turbines are not critical energy generation thingies - they're a welcome accessory, when they work, that is. Second, wind turbines have trouble spontaneously blowing up, and even more trouble irradiating the countryside.

      The worst that can happen is that they lose their blades, and that would still be a local incident with a drop in production. Maybe the support could be damaged as well, but replacing a wind turbine is a sight easier than replacing a gas generator (let's not even think about replacing a nuclear power plant).

      So, all in all, a single data line just might be an acceptable choice.

      Besides, your dual backhaul would have been just as screwed if they had the same routers on both lines. And don't tell me that they wouldn't. The beancounters would not allow a more costly solution.

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

        "Maybe the support could be damaged as well"

        What do you mean "maybe"? Pretty much every video I've seen shows blade damage (or loss) leading to instability which tilts or shakes the head causing the blades that remain to slice into the support pole and then, well, gravity.

        1. yetanotheraoc Silver badge

          Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

          Selection bias?

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

        "Second, wind turbines have trouble spontaneously blowing up, and even more trouble irradiating the countryside."

        Treat them wrong and they have no trouble at all catching fire or tossing blades a couple of miles

      3. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

        You’re very relaxed about wind turbines losing blades. So far, we’ve been very lucky. But the risks are pretty horrific, and it’s really only a matter of time. There are thousands lining U.K. motorways and train lines just meters from the vehicles. Just one blade loss there would probably cause dozens of lives lost on a motorway…or a thousand dead if it hits near a train.

        A major hurricane large-scale blade loss event on an offshore wind farm is actually much worse from a loss of life perspective. I won’t go into why, the giving-people-bad-ideas problem, but you can probably figure it out for yourself. Rather worse than Chernobyl, in worst case.

        The only thing scarier is hydroelectric power. The worst case disaster for a hydroelectric dam failure globally is *hundreds of millions* dead from a single event (Three Gorges, if/when it goes). For a bit of historical perspective, and currently quite relevant, suggest you read up on Zaporizhzia hydroelectric dam destruction in Ukraine. 20k-100k dead, and that was a *tiny* dam by modern standards.

    2. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

      Perhaps a better question would be

      "Why is your system management structure connected to the internet in the first place?"

      1. arthoss

        Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

        I wonder too? Of course things are easier on the internet, but shouldn't they create some kind of secure network on top of the internet? Like the banks do.

    3. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

      If wind turbines were located where broadband or cellular were available, why in the heck would they use satellite? The ones that are using it do so because that's the only thing available where they are located. Presumably offshore.

      1. Ken G Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Data backhaul Redundancy?

        Here in Luxembourg none of the affected wind turbines were offshore.

  5. heyrick Silver badge

    access a trusted management segment of Viasat's KA-SAT satellite network

    Any trusted network connected to the public network is not trustworthy.

  6. Mr_Pitiful

    Wind Farm Remote access

    A few years ago, I had the pleasure of looking after a wind farm - (20 turbines)

    There was a central control access point on site, which monitored each turbine AND gave an operative remote access

    The dial up number was a local area code std BT line, but the turbines had satellite modems, for head office to monitor 24/7

    The surprising thing, to me, was the ability to disable access to the sat modems one at a time, and not site wide

    I guess back 15 years ago, people weren't writing malware for modems - or were they?

    1. ilmari

      Re: Wind Farm Remote access

      I suppose back in the days there was never really any reason to have windfarms idle in high winds? I wonder if that's the biggest use case for remote connectivity these days, to modulate production when electricity prices turn negative?

      (Instead of random powerplants tripping due to high frequency)

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Wind Farm Remote access

      They had a satellite modem per turbine? Why wouldn't the central access point have one satellite modem and share the connectivity between them all?

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Wind Farm Remote access

        Data cables are expensive, especially if your local regs won't allow you to run them in the same ducts as the power cables running from each turbine, or it requires the links to be fibre cos of lightning risk.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Wind Farm Remote access

          Local wireless mesh network back the local control shack? Sounds a lot cheaper than sat link for each turbine. On the other hand, the cost of each turbine, the connectivity is probably a blip on the balance sheet.

          1. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Wind Farm Remote access

            Maybe the turbines each came with a satellite link back then, so there would be no benefit to coming up with a better way of managing multiple ones?

          2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Wind Farm Remote access

            Sat modem is cheap compared to the $$$$ cost of building and installing the turbine, and it lets you make them all identical.

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

Other stories you might like