Unlikely to be a hack, more likely to be a misconfiguration or update sent incorrectly.
That said, the timing of the disclosure and the issue are rather concerning.
Regarding the highest value targets to hit with an attack like this, you would want to target Guam, Hawai'i, and other isolated overseas locations where this would have ripple effects in the local economy. Guam specifically would cause catastrophic supply shortages, since DeCA probably supplies around 50% of the groceries on that island (that's a WAG based on my time there).
Hawaii I'm not sure why that would be an issue unless the whole island was attacked or shut down. Even if the on-base shops were hacked you could just go shop at Wal-Mart or Costco or any number of other locations on the islands. If there was an extended issue then the commander could authorize meal stipends as they do for some units today and then you would just go buy food off-base. Ideal? No. Manageable? Very much.
The largest cargo aircraft with the strengthened landing gear, arresting hook, and catapult attachment used to be the C-2 Greyhound. It had a range of approximately 1,500 miles with a 10,000 pound cargo. It was retired on July 28th, 2026. The C-2 has been replaced by the CMV-22B Osprey. It has a range of only 1,150 miles and a more limited cargo capacity of only 6,000 pounds. 6,000 pounds isn't nothing, but it's not a lot either.
There's not a lot of stuff within 1,150mi of the Arabian Sea. Your two options are one of the US bases in the southern Persian Gulf (Kuwait is too far) and Diego Garcia. Neither are ideal. In both cases you're doing a transfer out in the field.
On the other hand, the C-5 Galaxy can carry 120,000 pounds to a range of 4,800 miles. You can fill it with food in the continental US, fly to Hickam AFB in Hawaii, refuel, and fly the rest of the way to Guam. On the return leg, an unladen C-5 can fly directly to the 22nd Airlift Squadron's home base California without a layover.
The C-17B Globemaster is smaller than the C-5, although it's nearly as capable. With a 160,000 pound cargo, it has a range of 3,200 miles, (the C-17A has a shorter range) which is just short of the 3,800 miles to get from Hawaii to Guam. I don't know how much cargo it's capable of carrying 3,800 miles, but on the order of 100,000 pounds is a reasonable guess. It is also capable of an empty flight back to the US without a layover.
It's been the basis for at-sea supply of long-endurance ships since ~1910 when refueling oil became a key blue sea naval requirement.
Modern example: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/kzncvGBj-88
Mostly tensioned cables carrying hoses (liquids especially fuel being the highest volume / limiting factor), some palletized transfer over cables, and some helicopter lift (because the flight pads/decks are already sitting next to each other while everyone is waiting for fuel to finish).
It's also roughly 2800 nautical miles from Kuwait to Diego Garcia, so regardless of where the carrier group is, it should be at most a ~6 day round trip at 20 knots for a supply ship from the closest of the two.
That assumes there is no way to airdrop watertight pallets of food (e.g. steel drums loaded with cans and MREs) into the water, then retrieve it with RHIBs or helicopters.
I can't speak to how much cargo was on board, but I did a Hawai'i to Guam leg on a C-17B that was carrying palletized cargo.
One of my better Space-A experiences. Crew was great, flight was smooth. I preferred it over the KC-135 leg, despite the more spartan conditions. The aircrew let us toss out sleeping bags and packs in the aisles between cargo and get some sleep.
The Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain got flattened.
But at the same time, it's not like that came out of nowhere. If you attack a country, that country shooting back at any military installations in missile range has to be one of the expected outcomes. Given the US had all the initiative in starting the conflict I would have hoped there was a logistics plan that involved not relying on those bases to continue to exist
Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict.
Anyone with the capability to plan for the Iran war never would have started it because the costs would have been obvious. In other words the only way to start a war with Iran is to have no plan for it.
Not only that, but it was already that way for ~40 years, where past presidencies all knew and documented why it was a stupid idea, didn't press the stupidity-button, and mostly worked towards better options.
Gosh, if only they could've stopped it!
> Foreign influence and realized threats of assasination seem to be a factor.
The only head of state assassinated in this conflict was Iran's.
All Trump needs is a little dangling of glory and publicity and he'd oink like a pig if he thought it'd earn it. Pathetic creature.
Netanyahu tried the same schtick he's done for 30 years of POTUS's, just now we have someone retarded enough to fall for it and a party that allowed him to be surrounded by sycophants.
You should just admit you voted for a retard and pay your penance to your countrymen and species.
Americans make war on other people, other people don't make war on Americans. It's one of the reasons why they are so eager to do so. 'The other guys might hit back' doesn't even register in the cultural psyche.
No, it doesn't. It's now in Thailand for R&R, then back to base in the US, because of this issue.
https://apnews.com/article/thailand-singapore-us-aircraft-ca...
> What's causing us to lose is failure to achieve victory due to the means employed…
Right. We're being too restrained. That's some Vietnam War era cope you're huffing.
Yes, that is the point everyone has been trying to make.
??
What does this even mean? It seems to come out of nowhere. Is it a reference to some event??
One of the reasons for consitency above all else is to use the power of history.
Ahistorical is now the defacto standard. All asdumptions about America power are toilet paper.
This type of wargaming scenario is literally stuff they give to brand new kids out of high school to get them thinking. It's not anything close to "loose lips sink ships."
Are these materially different? Assuming that there wasn't a literal command to turn off all freezers, from an organizational, non criminal perspective, to the organization the damage will be the same, the root cause will be a bug (whether exploited by chance or malice), and the fix will be the same(fixing the bug).
A hack implies an adversary, and intentional targeting.
The thesis "everything hackable" will be hacked, and with the advent of hacking LLMs, the boundary between criminal hacking and civil hacking is being blurred, it's no longer attributable to a criminal intent, hacking commands are just something that happens through no criminal intent.
Practically, the hackers, whether human or syntehtic, are a catalyst, they accelerate the rate at which a bug that causes damage will manifest, and perhaps the magnitude of the manifestation, but the essence of the negative manifestation of that bug is the same. Whether it was triggered by a solar ray flipbit or by a rogue LLM or by a russian hacker, the essence of the issue is the same.
I opened Siemens TIA Portal and PLCSIM for the first time and thought “wow, I didn’t think the Windows 95 GUI library was still supported.” None of the PLC contractors we had hired knew how to enable TLS on the thing (user/pass eg admin/admin was their usual). Anecdote: I once spent hours reading the docs and clicking around trying to get it to accept an SSL certificate signed by a real CA and it wouldn’t go, but it accepted one I self-signed in openssl.
In all fairness, the people who are experts in the field of Siemens PLC programming are usually mechanical-ish engineers and security is not in their skill set or on their mind.
The PLC engineers I had contact with usually had an electrical engineering background. That's why they like PLCs in the first place with the ladder logic programming languages, grafcet and if they feel fancy a bit of structured text (assembly like) or structured control language (pascal like). They indeed did not know much about software security but a great deal about machine safety.
A real security nightmare are older OPC servers (OPC-DA) which is super reliant on DCOM. OPC is quite important to connect the PLCs to SCADA systems or 3rd party devices.
Then someone plugs in a cable because boss wants something "over there" and there's already a network that runs "over there". Or optimizes to a smart switch with vlans, and then someone else optimizes to a single vlan. It's not hard to not give a shit, or not understand, network security.
In reality it'll likely first be noticed ten years down the line, by someone who lets out a big sigh, mutters something about "incompetent dipshits not updating documentation", and moves on with their day.
I'm saying that's what you do in order to solve the issue. You have to actually try, and you have to do actual engineering.
If the local planning commission submits a call for proposals for a bridge to cross a 400 foot chasm over sharp rocks, and they insist that it absolutely, positively must be made out of popsicle sticks, local civil engineering firms aren't going to take up the project, because that's insane.
Why do we give the management of these places a pass for PLC and SCADA systems that could give massive problems - up to and including the loss of human life - if they're hacked?
On my project the service I wrote was doing bidirectional communication with the PLC over OPCUA. The server running this pod was connected to the internet, so it was critical to have proper TLS for the OPCUA client/server. Rotating LetsEncrypt certs on the system every 45 days is a lot of toil, but using a self-signed cert that expires in 2040 from some dev laptop doesn’t pass muster in most organizations either.
That’s just the OPCUA path.. In these projects You also typically see WinCC HMIs that can talk to the PLC from anywhere on the network without TLS. And also SIMATIC Web Server pages - minimally secured by default, and the amount of info you can grok about the system in Chrome Dev Tools is troubling.
admin/admin is on a post-it stuck to the monitor because everyone we hire is perfectly capable of rooting a machine they have physical access to.
What is unique about your system using LetsEncrypt that you can't automate certbot to handle this task as it was designed and intended to be done?
Some PLCs run extremely expensive machines. Some machines can't afford to have their control systems stutter or fail because that can lead to physical damage and production outages of enormous proportions. A PLC that stops communicating because a certificate just expired is absolutely not acceptable in some plants.
Running certbot on a random PLC isn't happening.
Not really dissimilar from the human upbringing: leave a baby with "bad" guardians, and it will grow up corrupted. That's a feature, not a bug: if you knew what behaviour exactly you wanted (other than "whatever Simon says"), you would just bake it in in the first place, right?
Stuxnet was over a decade ago.
There should be a simple rule that everyone with the ability to understand things like PLCs should be able to grasp: your equipment does not touch the internet or external storage, period.
Those who can't grasp this concept should be shown the door with a recommendation that they find a less mentally-taxing line of work.
The worm was designed to jump across network air gaps via USB flash drives, and spread across isolated networks to other hosts. Finally, it targeted what was likely going to be a service technician laptop, which had to connect to the PLC via a data cable to update and adjust its configuration.
An attack like this can only be avoided if you never transfer any data from the outside to the inside. But that means you won't ever be able to install any form of software update or upload new config files without manually typing them in - or even reinstall the OS on any machine...
Fact is if the customer wants to put their worksite management on AWS, you inevitably expose the OPC server and/or PLC to a Intranet. This is then inevitably connected to the internet in some way. The customer may or may not put barriers between them, but that's not up to us to decide.
This becomes especially a problem if they have multiple sites across a country or countries.
We have a customer that runs a factory on god forsaken WIFI, then dares to complain about a bad connection to said equipment. Thankfully, they have their own internal IT department.
"Every nonelectric cooler comes with 25 years of free real-time monitoring. On a visit to the company in the spring of 2012, I watched as technicians in Broad Air’s space-age control room checked on the performance of its units in locations as diverse as the Adolfo Suárez Madrid–Barajas Airport in Spain; Qualcomm headquarters in San Diego, California; and Fort Stewart, the U.S. Army base in Georgia [emphasis added].
"Zhang says that 80 percent of his clients are repeaters. “If you bring long-term benefits for your clients, they will choose you.”"
Not just in the sense of secretive kill-switches, but "US government commands you to turn over this encryption key and you're not allowed to say you did so" stuff.
That barely even registers given the scale of more modern escalations against its 'allies'. Escalations like "US government threatens that you aren't a real country and that you can't defend yourself from it."
Because a half dozen a day sounds plausible as standard maintenance issues, as the author acknowledges. If it were a hack, I'd expect something like 50% of them to have problems. But not knowing how many there are, I don't know how significant these incidents really are.
The problem is the author should have put a few concise bullet points at the top. (14 freezers failed at the same time. They are all internet-controlled, and failed at the same time as a disclosure about a vulnerability. They all failed by turning on the defrost cycle and heating food.)
I really recommend skimming the article to the end.
(Unfortunately, the article really is so verbose it's a borderline rant.)
I've seen batch failures in radio equipment where I could predict 100% accurately which devices would fail based on the range of serial numbers.
An attack like the author hypothesized would require a LOTL modus operandi, and doing so on 14 locations wouldn't justify completely blowing up an entire LOTL operation, because it exposes indicators, registers, and tradecraft that is then shared amongst all security vendors.
The way it's framed is clickbait at its worst with the added issue of limited security experience, but the same can be said of HN in general.
Not just any failure, specifically heating the food (defrost) so it goes bad. Happening overnight, so it wouldn't be caught before it's too late.
All that could still be a coincidence, but the more coincidences start to pile up the more we have to consider other possibilities too. I do agree it would be unusual to 'waste' a vuln like that, but perhaps the implant/CVE was about to be exposed anyway.
Interesting times...
Considering Iran is looking for any possible avenue to make the US look bad especially directly before an election with a president who cheerleads the military strongly while not actually putting the time or thought into what makes it strong.
This would be worth far more than the vulnerability itself to Iran right now. No real injuries causing escalation. Making a more capability adversary look foolish.
according to the article, the denominator is ~235.
But, I'd be a lot more inclined to that idea if it wasn't for how they failed: they started a defrost cycle that turned the freezers into heaters, spoiling the food quicker. And the failure happened overnight, delaying discovery of the problem.
It could be just a compounding of bad luck. But an attacker with access to the specs for the freezers might be aware of how long they would stay cold after being simply shut off.
I was curious if this was continued evidence of poor appropriations and upkeep or what... I do see "U.S. military commissary refrigeration maintenance, equipment replacement, and physical infrastructure are funded through the 5% commissary surcharge paid by customers at checkout rather than direct congressional appropriations."
So, perhaps the first place would be to follow the money - are these being repaired at the proper rate? Is this repair outsourced to third party vendors? (my guess). Is this gonna end up being the McDonald's Ice Cream machine all over again?
Really though, Hanlon's would be much easier to believe this is yet further ineptitude by those who run things (I am not going to claim malfeasance/malevolence, except a general sense of such across the board by this admin).
Since I'm not on the inside, anything I have to say would be speculative, just like the above, or the author themselves (I have no idea who it is, and perhaps they have a better beat on the ground with regards to this), but it just falls in line with "we're running out of missiles" and "sailors attempting to kill themselves".
We're so insistent on being #1, we can't admit we're in a society that is falling apart (and again, it may be the case that this IS a hack, but if I were to place my bets...)
Ineptitude, lowest cost players, etc "efficiency" indeed. You get what you pay for, and I guess 5% don't pay for a whole hell of a lot these days.
Wanted to offer a few clarifications:
I’m not a cybersecurity expert; I’m an investigator (in a totally different field), and this was essentially me following a weird thought to see where it went. My background is in natsec so that’s where my mind goes. There have since been at least dozens of additional freezer outages reported in a similar pattern, but I'm refraining from calling/tracking down every individual weirdness based on a Facebook comment at this point since there are much larger outlets with journalists more proficient than I covering this by now. Another interesting thing - There are numerous freezers and fridges within base stores, not under the control of DeCA/DoD, and none of those appear to be impacted.
I completely agree that a bad update/configuration or other shared technical failure may be the much more boring answer. The interesting part to me is that potentially hundreds of varying systems can converge upstream into common monitoring/control infrastructure. Anyone on this forum probably understands that, however IoT was something that was a relatively new concept when I was in school, and my degrees were somewhat relevant. The average person is blissfully unaware how expansive (and how much work behind safeguarding) the IoT is.
Also, since it came up: Yup. Human written. I’m pretty firmly anti-AI as a writer and also just, like, societally. I'll be sure to add some sort of footnote detailing my ai usage at the bottom of future public facing work, because I too detest reading (or questioning if what I'm reading is) slop. Minimal LLM used for understanding technical concepts and what the fuck fridge norms are…The weird formatting, excessive bolding, neurotic parentheticals, and rant energy are, unfortunately, totally my own. Sorry guys.
This was my first ever public post and intended audience was ~ 10 friends forced to read my diatribe, not thousands of strangers very validly raising questions I am not smart enough to answer myself. Appreciate the discussion and will be further educating myself on some of the points a few of you have brought up.
My main question was "did Claude do the investigation by itself or just write up the article from someone's notes?"
Also though, I'm quite willing to believe this is human written and the human just happens to have a Claudey style. The actual prose isn't that Claudey it's just the structure of how it presents ideas. But, Claude had to get that structure from somewhere. It's not that surprising to see people with that style of communication.
I did all the digging, researching, writing, etc myself. The reason the screenshots are from mobile is because I wrote a lot of it literally in my notes app, on my phone before I started putting together more dots. I eventually asked gpt if I was correct in my understanding about refrigeration controllers doing XYZ and if it was plausible for them to be hacked in this way, when looking for some docs I asked if it would be standard to have XYZ part of a contract public and XYZ private, and other singular questions like that. I also use a browser extension for spellcheck that (I think) uses AI to suggest phrasing improvements, which I used pretty nominally.
Is there any type of sidebar/footnote that you, as a reader, would like to see to denote AI usage during the writing and/or research process? Would you expect none? I don't plan to do many investigations such as this (literally started because I was personally impacted) but I do have a few potential article seeds about defense procurement tech I've asked a few definition/research questions to AI about and would like to make sure I'm keeping tabs on it since this is something I want to be perhaps hyper aware of moving forward. Keeping in mind this is my personal substack and I would like to maintain integrity, but also, not doing really any groundbreaking work here. Intended to be an outlet for my thoughts, not news.
It's not something I expect, but I definitely don't see an issue with people putting a couple of sentences in an "expand to see AI usage notes" tab at the top or bottom of the page.
> Would you expect none?
As in, would I expect no AI usage? Coz no I absolutely expect people to use AI.
If you had got Claude to do this investigation for you then actually I think that would have been notable enough to include details of your AI workflow. But not because "it's cheating not to disclose it", rather because you'd probably have come up with quite a neat workflow that is interesting in its own right.
… the article does posit this … nonsensically. TFA also establishes that "RMCS" stands for "Remote monitoring and control system". I would think the "and control" portion of the acronym would indicate that it is centralized monitoring … and control.
This is food storage for a commissary, aka a store. They don’t use residential refrigerators.
Regardless if this was a hack or a bug, the bigger lesson is that overcomplicated systems fail in catastrophic ways. Why do military commissaries need remote-controlled freezers? It seems like a very fragile, and needless, way to run a freezer.
---
But, there are some options that the author didn't consider:
1: This could be a quickly applied patch that failed.
2: This could be a "script kiddie" hack from someone who isn't a government actor.
I'm less onboard with a state actor. Generally, when a state actor has hacked something, they don't want the victim to know. In this case, if it was a state actor, I would anticipate that they would make a single freezer fail in a way that they could verify using something like a hacked video camera or otherwise by watching public social media feeds. IMO: A state actor would only "make sense" if they knew the hole was closing soon and they don't care if they're discovered, perhaps because their operation is winding down.
I’ve seen similar too many times in my career - synchronized clocks are great until someone deploys a cronjob that fires at exactly the same time across the fleet and it breaks a certain OS or firmware revision. Which then exposes another bug that exists globally.
I definitely still subscribe to don’t attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence mindset.
Certainly all speculation though, real root cause will be interesting if it ever becomes public.
I'm sure some script kiddie broke into a government network, hacked an industrial process, and forced a limited supply piece of equipment into a failure mode that takes some thought and is more unique as an attack vector. It's just like buying hacks for CS source right?
Could be the Iranians, or someone aligned, conducting anti-morale operations. Could be the start of a series of small but annoying failures.
But if I was an Iranian operative with instructions to damage the morale of the American war machine, I'd absolutely do a series of things like this.
It doesn't really harm anyone, but enough similar events and the families of servicemembers start to feel unsafe, which is psychologically very different than the servicemembers themselves feeling unsafe.
It's probably more benign than that, most likely firmware or a central controller failure, but still
Unfortunately, I would wager that all BAS software is full of flaws and holes, allowing access to it for the public internet seems like a bad idea. I need to be on my company VPN to access our locally hosted BAS front end (which I have authorized access for) which seems like the bare minimum security.
Could be a hack or a design flaw. I await the root cause analysis.
I'm guessing Iran will claim it as an attack even if it doesn't end up being them in the end.
It's also possible that, because the US is busy bombing Iran, Iran may be busy attacking the US infrastructure in any way possible? The US is also in a tepid war with russia, last I checked.
Some "cyber" crew getting a shell on an outsourced service provider and running a "defrost" command is also a totally explanation for this situation. It's also totally possible that some crew has mapped out a list of PLC entry points for various orgs and has them in a spreadsheet of "if we find a vulnerability, we should X this Y with this prestaged script that our intern / LMM cooked up last year to defrost these freezers"
There doesn't seem to be anything indicating an advanced attack. If you're a foreign adversary and you want to flex your muscles (in a way that would be a borderline act of war), you don't just flip one switch and giggle about spoiled food.
This is a much bigger deal than the freezer being down.
But the thing I can’t get past is Fort Huachuca’s failure mode.
Not: the freezer compressor died.
Not: the power went out.
Not even: the refrigeration system stopped cooling.
Every freezer went into active defrost.No LLM use while writing, except for my grammar/phrasing plugin which I think (?) uses AI. I detailed my explicit usage cases for gpt in an earlier comment above.
Is there anything you, as a skeptical reader, would like to disclaimed/posted/footnoted when it comes to disclosing gpt usage during research questions, etc?
Wasn’t planning to have to address this early on but I would love to moving forward, especially time listener, first time caller to the online writing publication world, especially in the era of rampant AI usage.
(Keeping in mind that this is my personal substack meant to be an anthology series of my thoughts and rabbit-holed interest write ups, not exactly intended for such wide scrutiny but, I guess, could be potentially disseminated widely in a rare instance such as this first post, lol)
Not exactly strong evidence presented here, but it wouldn't be a surprise either
But I fear the vested/wealthy interests involved in iot data mining, advertising, "relationship management" and plain "we own this"...
It (probably) prevents a comprehensive law supporting common sense.
A. This technology is inherently crap, that's our fault
B. A bored teenager broke it. Bored teenagers are a thing, it literally doesn't matter which country they are in, stop building things bored teenagers will blow up, this is also inherently our fault
C. Foreign Adversaries
It suits both mass media audience figures and a narrative of wily enemies rather than incompetence to pin everything on C and it seems eminently possible that a country with as many enemies as the US would attract this sometimes, but the reality is that both A and B are much more likely despite being embarrassing.
> "I'm sorry I'm familiar with that function. Let me research enabling defrost for you."
We know there's been a severe rot of operational capabilities in the military thanks for Hegseths purges and general stupidity. It's entirely possible and quite likely that over the course of his various drunken binges he decided to get rid of people who were in charge of operational control for stuff like freezers across military bases.
Maybe the mode they got stuck on was defrost.
if n>100 then defrost until y=3
"some of that stuff might become dinner" is splitting hairs, I feel.
Why? Because disruptions along the supply line are disruptions along the supply line. If a deep Russian ammo depot had a sudden smoking accident, you would (rightly) think it absurd for a Russian mil-blogger to quip that "technically we didn't lose ammo, the fuses are put in right before firing, we lost stuff that might become ammo." Seems less convincing now, right?
Maybe tonight's meal isn't disrupted, but the weekly meal planning is certainly disrupted. I hate to say it, but if the intent was an opportunistic hit to troop morale before a CVE got burned anyway, I'd say mission accomplished. :(
If this does turn out to be an attack, it's from decades of higher-ups ignoring cybersecurity coming home to roost.
This appears to be happening stateside, and most, if not all, of the listed bases have nearby grocery stores (I'm saying most based on the ones I recognize and know where they are, I didn't look up the rest). This is an annoyance, not a massive disruption.
Honestly, it probably creates more disruption for the retirees in the areas around the bases than it does the local active duty members.
I agree that it is an important role that would be worthy of disruption for a motivated attacker.
But also: These things aren't usually at the center of vast food deserts. There's typically other ways to find some grub, like the Wal-Mart right over there.
“If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.” —Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Should be much closer to the top of the article. Otherwise this is just weird and potentially dangerously wrong research.