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."

21 of 1,183 comments (clear)

  1. Meanwhile in Russia by after · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I rememeber that Russia once developed a base-3 computer called ``Trinity''. I cant find a link on it, but I know that it worked. I cannot imagine how logical operations would work on sutch a thing though.

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Russia by saforrest · · Score: 4, Interesting


      I cannot imagine how logical operations would work on sutch a thing though.


      Sigh. This is Slashdot, so I guess you've never heard of ternary logic, eh?

  2. No chips from "the West" by dimss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My father was one of developers of top secret soviet chips in 1970's. Many of them were clones of western devices. We had lots of chips, transistors, Fortran listings and special books at home. Most of them were lost because we moved four times in last 24 years.

    As far as we (me and my dad) know no chips or computers were purchased from "the West" before 1980's. We developed and manufactured clones of 360, PDP, VAX and others instead. They were software-compatible with Western ones but contained only Soviet (and other Eastern Europe) components.

    Later we got VAXen (I remember two of them), Macs (no personal experience) and IBM PC.

    1. Re:No chips from "the West" by StarBar · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I've heard about this. My cousine used to work for DEC. Right after the dissolvment of the Sovjetunion they received a request for a quotation of "support and services" for a large number of VAX machines in Murmansk!

      And yes the designs were 'stolen', but at a very low level. They copied the silicon masks and even the original logotype on them! Although I think they could have designed superior chips themselves if they have had anything faster than Apple II:s at the universities. But they didn't because of the US emargo.

    2. Re:No chips from "the West" by Memetic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A company I worked for had a chip cloned, however the original deisgn was faulty, hence so was the clone. The Bulgarians who cloned it got in touch and told our engineers how to work round / fix the fault to improve performance!

      They knew they were,at the time, basically immune from prosecution so were not concerned about being so blatant.

      These were by the way telecom chips not exactly militarilly sensitive.

  3. And we wonder why other nations. . . by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    wish to develop their own indigenous computer technologies industries instead of simply buying it from us and possibly subjecting themselves to this sort of intergovernmental terrorism? Had this explosion taken place in a populated area the blood would be on our hands.

    It goes way beyond issues of economic competition. It's a question of independence, control and security.

    Rather like your use of Open Source software.

    KFG

  4. I'm seriously skeptical by ab762 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I invite people to do a Google search on William Safire and assess for themselves his credbility and impartiality. I'm dubious about the first, but certain that he's not impartial.

  5. Re:Is this right? by Xawen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To be fair, all the US did was sabatoge thier own software. Had they gone out and actually bombed the pipeline, I agree, it would have been really hard on "releations" with the Soviets. However, think about our side of it. Here it is twenty some years later and information like this is just now becoming public. Presumably it was the same on the Soviet side. So in effect, all this did was make the KGB really really suspicious of any software they stole from us. It is very unlikely many people in Siberia knew the real cause for the explosion. And even if they did, it's kind of hard to get angry when software you steal doesn't work.

    Are you really going to call Adobe for support when the pirated version of Photoshop you pull off IRC doesn't work right?

  6. Pitfalls of outsourcing... by gillbates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Basically, the Soviets got suckered because they outsourced the software and chips to US firms.

    Doesn't anybody see the similarity between what companies are doing now (with outsourcing) and the Soviet Union did 20 years ago?

    And in case you're wondering, this is why Congress is afraid of cyber-terrorism - we literally used computers to kill people in Siberia in the 80's. Perhaps they are scared that the same thing could happen here?

    I realize the fears of cyber-terrorism are overblown, but it is a real threat. The threat isn't from outside hackers, but rather, from insiders who plant trojan software programs and sabotage hardware. What would happen if a nuclear power plant computer was programmed to silently vent small quatities of nuclear waste over a period of months or years? By the time it would be noticed, it would be too late to avert disaster.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  7. Some more interesting things by jon787 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is an article Gus Weiss wrote on the CIA's website that includes some other interesting tidbits. Including the design of the Buran (soviet space shuttle) being a rejected NASA design that was leaked to them as a part of this stuff.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  8. Re:Let me get this straight.... by tunabomber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is actually similar to the kind of tricks that Israeli intelligence would play on Palestinian militants. The militants would buy their weaponry from Israeli gangsters, who most likely would have stolen it from the IDF. So, pretty soon Mossad was posing as criminals and selling booby-trapped bullets to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The bullets would explode violently when fired, destroying the gun and possibly injuring its owner. It took a while for the guerillas to figure out how to check the bullets to make sure they are real, working ammo.
    Also, Mossad would occasionally find ways to sell cell phones to their enemies- except the phones would be packed with explosive, so all you had to do was call the phone and start a conversation to make sure the person who you are after is the one holding the phone, then press a special combination of keys- and BOOOM.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  9. Re:From the Life Imitating Art Dept. by DavidBrown · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed the funniest thing to me is that Clancy except for a few years of ROTC never served in the military at all. (I believe he was an insurance salesman but I could eb wrong about that detail)

    You are correct sir. I was a Midshipman at the US Naval Academy when "The Hunt for Red October" was published. He couldn't get a mainstream publisher, but the Naval Institute Press (which prints mostly textbooks used at USNA) picked it up.

    While I don't recall any attempt at subjecting Clancy to a court-martial (remember, the Navy's pet publisher printed this book), I once read a Navy report discussing the accuracy of Clancy's depiction of the US Submarine (the USS Dallas, I recall). It was amazingly accurate, but the report concluded Clancy obtained his information from unclassified sources such as Janes Fighting Ships, etc.

    --
    144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  10. Re:Pentium I bug. by loserMcloser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did you RTFA?

    Straight from the article:
    The catch: computer chips would be designed to pass Soviet quality tests and then to fail in operation.

    While the main anecdote of the article is about bogus software, computer chips are mentioned.

  11. U.S.S.R. wasn't "far behind on technology" in '70 by cavac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just take a look at key military technology in the '60s and '70s:

    First men in space: Russia (implies better ICBMs)

    First operational jetfighter with thrust-vectoring (MIG): Russia

    First working long-term space stations: Russia (also used for spying)

    First undedectable stealth fighter dedected and shot down by: Russian technology in Yugoslavia (nice done, guys!)

    World's most powerfull rocket: Russia (Energija), implies that they could launch a BIG amount of plutonium for a BIG shot.

    Most reliable rocket technology: Russia

    First figher plane with look-and-lock systems (you look at your enemy and the rockets automatically lock onto that target): Russia (IMHO the MIG25)

    Well, sure, USA has a great deal of hightech gadgets lying around, but the Soviets are the guys that actually made them working.

    There was also a big fuss about that the USSR stole the space shuttle technology for their Buran shuttle. Actually, the Buran uses a more modern design, has a much higher capacity, better aerodynamics and even can fly completly on automatic (whereas the US shuttle must be landed per joystick).

    Sure, the USSR stole *some* technology, but the US wasn't any better. Didn't they steal MIG's whenever they saw a chance, just to try out how to beat them in air combat and integrate russian thruster-design into US fighters?

    --
    Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
  12. Total Crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The story is total crap.
    I served in Strat. Int. and I can say with total confidence that -if- such a thing happened heads in the community would roll.

    In a time of all out war, yes it would be ok.
    But the Cold War was not all out war and such a thing would have been an act of war, and not worth the risk.

    The Nixon and Reagan administrations would have been stupid enough to risk GTNW for a feather like that, but nobody else until GB2.
    The pipeline was not a proper target for such an action.

  13. Re:awesome by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, except verifiable sources. Note this was in the opinion section of the Times. I haven't been able to find a shred about this event anywhere. (Though I'm still looking.)

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  14. gus weiss by subtropolis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Info about the farewell dossier can be found here.

    Here's some info about the fall which killed Gus Weiss:
    washinton post article and Nashville Tenessean obit

    Notice that Audrey Wolf, mentioned in the latter obit, is Joseph Wilson's literary agent.

    Not that that should mean anything...

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  15. Re:Disinformation by pubjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't you think any halfway-decent conspiracy could plant a few of these things out in the desert somewhere?

    Overall an OK hypothesis, but I think it falls down on this one point.

    It was very easy for the government to lie about WMD. Say, the Intelligence Services have someone who says his brother knows a man who thinks overheard someone talking about Saddam's biological weapsons. The Intelligence Services dismiss it as poor evidence, but the government are so desparate to find anything that will support their desire to go to war that they choose to accept it. So in accepting a peice of dubious evidence, and then passing it onto the public, they have effectively lied. I don't find it too difficult to imagine this kind of "conspiracy" has taken place.

    What you're talking about is in a whole different league. For the Brits or Americans to deliberately take biological or nuclear weapons into Iraq, hide them, and then pretend to "find" them - the risks of doing that, and the chances of getting found out, are so high that it's something I don't think they would never try.

    I think they probably thought "we think they might have WMD, but we haven't got much good evidence. Let's tell the public we do have good evidence so they object less when we invade, then we're sure to find something once we're there and the public will be satisfied." Only they didn't.

  16. Re:Pentium I bug. by Ooblek · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Soviets are pretty well-known for not being as through or careful as those in the US are before implementing technology. Though I can't point to a specific article, I can recall seeing several where NASA dislikes their QA process because it pretty much doesn't exist.

    As far as your time tables are concerned, you are using the same source of this story - the news media and government (which you appear to disbelieve) - for the fact that the Soviets were 5 years behind us technologically. Sure, I'd believe that overall, life was not as modern in USSR as it was in the USA at the time. However, is it not remotely possible that at least a handful of people had access to more up-to-date western technology?

    And finally, since your sig suggests you just have a problem with the government in general, what makes you think the CIA even thought of the negative consequences of leaving "sleeper" chips out in the open for the KGB to grab? Maybe they assumed the Soviets were behind in technology 5 years and didn't think they had anything to control like what they used the chips to control. What makes you think they planted chips to cause an explosion? More likely, they planted the chips to cause the slowdown of development of some technology, and the unintended result was an explosion.

    Where in this whole thread do Republicans come into play? Or, were you just reaching to make some sort of over-generalization? Or maybe you just call everyone that has a differing opinion a republican, kinda like a swear word?

  17. Re:What helped "us" "win" the Cold War by danila · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live in Russia and before that lived in the USSR (obviously). There was indeed poverty in Soviet Union, but there is also poverty in the US. People are dying from hunger in the United States - a sad fact, but this is not a secret and is freely admitted by the Americans themselves.

    So what is important is the scale of poverty and the structure of income distribution. The fact is that today the decile ratio (total income of the richest 10% divided by total income of the poorest 10%) in Russia is 14, which is almost 4 times higher than in the USA and EU. The same ratio for Moscow is 45. So the social inequality is an order of magnitude greater than anything we had in Soviet Union.

    And overall the real incomes are still lower today than they used to be in the 1980s after the GDP fell more than 50% in early 1990s. And the situation is much worse in other Soviet republics (except for Baltic states, thanks to generous investments from Scandinavia).

    It is already 13 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but people are still worse off than they used to be. May be the personal incomes were not that low, compared with the Western countries, but it was more than compensated by great access to public services, such as free medicine, free education, free everything else. Yes, the state was corrupt, but not to the extent it became corrupt now.

    P.S. Personally I am better off than I was, but when I consider the intangible things that were lost (like being proud of your country and stuff), I am no longer that sure. And of course, hope. Being a realist and relatively well informed about the economy (working in an investment banking and management consulting here for some time), I don't have any hope for the country that used to be my home. The only rational thing to do now is to move to the Western Europe.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  18. Re:Pentium I bug. by rutledjw · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't think you understand how these things work. ROM doesn't need a CPU. It's a series of output based on input. We're talking basic transistor-based gates, nothing more. There isn't "code" like you're describing. Granted, the author is confused here as well.

    The Soviets were not stealing to simply copy blind, they were stealing to learn the technology. The US had to expect that every line of code they gave would be reverse engineered and disassembled.

    There's no code, they would have to examine every single transistor -OR- they perform testing to ensure the chip produced the correct output for a given input. We had to hope they missed the exception condition, which they apparently did.

    I don't care what the alleged technology is, there was no technology available at the time that was complex enough to hide a trojan in and expect it not to be found.

    I'm sorry, but this simply isn't correct. You're making this MUCH more complicated than it was, it wasn't as complex as "trojan horses" we see today. But it was a "trojan" in that it appeared to have one function when there was a hidden, malicious sub-function being hidden.

    It would be a pretty easy matter to hide a trojan in Windows NT or Linux today.

    Agreed, AND we could have had MUCH better control over the results. BTW, I'm NOT trying to be combative (as in typical /. style, which I fall victim to myself sometimes), I merely want to point out what was described very definately could have been (and seemingly was) done given the tech available. It's much more "basic" than they author describes, but roughly accurate...

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy