Inside the Transport for London cyberattack
101 points by alexbilbie 8 months ago | 85 comments- Doctor_Fegg 8 months agoSlightly OT, but really good to see London Centric on the front page of HN. Britain's local media has basically collapsed in recent years - it's now owned by three conglomerates (Reach, Gannett/Newsquest, National World) who are completely uninterested in any form of journalism, only in the sort of clickbait that would have embarrassed even Buzzfeed in its 2012 pomp.
The London Evening Standard was one of the last remnants of even slightly decent local writing, and that too has now been shut down in favour of a weekly lifestyle paper called "The Standard". But there's a small number of indie publishers who are trying to fill the gap: the Manchester Mill and Liverpool Post, Bristol Cable, Oxford Clarion, and so on. London Centric is an attempt by an ex-Guardian writer to do the same for London and I hope it succeeds.
- londoncentric 8 months agoHey, Jim here, author of that article and long term HN reader. Never dreamed of seeing one of my pieces on the homepage!
Anyway, I’ve kinda bet the farm on making proper London coverage work, so every subscriber makes a massive difference. So please do give it a go, send any London tips you want investigating (my personal WhatsApp is on the site), and if you hate it… well please tell me why on the way out of the door.
- kergonath 8 months agoI just looked around your website and damn, I wish it was around when I was in London. Congratulations on putting that together, it’s a bold move. I’m not in London anymore so I can’t really justify a subscription, but I hope you’ll be successful.
We loved to take the piss but the Evening Standard at least existed and London deserves much more quality local journalism.
- kergonath 8 months ago
- jll29 8 months agoAre people really no longer interested in what happens locally?
I would pay for local news, even about places that I no longer live, but used to live and still have a passing interest in. But perhaps I would want to receive it as XML feed.
Even events (concerts, readings, exhibitions, screenings etc.) are typically scattered across many smaller lists or mailing lists, depending on location. For example, there is way more going on in London than what is listed by Time Out: https://www.timeout.com/london/things-to-do/london-events-in... Local communities may have their own sites or still rely on paper flyers.
Some facts of communal interest are published in government outlets that are still mandatated in some jurisdictions.
It would be wonderful if more of "what's going on" could be made available in curated digital form, for us to use and enjoy, and also to preserve it for future generations so that they can see what was happening in our age.
- fragmede 8 months ago> I would pay for local news
Most of my local papers have moved to a subscription model, often with paywalls so I currently pay for local news. Have your local papers not?
- refulgentis 8 months agoNo
- fragmede 8 months ago
- klelatti 8 months agoAgreed and interesting and good to see it has > 1k paying subs (out of 7k total) after a little more than a month - probably as a result of some great stories already. A promising start.
- londoncentric 8 months ago
- bdndndndbve 8 months agoIt's amazing how much bureaucracy they're willing to spend money on to means-test a fundamental service. If you just made transit free at the point of service you wouldn't have free cards for all under 16, and some over 16, and all over 60, and discount fares for people in poverty. Cities spend so much money outsourcing the IT for fare collection, and the administration of budget programs, and ultimately the experience is worse for the end users. It's a real case of the politically connected hoovering up tens of millions of dollars because suburban voters can't stomach a poor person getting to ride the bus for free.
- avianlyric 8 months agoTfL has built most of its fare collection systems in-house, indeed it licenses its fare collect technologies to other cities like New York. Also it’s not within TfLs or London Mayors gift to provide free transit, TfL is almost unique in that its costs are almost entirely covered by farebox collections, and they receive little to zero government subsidy.
If London made transit free, they have to find an additional £7 billion a year to cover the operating costs (most of which is mundane stuff like keeping the trains working). Total London council tax (which is the only form of tax the London mayor can control), raises about £37 billion a year. So making transit in the city free would involve increasing council tax by an additional ~20%, and council tax is a notoriously regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the poor more than anyone else.
Additionally TfL is already extremely efficient, it was audited by the previous government in an attempt to find further ammunition to discredit the London Mayor, but it seems they couldn’t find any inefficiencies worth publishing. So there isn’t much wiggle room to reduce TfL operating costs.
Regardless of how you slice it, there isn’t a practical way to provide free transit in London, and certainly removing the cost of the bureaucracy for means testing isn’t going to move the needle on the simple economic facts.
- kiba 8 months agoTax cars further. They take up way more space than the average pedestrian and required more infrastructure to support and maintain.
- bigstrat2003 8 months agoLet's say that happens, which is not at all a given. What are you going to do when car usage goes down because people are tired of being taxed excessively for them? "Just tax this thing I don't like" is not a viable strategy to fund the things you do like.
- avianlyric 8 months agoEven that won’t get close. Existing London car taxes only raise around £0.2 billion annually. Not a chance in hell you can raise that by 3500% without either public unrest, or such a dramatic change in behaviour that tax collection amounts drop, instead of raise (although I would personally love a car free London).
- moritonal 8 months agoThat would be Mayoral career suicide at this point. Most voters are car owners.
- bigstrat2003 8 months ago
- paganel 8 months agoTake the 7 billion from the existing 37 billion and get rid of some existing stuff which is non-housing related.
- avianlyric 8 months agoWhat exactly would you get rid of?
* Bin collections?
* Social care for the young and elderly?
* Street sweeping?
* General road, pavement and cycle infrastructure maintenance?
* Sports centres, libraries, schools?
Councils are already stretched thin. Last year was the largest increase in council taxes the UK has seen in decades, and councils are going bust left right and centre as pretty much all central funding was removed over the last 14 years. Do you honestly think that reducing every London councils budget by ~19% to provide free transit is going to result in a good outcome?
- jen20 8 months agoLike what, exactly? Be specific.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- kiba 8 months ago
- carapace 8 months ago> In Gavin Newsom’s book Citizenville he talked about how, after becoming [San Francisco] mayor, he discovered that fare collection cost as much as the revenue generated from fares. He started the process of making the bus free but was told by so many advisors that the busses would become “dumpsters on wheels,” from a combination of homeless people using them for shelter and people not respecting services that are free, that the plan was scrapped.
- avianlyric 8 months agoDon’t compare TfL to buses or the BART in San Fransisco. The transit system the TfL operates makes US transit look like a toy.
London busses arrive every 5 mins not every 30 mins. At high throughput bus stops busses arrive pretty back-to-back continuously. Trains arrive every 90secs not every 15mins, often the next train is waiting just outside the station for the previous train to depart.
There are over 500 different bus services in London managed by TfL. 11 Tube lines covering over 200 miles of track and 272 stations. 6 suburban rail lines covering over 100 miles of track and a 113 station.
TfL is a major operation, and its fare collection system is one of the most efficient and technically capable systems in the world. So good they sell it to other cities like New York. I can absolutely guarantee that the cost of TfL fare collection system will be an insignificant fraction of the £2.2 billion that TfL collects annually.
- carapace 8 months ago(SF is 150 years old and 7x7 miles in size, we do not compare to London on any dimension. My whole city could be a borough of London!)
(This one time I was at a party (it was a long time ago) and these Italian dudes were there, and when I mentioned that I was from SF one of them said, "Nice town." ... I was a little miffed, but they were from Rome, so... *shrug* )
- carapace 8 months ago
- LexGray 8 months agoI would guess that technology has already caught up with that. Tie it all to a phone app to track abuse and give a city services only data plan to anyone who asks. Give it a basic three strikes where the driver logs complaints or you need a remedial how to properly use city services class.
Given the license tracking already going on for bridge tolls the infrastructure may already be there.
- KaiserPro 8 months agoYEs, but in london a large part of it's budget come from ticket sales.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- akira2501 8 months ago> can't stomach a poor person getting to ride the bus for free.
If you don't accurately measure ridership you can't accurately serve that ridership. You'll waste money on useless services and you'll waste peoples time by not creating necessary services.
The system needs to exist.
It probably doesn't need to be outsourced. We're well past the internet revolution and it's time for these core competencies to be reabsorbed by government departments. Or it's time for private companies to be held liable for their complete and total failures to serve the public.
Ideally it should just be a system that lets you scan your identification card or drivers license. If you're of the correct age it should serve as a transportation pass. Simple. Compliant. Captures useful data.
- avianlyric 8 months ago> It probably doesn't need to be outsourced. We're well past the internet revolution and it's time for these core competencies to be reabsorbed by government departments.
TfL’s ticketing system isn’t outsourced, it was built in house and is sold to other transit operators like New York’s MTA.
The UK has no official identification card (something the public have rejected countless times), and in London many people don’t drive and don’t have a driving licence.
- akira2501 8 months ago> TfL’s ticketing system isn’t outsourced
The operation of it? Or the development of it? I'm seeing information that conflicts with this statement.
> and in London many people don’t drive and don’t have a driving licence.
My presumptions are rooted in the USA. For those that don't drive having a state ID card is still quite common. These always have barcodes on the back which would make them useful in POS like applications. You'll need a photo ID to cash a check, buy tobacco or alcohol, or when applying for most jobs. It's unusual here to not have one.
Is that also the case in the UK? Is there no similar system or demand for ID? Would those using it in this free application be less likely to have one?
- akira2501 8 months ago
- ThePowerOfFuet 8 months ago>Ideally it should just be a system that lets you scan your identification card or drivers license. If you're of the correct age it should serve as a transportation pass. Simple. Compliant. Captures useful data.
Privacy nightmare, and disenfranchises those with no paperwork.
- akira2501 8 months ago> Privacy nightmare
The current system doesn't do this somehow? You're taking _public_ transport. Presuming privacy from the operator to be a thing is odd.
> and disenfranchises those with no paperwork.
Then if they want free public transport they should get free papers. I'm not sure the goal of an "identityless public society filled with free rides" is at all worthwhile or even agreed upon to be good.
- akira2501 8 months ago
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- cdot2 8 months agoAll of this IT infrastructure exists to ensure the exact opposite of what you said. It ensures that rich people don't get to ride the bus for free.
- truckerbill 8 months agoThe point is it’s easier to just tax wealth a bit more and let everyone get on the bloody train… It’s mostly people just going to work/school, makes sense to be free
- KaiserPro 8 months ago> easier to just tax wealth a bit more and let everyone get on the bloody train
I mean its not. If it was, they would have done it.
Wealth taxes are really fucking hard to do equitably, at least at first.
For example OAPs tend to live in very expensive hosues. take rotherhithe for example one could have bought a house in the 90s for shit all, and now its worth the best part of 1.4 million.
so now you're levying a 5% tax on a pensioner, or worse still a young couple mortgaged to the fucker.
Now, but what about the super asset rich I hear you say?
Well, they'll transfer all they own into a corporation. They can't tax assets like that on business because it'll crash the economy super quick.
- KaiserPro 8 months ago
- paganel 8 months agoWhat's the problem with rich people riding the bus for free? All bus-riding should be as close to free as possible.
- eesmith 8 months agoRich people get to use the library for free.
Rich people get to visit Hyde Park for free.
I've no problem letting them also ride the bus for free.
- whiplash451 8 months agoNot the opposite, but the complementary, to be precise.
- bdndndndbve 8 months agoAh yes all those billionaires trying to jump the turnstiles. Between that and trying to sleep under bridges they're a menace.
- truckerbill 8 months ago
- mbirth 8 months agoWith that many tourists using and abusing London public transport, why should only Londoners pay for the service (via taxes - the money must come from somewhere)?
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- lbriner 8 months agoI think lots of people who lack the experience have no idea quite how large and difficult cybersecurity is for a massive organisation whose systems span 20-30+ years or possibly even longer. There is no standardised tooling and very little that can be retrofitted to older systems. Firewalls are fine if the attack is against a port you do not need to use but otherwise you are left with a myriad of commercial offerings and a lot of "risk analysis".
The one basic tool that does seem lacking, however, is just basic network segmentation. I could understand a single system being hacked, especially an old system that is massively complex to replace but having to shutdown multiple systems including WiFi and office networks just smells like lazy "just connect all the wires together to make my IT life slightly easier". Having air gaps with separate computers, separate networks (even vlans) etc. is probably the most cost effective way to reduce your attack surface.
- ChoHag 8 months ago[dead]
- ChoHag 8 months ago
- HL33tibCe7 8 months ago> Cybersecurity experts claim TfL’s software may have not been up to scratch, with some public-facing systems coded to be compatible with long-defunct browsers such as Internet Explorer 6.
This is rubbish, public-facing websites being compatible with defunct browsers is not indicative of any security issue
- JSDevOps 8 months ago
- JSDevOps 8 months ago
- walrus01 8 months agoIt sure sounds like this "highly sophisticated" attack was a run of the mill cryptolocker.
- bastard_op 8 months agoAs soon as you read "outsourced their IT", one can always assume the aftermath would be a shitshow, as it is always done in response to the previous team not being able to run it, which means it is a goddamn mess. Having worked enough state and city government IT contracts in the past 25 years, you just assume the worst about everything and are often not disappointed. It's not a matter of if but when they'll be owned really, and most really wouldn't know what to do if they were still today.
This is your relative tax dollars hard at work.
- avianlyric 8 months agoWhere does it say they outsourced their IT? The article mentions city hall outsourcing their IT to TfL, but city hall is sister organisation to TfL, they’re both organs of London regional government. The London Mayor is the chairman of TfL and the head of London regional government.
It’s not like they’re outsourcing to some private organisation, every single organisation is either a state organisation, or a state owned company.
- Groxx 8 months agoI think they just read it backwards. Near the beginning in the bulleted list is:
>Sadiq Khan’s office and the Greater London Authority outsourced their IT services to TfL this summer, meaning they were also badly impacted, paralysing services at the top of the capital’s devolved government.
Which means TfL is the one doing other people's IT in addition to its own, not the reverse.
- 8 months ago
- Groxx 8 months ago
- mellosouls 8 months agoalways done in response to the previous team not being able to run it, which means it is a goddamn mess.
:
This is your relative tax dollars hard at work.
I think you are underestimating the gross lack of realistic investment and corresponding demoralization and qualitative decline in some public services; which latter is then used by the decision-makers who've created the situation as justification for swashbuckling "transformation" projects - advised by and given to overpriced consultants - they can put on their CVs before hopping to the next gig.
That's your tax dollars at work.
- aiiotnoodle 8 months agoI agree. Public sector IT becomes a huge sprawl of technologies and cottage industry applications which makes administering these often rarely touched interfaces difficult to do properly when department budgets are tight and resources are busy fire fighting the processes that failed the night before.
It is also difficult to hire because wages are generally low compared to similar roles in private industry, yet they need skilled staff to manage these complex environments. A lot of services don't get the attention they need, not just patching and upgrades but development, requirements capture and usability all kept to a minimum cost to keep the sinking ship afloat.
All these constraints also lean to a culture of poor security, JFDI, rip and replace, insufficent hardware etc... just so the business can operate on whatever computer on wheels in the shipping depot or relatively expensive to replace electronic gate system with intergration to their custom fleet management software.
Government outsourcing to another related body has its cost advantages but the many domain administrator users, the huge flat VmWare estate and the hardware well beyond warranty doesn't dissapear.
Designed to serve immediate needs but without long-term maintenance or holistic design in mind. Outsourcing amplifies the issue.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- lol768 8 months ago> Earlier this month Andy Lord, the boss of Transport for London, sat down at a scheduled board meeting and praised his organisation’s response to a “highly sophisticated” cyberattack, which began with reports of “suspicious activity” on Sunday 1st September.
> “The vast majority of Londoners would not know this attack has happened,” the TfL commissioner told board members including mayor Sadiq Khan. Lord later added: “Because it’s been so well-managed people didn’t understand the scale and impact.”
Are these people completely delusional? They've taken away passenger's visibility to see what they were being charged for; they killed all of the open data feeds (though a few of these have just now been restored in the last couple of days). Back in September, they disrupted all of their staff's productivity by locking everybody out and forcing them to try and do their jobs without any access to technology. And.. there's still no end in sight for a restore of the contactless portal.
The way they've managed the incident and the collateral damage suggests there were not nearly enough security controls present in the first place (in terms of containing the breach). How many weeks on are we now without service restoration? For a cyberattack perpetrated by one seventeen year old?
If it was an SME who didn't do anything technical and had been caught completely unprepared, I might be more understanding.
- avianlyric 8 months agoI can believe, I live in London and depend on TfL all the time. It’s last 10 or so years, I’ve probably only bothered looking up my travel data a dozen or so times. 99% of the time I’m charged the right amount, and I don’t have to think about it.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- cutler 8 months agoWhat exactly is it about supporting IE6 that makes it a security risk?
- com 8 months agoLots of people who should have been establishing effective security practices and monitoring and improving it were doing … something … but not that.
Total failure of management and governance at TfL and the British Library (which even had a “private sector security leader” on its board of governors for a decade or more before their total shitshow of a breach last year)
But as usual, there will be no consequences.
- jen20 8 months agoTFL are better than most public bodies but are likely hamstrung on being able to pay anything like market rates for competent security people.
- com 8 months agoTotally get it that budgets are tight. But making sure that stuff happens isn’t highly correlated to tech staff or manager salaries.
Unless they’re hiring inexperienced high-schoolers, it’s a failure of will and competence in management. And even that would actually be a failure of managrnent.
I’m guessing - based on historic contacts with TfL - that this failure of management is probably manifest in too many meetings and intermediate products valorised over and above culture, knowledge and tech improvements.
Avoidance of outcome-based monitoring and governance, and instead a focus on “process execution” like reorgs, agonisingly-slow checkbox actions and deckchair relocations is pretty common in low-ambition, low-performance orgs. Again, you don’t get this because you’re being cheap on security people.
- avianlyric 8 months agoI’m not really sure how you’ve ended up classifying TfL as a “low-ambition, low-performance” org. As transit agencies go TfL is one of the best on the planet, they’re constantly innovating and pushing the envelope of what’s possible. Every time they build a new line, or order new rolling stock, they use it as an opportunity to invent something new (which doesn’t always succeed). Everything from automated trains, to more complex and capable signaling systems, improved cooling and better customer signage.
A “low-ambition, low-performance” transit organisation doesn’t run train services with a train every 90 seconds at peak, transporting 4 million people per day without a major incident or loss of life. There are nine Underground stations with annual passenger counts larger than the entire BART system in the larger Bay Area.
The Underground system alone (only part of TfL responsibility) is the world fifth largest metro system outside of china by ridership.
TfL built its own ticketing system, and invented the entire idea of using contactless bank cards for ticketing, including negotiating with Visa and Mastercard to create brand new rules for transit agencies. A system that it now sells to other mayor transit systems, such as the New York Subway.
TfL isn’t without faults and problems, like any large public organisation. But to dismiss it as “low-ambition, low-performance” is to ignore many decades of safety operating the worlds oldest metro system, and developing and exporting new ways of improving transit for the travelling public.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- com 8 months ago
- chrisjj 8 months ago> no consequences.
I recommend "repercussions" ;)
- jen20 8 months ago
- manojlds 8 months agoWhy is the Mayor not even talking about this?
- avianlyric 8 months agoWhat is there for the Mayor to say? The trains still run, the busses still turn up, the traffic lights still go red, yellow, green.
For the vast majority of people, there little to no impact day-to-day. Sure the loss of live data is annoying, but trains still turn up every 2 mins, and busses every 5-10mins during the day. Even at night, busses still turn up every 15-20mins, so checking live data doesn’t give you that much of an edge.
- surfingdino 8 months agoBecause there is no political gain for him in this story.
- avianlyric 8 months ago
- paganel 8 months ago> Hundreds of thousands of Londoners are being overcharged for travel, while London Centric spoke to one teenager who is having to skip meals because of cashflow issues brought on by the cyberattack.
This is just crazy, why not make public transport as cheap as peanuts to begin with? Why does everything have to be so damn expensive? Why the heck does a monthly transport pass have to cost, let me check, around 200 pounds?, what the fricking fuck?!?! Why don't the common people in the West rise up against this perverted shit? 2400 pounds per year just to have the privilege to take the bus/metro?
- HL33tibCe7 8 months agoI don't live in London, but most people I've talked to who do don't have any monthly transport pass or anything like that. They just tap in with contactless. The transport is cheap enough that if you don't travel many times per day, there is really no need. As one example - a bus journey is 1.75 GBP regardless of the distance and number of individual buses taken, as long as all initial tap-ins are within one hour.
Looking at the TfL website, people on benefits get 50% rate discounts; students get 30% off; pensioners and children get completely free travel. It's really quite a good system actually.
- cutler 8 months agoNot so fast. Contactless accounts for a huge volume of compensation claims due to faulty or badly-designed interchanges. I've lost count of the number of times my partner has been overcharged when travelling from Wimbledon to Waterloo.
- shamiln 8 months agoIs your partner not following the signs saying where to tap in?
- shamiln 8 months ago
- cutler 8 months ago
- avianlyric 8 months ago> Why don't the common people in the West rise up against this perverted shit? 2400 pounds per year just to have the privilege to take the bus/metro?
Still cheaper than owning a car. The average driver in London pays £3200 a year for the privilege. Most Londoners don’t bother, cars are slowest, most expensive, and least pleasant way to move around the city.
As for the cost, that because a series of Tory governments stripped TfL of all its government funding. TfL has to cover all its cost from fares, advertising, and some other ancillary business. Hence the higher than average ticket prices.
I would also say that there’s nothing wrong with taking the bus/metro. Busses turn up every 5 mins, metros every 90s-180s. Everything is clean, comfortable (we have fabric and padding on our busses and metro seats) and reliable. Although rush hour can get very cramped and sweaty at its peak.
- ChoHag 8 months ago[dead]
- HL33tibCe7 8 months ago