Access member only content, take part in discussions with comments on blogs, news and reviews and receive all the latest security industry news directly to your inbox. Join now for free.
Processing registration... Please wait.
This process can take up to a minute to complete.
A confirmation email has been sent to your email address - SUPPLIED EMAIL HERE. Please click on the link in the email to verify your email address. You need to verify your email before you can start posting.
If you do not receive your confirmation email within the next few minutes, it may be because the email has been captured by a junk mail filter. Please ensure you add the domain @scmagazine.com.au to your white-listed senders.
NASA suffered 5000 "security incidents" including major state-sponsored breaches which cost the organisation more than $7 million and disrupted mission operations.
Inspector general Paul Martin said in a statement (pdf) some of the breaches in the last two years "may have been sponsored by foreign intelligence services seeking to further their countries' objectives".
Other hacks he said were perpetrated by "individuals testing their skill" and "well-organised criminal enterprises hacking for profit".
“Some of these intrusions have affected thousands of NASA computers, caused significant disruption to mission operations, and resulted in the theft of export-controlled and otherwise sensitive data, with an estimated cost to NASA of more than $7 million ($A6.5m),” Martin said.
He said it was the victim of 47 advanced persistent threat attacks last year, 13 of which successfully compromised agency computers.
More than 150 NASA staff credentials were stolen in a single attack.
"Our ongoing investigation of another such attack at JPL involving Chinese-based internet protocol addresses has confirmed that the intruders gained full access to key JPL systems and sensitive user accounts.”
A December 2010 audit found computers and hard drives loaded with sensitive NASA data, including one "subject to export control restrictions", were being sold or prepared for sale
NASA also reported the loss or theft of 48 agency mobile computing devices, some of which resulted in the unauthorised release of sensitive data.
Martin said an unencrypted NASA notebook computer stolen in March last year contained algorithms used to command and control the International Space Station.
“Moreover, NASA cannot consistently measure the amount of sensitive data exposed when employee notebooks are lost or stolen because the agency relies on employees to self-report regarding the lost data rather than determining what was stored on the devices by reviewing backup files,” he said.
Of NASA's annual $1.5bn IT spend, approximately $58m was designated for security, according to Martin.
He said the agency's five most pressing security concerns were a lack of awareness of security posture; shortcomings in implementing continuous monitoring of security; the slow pace of encryption for mobile devices; defending sophisticated attacks, and the transition to cloud computing.
And while the chief information officer (CIO) is tasked with developing security policies and implementing an agency-wide programme, Martin admits they have a "limited ability" to force NASA's directorates to implement changes.
He said IT staff were responsible for implementing security controls on mission IT assets and report to the mission directorate and not the CIO. This meant the CIO did not have the authority to ensure that NASA's IT security policies are followed across the agency.
Martin further highlighted a lack of effective IT security within those directorates.
He said less than a quarter of applicable computers on a mission network were monitored for critical software patches.
This article originally appeared at scmagazineuk.com
To begin commenting right away, you can log in below or register an account if you don't yet have one. Please read our guidelines on commenting. Offending posts will be removed and your access may be suspended. Abusive or obscene language will not be tolerated. The comments below do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SC Magazine, Haymarket Media or its employees.