New York Times Reports US and Israel Behind Stuxnet 406
Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Confirming heavy speculation in the Slashdot community, the New York Times reports that joint US-Israeli efforts were almost certainly behind the recent Stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear program." The article stops just short of saying in so many words that Israeli is the doer, but leaves little doubt of its conclusion.
Still Speculative. (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably "almost certainly" did, but the NYT article is still just speculation. The haven't confirmed anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed- all they have confirmed is that people think the US and Israel did it...
The only new bit in the article (to me) was that they think Israel successfully managed to set up a bunch of P1 style centrifuges and test the worm...
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Informative)
How much more direct could a confirmation be? The only question is the veracity of the anonymous source.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How much more direct could a confirmation be? The only question is the veracity of the anonymous source.
They haven't gotten anyone who knows to confirm it... only people who are also speculating.
Note that "an American expert in nuclear intelligence" would specifically not be someone who works in the gov't- If they could claim an anonymous official source they would.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"We can't prove it, but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out."
Yes, but thats been known since the start.
what more are you looking for?
With a headline like this, cold hard evidence would be nice.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't follow. The way in which an anonymous source is characterised is negotiated by the journalist and the source. The journalist typically wants to make the identity (or more to the point, the validity) of the source as clear as possible. The source wants to hide any detail that can identify them. In this case, because we're talking about a level of secrecy that, if breached, would almost certainly get someone killed, the source clearly didn't want any information released except that they knew what they were talking about.
This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly this.
The new york times editors "almost certainly" rape little children on weekends.
I guess this only goes to show, as long as it is a slow news day, they have no issues with me reporting that "fact" online for all to see.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Interesting)
Want real speculation, how about this. Will M$ bring all of it's legal, investigative and it's ability to provide cash incentives to seek fiscal redress for the way in which access the source code was used to publicly destroy the image of it's operating system security.
Many countries have recently announced their intent to drop the Windows Operating system due to the security weakness and exploitability as demonstrated by the Stuxnet virus, this will likely end up costing M$ billions of dollars in lost income. If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
Re: (Score:2)
If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.
I doubt they will be able to, even if it's true. Such activity would almost certainly be regarded as a State Secret and shielded as such.
Re: (Score:3)
How could the government possibly do that? Did it have submit privileges to Microsoft's code control system?
Or did you perhaps mean "expose existing security problems" by "break the security"? Because if that counts as "breaking" security nowadays, things could get pretty nasty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think your typing speed and your reading speed are linked together.
The article does a great job of laying out means and motive and avenues of military conspiracy, and furthermore, documents that the means are exceptionally esoteric and that the motives precisely align with recent policy statements on the parts of the alleged conspirators, who I might add have a brazen rap sheet, but who now seem to increasingly fear "three strikes and you're a lout".
Where the article fails hopelessly is explaining what a three year delay actually buys us. What's the leverage point? Is this just a bunch of politicians playing "not on my watch" or will the Risk board change in some interesting way over the short hiatus?
Will the Ahmadinejad faction wane as a result? Will it cause the Iranians a crisis of confidence in foreign technology procurement? This bit the Russians hard after the Siberian pipeline thing. Will the Americans sew things up in Iraq over that time period to enable them to better address the Iran situation when the pot finally boils?
These are the real questions the article fails to address.
Concerning the slow news day knee jerk, I don't understand why the jury convicted Hans Reiser. It was nothing but informed conjecture about an arrogant prick until he cracked post sentencing.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:4, Insightful)
It buys 3 years of defectors, active targeting of people and locations, export deal mindgames, hardware tracking, 3 more years of US aid, 3 years of stocking up on next generation US weapons. Politically it keeps the vision of 'evil' alive - Iran is building, only a strong unified political structure can do what it needed.
Iran cannot trust MS or the basic EU hardware and will have to spend up big trying to buy parts and build at home.
Iran is now playing the import game and is again wide open to more software issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three years is a long time for an unpopular government run by radicals, thieves, and thugs. That's 10% of the lifetime of Iran's revolution. A lot could happen between now and then. Or perhaps nothing will change. But three more years of a bombless Iran can't be a bad thing.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:5, Funny)
Three years is a long time for an unpopular government run by radicals, thieves, and thugs.
True, but I'm less optimistic than you about the American people overthrowing their government in that time scale.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he was referring to Isreal
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that surprises me about the article is that the US has a group that is actually capable of such a thing. Especially with all the calls recently saying how we need to be prepared for cyberwar. If this is true, we are more than prepared for it: we are doing it.
Re:Still Speculative. (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially with all the calls recently saying how we need to be prepared for cyberwar. If this is true, we are more than prepared for it: we are doing it.
There is a difference between being able to attack and being able to defend. The US, Israel, China and Russia are apparently able to mount attacks quite well but the development of "armor" has lagged significantly.
When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
It will considered an act of war resulting in the real thing, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
It still just might cause a war. Sure, Iran can't fight a war with the US, but it can (and probably will) fight Israel. THAT would be nasty.
Iran is already fighting Israel. They do most of it by financing, supplying weapons (and using it to gain influence on) Hammas, but sometimes they use a direct agent (Hizbullah). If Israel is behind Stuxnet (no personal knowledge, but it makes sense that it is), then this is not "just cause for war". It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, "control" is the wrong word here. "Denial of service" is maybe more fitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you believe that Iran controls all of the Strait of Hormuz?
What would it take? A couple of containers full of Chinese missiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Add in needed reload and short resetting delays, something might get past.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:4, Insightful)
The "war" part of Gulf War II was over in weeks. Very few conventional military forces can stand against the US, and none of those are in the Middle East. If the US launched a proper war (go in, kill every soldier, leave the country), the battle would last a few weeks. Think Poland in 1939 - I give Iran about a month of real Total War, before it collapses. And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:4, Interesting)
You, are unfortunately, incorrect.
Iraq feel because it was neither prepared nor ready for war. Iran has been preparing for war for close to a decade, apace. War with Iran will be no walk in the cake, it will be real war, with real consequences, including the likelihood of casualty numbers that the United States has not seen since the Second World War. Don't kid yourself.
P.S. My friends from the 101st assure me that your characterization of the narrow nature of US forces and their training and preparation is also largely a pile of poop; US Armed Forces are also one of the largest and most prepared humanitarian response forces, as well.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq feel because it was neither prepared nor ready for war. Iran has been preparing for war for close to a decade, apace.
I'm really curious as to why you seem to portray the Iraqi army as a push-over but somehow Iran isn't. The Iraq-Iran war was a stalemate. Iraq had access to Western and Soviet hardware. Iraq built up the 4th largest army in the world. And while that army was greatly reduced after the Gulf War, I find the characterisation of being "unprepared" hard to accept. Granted - in comparison to what they went up against, the Iraqi forces were ill-equipped. But then that leads to the question of why you believe Iran is in such a better situation?
I should note that I don't believe an invasion of Iran would be a "walk in the cake" either. But I suspect the problems would be more of the same issues we're seeing with Iraq today which is very much removed from conventional warfare.
P.S. My friends from the 101st assure me that your characterization of the narrow nature of US forces and their training and preparation is also largely a pile of poop; US Armed Forces are also one of the largest and most prepared humanitarian response forces, as well.
Policing and counter-insurgency is very different than helping people pick up the pieces after a war or a natural disaster.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:4, Insightful)
Vietnam was a war of equals - the US vs the soviet union+china. It was fought in Vietnam, and often by proxies, but the US constraints in the war were the result of political considerations and a desire to not escalate the war.
The US wasn't really fighting "to win" - or at least not in the usual sense of "win." Propaganda was a big part of the war.
If the US wanted to "win" Vietnam it would have fought much less restricted warfare. For starters, they'd have bombed all strategic targets in the north.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation.
Eh? I thought the US was the occupation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're not getting what the OP is saying... Were the US not to care about public opinion or were they to have the support of the international community in a total war against Iraq, they would utterly annihilate any opposition, be it from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, whatever. Israel would react swiftly to any attack from Iran (I think their performance is not up to question, with what the Six-Day War showed).
The thing is that this is not the kind of war the US is trying to lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Chairing OPEC wouldn't help them much.
However, I agree fully that war is to be avoided rather than glorified.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
China might be unhappy as Iran is its leading oil import nation and such a move would cause their energy prices to skyrocket.
Of course, they could make up the difference by selling the Iranians weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Informative)
Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.
Canada is not a member [wikipedia.org] of OPEC.
Re: (Score:3)
And give Israel 100% justification to out-right flatten Palestine? I don't think even Hezbollah is that stupid. Israel cares very little about public opinion when it comes to protecting the state. Iran/Hezbollah starts throwing more than annoyance-level bombs over the border and Israel fires up the bulldozers, gives 2-hour notice to evacuate, and starts evicting every last Palestinian in sight. It would be chaos, and guaranteed that the Israelis wouldn't give a damn. They might nuke Tehran just for giggles at that point.
What you are proposing here is that Israel start a war on Iran and then use the war as a pretext to commit genocide.
I don't think that the state of Israel would survive very long were it to do that. It certainly would lose the support of most US Jews.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have nukes. But lets say, for argument's sake, that they develop them.
First of all, any nuclear weapons that Iran develops are likely to be much smaller-scale than the weapons that have been rusting away in the US stockpiles since the 1950s. Fat Man and Little Boy were big bombs, but they aren't even close to the scale of the arms developed during the Cold War.
Second, a nuclear Iran does not mean the difference between zero nuclear weapons and the stockpile that, say, Russia/Britain/India has. There's a recurring cost and a recurring development time.
Third, and probably most importantly, Iran doesn't have the capacity to send long-range missiles. (This is also the case with North Korea.) They could nuke Israel, but not much further than that. The United States would not see any damage due to conventional deployment; the only way that Iran would be able to attack would be to supply terrorist groups.
But then their country's ash. I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD. So it's a moot point. The rationale for wanting nukes is pretty obvious: Iran is in a position where two of its neighbors got invaded in the past 10 years by the Americans, who they don't stand a chance against in a conventional war, and who have been rattling their sabers since 1979. I don't think Iran particularly cares about starting a war, the nuclear program is more of a deterrent against turning into Iraq or Afghanistan.
Re:When this happens to the US or its allies (Score:5, Insightful)
The rationale for wanting nukes is pretty obvious: Iran is in a position where two of its neighbors got invaded in the past 10 years by the Americans, who they don't stand a chance against in a conventional war, and who have been rattling their sabers since 1979.
Be careful not to make the US as the center of the world for everything. The US is important, but it is not the only thing.
Iran wants nukes because it will give it more 'influence' over it's neighbors, something Iran has been trying for a long time. They have a sort of feudal relationship with Syria and Hezbollah, and they've been growing their influence in Egypt. At one time, Iran was a world power. They wouldn't mind being one again, at least in the region.
We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, any nuclear weapons that Iran develops are likely to be much smaller-scale than the weapons that have been rusting away in the US stockpiles since the 1950s. Fat Man and Little Boy were big bombs, but they aren't even close to the scale of the arms developed during the Cold War.
And what keeps them from developing fusion bombs? Wishful thinking as far as I can see.
Second, a nuclear Iran does not mean the difference between zero nuclear weapons and the stockpile that, say, Russia/Britain/India has. There's a recurring cost and a recurring development time.
So it'll cost them some money to make 50-200 nukes. Too bad they have the money.
Third, and probably most importantly, Iran doesn't have the capacity to send long-range missiles.
This also is easy to overcome. They just need to make those missiles.
But then their country's ash. I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD.
Opinion. And the "but then their country's ash" assumes that Iran can't do things with their nukes, like use them on neighbors like Saudi Arabia, and get away with it. I don't see MAD as a given, especially with weak political leaders in the West.
It also assumes that all t
Re: (Score:2)
Iran doesn't have anything that can reach us, they would have to beg Russia of China to do it, which I doubt either would take such a drastic step.
Re: (Score:3)
The US military is primarily intended to fight conflicts with other nation states (not "WWII"), but there have been significant changes in training and tactics for its emerging new roles. Further, even after WWII, there was significant anti-insurgency and peacekeeping work done in Germany -- where our tactics were much more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.
Hardly. The actual "war" part was over in less than two weeks, for some reason the shot-callers assumed that all Iraqis would be so overjoyed at Saddam's ouster that they would be undyingly grateful to whomever was responsible.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? The US rolled up Iraq in less than a week not only once, but twice. As far as invasion is concerned, the US has the best track record of any modern military. The "problems" you hear about involve occupation. The fact that you're ignoring the fact that the problems we're facing in our occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq don't even hold a candle to the occupational efforts of other modern militaries is of course typical of the liberal mindset. We were in Japan for 40 YEARS, 4 Decades befo
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing 'counter' about that post (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case whoever did it seems to have averted war at least for a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Lately I just feel sorry for you.
Thanks! It's nice to know someone cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not averted. It's delayed. Simply pushing back a war is not a solution. You are sticking your finger in the dike and telling me that you're fine, you just had a good night's sleep. Your finger isn't going to save the dike, and a good night's sleep has nothing to do with it.
The *proper* response is work towards resolving the issues between two parties, and eliminating the chance of war. Pissing off one side further to simply buy a few years peace is not going to help anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about situations like this is that resolving issues ultimately comes down to who has more bargaining chips. If Iran all of a sudden realizes that push is going to come to shove BEFORE they have the capability to use their trump card, capitulation is suddenly much more likely.
Sometimes a good mediator isn't afraid to deflate one party's ego so that they can come to realize that their ass is grass if they don't sit down, shut up, and take the deal that's being offered to them. This is one of those s
Re: (Score:3)
The *proper* response is work towards resolving the issues between two parties, and eliminating the chance of war.
What gave you the impression that actual, honest negotiations are even possible? Ahmadenijad needs the tension with Israel to stay in power. If he's not seen as the strongman leading the holy fight against the Jews who oppress their Palestinian brothers, then he'll become dogmeat, and the revolutionary guard will find someone else willing to play that role.
His job is to rattle sabers and blame Israel for all the ills his impoverished followers suffer. When the international pressure gets too high, he pret
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that things like this are attempted against the US *all the time,* right? And sponsored by various governments, no less. You have the whole thing backwards. If Iran is led to believe that it was the US (NYT is not a good source for this kind of information information), *they* will consider it an act of war.
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea are just a joke.
That's what MacArthur thought.
The funny thing about modern war is that everybody loses. The victor loses too. That the enemy lost more doesn't negate your own losses.
And right now, I don't think the US could afford "winning" another war.
Color me impressed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Color me impressed (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you have to have spys in the Companies providing the parts. Siemens does not have a strong culture of being paranoid, especially not against western/pro-western secret services, with which they probably collaborate anyway when it comes to identifying industrial espionage from other services. I am pretty sure that the BND (German secret service) can ask them for plans and details quite openly (i guess you don't produce parts relevant for nuclear technology or military infrastructure without having liaison officer assigned to you), and probably also for the source code of the embedded SPS modules. For sure the same holds true for the manufacturer of the turbines. Since the Western secret services collaborate on an less prominent, informal level (see e.g. the BND agents in Baghdad during the war which reported back to the NATO headquarters, where obviously - no records exist - they helped clearing military targets in Iraq, despite Germany no being officially involved in the war).
I would guess that actually several secret services collaborated in this, but the "Cui Bono?" points to Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. This means they do 100% have people who studied the systems Iran is using. (Which I doubt would be too hard to figure out, if you just do a little asking around and/or research into some purchases or shipping.)
Spying in the sense of "having someone on the inside" is overrated these days. You're either using informants or telecommunications (Internet or otherwise).
Insertion (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The only issue was the use of Mircosoft. Never let Mircosoft near any of your real world systems.
Re:Insertion (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm... no. Flaws in Siemens' software (including exploiting default passwords in their package, and great difficulty in changing the passwords once deployed) were an important component in the worm's ability to insert the actual command codes into the industrial control systems. And if you'd have read TFA, you'd have seen that in 2008 Siemens met with Department of Homeland Security officials to go over the security of the SIEMATIC PCS 7 industrial control systems. The DHS had the most intimate knowledge of the weakness of Siemens' systems possible, having been asked to evaluate them for security flaws!
Given the sophistication of the worm, and the determination of the attackers, it's quite likely that it would have been written to infiltrate whatever systems they were running. Windows XP just happened to be very easy to target. But had it been a UNIX or Mac system, they would probably have found a way to get their malware installed anyway.
it means they have spies in Russia (Score:2)
Uncritical bullshit... (Score:2)
1) While technically impressive, this is not "cloak and dagger" by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone knows Israel did it. They broadcast the code all over the world. "Cloak and dagger" implies some degree of stealth or misdirection.
2) If Israel had a spy in Iran's nuclear systems, why would Stuxnet have leaked out? Why wouldn't all the centrifuges just quietly self-destruct? It didn't take espionage to get the technical specs on Iran's centrifuges. They were reported to the IAEA. Sure, it's no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, how crazy is he?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, how crazy is he?
He's selling all Wacky Inflatable Tube Men for 80% off! That's right Wacky Inflatable Tube Men NOW 80% off!! Get yours today!
Re: (Score:2)
Someone had an interesting theory that the USB-autorun flaw that Stuxnet exploited was added to the worm as part of a cover-up. If the attackers were going to the trouble of investing millions of dollars in creating Stuxnet, they probably didn't want to leave it to chance that the Natanz plant would get infected. They'd want to be absolutely sure. So they gave the worm to a sympathetic inside agent, who made sure it got onto the control system. The worm's activity provided the cover, and made it possibl
One thing for sure (Score:2)
You'll never be able to trust anything more complex than a simple light switch ever again. Wait till all this crap gets into your "smart grid". It'll be comedic to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
OpenBSD IPsec (Score:5, Interesting)
Jason Wright, the OpenBSD developer funded by NETSEC to work on IPsec (and allegedly put in backdoors for the FBI) went to work at the DHS cyber security lab that the NYT is saying helped do Stuxnet http://nyti.ms/grd51X [nyti.ms] http://bit.ly/feB9ZV [bit.ly]
SecTor 2008 gives his speaker bio http://www.sector.ca/speakers2008.htm [sector.ca]
I am not making this up.
I'll have to put it in a blog post this evening. See homepage link.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
If you read TFNYTA, it says specifically this lab helped to do it. If you followed the links, you'd see a slide presentation of the lab doing a security assessment of Siemens SCADA system like those used in Iran for enrichment and slides describing attacks on SCADA systems.
Jason Wright transitioned away from OpenBSD IPsec development to work on SCADA security at this lab.
Re: (Score:2)
Confirming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is the media considered factual confirmation? "Hey, let's all go out and look at the Inquirer to get proof that aliens exist!" While it is almost certain that the attack did originate from the suspected nations, a better wording would be, "supporting /* speculation" rather than "confirming" seeing as NYT is certainly not the fount of truth and honesty in reporting and fact-finding. Now excuse me while I go study on Wikipedia...
Re: (Score:2)
seeing as NYT is certainly not the fount of truth and honesty in reporting and fact-finding
Oh, c'mon now, it's not like Jayson Blair over at one of Murdoch's rags. Oh, wait...
Manifesto included (Score:3)
"...when it began circulating around the world, unexplained, in mid-2009.
I found it extremely funny when they mentioned that the worm had no explanation of it's purpose, as if that were somehow indicative of a covert and malicious nature.
So, does anybody out there know of any worm, virus, trojan, or other malware that actually comes with a manifesto to explain it's existence/purpose?
By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)
Re: (Score:2)
... By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)
How about the part where they actually test it to see if it works on real controllers hooked up to gas centrifuges?
This isn't a botnet or credit card info swiping program - you have to have access to hardware that only people with 9 digit budgets and up can acquire.
So I'd say you know very little about it actually takes to make one that does its job successfully.
Re:Manifesto included (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)
Did you RTFA? It claims Israel acquired some of the centrifuges that Iran is using, got them working, then tested the worm's effect on them. That's a lot more than the resources of Joe Hacker. Not just anyone can run down to Pakistani-Centrifuges-R-Us and buy a dozen of them to test with.
When you look at the instructions Stuxnet was sending to the centrifuges, they're brilliantly designed exactly to cause them to fail. After lurking for a couple weeks, they over-speed them for a few minutes, then drop them down to almost stopped speed, then bring them back to a fairly normal operating speed. The overspeed period stresses the already stressed components, occasionally beyond the breaking point. The underspeed periods act like a mixer, stirring up any U-238 that had already been spun out of suspension. Returning them to normal speed allayed suspicion that they were faulty.
There is no way one guy is going to know exactly what values it would take to create such a precise scenario. It takes massive resources to pull that off.
How long will it be? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Government taking my hard drive?
From my cold, dead hands!
Siemens vs. Idaho Lab (Score:2)
The big thing in this article that stuck out for me was that Siemens participated with the Idaho National Lab to do a security audit of their software.
We now know that cooperating with the US Government in this regard is giving up your customers to them, effectively.
What if the Siemens gear were a few generations ahead and automatically updated itself online? Would they be barred from issuing some fixes? Did Siemens even get a full report of what was found? Was their participation in this exercise a requ
Re: (Score:3)
Actually almost all process control vendors participate to some extent with National Lab. Nothing secret about it, go to the webpage and sign up for a 5 day red team/blue team session on how to hack scada equipment.: http://www.inl.gov/scada/training/index.shtml [inl.gov]
If you are a process controller vendor and you haven't sent your security staff to Idaho then you are out of the game. Because the rest of the process control world will break into your systems while laughing their asses off.
How long? It was several years ago. (Score:3)
That has already happened with the Sony rootkit.I think it was f-secure that had heated discussions with Sony for about a week before releasing the information to the press and their virus definition - and that may have only been because there was a non-commercial fix by then. All of the others were silent but some were reported as corresponding with Sony on the issue. The company that did r
So - if you want to be a "real" nuclear power... (Score:3)
For now, anyhow. Maybe, in the future, it will be OK to buy your infrastructure off of Craig's List and eBay... (or various Euro conglomerates) but for now, if you want the job done right, do it yourself.
In this case, I think a Simpson's quote, from Nelson would be appropriate - "Ha Ha".
Better than the alternative (Score:2)
What would you rather have, Israel and the US bombing Tehran, or the CIA and Mossad making a computer virus to disable centrifuges? I think I'll open door #2, thank you very much.
Either way, you have collateral damage; I just think the world is better off with fried OS installations than fried humans.
False dillema (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it interesting... (Score:2)
...that NYT does all this work on StuxNet and so little on the current US administration and its allies?
Re: (Score:2)
Gee Loopy, didn't you read the part in the article about how Stucnet was developed by the current Administration and its allies?
Four zero-day attack vectors and maybe more seeds? (Score:2)
I'm sure they wish they had a refuge from this deluge of centrifuge subterfuge.
Re:From the No-**** Department... (Score:5, Informative)
There was some decent evidence that it was actually a Chinese-Finnish operation [forbes.com]
My guess is when it's all declassified in 100 years or so we'll find out it was actually created out of different virus cross breeding and the Internet has been alive this entire time. Yea, I'll be shocked too.
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is when it's all declassified in 100 years or so we'll find out it was actually created out of different virus cross breeding and the Internet has been alive this entire time. Yea, I'll be shocked too.
Yes, it might be pretty shocking to find yourself still alive 100 years from now - but I imagine you'll have had plenty of time to adjust in the meantime.
Re: (Score:3)
But the question was more whether it was only Israel that did this, or whether there was US involvement. That the article sugges
Re: (Score:3)
Has Struxnet actually made the situation any better though? It may have set the Iranian nuclear program back a year or two but it has also strengthened their resolve and given them even more reason to want to develop nuclear weapons. Israel (and maybe the US) have basically declared cyber-war on Iran by attacking its infrastructure and energy production.
At best this will hold Iran back for a year or two but what happens after that? Diplomacy is much harder when you are at war with the other guy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more dynamic than that. Iran is racing to acquire weapons-grade nukes before their economy collapses from the sanctions. In the US Government's view, pushing the clock gives the sanctions a better chance of succeeding.
Also, as the story points out, there's a second attack coded in the worm - one that hasn't played out yet. So, in theory, the clock might still be pushed back further.
"Diplomacy is much harder when you are at war with the other guy."
You Don't Make Peace with your Friends, You Make Peac
Re:From the No-**** Department... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is even quite likely that Ahmedinejad is looking for an attack in order to complete the nuclear program. It is unlikely that the religious leadership would want to allow him to complete a nuclear bomb: it would put him above them. If Iran really wanted a nuclear weapon they would have one by now, they have vastly more resources than were available to the Manhattan project in the 40s. Another possibility is that Iran does already have a nuclear bomb but is unable to declare it since that would lead to an immediate attack etc.
In either case it would make perfect sense for Ahmedinejad to incite an Israeli attack which would provide a pretext for withdrawal from the NPT and become a declared nuclear power within a short interval.
A war between Israel and Iran would be a war of attrition with each side aiming to rack up as many civilian deaths as possible. Israel cannot win that game and it would be stupid of them to try. The mullahs have shown themselves quite capable of accepting a million casualties in a war.
The Times report itself says nothing new and nothing that can be believed. All that we know is that there is are sources in US/Israeli intelligence that want to take credit for Stuxnet. We do not even know if the source would even have knowledge of such an operation if it existed.
The motives for wanting to take credit are rather obvious. But if you look at what the attack achieved or was likely to achieve it is very hard to see how it would be in the interests of either to burn major intelligence assets for an act of minor vandalism.
We know that the attack involved four zero days, was written in a modular fashion, probably by multiple authors and had references that might have been intended to lead to a certain conclusion. What we really don't know much about is the payload code. We do not even know for certain what the target was.
For several weeks we were discussing media reports that 'confirmed' that the virus was Chinese on the basis of some 'expert' who had seen an algorithm in Chinese code and erroneously considered it to be uniquely Chinese. The press will repeat any nonsense that is said to them by someone who is convinced they are right.
If the target was indeed the Iranian centrifuges or the Iranian power plant then the only way that it could have possibly been expected to work would be with very deep knowledge of the design and deployment of a top secret Iranian facility. There are only two ways that knowledge could be available to the attacker - if they designed the plant or if they had a source with access.
Looking at the likely result of this attack I cannot possibly see how anyone would wish to let the Iranians know about the intelligence source for the sake of some minor inconvenience to the Iranian program.
A much more likely explanation in my view is the idea that the Russians wrote Stuxnet to damage the nuclear plant they designed and thus require Iran to buy additional services from Russia to repair the damage and to accept the reprocessing proposal (which they did). Such shakedown tactics were common during the Soviet era.
Russia would not have an incentive to take credit for the attack in such circumstances. But some of the US/Israeli hawks would even knowing that the claim was false.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.
Regardless of the appropriateness of "doer" the most obvious fault is with "Israeli." Presumably we are are talking about the actions of the government of Israel. In which case "Israel is the doer" would be appropriate. If your were talking about the people of Israel committing the act, then "Israelis are the doers" would be an acceptable phrase.
Much better would be "The alleged culprit is the government of Israel."
Re: (Score:2)
The beautiful thing about language is the inferences that can be naturally made and understood in certain phrases because of your continued use of a language. Saves everybody time, and it makes grammar snobs like you seem annoying, which hopefully keeps your arrogant ass out of the gene pool.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove the government did it.
The government would claim state secrets and walk away.
Re: (Score:2)
Script kiddies and perl coding UFO hunters play with MS everyday.
Iran should have had its own networks, own software, own sealed production lines.
They went cheap and saved time. The mistake was noted.
Real ingenious acts enter fiction and are exposed as been reality many decades later.