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
You probably meant UPLOADED to Iran. Or, downloaded FROM Iran.
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
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.
All of the governments you listed had fair doses of common sense. They knew that if they were to use said weapons in attack, retaliation would be pretty bad and much of the country would be destroyed. Nucelar weapons for them were for defensive posturing so no-one would try and attack them.
Iran however seems to relish the scenario of massive retaliation and would by the words of the current leader love to be obliterated, because the ideals they are fighting for would live on in the region only without Israel around to bother them any longer.
Now the people of Iran are quite different than the leader, they are rational and fine people indeed. But it only takes a handful of guys to press that magic button. Attacking them is not the right solution (and I don't really see anyone making moves to do so). But letting them get nuclear weapons is not the right answer either. How you solve those contradctory needs I have no idea.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Why not respond to all the cowards at once?
Basically attacks on Israel upset me as a person who finds the instant deaths of millions in any country (Iran or Israel) disquieting. If you are an environmentalist you should be concerend with all the radioactive dust coating the planet. If you are a libertarian you should be concerned because a nuclear exchange in the middle east means big-time ramping of of miltary spending across the planet. If you are an international foreign policy wonk you would have to be concerned about total disruption to the middle east.
But to go back to the first point, if you are a human being with any emptahy at all the thought of any use of nuclear weapons against anyone, no matter how seemingly bad to you currently, should be unthinkable. Shame on you if you think otherwise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Would it be Nucular or Nuclear? If it's the first, then I'm not worried.
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."
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
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.
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'.
Anyone got the .torrent to the software?
for.. training purposes. You know.
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.
Israel doesn't actually exist without US or other foreign involvement.
Erm, no. The U.S. basically hung Israel out to dry on several occasions, and time and time again whenever Israel and the Arab countries got into a spat, if Israel started to win, the Arabs would go back to the Soviets and the Soviets would get the U.N. to declare a cease-fire, and the U.S. would never object. The Arab armies would use the cease-fires to rearm and resupply (illegally), and drag the war out longer.
The only time Israel made major territorial gains was in 1956, and that was only because the U.S. thought they would get and keep the Suez, which would have been a big bonus, and in return for this they let the Soviets crush Budapest in return for their non-interference. (The government in Budapest, which had practically won the revolution already, was counting on U.S. help -- when it didn't happen, the Soviets rolled over them. Though for future reference, don't ever count on U.S. help for your democratic revolution if they can do better by selling you all to people who'll put you in front of a wall -- welcome to realpolitik.)
There were long periods of time when Israel had very little in the way of a relationship with the U.S., at least not the U.S. government. There have always been fairly strong ties between the people of Israel and the people, particularly the Jewish population, in the U.S., but official relations have ebbed and flowed depending on convenience. There were periods when Israel's best allies were South Africa and Taiwan -- talk about the black sheep of the world stage.
Israel shouldn't count anyone, least of all the U.S., as a "true" ally; we'd sell them up the river in a millisecond and leave them on their own in a millisecond if it was temporarily expedient to do so, just like we've done to other groups when they were no longer useful (anyone talked to the Kurds lately? how's that country we promised them working out?).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Res publica non dominetur
A bunch of you guys would have badmouthed the US had they reported his firing for ANY reason in the first place. Anyone want to speculate how much information the guy transferred before he jumped the fence.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner,
Shah was a murderous dictator, he was put in place in 1953 when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.
Some of the same officials who are strongly opposed to the Iranian nuclear program now, were advocating it back in the 70s when the Shah was in power. So it's ok for a brutal dictator but not for a theocracy? The nuclear issue is really a distraction. The US government is opposed to the current theocratic regime just as it was opposed to the democratic regime under Mossadegh. The internal nature of the regime is not a concern, only it's stance towards US interests. It's a question of control.
>when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
Partly because he was all for nationalising an oil company largely owned by overseas interests which simply wouldn't do, not with all that profit to be made.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
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?
They might actually build a CONTROL ROOM. YOU SICK TWISTED MUSLIM TERRORISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO EXPLORE CHEAP ELECTRICITY!!! OPEC will kill you all!!
/. humor is being lame filtered.
rhY
PS This is where I put plenty of non caps text because my attempt at
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Nope.
1956 - Israel invades Egypt jointly with France and UK to take over the recently nationalised Suez Canal. So the truth is that Israel invaded a neighbouring country first, unprovoked and for solely mercantile reasons. From there on it was a more or less tit-for-tat affair all the way to the 70-es.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
You're right about the security thread not more thoroughly explored. This was the principal reason I posted the story, being interested in IT (one of my uneconomical hobbies) in general and security in particular. Specifically, how to control a former employee's access to the company's IT systems, especially if that former employee was in an IT-related branch of that company.
/. crowd.
The nuclear/Iran angle served as the framework of the event, which, I should have known, would cause funny, thoughtful, and a few shrill reactions from the
Science never settles, never rests.
So... basically sealing Israel's land borders, denying flights to or from Israel any use of Arab airspace, and using the newly-nationalized Suez Canal to prevent shipment to/from Israel by water -- none of that was 'provoking' Israel?
C'mon. The tit-for-tat bullshit in that region goes back much, much further than 1956.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
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.
Eqypt had no intention of closing off the suez canal. They wanted it for revenue and closing it off wouldn't have been constructive.
At the time, Egypt was trying to build a big hydroelectric dam and needed money. The U.S. and Britain were going to foot most of the bill, but Egypt started getting cozy with the Soviet Union. The U.S. said if they wanted to be buddies with the Soviets, the U.S. wasnt going to fund the dam. Britain agreed and pulled their funding also. Egypt nationalized the suez canal to get the money to build the dam. Britain and France got together and got Israel to invade Egypt. Britain and France then showed up and occupied the canal to "protect" it and enforce peace in the area (mostly by attacking Egypt). The U.S. told Israel to cut it out and they backed off. Nasser sank a bunch of ships and blocked off the canal. Britain's economy tanked due to oil shortages caused by the suez being blocked. The Canadian delegate to the U.N. introduced a resolution to create an official peace keeping force for the U.N. This force then took control of the suez canal and sent Britain and France home. Britian gave up willingly since their economy was fubar and they recognised the plan was a pretty big mistake. France went begrudgingly.
Also, the UN had already acknowledged that Egypt had the right to nationalize the canal zone as long as shipping remained unaffected. Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
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.
And also, he doesn't distinguish between Jews and Israelis. Imagine criticizing Taiwan's government and being labeled as anti-Buddhist - it would prevent any real discussion of Taiwan-Chinese issues and make progress in that area almost impossible.