Heathcare.gov working...and full of security flaws. Hurray government.

**Meresgi** · 2014-01-22 13:35

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A0F07X20140116

Kennedy said "nothing has really changed" since a hearing before the same committee in November when he and three other expert witnesses said they believed the site was not secure and three of them said it should be shut down immediately.

"I don't understand how we're still discussing whether the website is insecure or not," said Kennedy, who worked for the National Security Agency and the U.S. Marine Corps before entering the private sector. "It is insecure - 100 percent."

Lol committee degrades into nitpicking over GOP vs Dem shit, while the guy can write a program that just harvests user data from the web w/o even hacking the site itself.

At least the website is working I guess

**Callisto** · 2014-01-22 15:42

I'm kind of baffled as to the same government that can pull of years of clandestine data snooping can't make a single, secure website. I can only assume it's because of the difference in budgets between defense and something like this.

**quannum** · 2014-01-22 16:28

priorities

**GoggleHead** · 2014-01-22 16:32

Originally Posted by Callisto

I'm kind of baffled as to the same government that can pull of years of clandestine data snooping can't make a single, secure website. I can only assume it's because of the difference in budgets between defense and something like this.

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that the people snooping are the same ones in charge of making this thing secure. They're not.

I've actually worked with government websites as part of my job. It got to the point where they were asking us to customize their sites to specifications that actually made them even less secure. Once that happened our CEO was like "fuck it, we're out".

**Meresgi** · 2014-01-22 16:51

Originally Posted by Callisto

I'm kind of baffled as to the same government that can pull of years of clandestine data snooping can't make a single, secure website. I can only assume it's because of the difference in budgets between defense and something like this.

Their snooping is based off of years of having found exploits/backdoors/etc and never reporting them like most white/greyhat hackers do. In effect leaving these around and using them to their advantage. That's not to say they don't also have some of the best of the world working for them. The whole cicada deal was interesting, and supposedly was a NSA recruitment project.

Though with alot of these revelations, most talented hackers are shying away from working for them, as a lot are of the GNU-esque/freemarket crowd and despise what the NSA is doing. Just look at how the NSA/Anderson were received at Defcon and such lol.

Also website is built by fucking terrible companies, I cant find the source but I read the same company who built the healthcare site, was tasked with redoing the FBI database system...went 300% overbudget and the system was so bad people literally cried when using it...and it was scrapped in favor of the old system

Once that happened our CEO was like "fuck it, we're out".

Why?! It's not like they would flip on you if it ever came to light and blame you for all of the security flaws!

**Cream Soda** · 2014-01-22 16:54

My friend is a software engineer at a company that just got the task of cleaning up that site. He said the site was previously outsourced and made in Canada and they're having to clean up the mess

**Waraji** · 2014-01-22 17:01

Originally Posted by Meresgi

Why?! It's not like they would flip on you if it ever came to light and blame you for all of the security flaws!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...kNHBlTbWDxveww

**archibaldcrane** · 2014-01-22 22:04

The skills required to land a huge government contract like this are not the same skills required to actually build a competent website.

It's the same problem that most government web projects have had - the red tape and hoop-jumping are not the specialty of competent tech companies.

**Talint** · 2014-01-23 00:15

I think that if you told me republicans were the ones trying to hack and delegitimize the website, I wouldn't be surprised.

I mean, this is the problem with not having a serious opposing faction. They're not interested in fixing a problem they've identified, they just want to destroy it.

**notorious bum** · 2014-01-23 06:01

The company assigned to run the website has a long history of fuck-ups, fraud, and pretty much everything else that is standard fare for govt contracts handed out to their repeat customers. This isn't an "oops" moment or even a case of incompetence. It's business as usual.

**kuronosan** · 2014-01-23 09:18

But Obama.

**Niiro** · 2014-01-23 12:04

Originally Posted by kuronosan

But Obama.

Had no idea what he was getting into.

**SephYuyX** · 2014-01-23 12:16

Originally Posted by Niiro

Had no idea what he was getting into.

That's why all presidents should be combat war vets.

**Xajii** · 2014-01-23 12:27

Originally Posted by notorious bum

The company assigned to run the website has a long history of fuck-ups, fraud, and pretty much everything else that is standard fare for govt contracts handed out to their repeat customers. This isn't an "oops" moment or even a case of incompetence. It's business as usual.

Not exactly. The initial issue was that the government assigned multiple contractors with the task of developing the site. This included US-based companies AND Canada-based companies. Getting any contractors to work with one another is difficult as is, but in web dev? Get outta here. It was a shitshow for obvious reasons - you had too many hands, too many leadership squabbles, no uniformity, varying tools and concepts, etc. CGI Federal was "in charge", but they were hardly the only one (notice they're called "main contractor").

Now it's tasked to a single contractor (Accenture), whose "history of fraud and fuck-ups" is really no more notable than any other contracting giant in the Federal sector. Accenture has no more fraud or fuck-up track record than Lockheed Martin, BAH, etc. and we trust them for p. much everything

**Zeb** · 2014-01-23 20:13

Originally Posted by SephYuyX

That's why all presidents should be combat war vets.

**Waraji** · 2014-01-23 23:57

What's the ratio of Republican War Vet Politicians to Democratic War Vet Politicians?

**Meresgi** · 2014-01-24 07:24

Originally Posted by Waraji

What's the ratio of Republican War Vet Politicians to Democratic War Vet Politicians?

100% to 0% if you are to believe the republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...litary_service

Not counting "stateside service" which is bullshit "Daddy got me out of da Warz"

**archibaldcrane** · 2014-01-24 11:19

Originally Posted by SephYuyX

That's why all presidents should be combat war vets.

This is really dumb.

**Melena** · 2014-01-24 12:38

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

This is really dumb.

Don't feed the troll. You know 99% of the political stuff he says is purely just to bait people.

**Headspace** · 2014-06-30 09:32

Not sure which ACA thread to post this in.

@Newsweek: In 5-4 contraception decision, high court rules that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views http://t.co/qdqZbWoXQE via @ap

Hobby Lobby wins and can be all up in your personal shit if you work there.

Thread: Heathcare.gov working...and full of security flaws. Hurray government.

Thread Tools

Heathcare.gov working...and full of security flaws. Hurray government.

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads