Slashdot Mirror
Hacking Nuclear Command and Control
The Walking Dude writes "The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) has released an unclassified report exploring the possibility of cyber terrorists launching nuclear weapons. Ominous exploits include unreliable early warning sensors, unsecure nuclear weapons storage, transportation blunders, breaches in the chain of command, and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines. A traditional large-scale terrorist attack, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks, could be combined with computer network operations in an attempt to start a nuclear war. Amidst the confusion of the traditional attack, communications could be disrupted, false declarations of war could be issued on both sides, and early warning sensors could be spoofed. Adding to this is the short time frame in which a retaliatory nuclear response must be decided upon, in some cases as little as 15 minutes. The amount of firepower that could be unleashed in these 15 minutes would be equivalent to approximately 100,000 Hiroshima bombs."
"...and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines" Talk about your Blue Screen of Death
"... and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines." - i stopped reading.
Shall we play a game?
Windows on a submarine sound like a pretty bad idea to me...
Watching a flash presentation might just launch a nuke.
OMG! What did we ever do back in the 60's?
These guys have been playing too much Defcon 5...
Is it just me, or did anyone else suddenly have a flashback of the movie War Games?
When it happens, most of us wont even know it :-)
The survivors amongst us might know after they can't access /. for 12 consecutive hours.
Need an ISP in South Africa?
the use of Windows on nuclear submarines. I'd like to hear a statement from microsoft on this claim. Seriously, i wonder how they will justify adding this to the list, i mean submarines don't use wep-secured wifi, and i also don't think the people in charge for the machines run kazaa as a goody?!
Most people know a thing or two. Some people know their way around weapons systems but most people don't. Most people are sane and rational but a few people are not. The unabomber wasn't rational but fortunately he was a mathematician, not a rail signalling engineer or an air traffic controller.
I don't believe that Al Qaida could weasel their way into the control systems for missiles, unless they come across somebody smart enough and crazy enough to be of value to them. I don't believe there is any systematic reason why this could not happen, it is just very unlikely.
At the moment it is much easier for the terrorists to work with the tools they know.
Researching Kaczynski for this post has got me thinking. With his background he could have gone into a field where he gained access to some critical systems. Lots of secure areas employ mathematicians. But then he might not have had the time and resources to develop his nutty ideas. He had to withdraw somewhat to do that. Was the Jack D Ripper character a realistic possibility? Or would a maniac have been unable to rise to a position of responsibility?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
So, the "International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament" releases a report saying Nucler weapons are dangerous? Who would have thunk it?
Do we have ANY super-villain cyber hackers in the world who WANT to start a nuclear war and launch 100,000 hiroshima type bombs?
Seriously?
Who do they envision being behind this? Doctor Evil???
"would a maniac have been unable to rise to a position of responsibility?"
I thinkk the answer is... YES.
Just a few off the top of my head...
Pol Pot
Adolf Hitler
Stalin
From personal experience I can say that 'Windows on a submarine' really isn't an issue. The Navy uses at LEAST three independent networks on their ships. Two that I was told about and one that I wasn't supposed to notice on my own. These aren't connected together, and only one of them connects to the outside world. Even if they were running a completely un-patched version of Windows 3.11 on that inner-most network, they're still as secure as they need to be.
In the case of the Navy's most important systems, they're not secured via copper but instead by steel-jacketed lead.
which side do you want?
1. USA
2. North Korea
3. Iran
Can't we just duct tape our windows???
Hope is the currency of fools
The use of Windows on nuclear submarines is not a big deal without providing a lot more context. Is Windows being installed to perform a critical function? Is there an independent backup implemented in hardware? There remain a lot of questions to be answered before I care that Windows is installed on submarines, especially given the alarmist tone of the paper as a whole.
The article (mis?)cited even talks about how the systems being used don't "usually" get autonomous control of the weapons systems. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/windows_for_submarines_rollout/) That's pretty vague, but not really surprisingfor a reporter.
So, is Windows on submarines a concern? Sure it is. Quite frankly, (get out your -1 mod points) for a high risk system, one in which failure can cause loss of life on a massive scale, using Linux, or any computer system is a concern.** Luckily, if engineers are doing their jobs correctly, they know how to design these systems to prevent a software failure from causing one of these events. This almost invariably means using custom software or (better) simple hardware to implement/interlock critical functions and use regular COTS software for the rest. And yes, false indications are an example of a critical function. If the software were to indicate a missile launch, for example, I would expect a way to verify that using hardware in the procedure before moving on to the next step.
** This is because any of these systems are too big to have the kinds of quality steps needed for such a system (think TRACEABLE code coverage, testing, requirements traceability, application of coding standards and other software engineering principles, all must be traceable). Maybe if Linus Torvalds and everyone who works on the Linux kernel was hired by the DOD and held to a software quality standard, like DO-178B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178B)*** there would be a small chance of being able to use this software for a function that is required to prevent loss of life.
*** Having dug through DO-178B, it is not without its issues, either. But its a good starting point at least.
well on the plus side it'd help solve some of our overpopulation problems.
I, for one, would like to take this opportunity to welcome our new Cyber-Hacker Overlords!
Talk about your Blue Screen of Death
Agreed, but I was wondering when the quantity of "could's" in a summary turns it from a "report" into a "work of fiction"?
Damn you engineers, never ever ever connect servers together with networks! Now look at what you have done! Looks like we're going to have to let our prisoners fix it.
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself
I can't be the only person who initially misread the title of this post as "Hacking Nuclear Command and Conquer"
Launch from a nuclear submarine by a hack?. Not possible. CO, XO, weapons officer would all have to be in the loop for it to work. (circa 1995 that is, not sure about now). ex-boomer guy.
C'mon, everybody knows that if you want to start a war, start a nuclear war; the gay bar is the place to do it.
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
"...and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines" Talk about your Blue Screen of Death
It could be worse:
Sub Commander: "Enemy vessel has locked on and fired anti-sub missile. Impact in 10 seconds. Immediate Anti-missile counter-strike authorised. Target enemy vessel with Tomahawk."
Sub operator: "Incoming target acquired and locked on. Tomahawk ready for launch authorisation."
Computer: "Automatic update has replaced current program with I.E 8 as default. Computer re-booting. This will take 30 seconds"
Sub crew: "S**t!"
Smivs on the intertubes!
The solution is not to connect your Nuclear Command and Control center to the InterTUBES !!!
davecb5620@gmail.com
Another vulnerability could be commanding officers learning new computer languages. Once you dig down enough in windows internals, maybe your mind starts thinking that mass blue screens and deaths are ok, and order a launch when distracted.
Seriously though, systems that can launch nukes shouldn't even have network cards in them!
[SCADA] These systems were intended to remain separate from the internet; however as organisations grew, and so did the internet, it became more cost effective to tie them together.
Nuke controlling computers should NEVER be tied to the internet.
Seriously, should they even be PCs?
I'm thinking of a hard wired electrical system that requires two people to pull a lever.
Not "CLICK HERE TO LAUNCH NUKE".
"Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia"
Seriously, if such systems exist, the designers should be locked up !
davecb5620@gmail.com
A repeat of the 2008 Mumbai attacks would hardly start a nuclear war given that 9-11 didn't. It takes a bit more than a few idiots with light weapons to escalate to that level of conflict.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
So their Nuclear submarine command and control is developed in VB.net?
'As of May 2009, no major cyber terror event has occurred. Policy makers, media organisations, and security companies often use the threat of cyber terrorism to further their own agendas'
davecb5620@gmail.com
While Windows machines exist on submarines (afterall, who doesn't think M$ Office is so ubiquitous as to be used extensively by the military), they in no way access/control or interface with the command and control systems for nuclear weapons. I am uniquely qualified to say that if anyone says different, they aren't looking at the fleet as it stands today. Does this mean in the future there won't be access? Who knows, but they take lots of measures to ensure that there isn't even a possibility of outside interference on something so powerful. The military takes their job very seriously and the air force incident was a fluke due to overlapping authority.
Mutually Assured Destruction or Destruction. Asymmetrical use of a captured Nuclear weapon is surely a nightmare scenario, but a disarmament solution requires careful consideration.
Some who have read my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry may be surprised to find that I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit because that's the type of 21st century threats it would have to face.
But it has to be done properly, and I don't think privat
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"The unabomber wasn't rational but fortunately he was a mathematician, not a rail signalling engineer or an air traffic controller"
.. :)
The unabomber built his bombs out of wood, so lucky he never became a tree surgeon
davecb5620@gmail.com
Capitalism, Comunism, lots of 'isms... just to enable a small group of people to have control over the rest. Ooops, I forgot Militarism... ...sounds like the armed forces didn't waste enough trillions of $ on boy-toys for them to play war-games. They forgot to buy a better control software. And do you really believe their weapons systems are powered by windows on public networks... Amazing...
What is the purpose of this? To engender fear or something? Or just a bit of idle fantasy in the summer heat?
Whatever the reason, a nuclear war doesn't just happen out of the blue; it is highly unlikely that there wouldn't be a long time before where the tensions were constantly rising, and it isn't very believably that that would happen either. The missiles don't start firing because El Presidente regrettably puts his coffee cup in the wrong place and pushes the red button.
Mod parent up.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Remember, the Enemy is all around us. Your neighbour could be an Enemy, your father, your sister, your child. Be Afraid and report all transgressions to State Security.
Agreed, but I was wondering when the quantity of "could's" in a summary turns it from a "report" into a "work of fiction"?
When assessing your adversaries, you always assess capability, not probability or even intention. "Can't possibly" is acceptable, but improvable. "Might" raises serious concern. "Could" is reason for all-out batshit-crazy paranoia.
And I like that things are that way. At least, y'know, when dealing with unauthorized nuclear launches.
ICNND is yet another one of those idiotic feel-good organizations that make a living by spinning-up ridiculously unlikely scenarios that push their agenda.
.
Hello? Their entire charter is nuclear disarmament. Having them commission a report that doesn't say Armageddon is coming is about as likely as Greenpeace commissioning one that doesn't conclude that Technology is Bad.
.
As Top used to say; "Whenever I get something like this, first thing I do is consider the source. And baby, just who the hell are you?"
Regards;
It's called nuclear civil war. I doubt other countries would get involved.
Life is not for the lazy.
Without going too much into detail - sending launch orders requires much more than simply hacking into the network (which are probably air gapped anyhow).
The message has to contain certain authorization codes so the recipient knows that it's not only a valid order, but that it is a valid launch order (as opposed to a valid test or training order). Those codes are stored in a double sealed envelope inside a safe with an inner and outer door - and each combo is controlled by a different person.
Any hacker worth his salt knows that an ICBM can be launched by whistling a 2600 tone into a payphone.
"Amidst the confusion of the traditional attack, communications could be disrupted, false declarations of war could be issued on both sides, and early warning sensors could be spoofed." -- Shades of the Panther Moderns, only far more catastrophic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromancer
> "and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines"
I suspect that's a little opinionating on the part of the author, but it sure is funny.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I thought you would link to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt9j80Jkc_A#t=0m40s
But the Royal Navy is prepared - you don't need to ask, they've already tried that.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
When people say the ends justify the means, they are forgetting consider that the true ends include any side effects of the means. When you total it up in a fully utilitarian sense, then that statement is meaningless.
If we consider that in the future Western nations wane in power and dominance goes to, oh, say China and/or Russia, will there be not the likelihood of far more suffering and misery than a war that sets back those powers early on?
In 2006 the following paper was published by MIT Press: The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy. Keir A. Lieber, Daryl G. Press International Security Spring 2006, Vol. 30, No. 4: 7-44. (pdf here: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/isec/30/4 )
Note that International Security is a top journal on its subject, so this is, in intrawebs speak, "serious business".
The authors argue that over the years US policy has moved from the goal of deterrence by mutually assured destruction towards the, what they argue, US military perceives as a possibility of achieving first strike capability with none or minimal possibility for taking damage from return fire. If you read the paper you will see that their argument is well supported.
While the authors themselves are writing from the point of view that this is a worrisome situation, I end up wondering, given what I wrote at the top of this post, whether this is not in fact a positive development. Despite all the faults of Western nations, I would feel far more comfortable in a world where Western civilization, Western values, and the Western way of life weren't threatened in the future on various fronts. But with a resurgent Russia carrying out technical upgrades to early warning systems and their nuclear arsenal, as well as a China with a very high economic growth, the window of opportunity for the US to take advantage of its nuclear primacy is short. As difficult as it is to say, I would rather millions die now than billions more suffer in the future.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Don't know where, don't know when, but I know we'll meet again some sunny day...
This sig is false.
Sub Commander: "Enemy vessel has locked on and fired anti-sub missile. Impact in 10 seconds.
Impact in 9 seconds.
Impact in 8 seconds.
Impact in 7 seconds.
Impact in 12 seconds.
Impact in 2 seconds.
Impact in 1 seconds.
Impact in about an hour.
Impact in 4 minutes.
-- BOOM
Finished copying 2MegaTons file "Missile.snk" from "Vessel" to "Your Ass".
Thanks for using MIcrosoft Windows Vista.
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
You honestly think that those who made this report didn't think about that point of view at all? IE: If the security on some things mattter or not. That is exactly what they made the report about, you know...
But of course, by reading the slashdot summary, you know a lot more than they do about whether this thing matters or not.
Please provide figures saying how long it would take to consume the existing supply of plutonium. The Wikipedia article about the IFR says 700 years for existing depleted uranium stores. Surely there's much more depleted uranium than plutonium?
The Wikipedia article says the waste would have to be stored ~400 years. You don't have to store the waste in the reactor, of course.
This is an unclassified report because there is no way to classify it, and because it's the product of an anti-nuke organization.
Put together by the leaders of Australia and Japan, this report can best be described as a sales pitch.
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
network anyways ? these should be off any kind of grid, and only be launchable manually.
Read radical news here
Didn't they do this in the last crappy Die Hard movie?
Yes, fighters are the only things that can initiate an attack on bombers. However, when a bomber attacks, the unit with the best defense value is figured into a battle calculation like usual, and it might win on defense, even if it couldn't initiate the attack.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
"...and the use of Windows on nuclear submarines"
OMG Windows on subs.
The seamen's term is Portholes!
hundreds commit suicide every day. hating the world and hating yourself are actually psychologically entwined. for example, dozens kill their parents/ lover/ children/ their classmates, and then off themselves, every day. its not exactly a weird alien concept, this sort of extreme hatred of self/ the world. plenty have it, its actually quite common: that the solution to our problems is to end it all
in fact, i would bet everyone reading this comment knows someone from their life experience who matches this description, this extreme hatred of selves/ the world. sounds pretty common the motivation to do this, no? a lot of people are self-loathing. a lot of people are self-loathing and hate the world and would consider ending it all- themselves, and including the rest of us, out of hatred for us, or even, in a twisted way, to help us end OUR suffering. to "put us out of our misery" not because we are in misery, but because the perp doesn't understand how anyone could escape the problems they are in. they project, and imagine all of us are suffering as horribly as they are and wish to die as much as they do. perception of reality is not a strong suit in this world, especially amongst those with mental disease and emotional problems
it wouldn't take much to find thousands with the motivation to do this. just look at the suicide bombers in the middle east. where do they find these people? these people are everwhere, they are exactly the same people, psychologically, who commit suicide by the thousands in japan. at any given time on this planet, a large population of people exists who hate themselves, the world, and are ready for death, of themselves, and the rest of us, and are highly motivated in these regards
all you have to do is find someone who values their life at zero, and with pressure, everyone else's life at zero as well, and then strap some c4, ball bearings, and rat poison on their chests. in fact, the very notion of religious extremism is all about valuing some sort of ridiculous religious standards of human behavior, seeing reality and how it falls far short of these ridiculous standards, and therefore, hating the world, and desiring to correct the world and its sins, even if it means so many deaths. 99% of religious people value humanity and human life more than the ridiculous standards that exist in their religious literature. the other 1% value those ridiculous religious standards more than human life. and they are actively killing in the name of that notion, right now, today, all over the world, by any means possible. belief in armageddeon is a self-fulfilling prophecy for these demented fucks: we all deserve to die, because we are impure according to some retarded standards, so lets go about making that happen. if they kill themselves in the process, well, even better: now they are a martyr in the eyes of whatever "god" they imagine approves of their demented bullshit
as for the skills to do this hack, and the opportunity, well, that's probably going to make this a lot harder to pull off
but considering the consequences, do you really want to find out? fixing the weaknesses that make the concept of hacking nuclear controls even theoretically possible is then obviously of the highest priority
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"You first".
+++OK ATH
While I'm generally in favor of reducing the number of nukes out there, the linked article is just crap. A few items for consideration:
I tried reading the report, but the intro was so stupid I couldn't be bothered to continue. This is pure scare-mongering.
There are different solutions in place. One system I worked on used a mixture of OSs: VxWorks for the actual fire control computers, a commercial *nix for the display/control computers, and Red Hat for the program loading/data extraction functions. The actual software running on these was all custom. Obviously there would be serious issues trying to design malware for such a thing, and I can't think how you'd implant it. Of course, there was simply no way to connect to the internet with this. You'd essentially have to subvert a servicemember - getting him to deliberately load a bad program, and hope no one noticed. And how you'd design malware for this is beyond me, since you'd have no access to the hardware (which was a mixture of COTS and custom stuff).
Pure rubbish. I can't believe this passed as a research paper, then again, with the level of professionalism I see now considered acceptable, it shouldn't. Maybe this guy should move to New Jersey.
As someone that once maintained the NWP-16 ( Nucular publication #16 ) which
amongst other things, documented the detination frequencies and fail
safe codes of all nucular weapons the united states had and has today,
their is a possibility that even with revolving random frequency
transmission via MUX gear a hacker could pre-detinate or emergency
distruct one of more existing warheads not currently deployed. Other
than that the remainder of this report is of very little actual value
or accurately demonstrates any threat from cyberterrorists.
Regards,
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -