Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Posted by: @lucia

↑

Never mind that much to my horror, the number of major organisations running systems on Windows XP or whatever dinosaur kit they have, is absolutely beyond belief. 

It may seem shocking, but it is not a problem per se to have old kit.

Old hardware - no.

Old software - no.

Good heuristics and in most organisations, the policy defines it and forbids. But many large estates have exceptions. 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Old (or even new) software that’s out of support and not being patched any more - yes.

Anything of unknown origin can be a serious risk. Slightly lower risk if normal software not being patched.  Whether acceptable depends on the context and in reality also on budget.    

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Surely Windows XP hardware cannot be the backbone of internet facing solutions. 

I wish your optimism matched reality. Sadly I have seen plenty of examples of exactly that; perhaps not “backbone”, but certainly “key component”.

I would not say it cannot be running... In some cases it is in use is accepted risk. The trouble is when it is unknown vulnerability!    

Posted by: @transparent

↑

As it happens, the potential for malicious use of grid-connected generation/storage was an issue I was already well aware of.
I had already been in communication with the Commons Select Committee on Energy regarding threats from commercial inverters in December'23 (18 months earlier).

Within those communications I provided an illustration of a cascade event taking down a section of the GB Grid.

That example does not require any form of cyber attack.
Just because a cascade event takes out a whole section of the distribution grid (as occurred in Spain) doesn't mean it should be investigated as if the reason was 'cyber'.

Don't bother trying to find those Select Committee documents from 2023, because they're not in the Parliamentary Library, for obvious reasons!

Yes, was this related to disconnection of some windfarms that took down a narrow stretch all the way to around London some years back?  

Posted by: @transparent

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

I am not sure about what would have happened if the Spanish grid had not been helped to recover by Morocco and France. Have all the black-starts worked as expected?

Erm... It isn't possible for Spain or Portugal to have recovered without assistance from neighbouring countries.

The whole point of re-starting a grid in Europe is that you have to synchronise with others!
You can't have two different 50Hz frequencies operating on the same grid.

What I mean is that a decision was taken early on, considering the agreed black-out recovery plans were national, each country would try to recover their grid as soon as possible.

But yes, reading the logs and maps, the HV lines from France to North Portugal were energised relatively early. A few regions were started before the largest in SW Spain where power from Morocco was used and only at a later stage merged with the European signal. 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Posted by: @lucia

↑

Never mind that much to my horror, the number of major organisations running systems on Windows XP or whatever dinosaur kit they have, is absolutely beyond belief. 

It may seem shocking, but it is not a problem per se to have old kit.

Old hardware - no.

Old software - no.

Good heuristics and in most organisations, the policy defines it and forbids. But many large estates have exceptions. 

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Old (or even new) software that’s out of support and not being patched any more - yes.

Anything of unknown origin can be a serious risk. Slightly lower risk if normal software not being patched.  Whether acceptable depends on the context and in reality also on budget.    

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

Surely Windows XP hardware cannot be the backbone of internet facing solutions. 

I wish your optimism matched reality. Sadly I have seen plenty of examples of exactly that; perhaps not “backbone”, but certainly “key component”.

I would not say it cannot be running... In some cases it is in use is accepted risk. The trouble is when it is unknown vulnerability!

You've completely missed the point.

Old, unpatched software - particularly stuff that's unpatched because it's no longer supported - is, by definition, a known vulnerability. @lucia's highly valid original point is that some major organisations continue to use this kit knowing it's vulnerable. This is not running risk mitigation; it's gambling. The vast majority of hacks these days are exploiting security holes that have been well known for some time (sometimes years) and for which patches have been made readily available.

It doesn't matter if an organisation has a large estate or small. It has certain responsibilities, and it's no defence to suggest a breach was just "because we didn't realise xyz was still running". If an organisation hasn't the resources to manage its infrastructure properly, it shouldn't be operating in that shape; either it should stump up better resources or scale back its infrastructure. This is not a game.