Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Plans to Tighten Nuclear Power Plant Security

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-come-in-here dept.

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)."

10 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Volunteering... by dilvie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    MakePassword.com Mp3 Blog
    1. Re:Volunteering... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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???

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    2. Re:Volunteering... by crummynz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      ~ Crummy
  2. Wouldn't you think... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:Wouldn't you think... by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

  3. Slammer? by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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".

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Slammer? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  4. External Networks? by tmhsiao · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
  5. Weakest Link by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
  6. Re:Slightly offtopic but .. by revscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.