Slashdot Mirror
Trojan Horse Caused A Siberian Explosion
An anonymous reader writes "William Safire of the nytimes [nytimes.com] has an interesting column this week describing how the Soviets purchased bogus computer chips from the West in the 1970's. These chips caused what "was the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space." Fascinating story."
For the tin foil hat crowd, here is a register free link: The Story
Because voltage levels tend to drift a bit (especially with time and erosion) a system that's set up to read as either one state or another has quite a bit more built in tolerance for drift than one that's built to sense more than two states. It's been a LONG ass time since I took any compsci however so I'm probably missing a few things. Basically what I'm saying is that it's not only possible, such a system "could" be faster and more compact but it would also be horribly prone to errors in the long run.
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
Though the article doesn't actually mention bogus computer chips... it talked about software stolen by the KGB which was altered with deliberate flaws, causing their oil pipeline to malfunction and explode.
I wonder if the editor RTFA.
What's so hard about trinery? You have three states, postive (+on), off (ground), or negative (-on).
A brief explanation of ternary logic for those who don't want to bother reading my link.
:= f(TRUE) := FAIL
In addition to TRUE and FALSE, you have another state, which represents "I don't know". It's conventionally called FAIL (well, at least it is in Maple).
How do the truth tables work? The basic idea is that if you have a function f(x) where x is TRUE or FALSE, then you can define f for FAIL with this rule:
IF f(TRUE) = f(FALSE) THEN
f(FAIL)
ELSE
f(FAIL)
END IF
So this means you have TRUE AND FAIL = FAIL, but TRUE OR FAIL = TRUE (because TRUE OR TRUE = TRUE OR FALSE = TRUE).
Converting ternary logic to arithmetic modulo 3 is a little more complicated, but once when I was bored I worked out the rules for myself.
I also doubt it since doing a quick search on the net I couldn't find any reference to a blast in Siberia in June of 1982 - 1908 maybe, but not 1982.
Maybe Safire is getting senile and confusing the time when worked for Teddy Roosevelt......
I'll take free beer over free software any day.
From the article:
President Francois Mitterrand of France also opposed the gas pipeline. He took President Reagan aside at a conference in Ottawa on July 19, 1981, to reveal that France had recruited a key K.G.B. officer in Moscow Center. Col. Vladimir Vetrov provided what French intelligence called the Farewell dossier.
This little bit of information is more or less correct. "Farewell" was the code name assigned to Col. Vetrov by his French DGSE (French CIA) handlers.
The next time you are tempted to say that France is not an ally of the USA, just remember that little bit of transatlantic cooperation. I personally think Mitterand was a crook, a thief and a sleazeball -- and I am trying to stay polite, here... But, ultimately, he may have done the right thing here.
But Safire glosses over the saddest part of the Farewell history (emphasis mine):
Vetrov was caught and executed in 1983. A year later, Bill Casey ordered the K.G.B. collection network rolled up, closing the Farewell dossier. [...] Now is a time to remember that sometimes our spooks get it right in a big way.
What Safire does not says is that:
In short: every good intelligence in this story was supplied by the French, and the USA made a mess of it, an important source was killed and years of hard work were wasted.
A little bit like the recent situation with a middle-east country with vast oil reserves, but I digress... You can mod me down now. End of Rant mode.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
For those of us that feel the government is not as out to get us as big corporations here is a link to the CIA account of the event.
This is not a sig
The story of the program is partially corroborated here:
Though there is no information about the explosion.
http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/96unclass/farewell. htm
That would be Setun. (I'm not up on Russian, so that may well be Russian for "trinity.")
> The Soviets stole Canadian software to control the operations of the pipeline. The Americans added a trojan horse to the software.
Not precisely true. The Americans sold technology to the Canadians, but wouldn't sell it to the Soviets. Soviet agents posed as Canadian defense contractors to get purchasing rights. The Americans knew they were doing it, and fed poisoned devices to those agents. The agents took the tech home to Russia and BOOM!
Virg
The U.S. gov't knew that 15 years earlier, Saddam gassed the Kurds, in part because U.S. companies and the CIA provided the materials needed to produce those WMD, and continued providing Iraq assistance even after the U.S. had knowledge of their use against the Kurds.
We also knew the WMD existed because the U.N. oversaw their destruction after Persian Gulf War I.
Isn't it funny that, after getting the green light from the U.S. to become a mass murderer, the U.S. spun that knowledge to begin their own campaign of death and destruction in Iraq? You don't know who to believe anymore.
BUSH IS LEAVING TOWN IN 2004!
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Man, do some research before you blow your tinfoil-hatted top. Sure, if you call the news media an "intelligence service." But if you don't call it that, he was just a reporter. Then he was a news producer, then he ran a PR firm, then he worked in the Nixon White House as a speechwriter. Sure, if you believe that PR and writing speeches for Nixon is "disinformation." Ok, you're "right" on this one, but not really. It's just crazy, the access that regular Op/Ed writers for the New York Times get to the pages of the New York Times. And how did I get access to my employer's office? Oh, yeah, I work there and it's part of the job. "Who is this guy Maureen Dowd, and how does he get his stuff in the Times so much more than I do?" It's not an article, it's an Op/Ed, so that's fine, more or less. It's also how Safire does business quite frequently. I love a good, well-informed tin-foil hat rant as much as the next guy. It's interesting how much I don't love uninformed ones.
Did Safire get his dates mixed up? There was a huge petroleum gas explosion in the trans-Siberian pipeline in June 1989.
From this site:
Well, can you show me a successful communist regime that is not a highly-centralised government with a strongman at the top? Laos and Vietnam don't count, since they both have private sectors.
I forget who it was who said that a common misperception on communism is that it's a good idea that's just implemented poorly - every single time it's ever been tried. Communism is a fundamentally bad idea.
No it is not. Trinity is spelled "troyitsa" in Russian.
Brain is my second favorite organ.
You are correct. It was the assassination of "The Engineer" by Israel. I saw it too.
Binary logic would have no problems working on a Ternary computer. You guys are confusing the hardware and software layers.
You can kind of think of DNA as a quaternary data format. ATCG for each base position in a codon. 01 for binary. 012 for ternary.
One of the problems for designing a ternary computer is designing cheap circuits that could reliably switch and maintain 3 states. The voltage tolerances are tougher compared to the binary all or nothing approach. (be it 0 or +5V or something.)
This is not really an issue in a clocked system, all you have to be sure of is that your clock is slower than your slowest setup time.
That said, a jump from positive to negative voltage could increase the delay, which means slower clocked logic.
Could anyone realy identify a useful aspect of this kind of logic? I mean, MAYBE you could get faster branch handling with an if...else...unknown three-way branch instead of the traditional if...else, but would the extra complexity be worth it?
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
The CIA actually has a fairly long article (study?) on their website about this incident here
kremvax was an April Fool's joke.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
From what I know, the average frequency of occurance of these types of strikes is around one century (i.e. we are close to being due for one).
This is one common misconception. In fact, the probability that the next strike is tommorow is as high as if its in the year 3000.
There were EPROMS with software on in the telemetry boards but they didn't have the control software. Hell, there was no control automation, all the kit did was to report on instruments, collect operator adjustments and send them to actuators.
As for the VAX 11/780, actually thanks to VMS it could give about 20 people some degree of word-processing, so a little better than the PC even though smaller and slower. I later at a chemical company used VAXen to run above the basic PDP-11 based telemetry systems to provide plant-level supervision.
The usual with a hot-standby system was that both would be active and one would follow the state of the other (we did something similar for the telemtry system). There would have been two PSUs definitely.
"There's the biggest difference. When Americans sit down to plan about blowing things up, they actually put potential casualties and/or collateral damage on the agenda for discussion prior to doing so."
We don't count civilian casualties
Mosadegh nationalized the oil fields after Anglo-Persian refused to allow him to even have the books audited. It was well known that the Iranians were being cheated of the megre share they were allowed of the oil revenues. Even the US administration thought that Anglo-Persian had brought the crisis on themselves. Had they offered a 50:50 split they would have kept their place.
No, they were not. The Shah, secular whatever his faults, kept their power down.
The installation of the shah as dictator was never going to be very stable for very long. The Shah was only the second of his line, his father had replaced the previous monarchy only 40 years earlier. The way the Shah was installed meant that he would never be seen as anything more than a foreign puppet and his eventual fall was inevitable. It was highly unlikely that the mullahs would ever have gained control if operation Ajax had never taken place.
What are you smoking? Saddam's involvement with the CIA was brief, and long after he put himself in power.
Saddam came to power in a party coup with US support. The CIA provided him with lists of opponents to liquidate. The US supported Saddam from the very beginning of his rule, all the way through to the invasion of Kewait. Even that would have been allowed if he had only kept the northern oil fields where the Kewaitis had been under-drilling Iraq's oil fields which was the original agreement.
Iran did have CIA involvement. However, Saddam put himself in power, and the CIA only helped him (along with many others) during a brief part of his long reign.
The CIA was mucking about in Iraqi politics ever since the British left.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
This story is full of it! If you are into cold war history, the link to the original text written by Mr. Weiss seems to be a much better source.
The article is a shame for NYT.
Tell your good friend that Alex Belits, another Russian who is now in US after leaving Belarus/former USSR in 1993 called him a liar and a shill for American proprganda machine.
I remember the life in USSR in 70's and 80's pretty well, and it certainly was far from "poverty". Certainly far from poverty compared to US in 70's and early 80's unless one judges the life in US based on Hollywood movies, and life in USSR based on American propaganda's horror stories. Of course, someone who left USSR in 80's most likely has an ax to grind against Communists, and there could be valid reasons for this -- USSR Communists at that time were almost as corrupt as US Republicans are now. However it's a poor reason for inventing stuff or being a parrot for his new American "leaders" and "masters".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
You have so far failled to back any of your own allegations, folk can judge you by your posts. You like dictators, you like Bush, you peddle the type of conspiracy stories spun by Wolfowitz and Perle.
The infamous statement by the then US ambassador to Iraq on the Iraq dispute over the Kewaiti oil fields is well established "Washington has no stake in this local dispute".
Equally beyond dispute is the assistence given to Saddam during the war he started against Iran and in which he used the chemical weapons.
You would have to read a history of CIA operations in the middle east to verify the other claims, these are not online but easy enough to get hold of.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/