Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran
SixFactor sends in word of a theft of training software for a nuclear plant. An ex-employee of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona, allegedly downloaded training software to his laptop while he was in Iran. The software was downloaded from a Maryland-based contractor to the nuclear plant. It contained information about the Palo Verde facility: control rooms, reactors, and design. It was used to simulate situations for training at the site. Why the ex-engineer downloaded the software is not known. What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended.
Got to make sure everyone is scared of the Iranians, so there won't be an outcry when the bombing starts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Do you mean the nuclear strikes on Isreal? Or the UN and/or US bombing of Iran that will never happen, even after the aforementioned bombing occurs?
"Yawn" is ironically right - You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. I don't think we should attack them either but to act unconcerned at them aquiring nuclear weapons is a particularily odd form of madness in its own right, just as mad as Iran willing to "burn" as they said they would to get rid of pesky Israel.
After all, we'll all be breathing the dust that floats over from a nasty nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It disturbs me that this politician is being quoted as saying that Iran is dead-set on developing a nuclear weapon when there is absolutely no proof that is happening. That would be like saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions.
You're oversimplifying the situation. What about US proxies or remotely connecting to another machine in the US. Maybe there was a VPN connection and his access to that wasn't removed. No, this could not have been avoided by locking this down to US IP addresses.
Eh? Where are you getting this idea that Iran's leadership is insane? I have yet to read a credible source that gives me any particular reason to think Iran would be stupid enough to initiate nuclear attack. The mullahs are religious, Ahmadinejad hates on Israel—so what? Plenty of Israeli politicians still want to see the Palestinian Authority wiped out. Frankly, maybe a nuclear-armed Iran is exactly what Israeli moderates need to get their government to stop pissing off its neighbors in the Middle East with such impunity.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
The big question. Is there any way to stop an out of control US government. I can see it now. A small nuclear blast hits Africa (CIA scurry away). US blames Iran. US tells citizens if we don't stop them we are next. Defence manufactures raise champagne glasses in back rooms as the bombing of Iran starts. Money starts flowing to over seas bank accounts, relatives companies get rich. Welcome to the modern day capitalism.
"Never say Never."
Well, that's really not too hard to believe -- up until 1978, when the current bunch of crackpots took over, Iran was a fairly strong U.S. ally in the region. Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound. It's just like U.S. corporations doing business in China right now. Sure, they may be a bunch of despicable despots, but they're despicable despots allied with us.
The Iranian Revolution is a little before my time, so I'm not sure exactly what the zeitgeist in the U.S. was when it happened, but it certainly seems like we got caught with our pants down -- I mean, we had all those people in the embassy that got caught, because we didn't pull them out before the shit hit the fan; I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly, but in either case, it explains why, a few years previously, nobody was really thinking too hard about selling them crap (particularly not when it would have brought a few billion bucks to the U.S, which at the time was seriously rusting). Plus, anything to keep them on our side instead of going over to the Soviets for their nuclear needs -- it's not as though they would have had (or have had, since) much compunction about selling reactors to anyone with the hard currency to buy them.
When viewed in the context of the period, the U.S. actions may have been a little shortsighted, but they're not as bald-facedly hypocritical as some people today like to make them seem.
Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend. In time, I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Where are you getting this idea that Iran's leadership is insane?
Well, let's start with hosting an international symposium on "The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing".
Plenty of Israeli politicians still want to see the Palestinian Authority wiped out.
And plenty of US politicians want Al-Qaeda wiped out, for precisely the same reason: they kill innocent people to instill terror. Maybe you should read up on Arafat's public declarations of what their goals are: "destroy Israel". Sound familiar?
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
This is from the article I linked. "The investigation has not led us to believe this information was taken for the purpose of being used by a foreign government or terrorists to attack us," said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Phoenix. "This does not appear to be terrorist-related." AZCentral is more concerned with reactions from politicians think about something they know no more about than any of us.
Why is AZCentral interviewing politicians about this case and not people involved in the investigation? AZC doesn't even mention that Palo Verde has already changed their system to not let anyone gain access to any files after they are no longer employed by them. This story really isn't a big deal. If he was able to steal classified information on designs of a nuclear reactor, that'd be one thing, but this is just another case of the media trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality. American foreign policy in recent years (particularly, I hate to say it, since the present administration began replacing knowledgeable experts in Middle Eastern policy with morons with little understanding of regional nuance, culture, or even language) seems to mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal. Its leadership is not composed of fools with death wishes.
You want a nation with nuclear capabilities that actually is run by a psychopath, you'll have to look outside the Middle East for that.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...
True, but if the reactor in question is a Pu breeder, like the Iraqi one the Israelis blew up at Osirak, then I'd much rather they didn't learn how to operate it safely. (That's kinda like saying "gee, I hope those guys know how to operate that gas chamber safely, I sure wouldn't want them to accidentally inhale some by mistake.")
If all they're doing is building light-water power reactors to keep the lights on, by all means I wish them, and the workers there, well. But I really don't think that's what they're up to. Anyone with half a brain can tell that they desperately want a bomb -- and probably if I were in their shoes, I'd want a bomb too. But that doesn't mean that as a Westerner and an American, that I want them to have one, because frankly I think there's too great a chance it might end up going off in my front yard.
All things considered, I'd much rather they melt it into a (radioactive) smoking hole in the desert.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."
Sure, he shouldn't have had access anymore. But how much more secure would that have been. If you're employed there, you can download it. And you would still have it after your employment ends.
People are overly concerned with security, to a degree that it is becoming rediculous.
If people can read it, hear it or see it, it can be reproduced to a non-secure form anyway.
Sure, you must have ways to make it more difficult/near impossible to get there without inside help, but don't get silly.
You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality. American foreign policy in recent years (particularly, I hate to say it, since the present administration began replacing knowledgeable experts in Middle Eastern policy with morons with little understanding of regional nuance, culture, or even language) seems to mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal. Its leadership is not composed of fools with death wishes.
You mean, how they listen to what people say in public and take them at their word? And insist that they not say one thing to the U.N., and then turn around and say something completely different to the people in the street, who are actually the ones that need to get the message? What a ridiculous concept!
In terms of "hard-nosed pragmatic" assessments, I think what some Arab leader is saying to the hoi polloi carries a lot more weight than what he says to a bunch of diplomats over hors d'oeuvres at a summit meeting.
Talk when only a few people are listening is cheap. Talk when you are speaking to your nation is expensive; that's what counts.
The current Arab leadership seems to be trying to play both sides against the middle, and it's not going to happen.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Hardliners, hawks, extremists, neocons in the US and Israel are the only one's who are interested in attacking Iran. [p] Maintaining a state of constant never-ending 'war on terror' benefits these individuals in obvious ways. [p] Now, if the US and Israel were all of a sudden forced to negotiate on a more level playing field, calmer minds may yet prevail. [p] Nuclear weapons have done wonders for Pakistan and India negotiations, EVEN taking into account mutual and frequent terror attacks against one another... atleast they haven't had another war. [p] Is this a troll? No, its the pathetic reality of our current world we live in. A world where you only count if you can 'back up your words with nuclear weapons'.
Who's to say the Iranians won't be more responsible than the Americans?
Carting british sailors off was one thing that wasn't particularily rational, at any stage of the operation. In the end it gave them some very positive media results but it could have gone very badly very quickly just as easily. It was risky for sure but I think it was a calculated risk. For one I do think the risk of an indicent was fairly low, they specifically targeted the British and knew the British rules of engagement, chances are they were given orders not to open fire, or if the capture did turn into a shootout both sides would probably look for a way to avoid war (a large conflict is in the interests of neither country). As for benefits they wanted to warn the British and Americans from going too close to their waters, and I suspect they accomplished that. The final reason is a fairly familiar one. Ahmadinejad was elected, the Iranian parliament is elected, now they don't have the final say in government and candidates need to be approved to run for office, but from what I can tell the Iranian elections themselves are fair. Thus like any western election Iranian politicians need to watch the polls, and Ahmadinejad isn't particularly popular since the economy isn't doing very well, thus the British hostage show was probably very much designed to help his polling numbers, not the purest of motives but as rational as many western politicians. As to them trying to obtain a Nuke I really doubt that any of those nukes will be used. First they know if they ever use any of them on Israel the US will push the button as well, and then the US will invade and make sure they kill every member of the regime they can find to set an example. Open Nuclear conflict isn't in Iran's interest anymore than anyone else
I think if someone says they really don't care if someone destroys them, as long as thier ideals are promoted, you have to take them somewhat seriously when they mix those words with nuclear weapons I'm not 100% sure they would use them but I think the likleyhood is honestly grater than 50% because it achieves many long-term goals. I'd put it more at about 15%. At the end of the day I really think the rhetoric is just rhetoric. I find it disturbing that that's the kind of rhetoric that the people want to hear but I doubt that many Iranians actually want a nuclear conflict. As to their long term goals I really don't think it does much for them. The only thing I can think of is that the elimination of Isreal is probably necessary for the Islamic superstate but I think they still have enough other problems (including the Sunni/Shia split) that they realize it's not worth it. I am ever more sure that if there is a limited exchange between Iran and Israel there will not be any attack from the US or any other country in response. Why would there be when those countries had lready pounded the heck out of each other? In that sense it seems like we wouldn't need to be concerned if you were a total isolationalist, but even then you have to be concerned about the effect on the climate and just sheer human suffering if nothing else. I don't think Iran has that much interest in a direct conflict with Israel, at the end of the day there aren't really many tangible benefits that Iran gains with the elimination of Irsael. In fact I think that the existance of Israel actually causes the rest of the middle east to rally around Iran as a kind of champion, thus Iran has to talk big to keep their respect but taking actual action doesn't really help them.
I stole this Sig
This is ironical, since one of the provisions of the NPT was assistance and technology transfer to non-nuclear states for peaceful purposes in return for their undertaking not acquiring nukes. Iran should not have to obtain such data clandestinely (That too, and operation manual!). The reality is that nuclear weapon states (P5) has done little to transfer technology , and even less on their commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles.
Btw, the NPT is flawed and fundamentally flawed. Discriminatory to the naivest, I am not sure how anyone could even suggest something like - 'I CAN, but you sire, CANNOT'. Justice and equality.
What is needed is complete disarmament, or transfer of nukes to common control against possibly an asteroid or comet. Until then, I refuse to say that some nukes are good and some are bad.
Life is a conviction.
USA pulls out of all the countries we're militarily involved in. Ship our and Israel's nukes into the Sun. Say we're sorry everyone. Pay reparations to Iraq, Guatemala, etc. Say we're very very sorry.
And we have world peace, yay.
Whenever the RIAA or some software firm make a statement about 'the theft of software/music/whatever' at least one post gets upmodded about how 'the original still exists, therefore not theft.'
So where is that argument?
You know, much as I can enjoy a piece of revisionist bullshit, I just have to rain on your parrade there. There are a ton of countries, Iran included, where the USA didn't just happen to have a friend, but actually installed a puppet dictator. The Shah was only your friend because a bloody CIA coup deposed the democratically elected government and installed him. _Again_. That's all.
;)
And understanding that, also gives you the key as to why those people hate you now. It's not just some people that inexplicably forgot their old friendships, it's some people who hate you for what you did to them. That pseudo-friendship only lasted as long as the USA-installed puppet lasted. The dictator might have been your faithful puppet friend, but the people ended up hating not only him, but also the foreign power that installed and kept him in power. Gee, big surprise there. And as soon as they managed to free them of him, by brutal revolt, gee, who would have guessed that they're no longer your friends? Completely unexpected surprise that
And, generally, if we're talking about that period, the USA was bloody active installing and backing dictators left and right. That's champions of democracy at work for ya. Sure preferred a brutal tyrant to an elected government. _Especially_ if that government happened to be left wing or get in the way of western colonial interests.
It started right after WWII, e.g.,
- South Korea: got saddled with an inept totalitarian regime, where the "president" hadn't even lived in Korea before. Just because, god forbid, you can't let them maybe vote for a left-wing government. (The current favourite was actually left wing.) Got to give them our version of "democracy" instead.
- Vietnam: the USA actually prevented them from holding democratic elections and backed an inept dictator instead. Again, out of fear that the left might win.
And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.
Gee, I wonder why a lot of people ended up hating the USA. You'd think they'd appreciate the support and training it gave to their dictator's secret police more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
So by your definition, Egypt's theft of someone else's property isn't provocation?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"There are literally thousands of nuclear 'accidents', ranging from thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive water . . . transport accidents, to thefts, to black market transactions by power plant workers."
Thousands? Don't you think that's exaggerating a bit? In addition, the term "nuclear accident" conjures up images of Chernobyl, by far the worst and unrepresentative "accident". Wikipedia lists maybe "dozens" with a continuum of severity stretching almost to the realm of insignificance. The paranoia about such things is probably justifiable, but classifying the following as a "nuclear accident" seems like quite a stretch.
"February 15, 2000 - The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite."
You're talking about "thousands of tons of water", these guys are talking about a "small amount of steam", and the article is talking about some training software. I think we're letting political FUD and media hype obscure rational thinking. Mention "nucular" and "Iran" and you've got the story for the day.
People don't own something just because they were born within 300 miles of it. Before the Western oil companies sank hundreds of millions of dollars into the area in order to develop that oil, it didn't exist -- not in any meaningful way. The oil belongs to whoever caused it to be accessible... and Western utilization of it does not, itself, harm the natives.
Besides, the natives already were given generous cuts of the profits, despite the total absence of justice for such generosity.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
The US and Europe has been disasterously meddling in the Middle East since WW2. The "they" that hate are a small minority that is given weight and power by the West's blatant power plays for their oil. Why the fuck do you think America is a target? Because "they" hate us? Yeah, that's it - those people just hate for no fucking reason. Bullshit. And those "smug" Euorpeans who we dragged in to our latest fiasco are "smug" because they are finally beggining to realize that our insane war is stirring up the hornets in their backyard - how the fuck are we gonna "ride to their rescue" when every shot we fire worsens our position? In a "war" against "terrorism" - there is no enemy that can accept terms of surrender. Instead there is just the amorphous enemy that we use to justify the police state.
That's a problem to be solved by international arbitration, NOT by deposing democratically elected leaders and putting thuggish princelings back in power. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a pragmatic one as well -- the coup against Mossadegh lead to the 1979 revolution, which lead to the 80s Iran-Iraq war in which we armed Hussein's Iraq, which lead to a strong Iraq that could bully Kuwait... etc. And now it's 2007 and we're mired in the Iraqi situation.
-b.
The nature of the data isn't the biggest story...it's the fact that someone who doesn't work there anymore had access to it.
I've seen this a million times; it happens in every single company, but especially so in large ones. There's no connection between human resources and the system administrators in some cases. When you're fired or quit, an automatic process that is kicked off by the routine that prints your last paycheck should also disable your accounts. The problem is the disconnected nature of systems.
Even in disconnected environments, it's possible to do this by assigning someone to be responsible for accounts. In previous IT organizations, this was usually the PFY's job. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly boring job and it is difficult to keep someone doing this forever. It's a problem that could be solved by technology, but either (a) none of the sysadmin staff want to work on it because they fear automation that might take their jobs, or (b) the company has such a complex HR system (homegrown mess, SAP, etc.) that building interfaces is really hard.
I'm going to sound old here, but I'd like to jump back a few technology generations to when you actually needed to be a highly skilled technologist to take care of systems. It would force a little discipline, which is lacking. Sysadmins are overworked, this is true. That's often why you see stories like this. But a good sysadmin knows how to automate the tedious.
It's not that easy. People have lived there. Were going hunting there. Had their herds there. Had their crops growing there. It may not look very productive to our standards, but at least this land had a usage, and it can't be used for that anymore if you are pulling out the crude. So at least you have to either buy the priviledge to use the land, or you have to share the profits to offset the lost usage.
If a nation tries to nationalize the local ressources it's often because the priviledges were bought before in an unclear way, by bribing the clan leaders or just going there and shooting everyone coming close, or because the previous regime were selling and the new one doesn't feel obliged to fulfill the contracts because the old one was considered illegal anyway, thus the revolution.
The people in power despise the US in Iran, but the general populace was slightly fond of us until recently. And, just so we're also clear on this, a war with Iran would be a very "Bad Thing". Iraq, for all intents and purposes, was a pushover (ignoring the currently failing occupation efforts). Iran is a mountainous region with a much larger population who would not give up ground without serious casualties. No, if George W starts a war with Iran it'll be bloody, and it'll make this little dance in Iraq look like a picnic.
You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality...mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal.
For reference, rubbish is dismissing as rhetoric:"The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing". That silly Ahmadinejad, what kind of rhetoric will he come up with next.
When groups like Hezbollah use Iranian training and weapons to attack Israel sane people consider that a clue that maybe Ahmadinejad's 'rhetoric' has some teeth to it. But go ahead and keep laughing at his hijinx if you like, just don't be surprised when people are offended by you. They SHOULD be.
You are right on the not being suicidal part though. Ahmadinejad appears far smarter than Bush and knows full well that removing Israel from the map is easier when you have nukes than when you don't. That doesn't mean he's foolish enough to use them, but he's also smart enough to know that if he wants to start something, better he have nukes too.
If you are gonna claim he doesn't want to remove Israel you are not only ignoring his public statements, your ignoring Iran's actions as well.
I won't dispute your historical account, but I will dispute this:
Eqypt had no intention of closing off the suez canal. They wanted it for revenue and closing it off wouldn't have been constructive.
With all due respect, that sounds more like your hindsight bias talking. I can imagine how critical world powers at the time didn't have the same confidence you have in Egypt's willingness to adhere to those terms. The fact that:
Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
shows that these fears were not without basis.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
unlike Iraq, which seems to have tried to develop a program, failed, but left just enough detritus around to give the chicken hawks material for their misinformation campaign
Well, they did have one, but the Israelis blew it up.
The French -- in some sort of a fit of Gaullish pique -- sold the Iraqis a breeder reactor (technically it was a "materials testing reactor," but without an established nuclear program and any 'materials' to 'test,' it was pretty clear what they wanted with a high-neutron-flux design). The Israelis decided that was a no-go, and so they did some serious damage to it via an airstrike, before the fuel was loaded.
Then the Iran-Iraq war broke out, and -- at least in hindsight -- it's not clear whether Saddam ever really put that much serious effort into restarting the project. There's a lot of speculation in both directions; that the attack caused Saddam to pour a lot more resources into uranium enrichment (via gas separation), which would ultimately have produced more bombs than the single Pu breeder (see the quote on the WP page), or alternately that the Iran-Iraq war was such a drain on Iraq's resources that they never had the capability again, and/or put their resources into chem/bio stuff from then on.
The rest of the reactor complex was destroyed (pretty much pounded into rubble) in 1991, so it's probably not going to answer any questions now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Wrong. Please read the entire post and don't take things personally - I am not bashing the USA or even saying that Iran is a nice place to be. Forget the extra baggage that wasn't there - the mention of 911 and the airliner was about two horrific incidents that shaped the opinions of their nations and will never be forgotten. Obviously very different, one was a deliberate act of terror and the other was a deliberate act to kill people on an aircraft that had not been identified - a tragic act of incompetance that it was an airliner with hundreds on board. "Why do they hate us?" is really an important question and is not some act of treason. I don't think they should have the bomb either but sabre ratting is not going to fix it - we are bluffing and they know it. A weapons program is a major effort so there will be ways to stop it short of large scale invasion and a war spanning years - which is what we'd need if we just refuse to talk, keep making threats and wait until some guy has to carry out the threat to stay in office.