U.S. Plans to Tighten Nuclear Power Plant Security

CDMA_Demo writes "The 103 nuclear reactors running in USA can voluntarily agree to follow a new 15 page update to a 1996 regulatory guide. The update notes possibility of "unauthorized, undesirable, and unsafe intrusions", and recommends measures aginst such activities. It also recommends such facilities to be cut off from external networks: "Remote access...[that may pose a potential security risk]...should not be implemented". The Slammer worm in 2001 managed to bring down the network at Ohio's David-Besse nuclear plant and concerns kept growing at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."

Comments

Away from External Networks

[wot.narg]

You know you got owned when someone cracked your power plant and the fuel rods spell "owned" in binary.

Re:Away from External Networks

[thej1nx]

Not to mention your cities' power supplies experiencing a DoS attack.

Re:Away from External Networks

[spac3manspiff]

I would hate to work for that IT department.

Re:Away from External Networks

[Anonymous Coward]

A nuclear power plant with a web page that displays all operating parameters would be safer, because the neighbors and experts worldwide could keep on eye on things and complain if the plant operator screwed up. This would have prevented Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
If you were really acared about hacking, the page could be fed with a one way analog data link.

Steve Harrington
Flometrics

Volunteering...

[dilvie]

The fact that it's voluntary makes me a bit nervous. The fact that the suppliment was this long in coming makes me even more nervous.

Re:Volunteering...

[kiore]

"The fact that it's voluntary makes me a bit nervous"

It's a draft. They're suggesting that everyone starts conforming now, instead of waiting until it's approved and made mandatory. Surely this is a good thing.

I agree with you that it's scary that this has come so late though.

What's the population of Chernobyl these days?

Re:Volunteering...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

The fact that the suppliment was this long in coming makes me even more nervous.

Everyone and their brother have been concerned about security at Nuclear plants since (and even before) 9/11.

If a terrorist organization wanted to cause a spectacular level level of chaos and death, bombing a nuclear power plant is towards the top of the list.

This is a good indicator that the Bush Administration is incompetent, or really isn't concerned with your security. I like how they kept talking about Dirty Bombs and duct tape, but neglected these few huge glaring targets.

Perhaps they were too busy chasing ghosts in Iraq???

Re:Volunteering...

[sketerpot]

I agree with you that it's scary that this has come so late though.

What's the population of Chernobyl these days?

Very low, due to a very poorly designed reactor, a shutdown of the insufficient safety systems, and a government that didn't care about its people. None of those conditions exists in US nuclear power plants.

Safety upgrades in nuclear power plants happen whenever somebody messes up, so that they don't mess up in the same way again. This upgrade is nothing surprising.

Re:Volunteering...

[crummynz]

Safety upgrades in nuclear power plants happen whenever somebody messes up, so that they don't mess up in the same way again. This upgrade is nothing surprising.

I prefer it when they perform a safety upgrade before someone messes up...

Re:Volunteering...

[Keruo]

> due to a very poorly designed reactor, a shutdown of the insufficient safety systems, and a government that didn't care about its people.
What exactly was wrong with the reactor design with Chernobyl?
~70 percent of worlds nuclear reactors are almost identical to the Chernobyl reactor, only difference being that no-one is running unauthorized experiments with all safety precautions manually overridden on those still active.

> None of those conditions exists in US nuclear power plants.
Are you willing to bet your life on that?
Remember the blackouts few months ago, which were caused by virus infection in power supply services?
In other words, how close to a nuclear facility are you living?

Re:Volunteering...

[ArsenneLupin]

What exactly was wrong with the reactor design with Chernobyl?

• No containment (outer shell): once the reactor itself is burst, the radioactive material is out in the open, whereas in western designs, there is still an outer shell.
• Unsafe RBMK design, which has a huge positive void coefficient, i.e. it is (mis)designed in such a way that when the cooling water in the primary circuit starts boiling, the nuclear reaction accelerates... with predictable consequences. Most western designs have a slightly negative void coefficient (boiling water leads to slowdown of reaction), which makes the design intrinsically safer.

Re:Volunteering...

[lbrt]

No containment (outer shell): once the reactor itself is burst, the radioactive material is out in the open, whereas in western designs, there is still an outer shell.

Years ago I did some research on Chernobyl accident and remember reading that there was a concrete containment shell, but it blew up with the reactor. Most of the sites I now found by googling repeat the statement that there was no containment shell, but at least this site claims the opposite: "2. Despite official statements made in the U.S. right after the accident, Chernobyl No. 4 did have a reinforced-concrete containment--one that was installed in 1980. Whether the shell was comparable to what you'd find on the average U.S. reactor isn't clear. In any event, Chernobyl No. 4's outer shell was probably breached by a powerful hydrogen explosion, which, you may recall, was the greatest fear in the days following the Three Mile Island accident. The power released in such an explosion could be great enough to destroy any existing reactor's containment."

Re:Volunteering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, your source is wrong. There are a lot of sources with inaccuracies about the Chernobyl incident due to the USSR's lack of glastnos. I've done a great deal of research on the accident and the RMBK 1000 design used in Unit 4. There was never any containment structure as it was seen as a waste of money since the Soviet government made sure that the people believed in the design's infallibility as they've never heard of any problems with the plant including the positive void coefficient causing the reactor to run away(Again due to the lack of glastnos, Even other units in the same power plant experienced problems that would've probably made a huge difference if the crew of Unit 4 were allowed to know about it). One thing about shell is that it doesn't have to mean containment. Perhaps this author misunderstood the design and is referring to the thick concrete biological shield(Thick, but not that thick. Thick enough to do its job of shielding from radiation but could not withstand the pressure build up). One thing I've noticed was that even the books that had ridiculously wrong accounts of what happened at Chernobyl(Again, due to the lack of glastnos as the government wouldn't let them publish anything that defied the infallibility of the Communist regime) admitted the lack of a containment structure which is only because they still insisted in their writings that the lack of a containment structure in the RMBK design was fine since the RBMK was so safe(Yes, they wrote this AFTER Chernobyl).

After skimming that site you gave, I'd have to say that they haven't done their research. The claim that the accident was caused entirely by human errors is just plain wrong. The accident was caused for the most part by the fataly poor design of the RBMK reactor and that design combined with the Soviet way of running the nuclear industry made an accident inevidable anyone. It's a absolute miracle it didn't happen sooner! The explosion happened when someone hit the AZ button. That's the EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN button. This caused the accident because all the control rods were dropped at once which due to a huge design flaw pushed neutron absorbing and reactor cooling water out of the core allowing for a heat surge great enough to twist the channels to prevent the rods from descending further and allowing the explosion. Tell me, if an explosion happens when you hit an emergency shutdown system, whose fault is it? As far as the operators knew, the AZ button should've been a completely safe way to stop that reactor. The point of an emergency system is to be a failsafe way to bail from a bad situation, to prevent disaster. It was due to the poor design of the control rods that the AZ button instead caused an incredible surge. There's a book that explains all the alleged violations of the operators and how many of the supposed terrible one didn't really contribute to the accident. Alot of the violations weren't because the operators were rouges but really normal in Soviet power plants. The truly significant violation was the removal of practically all inserted control rods which a guideline disallowed(AFTER Chernobyl!) and was protested by the operators but ordered by the Deputy Chief Engineer.

"Within half a minute they realized that the reactor was running out of control, and they tried to shut it down by dropping all the control rods into the core. Probably because the fuel rods had already overheated and distorted, some of the control rods failed to go all the way into place."

Wrong. Definate lack of research. This statement implies that the rods simply never made it into the core and it was the already present conditions from before the AZ button that caused the explosion. Wrong. It was the conditions created by the entrance of all those rods into the core because the graphite at the end of the rods did make it inside to make conditions far worse.

When you do research, consider the source. A source entitled "Mother Earth" is not considered a reliable source as it would certainly be imbued with irrational

Re:Volunteering...

[ajs]

I like how they kept talking about Dirty Bombs and duct tape, but neglected these few huge glaring targets.

They were not ignored.

What you're looking at is a document describing various tactics that could be used to enhance security. It is by no means the only step that has been taken.

First off, most of the security measures were taken DURING CONSTRUCTION of these plants. A bomb was, of course, a major concern, and these facillities were built with that in mind. Nothing is bomb-proof, but nuclear power plants are designed to be higly resistant to such attacks.

Plants have also tightened security since 9/11 and the government has made many recommendations along those lines.

The fact of the matter is that bombing a plant in such a way that any significant leakage would occur is HARD, and so smuggling a bomb (even a conventional one) into downtown [pick a city name] is a far more attractive target.

I don't give Bush credit for much (he's certainly devestated the reputation of the United States and made us a much more attractive target for terrorism), but I will grant that he's taken physical terrorism prevention as seriously as I would expect any president to.

Re:Volunteering...

[quarkscat]

You, sir, have succinctly vocalized the basis
for my conspiracy theory ...

To wit:

The 1st Dubya administration streamlined entry
into the USA of Saudi nationals with the State
Department's "VISA Express" program.

The Saudi embassy in Washington (DC) pulled
more than $30M USD in cold cash from Riggs
Bank between 01/00 and 01/2002, which they
have not accounted for. (Riggs was fined.)

While all US aircraft were grounded just after
9-11-2001, the Saudi's (with Dubya's approval)
chartered aircraft to evacuate more than 200
Saudi nationals from US soil.

At a time of increased concerns about terrorists
entering the USA, Dubya insists on amnesty for
millions of illegal aliens. The influx of
illegal aliens entering the USA has gone up
by 40% after 9-11-2001, in spite of "tighter"
border security.

The potential for extremely adverse outcome of
a terrorist attack on USA chemical and nuclear
facilities is high, yet neither chemical or
nuclear facilities have been required to adhere
to any codified improvements in security. Here
in Metro DC, there are still hazardous material
tankers that roll on the railroad tracks within
blocks of the US Capitol.

Dubya illegally diverted funds earmarked for the
war & reconstruction in Afghanistan ($750M USD)
for the ramp-up to the war in Iraq. And only
02% of the $80B USD earmarked for reconstruction
in Iraq has been spent, all while Iraqi's become
increasingly agitated over the poor conditions
there & the lack of jobs.

Finally, Dubya still claims that everything is
a-okay on on-track on the war in Iraq. Enough
troops were sent to "win the war" but not to
"win the peace". The entire Iraqi army was
dismissed en mass (and w/o pay), rather than
vetting those troops for loyalty to the old
regime. The (predictable) outcome was total
bedlam, with rioting and looting of everything
from government offices to hospitals to museums.
Most of the massive stores of military hardware
and munitions were never secured and/or destroyed.
Pretty short-sighted, considering the use to
which these materials have been put subsequently.

In allowing the armed resistance so much time to
organize after the fall of Saddam's regime, the
Bush administration has virtually guaranteed that
there will be no "unified" democratic Iraq -- it
will fracture along regional and religious lines,
with the distinct possibility of civil war. The
old axiom of "Divide and conquer" comes to mind.
No doubt, the oil companies that Dubya and Cheney
represent will have an easier go with negotiating
better deals with smaller and more vulnerable
client states.

BTW: Thank you for getting me started again.

(Now, where DID I put that tinfoil hat ...)

Re:Volunteering...

[sporktoast]

[...] a very poorly designed reactor, a shutdown of the insufficient safety systems, and a government that didn't care about its people. None of those conditions exists in US nuclear power plants.

That's because US reactors are, of course, models of safe design and operation.

Re:Volunteering...

[iwadasn]

Top of the list maybe, but what would they use to attack them? The containment domes are designed to withstand airliners, and the nuclear waste is its own best defense. You can't just walk in and grab some and walk you, you wouldn't make it 50 feet before the radiation killed you.

What exactly is your plausible scenario of attack? Something that doesn't rely on the terrorists having an organized military (no military strike craft, no tanks, no month long occupation to extract the materials.....), in short, something that could actually happen.

Re:Volunteering...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that a lot. Like we, the US, were loved before Bush? And cutting and running in places like Somalia really helped our reputation and attractiveness as targets... In fact, it encouraged those attacks. So I'm all for telling the world to fuck off and taking a very strong stance. Everything else has cursed us and we can't do ANYTHING right in the eyes of the world anyway.

Re:Volunteering...

[darkmeridian]

A high lieutenant of Bin Laden was caught in Afghanistan and was "debriefed" in Gitmo. He was the same guy who lied and had everyone in a tiff about the Golden Gate Bridge a few years back. Anyway, he said that he could have crashed the hijacked 9/11 planes into the nuclear reactor at Indian Point, NY. It was just that Bush would have nuked the Middle East if that happened.

Bin Laden was convinced that Americans were cowards that would leave if there was just a conventional mass casualty attack against their homeland. Boy was he wrong. Americans may be gullible and adorably naive, but they sure don't run away from a fight, don't they?

Re:Volunteering...

[ajs]

You're veering off-topic, but no. The US was most certainly not loved, as you point out, pre-Bush.

I think that began in the early 1800s, but certainly the actions taken by the US in Central/South America, Southeast Asia and in the Middle East over the last 40 years cemented our reputation as a ruthless manipulator of foreign governments. US/UK collusion over systems like Echelon, the Viet Nam war, the assassination of at the very least one foriegn leader and our backing and subsequent abandonment of the Afghani resistance against the Soviet Union are only some of our sins.

However, there was never a time in my adult lifetime where the first topic of discussion with foreigners was always along the lines of, "what's wrong with the US?" Our consistent baiting of Iraq and Iran in an obvious bid to go to war has made even our closest alies take a step back and dissociate themselves from the US. Blair is the only foreign leader who still actively endorses our actions, and he's taking tremendous amounts of political heat for it from his country.

The CIA and the cold war made the reputation of the US pretty dim, but Bush's neo-conservative White House has, quite possibly, tarnished it beyond repair for my generation at least.

Re:Volunteering...

[Inebrius]

"The potential for extremely adverse outcome of
a terrorist attack on USA chemical and nuclear
facilities is high, yet neither chemical or
nuclear facilities have been required to adhere
to any codified improvements in security."

Um, you have no clue. Nuclear facilities have always had strong security, but since 9-11, there have been many MANDATED changes. The intent of the changes is to do them for enhancement, not just to publicize them so people feel better.

If you have any doubt, check with your public utility commission, and you'll see that millions have been poured into plants for required security upgrades.

Re:Volunteering...

[sketerpot]

Cute, you've made a bunch of links to stories (some of them duplicates) about the same minor nuclear accident. There was some serious degradation of the pressure vessel at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio, and it had the potential for a loss of reactor coolant. Do you have any idea how many systems there are to shut down a nuclear reactor before it melts down, and to mitigate any disasters that do occur? The control rods could stop it. The reactor could be scrammed with moderator poison. The reactor has a negative void coefficient, so it would be unlikely to overheat past a certain point anyway. There are a bunch of other systems which vary from plant to plant. There's a heavy reinforced concrete containment structure around the whole thing. The worst that could have happened there is that a bunch of equipment would have been seriously damaged and the reactor would be shut down for a while.

How is this a serious threat to the public? Or even a minor one?

Re:Volunteering...

[Sylver Dragon]

Wow, just reading the little snippet provided I knew the source had no clue:
...Chernobyl No. 4's outer shell was probably breached by a powerful hydrogen explosion...[emphasis added]

1. Chernobyl suffered a steam explosion.
2. Cherynobyl was a fission reactor, not a fusion reactor (there still isn't a viable one of those yet). Fission reactors don't have a use for hydrogen, nor would they be operating in a way which might possibly cause a hydrogen explosion.
Considering that, rather obvious, failure to get the facts straight, I'd take anything this source says with a grain of salt (and the rest of the mine it came from).

Re:Volunteering...

[bob beta]

Stupidest

nick

ever.

Re:Volunteering...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

What exactly is your plausible scenario of attack?

Oh, I don't know, something that involves the workstations being connected to the internet, which is what the article is about anyways.

Although I doubt that even a containment dome could withstand a direct hit from a 747 traveling at top speed with a full tank of fuel. The Pentagon fared pretty well considering, but it was still heavily damaged.

You gotta be kidding me.

[The-Bus]

This, the week after a similar weakness* is shown on 24?

Remember to always question policy this way: WWJBD? What Would Jack Bauer Do?

That is all.

* Yes I know, it's TV.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[mordors9]

It's about time people got another source other than Tom Clancy books for their ideas on destroying the world.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Bedouin X]

My thoughts exactly.

There is one simple answer to WWJBD: whatever the fuck is necessary.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Eh_Steve]

I thought the exact same thing. Is this a coincidence? I think not.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[$Mr_Pippy_X]

Yep...and its a weakness exploited by a FireWire drive! '24' stops nuclear Armageddon with WiebeTech http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/01/25/wiebe24/in dex.php

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[dimer0]

This, the week after a similar weakness* is shown on 24?

Yes, and the spooky part about this: Remember how 24 started this season? Train derailment? Car on the tracks?

I have a feeling Juan Manuel Alvarez was after some device in Glendale, CA this morning.

(Okay, I'm joking - but what was weird --- when I heard about the train derailment - the first thing I thought about was a terrorist plot!! Uhoh)

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time people got another source other than Tom Clancy books for their ideas on destroying the world.

Now all we need is Kim running over rocky terrian in a tight tee shirt.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time people got another source other than Tom Clancy books for their ideas on destroying the world.

Some people in Washington need to read Tom Clancy's books.

After 9/11, some dumbshit appeared on TV and said "no one could've predicted this". Oh really? In one of Clancy's books, a terrorist flew a fully-fuelled 747 into the Capitol during a joint session of Congress. Sound familiar?

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Matt_R]

After 9/11, some dumbshit appeared on TV and said "no one could've predicted this". Oh really? In one of Clancy's books, a terrorist flew a fully-fuelled 747 into the Capitol during a joint session of Congress. Sound familiar?

Just wait for the Ebola outbreak!

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[erichill]

I doubt Dick Cheney would be as useful with a pistol as James Heller.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait for the Ebola outbreak!

Ah, I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you. And if anybody needs me, I'll be hiding under my bed with my Level 4 biohazard suit.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's confused about who our Secretary of Defense is.... :-p

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Ray Radlein]

Yeah, but Cheney is the VP; the appropriate point of comparison is the Lich-King, Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld may not be able to shoot a gun, but his kung-fu is unstoppable.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people in Washington need to read Tom Clancy's books

Didn't the people in Washington ask Clancy to write some scenarios for them?

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[DrSkwid]

"no one could've predicted this"

One such dumbshit is Condoleezza Rice

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90453&page=1/

Even though saying that they had intelligence that Bin Laden planned to hijack domestic US planes ... "Rice stressed that there was no way anyone could have predicted that terrorists would use hijacked planes as missiles and attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."

and yet :

TIME Magazine (Domestic edition), 'NEVER SAFE ENOUGH,' by Hugh Sidey, November 14, 1994 Volume 144, No. 20

During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House. The only answer was to shut down the airport, which Congress refused to consider, since its proximity and reserved parking spaces are prized legislative perks.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I saw that Monday, I couldn't help laughing. The idea of hacking into nuclear power plants from the internet was just so ludicrous.

Today, all I can say is, what is wrong with these people?

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to call in Jack Bauer. He'll sort this whole mess out. We've gotta kill that mole bitch too.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[DarkVader]

That's because at that point in our past, we had a congress that realized that some things are more important than security.

One of them being the freedom to travel, not just for themselves, but for the people of the United States. It's too bad that today's congress has lost that perspective.

Re:You gotta be kidding me.

[erichill]

My mistake. Must have had the old brain swapped out. Watching to much "24" will do that.

Wouldn't you think...

[laughingcoyote]

That MAYBE, they would've done this, oh I don't know, say in October of 2001?

But silly me, what do I know about national security. Here I still think it's better to make less enemies than more.

Re:Wouldn't you think...

[i41Overlord]

But silly me, what do I know about national security. Here I still think it's better to make less enemies than more.

Exactly. You know nothing of national security.

You see, what you are supposed to do is piss off most of the world, and when they start coming after you, ignore it. After you've been hit a couple times, declare your patriotism and implement strict new laws which ironically only limit the legal citizens in your country. Then to top it off, you enact a few meaningless laws which limit people's mobility but makes the dumbest 51% of the population feel more secure.

After that, declare the war "won" and go about your way. It's time to piss off more countries my friend...

Re:Wouldn't you think...

[laughingcoyote]

Oh, and while I'm doing that, I'm supposed to take over 3 years to implement a real, meaningful security measure, since that might involve telling a -corporation- what to do.

Why you know, I think I'm learning this whole "national security" thing. Maybe I'll put in a resume for the Cabinet position...

Re:Wouldn't you think...

[quarkscat]

Please mod parent up.

Dubya has used 9-11-2001 as his excuse
for a lot of things, but real counter-
measures against further domestic terrorism
is NOT one of them. "Voluntary measures",
hells-bells. There IS A REASON why Dubya
and his cronies have kept stating "...it
isn't a matter of IF terrorists will attack
again, but of WHEN ...". And Dubya's lack
of proper attention to homeland security
IS WHY.

BTW:
The only qualification you need in order
to become a member of the Dubya Cabinet
is to be a loyal neo-con Bushie. If you
have THAT, you probably should have posted
AC ...

Re:Wouldn't you think...

[Sylver Dragon]

After that, declare the war "won" and go about your way. It's time to piss off more countries my friend...

You had an A+ in Jingoism right up until that last line. Never, never, never, end the war. Just let it simmer down and sit in the background while the next war is fought. Then, every once in a while trot it out, like an old trophy horse, and use it to scare a few more people into giving up their liberties.
Remeber, we're still fighting the war on drugs.

Monday Night on Fox

[dTaylorSingletary]

And this, just in time to coincide with a current plot point / terrorist threat in 24!

Don't get any big ideas, the government has got us covered.

Excessive Paranoia?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see what the current security measures are lacking. In the 60+ years in which we have harnessed nuclear energy we have yet to see a single incident where nuclear materials have been mis-used.

And I believe that the Cold War provided a much more beligerant epoch than what we face nowadays with some overzealous fanatics.

If we do want to improve security in nuclear facilities then we should pass it to the private sector, where a civilian board of governance can ensure that all policies are followed.

Which is nice.

Sneaking out with rods

[bird603568]

at least now I don't have to worry about terrorist sneaking out with fuel rods. imo it couldn't be easy to plant a bomb in a power plant.

Re:Sneaking out with rods

[Anonymous Coward]

what would a "terrorist" do with a spent fuel rod? Shove it up someone's ass? Beat someone over the head with it and steal his wallet?

There's a not a lot they can do with it.

Re:Sneaking out with rods

[laughingcoyote]

Please google for the string "dirty bomb".

Re:Sneaking out with rods

[Anonymous Coward]

And you in turn, please google for the string "dirty sanchez".

Re:Sneaking out with rods

[bird603568]

make a dirty bomb?? possibly. thats why I said im not worried

Re:Sneaking out with rods

[Anonymous Coward]

You beat me to it. By an hour.

I'd like to say

[ellem]

I'm for this.

Re:I'd like to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that was an eloquent and well thought out addition to this conversation. Thank you for blessing us with that pearl of wisdom. Any "Me Too!"s you want to throw in while you're at it.

Slammer?

[MBCook]

Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet (and therefor exposed for Slammer) at all? I would think that you would want such stuff to be isolated so that nothing like that could happen. I mean, if you MUST get some data out to the outside world, connect two computers by serial cable. One is connected to the 'net and can only recieve data, the other is connected to the internal network and can only send data. That way NOTHING can get into the system.

That would be common sense, wouldn't it? I'm not trained in network security, but why would controll systems need to be connected to the 'net?

PS: I'm ignoring the obvious "Why are you running Windows and not some ultra-hard OpenBSD or RTOS or something".

Re:Slammer?

[hobbesmaster]

I remember reading the article and that somewhere down the line it said that it was workstations that went down, not anything related to power generation capabilities or plant safety. Maybe someone can find a link to that article about that particular incident, but as I recall the facts of the article were far less, uh, scandalous than the headline.

Re:Slammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this stuff works this way is that power plants tend to be out in the middle of no where and they also tend to hire a local computer geek to run their local suff that isn't outsourced it to every expensive places like GE. The local guy might make $35k a year while the contractors sent in to deal with other stuff are sometimes over $150/hr for years at a time.

Re:Slammer?

[Dun Malg]

Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet

They aren't. Just like the critical systems for life support aren't. Just like the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System isn't. There are, however, obviously people at the DOD, hospitals, and even nuclear power plants who do the same kind of tedious work done in other places (spreadsheets, memos, powerpoint presentations) and THEIR computers are often connected to the internet. Honestly, I understand why the media likes to make it sound liike the power plant control system crashed because of a virus, but I don't understand why so many people swallow the intimations of the inflamatory headlines.

Re:Slammer?

[jnelson4765]

Err... The critical systems are on a seperate network AFAIK. But engineer's workstations, time clocks, email servers, etc. are on internal networks, connected to the Internet through a fitewall, and they are as vulnerable to a worm as any Internet-exposed system.

BTW - serial cables are as vulnerable as anything else - the only safe way to move data is removable media, mounted noexec. SCSI racks/DAT tapes (in the old days) or FireWire drives.

Re:Slammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS. That is not possible. Everytime we have a discussion about viruses, people always point out that their Windows are never infected with viruses for years.

Re:Slammer?

[Detritus]

Money.

Many of these systems used to be on private networks built from dedicated leased data lines. That was expensive.

One day, some bright person discovered that they could save a ton of money by switching to a public network. Management said "Hot Shit! Another vacation home in the Alps!" and it was done.

Re:Slammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the dreaded laptops

Even a non-attached network can get infected when someone plugs in an infected laptop. In fact, it'll probably be worse because "We don't neet to be up to date on patches, we're not even on the Internet!"

Re:Slammer?

[CrackerJack9]

I'm going to guess it has something to do with TCP/IP communications being two-way (stateless or statefull). If you use the isolated serial cable to another closed network (creating one dual-located closed network) you wouldn't need them to be one-way...as long as you hid the wires well enough that no one could 'tap in'

Re:Slammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is one example.

There is a lot of complicated control equipment
used to regulate the generators, turbines, etc.
This equipment is used in both nuclear and nonnuclear plants -- it is required for the power generation system independent of where the steam comes from. This equipment is produced by heavy engineering companies like G.E. and sold to power plants. The engineering company has to fix it if it breaks or (more likely) misbehaves. So they like to include ways to access the equipment remotely, so they don't have to send a technician immediately if the power plant calls them. Remember that the power plant might be in China and the technician might be in Boston.

10 years ago this remote access was made possible by including a modem in the equipment. The power company would connect it to a phone line, and the engineers would dial in. More recent equipment has built-in ethernet.

This is complicated, custom-engineered equipment. It is extremely real-time sensitive.
Typically, there is NO operating system; the
logic is built into the control boards and the parameters are set by hand for each individual application.

Of course the engineers know that this stuff should not be on a public internet, but the
power plant people may be behind the times.
I think the purpose of the NRC paper is to
encourage the power plants to do the right thing.

Re:Slammer?

[nharmon]

the only safe way to move data is removable media, mounted noexec. SCSI racks/DAT tapes (in the old days) or FireWire drives.

Even removable media can carry a virus back to the secure network. Which means you better be damned sure that the drive was wiped clean before it goes back.

The safest way to move data is to print it out, and hand type it back in at the other location.

Re:Slammer?

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing is that any windows installation at a NPP is in direct violation of the EULA in windows. I was bored one night after rebuilding a failed server and decided to read the EULA. Quite funny, you actually are pretty hard placed to find any situation into which to install Windows without violating the EULA :)

Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey

[Benn Cizauskas]

So if the US is using Windows for any of its production servers in the Nucelar Power Plants I find that a little scarey. The Doco appears to be a draft also at this time.

Re:Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey

[elid]

...in the Nucelar Power Plants...

You can't say nuclear That really scares me Sometimes a brain can Come in quite handy.

Re:Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey

[laughingcoyote]

The guy with his finger on the nukyalur button can't even say "nuclear". Think about that one before bed tonight.

Re:Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey

[Short Circuit]

*whoosh*

It was a joke. To me, it was an obvious typo. Pronounced phoneticly, it doesn't even sound like "nukular" ...

You also need some JibJab...

Re:Windows + Nuclear Reactor = Scarey

[larjon]

...You can't say nuclear
Perhaps he meant "nucular" :)

Well, yeah.

[rasafras]

Regardless of what OS you run mission-critical systems on (though I would in this instance strongly advise against Windows), there really is no reason whatsoever to open it up to an external network. None at all. Physical attack is bad enough, you don't need to leave another door open.

Re:Well, yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're proof morons go to college. No mission systems were affected, just an adminsitrative network for email.

Re:Well, yeah.

[PornMaster]

Were they mission critical systems for operating the plant, or the "corporate LAN" where people get their e-mail and such for corporate functions?

Re:Well, yeah.

[rasafras]

The article mentioned this. The plant wasn't functioning at the time, and I think it took down one of the safety monitoring systems (that had other backups, I would imagine). Perhaps the system was such that you could check the safety status online, causing it to be exposed... *shrug* Still, not a task for Windows, if you ask me... same with running a car, etc.

Slightly offtopic but ..

[thej1nx]

Not trying to troll but I didn't know US had *that* many nuclear reactors. Not to mention the world's largest pile of nuclear material(in form of weapons which are *theoretically* supposed to be never used).

So despite all this potential for generating more than enough energy for decades to come... why bother resorting to all kind of foreign policy antics to obtain the tradional heavily polluting energy sources ?

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of portability. Now, thinking about it, most of the US' internal transportation needs could easily be taken care of by electricity, but there'd be a massive infrastructure investment needed:

• Revamp the rail network; it's currently in a state where it can't service the whole country.
• Electrify the entire rail network.
• Electrify city streets in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. (in the form of overhead power lines).
• Replace all the diesel/petrol burning trucks with trains (for inter-city transport) or electric trucks (for intra-city transport).
• Replace all private cars with electric cars.
• Introduce a large-scale repair crew for when the lines inevitably break for whatever reason.

Then there's air transport. I can't see 747s being powered by electricity any time soon. And as for non transport needs, what about plastics? Fertiliser? Chemicals in general?

And once you've done all this -- how much did it cost you? How much will the electricity generation (which has just gone up an order of magnitude, most likely) cost? How will you store all the waste? (A lot of that last point can be taken care of with reprocessing.) And finally: how will you get over the politic hurdle of the populace's perception that "nuclear == bad"?

Probably the best bet for nuclear power would be fusion, and that's a fair way off yet before it's practical (if it ever is!)

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Short Circuit]

It's a long story, with heated opinions on all sides.

The jist of it is, nuclear power is "clean," is far as the atmosphere is concerned, but you have to find something to do with the nuclear waste. And you have to try to avoid heating up your secondary-loop coolant source. (Usually a lake or ocean.) The heat can screw up the local ecology.

Then you add on concerns about meltdowns and Three-Mile-Island-type accidents. How much you should worry about those generally depends on who you're asking. On one hand, a lot of redundancy and maintence measures have been put in place to prevent a repeat of the mistakes that lead to the steam release at Three Mile Island. On the other hand, such an accident is "still possibly, however unlikely, isn't it?"

There are probably others I'm forgetting about. But your post will surely bring those out in replies.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[oudzeeman]

In the US, after the three mile island incident in 1979, all unapproved reactor orders were cancelled, and no new orders were made. Some reactors that had already been approved prior to the incident didn't come online until the mid 90's. If these orders had not been cancelled and new orders were being put in, we would probably have 2-3 times this number of reactors (Nixon wanted 1000 by the year 2000, BUT before the accident new orders had already began to slow because with all the regulations and the oil crisis ending nuclear power became very expensive compared to oil). Unfortunately, nuclear was never cheap enough to challenge coal, which the US has plenty of.

My home state of Maine became the site of the first complete decomissioning of a large commercial reactor. The plant became operational in '72 ( and it had to survive a referendum to close it in '80, '82, and '87). In '95 it was shutdown many months for repairs and they discovered cracks in the steam generator tubes. The plant opened back up for less than a year I believe, they evaluated the cost to refit the plant and they decided they would have a hard time making back the investment in refitting the plant, so they shut it down permanently. They had originally intended to operate the plant at least until 2020 or 2030. Part of the huge cost was the fact that they need to store the waste onsite. Now all that is left of the plant is a semi-permanent high-level waste storage facility on a few acre footprint. Several hundred acres of the plants land are already being developed on. Several hundred more are a peninsula where the waste storage is located and the gated access make it less attractive for commercial development.

Bush wants to have a new reactor running in the US in the next 10 years. This will be the first approved since '79 and the first to come online since the mid 90's.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Dorsai65]

In a lot of cases, people don't mind a nuke power plant - as long as it's (all together now) Not In My Back Yard. I worked for a company that did nuclear dosimetry, and was in and out of power plants all over the country; believe me, they are very physically secure.

Most of Californicate's troubles with insufficient energy is that almost nobody in the state is willing to be anywhere near ANY kind of power plant, nuke or not. So the plants get built elsewhere, and Calif. pays premium rates to import it (when they can get it). Dumbasses.

FYI, the state of Texas is effectively isolated from the grid the rest of the country uses - they generate enough power for "internal" usage, and that's pretty much it. Take a look at a power distribution map some time, you'll see.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[revscat]

So despite all this potential for generating more than enough energy for decades to come... why bother resorting to all kind of foreign policy antics to obtain the tradional heavily polluting energy sources ?

Money. There are heavily entrenched interests in the US in coal and oil, and they happen to be running the country (into the ground, I'll add.) Their freshman level understanding of Adam Smith leads them to believe that they are doing society a good by pursuing their selfish interests, namely advancing the wealth of the dirty industries with which they are so entwined.

It's not that they are pro- or anti-nuclear, it's just that nuclear doesn't fit in to their schemes, and go largely (though not wholly) ignored.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[DeepHurtn!]

Because controlling oil isn't just about controlling energy -- it's about controlling the *economy*. America is able to support itself (and its monstrous trade deficit) largely because the dollar is the de facto international currency, ie, other governments use it as their reserves...*and oil is traded internationally in dollars.* Now, if the oil markets were to move over to the Euro (which Russia, for example, threatened to do a while ago to their oil production in order to get some concessions from the US)...well, the shit in the US would *really* hit the fan.

Guess what currency Iraq is going to be selling its oil in. The fact that it will be sold in dollars is more important than whether or not any of it actually ends up in the States.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

--
The conservative right is always gloriously wrong. Always.

If there was a -1 Unimaginative Sig mod, you could get hammered for this. Forget the politics for a moment, substitute the other side, it's still non-witty, non-profound, and non-interesting. Sorry for bagging on you if you're only 12 or something, or were just born a simpleton and can't help it. It's just that we actually like to see clever, humorous sigs. Go ahead and bash the Right, but in your sig, at least try to make it somewhat entertaining and/or thought-provoking.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[X.25]

Now, if the oil markets were to move over to the Euro (which Russia, for example, threatened to do a while ago to their oil production in order to get some concessions from the US)...well, the shit in the US would *really* hit the fan.

Q: Which country moved to Euro first, in regards to oil transactions?
A: Yep, you're thinking right. That one. (Iraq, for those who still didn't get it).

Russia does use EUR for oil transaction, although not exlusively. Venezuela does as well (and it closely follows China's interests), but also not exlusively.

Don't know for others. But it's not an "if" anymore - it's "when".

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Waffle Iron]

Not to mention the world's largest pile of nuclear material...So despite all this potential for generating more than enough energy for decades to come.

Nuclear weapons don't add up to a significant amount of power compared to total energy usage. Assuming that the US once had about 20K nuclear weapons at an average of 200 kilotons each, you get about 16e18 joules of energy. The US annually consumes about 100e18 joules of total energy.

What's more, the vast majority of the yield of that weapons stockpile was from fusion and/or fission induced by fusion neutrons, neither one of which can be harnessed in controlled reactions with current technology. So the usable energy is much less than that.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

Yeah, it's beautiful the way texas has its grid totally seperate from the rest of the country's so they don't have to bow and scrape to FERC. They don't sell across state lines, so the feds can take a flying leap. Good to see someone taking a stand for states' rights in this day and age, especially since the idea became so loaded with racism.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[thej1nx]

Yes, I think that is a perfectly legitimate answer to my question. I definitely see the problem with converting cars, trucks etc., and the huge costs involved. Electric cars haven't caught on despite having been introduced for a while now.

Ditto for air transport. You are correct. But I don't see why overhead power lines need to be layed out. Why can't the existing infrastructure be adapted ? What am I missing here ?

And yes, revamping the rail network is going to be costly too. But then again, why can't this be done in stretches ? I mean convert just one stretch and then extend it onwards... I mean this entire network came out to exist in the first place, in steps, right ? Cost benefits ? I dunno... from what I know mining and drilling activities have been proved to lead to increase in the probability of earthquakes, even if we completely ignore the global warming warnings as hype. So how much damage an earthquake can cause ? (How much in damages did the recent one that caused the tsunami in asia, cost?)

I suppose the other half of the equation is answered by that other post regards the power politiics by oil companies etc. I would suspect they are the ones blocking any research into practical nuclear power generation.

Anyhow I guess you have some pretty valid points there.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

[Grandparent poster typing here; I'm too lazy to get a slashdot account. :) ]

Other points to consider are that the US has its own oil sources, which could account for a fair chunk of the US' requirements outside of energy.

In terms of the comments you make: overhead power lines: if you want to replace the existing trucks with electric powered trucks, there's no way you're going to be able to get enough energy from batteries to move several tonnes of goods. Not without adding so many batteries that half the energy goes into moving the batteries on their own, and that's not considering the time it takes to charge them (which could be alleviated by having swappable battery sets, to be fair). It's a lot easier, and far more efficient overall, to have the trucks drawing power from overhead lines. From there, it's a short step to have the general population's cars doing the same. The existing infrastructure is geared towards servicing homes; if it's anything like Australia's electrical infrastructure, it'd be too hard to have trucks draw power from it, and you'd be better off using higher voltage than home supplies, too. (Australia has 230VAC on lower lines, and some higher voltage -- around 1000 VAC? -- on higher lines; since the lines are on the side of the road, though, connecting an on-road vehicle to the higher voltage lines would be problematic at best.)

Revamping the rail network: that's a fair point. The trouble is that you only really start to get the efficiencies once a large proportion of the network has been converted. I don't know the layout of the US (I'm an Australian), but to use Australian analogies: a line from Melbourne to Sydney could also service Canberra, but it'd be useless to service Perth. A line from Melbourne to Adelaide, on the other hand, would also be a partial service to Perth (with trucks from Adelaide to Perth).

The rest, I can't answer. It'd take some pretty serious research, and that's not something that'll come about without a definite, urgent need to move away from imported oil.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[hcdejong]

But I don't see why overhead power lines need to be layed out. Why can't the existing infrastructure be adapted ? What am I missing here ?
I assume this refers to "Electrify city streets in..." etc.
With overhead power, you can run buses, trucks etc. as trolleys, so they won't need huge (several tons for a truck) battery packs. This may be more efficient.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[hcdejong]

Yeah, right. Why connect your network to the national grid when you can keep it separate, with all the advantages (extra $$$ needed to provide sufficient reserve capacity yourself instead of pooling your resources) that brings.

Re:Slightly offtopic but ..

[ezeri]

Or perhaps you could try to pay attention sometimes rather than just assume bush is evil in every way. As a previous poster noted, Bush is the first president since Nixon to push for a new nuclear. Or you could just continue finding ways to blame them for everything, without having a clue.

Did the Germans take over?

[Anonymous Coward]

Horst: We plan to have some frank discussions with your safety inspector.
Homer: Hehe, yeah. Sock it to him, Horst!
Lenny: Hey Homer, aren't you the safety inspector?
Homer: (looks at his badge) D'oh!

Linux - Spellcheck = Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Words that were incorrect in your post:
"scary"
"nuclear"

Not to mention all the grammatical errors on your part. Please try to do better, it reflects badly on us.

Re:Linux - Spellcheck = Slashdot

[Benn Cizauskas]

Another to jump on the English front. Lets all get together and have a go at an online post. Jesus. I was in a rush and made some errors. SORRY TO EVERYONE IN THE ENGLISH/SLASHDOT Community that thinks they have a PHD in literature. Yes, two people previous to you have stated I had errors. I had errors. You got what I was saying. Can we move on? Ohh wait we can't. Because I made errors in this post.. Quick... get out the spellcheck/grammar checker and KICK MY ASS....

Re:Linux - Spellcheck = Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, I was waiting for permission to jump on you.

yep

[Anonymous Coward]

About time

The conversation that started it all...

[GnomeAttic]

What follows is the transcript of a conversation that took place between a top US defense official and his wife after watching this week's episode of Fox's popular drama 24.

Wife: It's a good thing the real nuclear power plants don't allow remote access! Man what fanciful terror alert situation will those 24 writers think of next?

Official: Uh...

Re:The conversation that started it all...

[Bodhammer]

Jack Bauer said there were 104...

OMFG, one of our reactors is MISSING!!!!

Re:The conversation that started it all...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the funniest comments I have ever read on /. Thx GnomeAttic. Sometimes I really wish people could be modded up higher than 5.

Re:The conversation that started it all...

[Thing 1]

Maine Yankee was decommissioned last year. Perhaps that part of the dialog had already been written, or they researched in books instead of the Intraweb?

Re:The conversation that started it all...

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIR, the only thing Jack Bauer ever says (or rather, breathily whispers) is: "We don't have time".

But we DO ! It's 11:38 AM here !

24 ....

[sjoeboo]

thats funny cause the last 24 eluded to the threat being aganst the nations nuclear power plants...wonder if "the man" was watching ....

Re:At last

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. But I am Argentinian, so I happen to a "South" American.

And the plant is connected to the Internet WHY?

[FusionDragon2099]

Lesson one in systems security: Unless it absolutely, positively, has to be done, don't connect your computers to the Internet.

Mac OS9 has never been remotely exploited once!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OS9 has never been remotely exploited once!

Refer to BugTraqs huge database if you do not believe it.

A third party addon web store application ment to enhance the secure version of WebStar web server was to blame in the one and only penetration or defacement of a Mac os9 web server in history of the mac on the internet for 10 years straight.

Even the Us Army has used macintosh for many many many years for its main web servers after having been rooted too many times using BSB or Windows NT (www.Army.mil)

nuke playnts that use windows deserve to be rooted and i laugh heartily

External Networks?

[tmhsiao]

The Slammer worm in 2001 managed to bring down the network at Ohio's David-Besse nuclear plant and concerns kept growing at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Umm, why the hell would a self-contained/self-sustaining system need to be connected to an external network in the first place?

Sorry, you work at a Nuclear Power Plant? Check your frelling AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail e-mail on your own damn computer, on your own damn time.

Re:External Networks?

[St. Arbirix]

Umm, why the hell would a self-contained/self-sustaining system need to be connected to an external network in the first place?

Sorry, you work at a Nuclear Power Plant? Check your frelling AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail e-mail on your own damn computer, on your own damn time.

The self-contained/self-sustaining system isn't connecting externally.

The only computers at power plants that are capable of connecting to the internet are in no way capable of contacting a core system. Employees are encouraged to get there work done on time and do whatever they want online that doesn't involve porn.

Re:External Networks?

[LiquidCoooled]

To start, press the any key.

Homer: "urg wheres the any key"

Re:External Networks?

[megabeck42]

They weren't externally connected, however, they did have a leased line to a contractor. The contractor was externally connected and became infected, the virus spread across the leased line.

The system affected was a computer running a digital readout. It froze from resource starvation. Analog gauges and other safety systems continued to work fine.

Re:External Networks?

[jayed_99]

In my definition, having a network connection to a contractor that is connected to the Internet is being externally connected. According to your logic, my computer at home isn't externally connected, it just has a line to my ISP...and they just happen to be connected.

Trust no one. Not even yourself.

Re:External Networks?

[megabeck42]

To be honest, I agree. You're right. The connections exist. The difference between the two situations, however, is that your traffic is able to pass unhindered between your computer and a computer on the internet.

In the case of the nuclear plant, it was requisite for the virus to infect the host at the contractors site to leap frog to the plant. The nuclear power plant's computers were not routed to the internet.

As I said, I agree with you; the situation is inexcusable. I only reply to save face and clarify.

Re:External Networks?

[dknight]

I'm gonna tell you a secret. People at the PENTAGON (you know, that big building where most of our nation's defense stuff is done?) check their AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail e-mail and more at work.

Its really not that big of a deal. Same goes for at this place. The amount of damage possible to inflict this way is relatively minimal.

Re:External Networks?

[KORfan]

Sorry, you work at a Nuclear Power Plant? Check your frelling AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail e-mail on your own damn computer, on your own damn time.

I'll agree that they can check their personal email on their own time and that reactor operations computers should not be connected to the outside world.

However, some nuclear plant operations staff are required by their license to be aware of outside data such as wind speed and direction (in case of leaks) and how much water is flowing in the river next to the plant. Some plants can't operate if the water in the river gets too low, even if it's only their emergency heatsink. Also, some staff at the plant may be exchanging emails with local Emergency Services/Disaster Assistance personnel, local politicians, or employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commision. Some (but not all) plant computers need to be connected to the outside world.

Retort

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because because both computers that ever ran Mac OS9 were not connected to the Internet. One PPC had a non-working internal modem, and the other system had a corrupt TCP/IP stack.

Any more Mac stories, fag? I'd be more than happy to shed any light and clear any gay misconceptions.

Re:Retort

[Anonymous Coward]

www.army.mil and countless universities, linuxboy!

Oh well...

[Short Circuit]

I once was able to tour the nuclear power plant in Charlevoix, MI, before they decommissioned. I was a little fella at the time.

Looks like that kind of educational oppertunity won't be happening as frequently, now. IIRC, that was the first tour they'd given since the plant was opened. That gives you a sense of perspective as to how common such oppertunities are.

Though other plants may perhaps hold more frequent tours, I doubt few outsiders will get to see the turbines and dynamos of an operational plant.

Re:Oh well...

[Capt'n Hector]

I was given the rare opportunity to tour a reasearch reactor up in Sacramento, CA... it was used primarily to test aircraft parts by bombarding them with radioactive particles, to see how they would put up with the stresses of the upper atmosphere. Since it was a lower power reactor, we could do some crazy things like:

• Walk into the reactor chamber
• Look down into the core (it was glowing blue, by the way)
• Reach out and jangle the control rods
• Dip our feet in the blue-glowing water.

Pretty freaking cool, imo.

Re:Oh well...

[fenix_ix]

How many toes do you have now? :D

Re:Oh well...

[hcdejong]

I thought my visit to Dodewaard (a 60 MW research reactor) was cool. We stood on the concrete slab that's on top of the reactor vessel, visited the control room, etc. But I bow to your superior experience [insert "we're not worthy" smiley here].

Re:Oh well...

[Short Circuit]

The neat thing about water is that it doesn't get significantly radioactive; the impurities in it do. So if they keep the water pure enough, the radioactivity doesn't really spread.

let me just say..

[apophenia]

DUUURRR!!!

Sucks for Homer

[ortcutt]

I guess he won't be able to work from home in his muumuu.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Windows and Nuclear??

[LC II]

Why the heck are they running windows on nuclear power plants! "I just got the Blue Screen of Death." "Well, there went Texas!"

Re:Windows and Nuclear??

[sketerpot]

First, they aren't running Windows on the control systems, they're running it on various noncritical PCs. Second, even if they were running Windows on the control systems and it went BSOD, there are still many many layers of redundant safety systems that need to fail in various ludicrously unlikely (and completely seperate) ways. Third, the worst that could happen is a meltdown followed by nuclear waste cleanup. Nuclear plants simply cannot go off like A-bombs, since they lack the right fuel mixture and design.

A little typo

[Dachannien]

That'd be Davis-Besse.

Retaliation?

[Renraku]

This have anything to do with today's release of radioactives in FL?

You can feel safe

[yanestra]

You can feel safe, knowing that your government plans to make nuclear power plants less vulnerable against attacks from the Internet.

It's like they were planning to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or they were trying to catch Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Another example of ineffectivity and paralyzed work, three years after a serious security incident...

Re:You can feel safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn off Rush Limbaugh, lay off the "blue babies," and learn to read.

Re:You can feel safe

[yanestra]

I beg your pardon, as far as I understand the text contains implementation rules for future programs and "implementations", and absolutely no improvements for existing ones?

For my person, I am still impressed that these rules appear that fast. I mean three years is nothing compared to the age of the world, even according to creationists' counting.

Weakest Link

[KarmaOverDogma]

Increased Security at Nuclear Power Plants is all well and good but I for one would like to see increased security in the following areas as well or instead

1) All US international shipping ports: plenty of room for trouble there (the Sum of All Fears, anyone?)
2) Water/Sewage treatment plants: one of the best ways to spread pathogens (or scare a whole lot or ppl)
3) Major Power line junctions to help prevent another power outage like the one we had thew hit most of the Northeast in 2003 (thanks, Ohio!)
4) the Coast Guard.

Nukes catch poeple's attention and imagination, but there's penty of room for trouble elsewhere that is just as potentially damadging.

my 2 cents.

Re:Weakest Link

[Dachannien]

power outage like the one we had thew hit most of the Northeast in 2003 (thanks, Ohio!)

Oh.... um....

Our bad.

This is not a suprise after latest net nuke attack

[deft]

I was just watching a 24 hour news update, and apparently the internet boradcast of the execution of a US Secretary Heller was a coverup for an attack on a US nuclear base firewall.

This all in an attempt to use a remote control system developed for nuclear installations in case of a radiation leak or disaster.

It's no suprise... not like there wasn't a nuke detonated in the desert all those years ago. About time they wake up.

TV doesn't always come up with it first.

[Tavor]

"This, the week after a similar weakness* is shown on 24?" Really, such worries are not totally new. Some forward-thinkers probably even postulated the idea after the events behind (and subsquent release of) the movie WarGames. The principle is the same. Someone breaks into an unsecure network, creates havoc where order *has* to reign. TV just turns it into a good storyline, playing on people's fears.

Infection

[Fuzzums]

Nuclear powerplant meltdown after lexus drive-by bluetooth infection.

Re:Infection

[Walterk]

In all fairness, the powerplant did have to emulate the virus using wine.

This is going to come across as really rude, but

[mcc]

...could you please try to rephrase that post so that it is actual english? I mean, all the words you use seem to be real english words, but the order that you put them in just doesn't make any sense. Thanks.

In other news

[Zalgon 26 McGee]

This Man has been fired...

Re:At last

[Anonymous Coward]

At [sic] an American Citzen I am pleased to read a US related story on the slashdot, an American Site.

Yep, no funny little two-letter code after "slashdot". From the country that brought us the Internet (thanks Al Gore!).

after all, if It wasn't for the United States of America every country on this planet would be communist.

Sheot, look around, practically every other country is communist. That's why they all hate America so much, because it's not. Completely. Yet.

In fact, if it wasn't for the Great US of A humanity would still be living in the caves, probably

Nah, the credit for that goes to the white male in general. Who do you think invented everything that we rely on or enjoy?

Additionally, we wouldn't be reading this story if the USA hadn't invented nuclear power. No one else had the technology.

Huh?

The US of A invented democracy and freedom.

Yep. And we're still the reference implementation.

I'm proud to be an American.

Me too. I wouldn't live anywhere else, until the US, the last bastion of individual freedom, goes full commie, and then I won't care where I live.

Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

A chemical weapon is easier to make, more deadly, spreads further, and is harder to clean up because it gets into the ecosystem. You end up having trouble with birds that have flown miles away.

A germ attack is probably about as hard as a dirty bomb, but it spreads on its own after.

Neither of the above weapons is easily found with a geiger counter, as a dirty bomb is unless it's wrapped in heavy shielding. That makes a dirty bomb very inconvenient to move about or smuggle in.

Finally, they already have enough nuclear material for a dirty bomb. There's plenty of material as dangerous as a spent fuel rod circulating.

The only reason that a terrorist would set off a dirty bomb is that we're so scared of the word "radioactive." Symbolic.

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[Phronesis]

A chemical weapon is easier to make, more deadly, spreads further, and is harder to clean up because it gets into the ecosystem. You end up having trouble with birds that have flown miles away.

If the chemical weapon is so deadly, how far would the bird fly, contaminated with enough toxic gunk to kill many people?

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd probably be surprised. Bio-weapons are probably more deadly than chemical ones. Look up the "Spanish Flu" sometime. Killed 20-40 MILLION people in its time, and was a avaian-based disease at the time.

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[lachlan76]

Deadly != fast-acting

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[Phronesis]

Spanish flu wasn't a weapon. Bio weapons have an absolutely terrible record of effectiveness because it's so hard to make them do what you want them to.

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[Phronesis]

Deadly != fast-acting

You're right in principle, but can you give me a specific example of a chemical weapon where a bird can be contaminated with enough to kill many people and still travel a long distance?

I can't think of one off the top of my head and it always helps me to have specific examples to think of when trying to understand hazards I'm not familiar with.

Re:Dirty bombs are ridiculous

[lachlan76]

Well I remember one which would take about 10 hours before any effects were shown, but can't remember the name.

An anecdote.

[glrotate]

My uncle is a security guard at a nuclear power plant. He is 59 years old and his occupation before nuclear powerlant security guard was truck driver. He is the most honest and trusworthy man you will ever meet, but he is 59 years old and had a triple bypass last year.

Delta Force operators come on an occasional announced, i.e. they know they're coming, basis to try to infiltrate. Supposedly they have succeeded every time.

Re:An anecdote.

[mboverload]

Dude, its freaking DELTA! They can get into anywhere.

Re:An anecdote.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being honest and trustworthy are both good qualities in a human being, but can make for lousy security. Honest and trustworthy people tend to look for those qualities in other people.

Security requires a certain amount of conniving and suspiciousness. Which is a pain in the ass if all you're trying to do is go to work.

Re:An anecdote.

[R2.0]

I heard the same anecdote in somewhat more detail. Basically, a nuclear plant can request that Delta Force test their security. If the challenge is accepted, the arrangement is that the plant will receive a phone call that security will be challenged "some time in the future."

At the plant I was at, the rumor was that Delta Force was in the plant control room with guns within 5 minutes of making the call. All their assets were in place, and once the phone call was made they were released. And the plant security was NOT necessarily shoddy; I had to go through it every day. It's just that the attackers were that good.

The Only Concerns at IAEA

[Master of Transhuman]

"concerns kept growing at the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)"

are that Bush still wants to get rid of ElBaradei in order to pull off another pile of bullshit about Iran's "WMDs".

Fortunately the rest of the world - including the "Bush poodle" Blair - aren't going along with it.

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[salesgeek]

are that Bush still wants to get rid of ElBaradei in order to pull off another pile of bullshit about Iran's "WMDs".

Fortunately the rest of the world - including the "Bush poodle" Blair - aren't going along with it.

Reality check. No one is exactly happy with El Baradei, and no one is happy with the current WMD proliferation situation. No one really has a good answer on how to stop proliferation because once a nation has nuclear weapons, they have the only real protection against foreign military powers that really works.

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[Master of Transhuman]

Reality check.

ElBaradei is supported by the UN and virtually every nation in the world except the US.

A recent article said that even the US's closest allies - Australia and Britain - BOTH refused to support the US attempt to get rid of him.

The reason the US doesn't like him is because he refuses to fudge evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons and he has pointed out that Israel needs to be inspected for its nuclear arsenal.

Bush is presently flying US military aircraft into Iranian airspace to probe their radar systems, inserting the M.E.K. terrorist group - that's right, we're using a group listed as TERRORISTS - into Iranian territory from both Iraq and Pakistan as well as sending Special Forces into Iran to search for Iranian nuclear facilities. All this is preparatory to an Israel-sponsored attack on Iran which will widen the Middle East war dramatically and result in thousands more US troops dying and scores or hundreds of thousands more civilians dying.

Fortunately, this may not occur - because before the US gets involved in Iran, the Iraqis are likely to send the US fleeing from Iraq with its tail between its legs. That disastrous defeat will either sour the US public on any further military adventurism - or so mess up the military it will be another two years before they can try it again...

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[salesgeek]

The reason the US doesn't like him is because he refuses to fudge evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons and he has pointed out that Israel needs to be inspected for its nuclear arsenal.

There is truth to what you are saying. There is also truth to the fact the proliferation situation is downright scary and ElBaradei has presided over the worst expansion in proliferation. I wonder how much power the IAEA really has - and if the real problem is that it is beholden to too many masters (the US included) with too many diverse agendas to be effective, regardless of leadership.

All this is preparatory to an Israel-sponsored attack on Iran
This is tinfoil hat material at best. No one wants an expansion of war in the middle east, especially the Isrellis. Not the US. Not the EU. Not the middle eastern countries. No one, save the Jihadis who want to turn an overgrown border dispute, a failed dictatorship and several civil wars (or attempts to start them) into the world vs. Islam.

Fortunately, this may not occur - because before the US gets involved in Iran, the Iraqis are likely to send the US fleeing from Iraq with its tail between its legs.

You sound a lot like the former Iraqi Information Minister than a credible expert or even lay person with an opinion here. All you need to add is "God Willing. Death to the imperilist zionist infidel American dogs" to the end and you have it down pat. Iraq is not Viet Nam. It is not a proxy war between the US and communist block gone terribly wrong.

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[Master of Transhuman]

Are you in for a surprise this year...

The idea that the Israelis don't want an expansion of the war in the Middle East is so laughable I can't imagine anyone actually believing that. Have you read ANYTHING the Israelis have said about Iran over the last year (at least)? How many times have they said they will NOT TOLERATE a nuclear-armed Iran (leaving aside the fact that there is NO evidence the Iranians are even trying to get a nuclear weapons program, let alone any actual weapons - certainly not nearly enough to counter Israel's estimated 100-200 nuclear weapons...)?

Also, your aggregation of "no one" wanting war must exclude the neocons who are regularly lobbying for exactly that in most of their missives in their national media. And Bush listens to those assholes, not you.

Finally, as to the Iraqis being able to defeat the US military, certainly it will cost them about a million Iraqi lives. Npbody said it would be easy. But it is utterly impossible for the US force presently in Iraq to control the country without resorting to nuclear weapons. A mass national resistance will without question have the capability of totaling defeating the US forces there within six months. Merely cutting off the flow of supplies to US bases - a process which is already being done to some degree by the few resistance fighters presently involved - would insure total US defeat. There is NO chance the US could successfully resupply 150,000 troops - let alone the hundreds of thousands more needed to cope with a mass national resistance involving one hundred thousand resistance fighters - with food, water, fuel and ammo via airlift or any other means if the insurgency were to massively enlarge - as it would if Sistani were to mobilize the Shia to join the resistance. Sistani has avoided issuing such a fatwa until now only because he had his eyes on the prize - a national election that empowers the Shia. Well, he (presumably, depending on the election results) has that now. So there is nothing stopping him from re-iterating what he has said before - that the first priority of the national assembly is to demand a timetable for withdrawal by the US - as he put it, "remove all traces of foreign occupation." And he will issue a fatwa if the US does not promise to exit Iraq in a timely manner - which we already know - and Bush has confirmed - Bush will not do. The entire exercise is a simple Q.E.D.

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[salesgeek]

A mass national resistance will without question have the capability of totaling defeating the US forces there within six months. Merely cutting off the flow of supplies to US bases - a process which is already being done to some degree by the few resistance fighters presently involved - would insure total US defeat.

And there are no Americans in Baghdad, right Mr. information minister? This isn't a war between the US and the Iraqi people. that's why the elections were a success. That's also why this mass resistance isn't going to materialize. If anything, Iraqis have to be waking up to the fact that the current crop of insurgents are killing them and trying to prevent the people of Iraq from taking power. Repeating Jihadist lies just doesn't work in the face of the violence.

Incidentally, there eventually will be a timetable for withdrawl -- but it will be worked out with the new Iraqi government and will likely take a couple of years. All Bush has said is now isn't the time, and the US will not leave until asked.

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[Master of Transhuman]

You're the one living in fantasy land, Mr. "Fair and Balanced"...oh, wait, he settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for a fortune IIRC...

You never bothered to read the latest poll?

"The poll released yesterday of 805 Iraqi adults living in Iraq also showed that 69 percent of Iraq's Shi'ite population and 82 percent of Sunni Arabs favored a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces either immediately, or after an elected government is in place."

And you claim two years is "good enough".

LOL...

Re:The Only Concerns at IAEA

[salesgeek]

I think the election is a better indicator than a snap poll of 805 Iraqi adults actuall living in -gasp- Iraq. I'm sure that your all for the US pulling out and the local Jihadists taking over. That is a fantasy and the Iraqi people will not let it happen. Why trade in your friendly neighborhood evil oppressive Baathist dictator who simply wants to be in charge for a friendly neighborhood jihadi oppressive dictator that want your sons to go die doing their bidding?

Do we really need Taliban part II?

Granted,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only been deployed twice, and the connectivity failed in both instances.

But then if you're on that system, pages load faster than rockets of bullshit.

Let's hope it wasn't Java in 2001

[ahziem]

(Sorry for lowercase. Slashdot rejects original capitalization as "lameness" and "yelling.")

16. note on java support. the product may
contain support for programs written in java.
java technology is not fault tolerant and is
not designed, manufactured, or intended for
use or resale as online control equipment in
hazardous environments requiring fail-safe
performance, such as in the operation of
nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or
communication systems, air traffic control,
direct life support machines, or weapons
systems, in which the failure of java
technology could lead directly to death,
personal injury, or severe physical or
environmental damage.

Easier the first time around

[failedlogic]

As with many other things, why not just build the damn things more securely to begin with. There's videos of mockup plants absorbing a fighter jet impact. It seems to me though they've done less to protect the plants from physical attack from ground level. Though I'm sure, the government has hidden such secrets well from the public if there are other 'measures'. Frankly, I don't care to know.

I don't much care if a local gun store is built like Fort Nox. I do expect nuclear facilities, chemical, explosive, and military facilities to be though - considering the larger number of population at threat.

I think TFA is slashdotted now and I can't get it. However, why not build more rigourous National secuirty standards before the plants are builts (again, I suspect they are, but given the lives at stake .. more is probably better).

Also, why so long after 9/11? Is it just to cover the threat flavour of the month or does it take 4 years of oversight of the overseers to see what is missing?

Re:Easier the first time around

[Anonymous Coward]

If we were to build a new plant you can rest assured that it would inherently be more secure, but when these plants were being designed over 30 years ago terrorist attacks and airplane crashes were not in the design criteria. New plant designs, notably from Areva, are being built to withstand a direct strike from a fully loaded 747. The current voluntary recommendations deal with computer security, not with physical security.

You ask why so long after 9/11. The Design Basis Threat (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr /part073/part073-0001.html) for US plants was modified in November of 2001 (in response to 9/11). The details of the modification have not been made public for obvious reasons.

If you want to worry about a facility easy to compromise look at chemical plants. They have the possibility of causing a larger accident, while the security levels are in no way comparable.

Re:Easier the first time around

[hcdejong]

It seems to me though they've done less to protect the plants from physical attack from ground level.

What would you do? Surround the installation with an army camp, and have perimeter guards with machine-gun nests and tanks?

Remote access

[ahziem]

Without remote access, how will I install those cool Internet Explorer toolbars?

Windows + Bypassed Firewall = don't connect it ??

[J_Omega]

From TFA:

The T1 line, investigators later found, was one of multiple ingresses into Davis-Besse's business network that completely bypassed the plant's firewall, which was programmed to block the port Slammer used to spread.

To me, the lesson to be learned would be that you do not completely bypass a firewall for windows' boxes doing critical work.

The govt. suggests completely cutting them off from the outside world?? Why not instead suggest that they enforce the firewall, and perhaps consider other OSes?

Even with no external network connection, I'd think they'd still have an internal LAN, yes? One infected usb-key or floppy could then have the same outcome?

watching too much Fox

[Dot_Killer]

They must have seen the trailer for next weeks' 24 and got scared it would really come true.

Stupid is as stupid does

[Anonymous Coward]

It's absolutely FSCKING INSANE!!! that systems connected to the running of a nuclear plant, water treatment plant, emergency response system (police/fire/ambulance), air traffic control system, power plant (of any kind), oil refinery, telephone exchange (which should be seperated from an ISP), hospital, or physical plant or utility of any kind would be connected to the internet. If you want access at those places, bring in a completely seperated isolated network, and have people surfing on one system, controling the air traffic, power systems, water, gasoline, elevators/escalators or bank vault on another (isolated) system. I worked for a spook house (who followed the tempest rules) and internet connected computers were 20 feet from local networks. You could get any software you want, but it had to be source code only (compile on the isolated network), every disk used to transfer data must be empty when going into the 'network side' machine. No viruses, no hacks, no worries, who cares about a firewall, and there are no worries about HaXoRz. You can have a nice polite site that shows what management wants, but if they want 'remote web access', please do the following: 1. show them the business end of a loaded shotgun. 2. explain to them the need for finding out if managers heads -after falling 200m head first off a cliff- will splatter like a watermellon or a cantelope. 3. Duct tape several running chainsaws to a sedated grizzly bear. Place manager into small pen with bear. Tape fresh beef stake to manager. Arouse bear, see what happens. .... I'm sure you can find other ways of your own (more to the point) about how direct web access to these systems is a fscking stupid. brainless idea, resulting in the potential for dire consequences.

I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant

[kf6auf]

I even worked in IT. Here is how it works (at least at the one I worked at): all of the software that actually runs the plant is over 25 years old (and therefore does not run Windows). It runs some obscure custom shit, not that obscurity is efficient at security, but I guess it kinda helps. Yes, the computers used by the Secretaries, the Maintenance staff, the Managers, etc. all run Windows. The servers ran Red Had 7.3. This is all fluff. If this breaks or gets corrupted one of two things happens to the reactor: 1. Nothing or 2. Nothing. There are two ways the the system is electrically connected to the outside world, and both of them are through high voltage power lines, which cannot really be used to send data in to break things. If you want to break something, you need to physically be there to do it.

If you work in a nuclear power plant, you are going to continue to do everything you can think of to make it even harder for someone to sabotage the place. Physically, this includes multiple walls, gates, barricades, guns, and more to protect the containments. From a procedural standpoint, this means anyone who wants to get on-site gets ran through a database to check your history, after getting an employee escort. Anyone who wants to get into the protected area gets personally approved after a more in depth background check, and a heck of a lot of red tape.

If you are just Joe Public (no offense), you have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident so I wouldn't worry about this.

And No, I didn't RTFA, but I figured as long as my comment was more useful than the rest of them (read: references to 24), I figured this comment would be helpful.

Re:I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an operator at a plant. The computer systems that we use are very informative, and a fantastic operator aid, however they have no control input to the various plant systems. The loss of the plant computer would be an annoyance but little more than that. We operate, especially in emergency situations, without even using this plant computer. It runs on Windows 2000, incidentally.

physical security?

[Triv]

unauthorized, undesirable, and unsafe intrusions...

This is anecdotal, but minorly noteworthy - My mom used to work for the company that owned and operated Three Mile Island - the (physical) security was intense: the perimeter was ringed by towers manned by security offers with rifles and a 'no warning shot' policy - you approached the perimeter from an undesignated direction and you got shot, period.

I still have one of the security force's hats, says "TMI Rapid Response Team" and has a crosshairs in the middle.

Triv

Hey, you- what are you doing?!!

[i41Overlord]

Is that a fuel rod in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Never say never

[bbzk]

Long ago I personally saw a BASIC interpreter controlling a huge chemical factory. I could have destroyed it if I wanted to. An associate who used to work for NASA Shuttle program told me thay they had BASIC interpreter critical systems too. Remember how Pentagon was almost destroyed by a bunch of dummies in the act that was easy to predict and to prevent. They cannot take care about themselves not to mention defend us. So I would not be suprised to see critical systems connected to the net. Never underestimate the stupidity of MBA types. And now they are putting a judge to head HS... Oh my..

Let me explain something to you....

[dfenstrate]

The Main Plant Computer System at my nuke plant doesn't actually do anything but monitor system parameters. It cannot cause the plant to do anything. It's very handy, but not vital to safety at all. I'd imagine other plants are set up the same.

Solid state logic systems do run the safety systems, but there's no way to interface with them besides the physical controls that are directly connected to them.

103 Power Generating Reactors...

[MoronBob]

That number does not include research reactors and others so the number is actually higher. I spent 11 years in the nuclear field and believe it to be the safest environment I have ever worked in. At all times you know what you are breathing, drinking, and what level of even background or cosmic radiation you are being exposed to.

Re:This is not a suprise after latest net nuke att

[Thing 1]

I thought the explanation for the firewall hack was preposterous: "a lot more traffic on the 'Internet' and the nuclear plants will somehow not detect intrusion."

First of all, the traffic was not going to or coming from the nucular plants, so they wouldn't have been affected by it (other than to slow down those two secretaries who actually have internet access at a nuke facility).

Second of all, no amount of packets can mask an intrusion with no chance of being logged: if the intrusion is able to get in, then there has to be enough spare cycles to log it as well.

Now, if they were cracking in some other way that would make sense, and my friend said "well perhaps there was some other method, but a) the writers didn't want to tell the (real) terrorists how to do it; or b) it will be revealed later in the series."

I really liked that the first "crisis" was resolved in the first 6 hours; at this rate, they will have four "mini-stories" at the end of the day (and countless subplots, like Edgar reluctantly being that conniving ladder-climber's bitch).

24

[kaedemichi255]

Is this new security standard a result of the plot on the TV show "24" of terrorists involves the theft of a remote controlling device that grants the terrorists access to all domestic nuclear power plants?

Re:24

[Xuranova]

I definitely made the association with 24 the moment i read the summary. Art mirroring life...

Re:24

[BadluckShleprock]

I can picture Bush's moronic cronies sitting around watching 24 going "wait a minute. . .Nuculur power plants actually have computers. . .everyone hates the U.S.. . .a thought is coming to me. . .wait for it. . .terrorists might try to destroy the U.S. using computers. . .at the nuculur power plants." We need to do something about this.

First, I know I misspelled Nuclear, but Bush isn't smart enough to pronounce it correctly. Since he doesn't like being told he's wrong about anything, I'm sure that everyone around him just starts mispronouncing it to so they don't get fired.

Second, as soon as bits started flowing to/from a power plant and the internet, this should have been considered (and was, I'm sure), but the current administration will take credit by saying "see? We ain't asleep at the switch like that Michael Moore feller said we wuz."

dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down. It's a joke. Ever listen to Jib Jab's This Land cartoon? No? Then you didn't get the joke. I thought everyone would get it. I apologize if I was wrong.

Readable version

[Anonymous Coward]

http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/27/0 015227

RTFA, they are connected.

[twitter]

Would someone like to explain to me why the systems (assumingly CRITICAL systems) at a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT are connected to the Internet ... They aren't. ... I don't understand why so many people swallow the intimations of the inflamatory headlines.

But they are. You need to read the fine Security Focus article again, but I'll quote the worst parts for you.

The T1 line, investigators later found, was one of multiple ingresses into Davis-Besse's business network ... From the business network, the worm [slammer] spread to the plant network, where it found purchase in at least one unpatched Windows server. ... Users noticed slow performance on Davis-Besse's business network at 9:00 a.m. ... At 4:50 p.m., the congestion created by the worm's scanning crashed the plant's computerized display panel, called the Safety Parameter Display System. An SPDS monitors the most crucial safety indicators at a plant, like coolant systems, core temperature sensors, and external radiation sensors. Many of those continue to require careful monitoring even while a plant is offline, ... At 5:13 p.m. ... the "Plant Process Computer" crashed. Both systems had redundant analog backups that were unaffected by the worm, but, "The unavailability of the SPDS and the PPC was burdensome on the operators," notes the March advisory.

That's not a headline, that's a detailed technical report.

Having worked at a plant, I can say that the picture is accurate. Winblows servers have snuck into plant networks and they are awful pieces of shit that have no place there. While they are not in direct control, they can cause trouble if you depend on them to make decisions. A box that blows your network can cause even more problems because it blinds you to what might be critical information and communications. A back up you are not staffed to use is not a backup.

It's not just power plants and operators at risk. Winblows born network congestion is also implicated in the huge 2003 power outage that killed people. When hospitals, home medical equipment, EMS, stoplights, and other things we take for granted lose power, people die.

Re:RTFA, they are connected.

[dedazo]

Winblows born network congestion is also implicated in the huge 2003 power outage that killed people.

Really? Would you like to produce some proof of that, or are you just going through your "I hate M$" mantra"? Here, read this and enlighten yourself.

You're just a troll, and not a very good one at that.

Re:RTFA, they are connected.

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to translate the "detailed technical report":

They put in some fancy monitoring equipment to make it easier for non-critical personnel to check the state of the plant from the cubicles/offices in the nearby office building. However, actual plant operators are still watching the real control panel, which was naturally unaffected by the virus because it's all analog.

Re:RTFA, they are connected.

[LWATCDR]

If I remember there was a bridge between the town networks that just should not have been there. We had the slammer worm get into our network because a notebook was hooked up to a hotel network than brought back to the office and plugged in behind our firewall. That has not happened again.

David-Besse

[shaneh0]

I know this is Slashdot, so accuracy isn't exactly priority one... but the plant in Ohio affected by the Slammer worm is Davis-Besse, not David.

D'oh

[halcyon1234]

Simpson, you're fired!

Re: I worked at a Nuclear Power Plant too

[kf6auf]

I'm sorry. When I said that all of the software that actually runs the plant is over 25 years old and some obscure custom shit I meant the monitoring stuff and the control stuff.

I agree that it is stupid that the computer is connected to the network. I would also like to mention that it is unacceptable for the operators to be unfamiliar with the 1969 technology. At San Onofre, operators are trained and on the simulator (looks and acts identical) one week out of five where all sorts of stuff is thrown at them for them to deal with - so that they would have the training to be able to use the nifty, fancy technology and the redundant backups.

Anyway, nuclear power plants are all different. Many of them do not have the vulnerabilities that this one did; and I hope that these winblows-controlled systems are in the minority.

Since you are a /.er...

[kf6auf]

I would be forced to conclude that they will be sterile for the rest of their life.

Re:15 pages in 4 years = ~4 pages per year

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, butt^H that iz^Hs 1200% imrp^H^Hprovement from pre-9/11. At least, now tehy have to learn ot type a bit faster when tehy get a job.

i have HACKED into a nuke plant before

[Anonymous Coward]

I have HACKED into a nuke plant before.

The poster is full of crap about it not being hooked up externally.

I used a modem and it was the 1980s and the plant was Monroe Nuclear ( Fermi II) in the midwest.

Tehnically I lifted the password. side info? it was 13 characters long.

yup 13.

I call it a hack, even though all i did was get the password, because it was not easy to snatch.

If Monroe nuclear (Fermi II) was remotely accessible for engineering montoring in the 1980s then i know kf6auf, the poster is full of crap and did not work in engineering support.

I know modern nukes probably use internet, not modems

also, twitter seems correct, the fact is that in REALITY the nuke was disabled by blaster because the various windows control stations were indeed affected, even if they were for human information and management of operations.

leaving the operators blind and only able to use analog guages on a panel set them back and risked livbes

but i did get in a nuke plant, no shit, really

Re:This is not a suprise after latest net nuke att

[dourk]

And we just slashdotted the nrc.

Great.

NRC's comments

[Homer's Donuts]

Nuclear Regulatory Commissioncomments can be found here.

This hardware is ancient, hardwired, and low tech. Suppliers are most likely limited to GE, Westinghouse and Combustion Engineering.

The side benefit is that the engineers would have to get out of their chairs and go walk their systems down. If they didn't get lost...those plants are huge.

Re:NRC's comments

[Knobby]

Huge?

Most nuclear plants that I've visited have resided on a huge plot of land, but the plants themselves are generally pretty small. They're easy to get lost in, but that's more a function of compartmentalizing the plant structure than the size.

Security at nuclear power plants???

[jedo]

Ummmm.....
Ya' think?!

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[Homer's Donuts]

From a sidebar in the January issure of Forbes magazine.

1. Terrorists storm a reactor and try to steal uranium or plutonium to make bombs.

Not likely. Assuming attackers could shoot their way past the beefed-up phalanx of armed guards, traffic barriers and guard towers that now surround every nuclear plant, they'd still have to fight their way into the reactor building through multiple levels of remote-activated blast doors--where access requires the right key card and palm print--to get to the spent-fuel pond, says Michael Wallace, president of Constellation Energy's generation group, which operates five nuclear reactors. The pond is where highly radioactive used fuel sits in 14-foot-long stainless steel assemblies cooling under 40 feet of water. Terrorists couldn't just grab this stuff and run because, unshielded, it gives off a lethal dose of radiation in less than a minute. To avoid exposure, terrorists would have to force workers to use a giant crane inside the reactor to load the assemblies into huge transfer casks, then open the mammoth doors of the reactor building and use another crane to lift the cask onto a waiting truck--all the while being shot at by the National Guard.

And While we are at it, How about crashing a plane into the reactor?

2. Terrorists crash a plane into a reactor, leading to overheating and a meltdown.

Even less likely. Assume that terrorists could get past tightened airport security and fight off passengers to get through new, improved cockpit doors and take control of a plane. Even then they'd have to crash the jet directly into a reactor to have any chance of breaking containment. In 2002 the Electric Power Research Institute performed a $1 million computer simulation to assess such a risk. Conclusion: A direct hit from a 450,000-pound Boeing 767 flying low to the ground at 350mph would ruin a plant's ability to make electricity but not break the reactor's cement shield. Reason: A reactor, smaller in profile than the Pentagon or World Trade Center, would not absorb the full force of the plane's impact. And, for all the force behind it, a plane, built of aluminum and titanium, has far less mass than the 20-foot-thick steel-and-concrete sarcophagus enclosing a nuclear reactor. It would be like dropping a watermelon on a fire hydrant from 100 feet.

Subscription required: Stopping the Bad Guys

I hate to bring out a sticky point but....

[mjh49746]

Shouldn't the US Gov't have thought of this over three and a half fucking years ago?!? Hello? Anybody home? Bueller?

God help us because the nation is run by total mindless clusterfucks and assclowns! Glad that at least I didn't vote for them, at least. Just a different bunch of nimrods and dipshits, that's all. (end of rant)

Re:This is going to come across as really rude, bu

[deft]

Actually I quite intentionally wrote it in the tone of someone who would mistake a TV show for a news broadcast.

I myself mistook you for someone who might be able to get a joke... but rage on net patrol, rage on (I think I saw a typo, look, over there... you see it... it's way over your head!")

Potassium Iodide

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people are stocking up on this stuff? I'm just about to get some because of other threats in Boston (that turned out to be a hoax {maybe}) and general concern. I know it doesn't protect against dirty bombs or radiation itself but studies from Chenobyl suggest its the radioactive Iodide that gets you in the long run.

Re:Windows + Bypassed Firewall = don't connect it

[argent]

I haven't worked on nuke plants, but I do work in the industry.

We don't get to dictate network layout to customers, of course, but we recommend and usually provide a separate firewall, independent of any corporate firewall, between the power systems LAN and the rest of the corporate network.

Don't forget physical access.

[cliffski]

a year or two ago, myself and 150 members of Greenpeace UK staged a protest at sizewell B nuclear power station, of the 150 of us, approx 80 got inside, and some even climbed up onto the reactor itself. We achieved this despite having some people in their seventeis, and some of us dressed in large latex homer simpson outfits. The technology we used was 2 step ladders and some carpet.
The total physical security to prevent this (peaceful) demonstration was 2 blokes with helmets and no guns whatsoever. (this is in the UK). This was in borad daylight, and as we entered the site, someone walked into the reception building and told them.
This was a peaceful demo.
If we had been terrorists, at night with knives or silenced pistols, we would have been in the control room with a backpack full of semtex within 10 minutes.
There is ZERO security around UK nuclear facilities. Even after our demo and they said they'd beef security, greenpeace did a similar demo at the SAME SITE a month later and got in again no problem.

Re:Don't forget physical access.

[Homer's Donuts]

America need not worry about you.

The total physical security to prevent this (peaceful) demonstration was 2 blokes with helmets and no guns whatsoever. (this is in the UK).

From your American Airlines Post:

This kind of shit is what americans thought happened in nazi germany and stalinist russia. Now it happens in their own country and they don't even care. You wouldn't get me within a hundred miles of the US border these days, too many paranoid nutters in uniforms with guns.

Re:Don't forget physical access.

[The_Mr_Flibble]

When I was a lad Growing up in hartlepool we would occasioanly have beech parties (near the nuclear reactor with the 1 mile safety zone (don't ask))
And one time we were little drunk and went for a walk along the beach we eventually got to this large fence and walked along it to find a nice gap that without using anything you could get past (it was near the spillway) so we decided to go and hug the reactor building.
After hugging the building we left by the same route without being confronted by anyone.
Then my friend tried to swim to france but thats another story.
Like I say we were drunk.

Re:Don't forget physical access.

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had been terrorists, at night with knives or silenced pistols, we would have been in the control room with a backpack full of semtex within 10 minutes.

Do go on. Exactly what would you have done then? Semtex in the control room would sever a large number of a control cables of a certain type, the loss of any of which would immediately have put the plant into automatic shutdown. Certainly there would have been economic damage and a large amount of publicity, but no public safety issue.

Unfortunately it is people like you and organisations like yours that are turning the world into a police state, because you cannot behave yourselves and we cannot trust what you might do.

Re:Don't forget physical access.

[cliffski]

wow ive read some horseshit before but this takes the biscuit., Im sure you think that nuclear power is 100% safe (err nope) has no waste storage issues (err nope) and isnt a terrorist target (wrong again) and its economical (absolutely no way, been bailed out to the tune of 400 million in the UK at taxpayers expense). So you think we should just sit on our asses like americans do when their govt makes srerious fucked up mistakes.
If it wasnt for people protesting peacefully against govt stupidity women wouldnt have the vote and we would have no right to strike, maybe youd prefer that?

Re:Don't forget physical access.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think you can equate hassling everyone who enters the country by armed passport guys with the very real need for secuirty at a nuclear facility.
Still, you seem to be stupidly attempting to draw comparisons.

You were protesting at a McDonalds

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you wonder why the "physical security" kept asking if you wanted fries?

Eventually, they called the local constable and they told you would have to order or leave.

"And come down from the golden arches or we'll turn a fire hose on you blokes!"

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[SamSim]

What he said. Reactors are SPECIFICALLY designed to withstand jet impacts for PRECISELY the reason mentioned. If computer simulations don't float your boat, here's some footage of an F4 Phantom being crashed into a nuclear containment wossname at 475mph, just to prove it can stand up to it. (Apologies for the dumb website, it was the first place I could find that was hosting the video.)

Easy fix!

[RubberDogBone]

Just build decoy cooling towers everywhere.

Imagine the look on the terrorists faces after they attack a "nucuuler plant" that turns out to be a fake cooling tower over the local Waffle House.

Hash browns!

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[cliffski]

you dont even mention the speed the plane is travelling at here, or the chance that its a fireball from a bungled attempt to shoot the thing donw.
Seriously dude, you dont even get anything like these problems with tidal power. Your country has a coastline yes?

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[iwadasn]

Lets also remember from scenario #1.....

Nuclear reactors don't generally run on Weapons grade fuel. You would need to enrich the fuel to make it weapons grade, which would really be as difficult as starting from natural Uranium, which is easy to get. There is no reason to shoot your way through all those guards in order to steal some (possibly used) fuel that is (if used) highly radioactive, and no more useful for creating weapons than natural Uranium that you can get for a few hundred $ per pound.

They would have a much easier time just dismantling old smoke detectors and using the Uranium in them to make a bomb or reactor. Hell, some HS kid did exactly this, it's much easier than shooting your way into a reactor where you can....what exactly? Steal something useless and then fight your way out through the US military?

Asimov's warning comes true

[Vitus Wagner]

In the "Foundation and empire" Asimov depicts the de clining Galactic Empire, where they decide to restrict use of nuclear energy when there was a shortage of competent techincans. Not to rise salaries, not to start education programs - just close down some nuclear plants and leave surroundings without energy.

Idea to cut the nuclear plants from external networks looks quite simular.

Circumstances

[RagingChipmunk]

Just before sweeping through Slashdot, I read this "IRANIAN SOURCE REPORTS PLOT TO ATTACK U.S. NUKE WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Congress has been pressing the U.S. intelligence community to investigate claims by an Iranian defector that Teheran planned to crash an airliner into a nuclear reactor in the United States." http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2005/january/01_ 27_2.html

the economics of nukes are broken....

[Tangurena]

Nuclear reactors designed and built in the 1960s and early 1970s were originally intended to produce plutonium for sale to the US government. That business was so profitable, that electricity production was pure profit (hence the "nuclear generated electricity will be too cheap to meter" meme). In 1970, the US government stopped purchasing privately made plutonium, sending the economics of the reactors into a tail spin. It took several years for the power companies to realize that the suspension of plutonium purchases was permanent and not temporary. There are now about 1700 tons of plutonium in private hands across the US.

Cheap oil and cheap coal undercut the economics of nuclear power production. The price of coal will have to rise something near triple its current cost to make nukes close to the same economic scale.

Refining and reprocessing fuel for plants is horribly expensive both in money and energy. Which is why cynics kept asking during the 1970s when the nuclear industry was going to start generating more electricity than it consumed.

Shit, It's harder for terrorists to get nukes?

[jetru]

That's bad 'cause, it'll make it harder for them to nuke US. Too bad, I was hoping the world would be a slightly better place.

aginst

[Anonymous Coward]

The update notes possibility of "unauthorized, undesirable, and unsafe intrusions", and recommends measures aginst such activities.

I know I's aginnit!

(I can't believe no one has noticed that should be "against" yet. Are the regular grammar and spelling nazis taking an unannounced vacation?)

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well..considering that a fireball falling to earth would do a lot less damage than a plane impact in the first place...

Also, the amount of costal power blocks you'd need to equal the amount of power generated by a station like palo verde is huge, and would have far more environmental impact.

Nuclear power in the US prestently generates about 100,000MW, which is about 20% of the power we use.

By far, the largest tidal power system today generates about 240MW, 10 times more than any other tidal system in the world. The average amount generate by these systems is 20MW. To replace nuclear power, the US would need 5000 of these stations. However, these station only generate power 10 hours out of the day. So you'd really need about 12,000. Add to that water resevoirs and pumps/generators used to store and release excess energy at the appropriate time of the day. If we went 100% tidal power? We'd need about 60,000 stations. Currently, there are about 20 sites identified worldwide that would be suitible for coastal power.

Freakin' enviromentalist weirdos, always on your latest fad and your superiority trip.

Re:This is going to come across as really rude, bu

[mcc]

What's a "TV show"?

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[cliffski]

wow you managed that post without coming accross as an arrogant dick.
hang on, no you didnt.

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[Homer's Donuts]

The source in your smoke detector is cleary labeled. It is not U235 or U238. Don't let that stop you from building your own reactor, though.

The Boy and his Breeder Reactor

Also note from scenario #1:

Terrorists couldn't just grab this stuff and run because, unshielded, it gives off a lethal dose of radiation in less than a minute.

Re:aginst (Grammar Nazis)

[Anonymous Coward]

No, theyre triyng to deciphre posts #11491426 and #11491411!

i cant type when im adm!

two words....

[Anonymous Coward]

...Inside Job. Bin Laden and his myriad brethren have gobs of cash available and not everyone in the USA is stricken with "moral values" despite the media's hype about the recent election.

Labeling?

[Doc Ruby]

You indulge a bit of (earned, but off-topic) Bush bashing, but give Bush a pass on his "physical terrorism prevention". In another story I happened to read your post excusing Bush's environmental record, because you agree with his assessment that the Greenhouse is either imaginary or out of our scale of operation. Yet you call yourself a "liberal Democrat". Why exactly do you call yourself that, when you agree with Bush on both terrorism and the Greenhouse?

Re:Sneaking out with rods-ROLFLOL!!

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Gee, it took .02 seconds to come up with the simple tactic of hijacking the existing fuel-rod transport trucks to get around these "impossible!-can't happen!-we're safe!" scenarios that are just designed to make Mr. Average American feel good about his wide-open nuclear facilities.

It appears that we can always trust Forbes to spout some feel-good security propaganda.