Slashdot Mirror
Stuxnet Worm May Have Targeted Iranian Reactor
yuna49 writes "Analysis of the Stuxnet worm suggests its target might have been Iran's nuclear program. "Last week Ralph Langner, a well-respected expert on industrial systems security, published an analysis of the Stuxnet worm, which targets Siemens software systems, and suggested that it may have been used to sabotage Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor. A Siemens expert, Langner simulated a Siemens industrial network and then analyzed the worm's attack. Experts had first thought that Stuxnet was written to steal industrial secrets, but Langner found something quite different. The worm actually looks for very specific Siemens settings — a kind of fingerprint that tells it that it has been installed on a very specific Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) device — and then it injects its own code into that system."
Which is why this malware has multiple infection routes, including USB sticks.
Hence why no one knows where it came from.
Iran already blames Israel, for pretty much everything including why the crops fail. I mean, christ, they made the 100th anniversary of the original publishing of "the protocols of the elders of zion" (you know, the anti-semitic forged pamphlet) into a national holiday. It's not like things could get any worse.
The only reason that Iran doesn't attack Israel is because they know that Israel has nukes, and the will to use them with very little provocation. Even for those countries who would likely come down on Iran's side in any conflict, how many of them have any military to speak of? How many have nukes? Even one?
Really, it's in Israel's best interest that Iran starts hostilities and the sooner the better, before Iran gets nukes. In many ways it would actually stabilize the region to have Iran beat down somewhat--you know, at least from Israel's perspective.
Also, you should know by now that ulcers come from infection, not stress. Seriously, there was a Nobel Prize and everything.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
What does this say about reactor safety system design?
Nothing, because the entire scenario (adjust parameters...meltdown) is a fiction that exists exclusively inside your head.
The reactor is a Russian PWR that follows contemporary design principles and has parity with western reactors. The ECCS is not subject to the exclusive control of vulnerable PLCs. Safety systems aren't networked together in Ethernet broadcast domains waiting for stuxnet infections. Worst case; control rods can be inserted manually and feedwater/HPCI/LPCI pumps activated manually regardless of the state of any given PLC. The manual controls on these safety systems are deliberately simple for a reason.
Maybe a really clever attack designed to confuse operators into making the wrong decisions (see TMI-2 1979) could produce core damage. This still isn't some containment free RMBK graphite bomb reactor like Chernobyl. Contained PWR designs are more forgiving; they don't contaminate things even when they do melt down.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Seriously, wanting to persue peaceful nuclear power isn't an issue.
That's not the real issue here.
Hell, if they wanted warheads they could just BUY them.
Even if they could do so without the transaction somehow gummed up by the CIA, the Mossad, et al, buying nukes on the black market doesn't solve the problem from Iran's point of view. Iran wants to be able to homebrew these things and grow an arsenal. Buying the goods premade is more suited to a terrorist organization; a) bent on destruction of a specific target, and/or blackmail, b) without the resources (land, modern, standing armed forces, especially air & air defense) to build and protect fixed facilities.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Iranians don't like to be called Arab because:
1. They aren't arab:
a. they aren't descended from the arabs; they aren't semitic, they are aryans (Iran = Ayran = land of aryans)
b. they don't speak arabic, they speak persian (called farsi in their language) which is an IndoEuropean language closer to English than arabic
c. Most arab muslims are sunnis, Iranians are Shiite
2. Iranians have sought to make themselves distinct from the Islamic Empire since about 500 years ago when they mostly became Shiite and revived the persian language and have since tried to revive their "Persian Empire" root. For example, at the beginning of the 20th Century a general took over, called himself King and claimed to be related to the ancient "Pahlavi" dinasty.
3. Because of this, Arabs are often portrayed in Iranian accounts of history as uncivilized crowds of destroyers that came to destroy the noble ancient Persian culture. So 20th Century Shah's saught to foment alliegience to the ancient culture rather than Mecca in an effort to secularize the country.
4. Secularization backfired in 1979 when the clergy took over power. However, the new clergy fancies itself the "true Islam" and still distinct from Arab Islam.
3. As a result of this, anti-arab prejudice runs deep among Iranians :)
I'm sorry, but your view of Iran seems very skewed and you're being modded as Informative when really you just seem to be voicing your own opinions.
Persia was first conquered by Muslim Arabs in 644.
One thousand, three hundred and sixty-six years ago, yes. I hardly think this comes into play in modern Iranian politics. The idea that there's some sort of insidious infestation of Arabism that has festered in Iran for over a thousand years seems pretty silly. Also, the idea that Iranians were converted to Islam by force has been mostly discredited.
Many Persians refer to the 1979 revolution as the second Arab invasion of Persia.
"Many" is a weasel word. The ones you've been listening to apparently believe that. But this interpretation ignores the fact that the 1979 revolution in Iran was largely a populist political revolt against a brutally oppressive regime backed by the foreign interests (the U.S.). Some people protested the societal changes that came with the new Islamic state, yes. But the vast majority welcomed it.
If Iran was "invaded by Arabs" in 1979 and everything since has been part of some big Arab conspiracy, how do you explain that the majority Muslims in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, and Kuwait are Sunni, while Iran is a Shi'a republic?
And if Iran has been "invaded by Arabs" since 1979, how do you explain the events of 1980 when Iran was, oddly enough, invaded by Arabs? Iran fought a bloody war against Iraq for the next eight years.
And when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about improving his countries ties with "Arab nations" and "the Arab world," what's he doing -- putting up a front for appearances' sake? Your comment elsewhere that his mother "is believed to be descended from Muhammad's bloodline" doesn't hold much water.
Likewise your comment that Larijani must secretly be an Arab because he's the son of an Ayatollah doesn't make sense either. You don't have to be an Arab to be a Muslim, and your insistence on conflating the two smacks completely of jingoism, despite what the other responder says.
Breakfast served all day!