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."
There's one non-secular country in the world that is famous for it's disregard for anyone but itself and its fundamentalist religious belief in their own specialness in the eyes of their own god, which they believe justifies their evil actions.
The truth is some evil people will do anything for wealth and power.
Nope, Israel.
The Saudis, UAE or Qatar have strong interests in Iran not going nuclear, but military computer science stuff is going to be Israel, Russia, China or the US, my money is on Israel in this one.
Why in the Hell is Iran connecting their nuclear reactor to the Internet???
Either Iran is unbelievably stupid, or they've got some blindingly incompetent IT people working at that plant. And considering the international attention that plant is getting, you'd imagine that any incompetent operators would have been sent into the desert to look for minefields while wearing clown shoes long ago.
[End Of Line]
Ugh, what a terrible article. There's no firm conclusions at all, just mindless speculation. Here's some gems: "The only thing I can say is that it is something designed to go bang" and "'If I had to guess what it was, yes that's a logical target' he said, 'but that's just speculation'"
This could be an interesting topic, but unfortunately, it is turned into a pointless article spewing wild guesses. And the findings are to be submitted in a closed door security meeting? WTF? I guess we'll never know.
I have programmed many PLC's in my day, but unfortunately not Siemens. Does anyone have experience with siemens that can comment on the mysterious operational block 35?
I can simply imagine an Mosad/CIA agent bringing it on a USB stick. Who said that some low rank technician with access to facility office LAN doesn't need additional income.
Siemens PLCs are everywhere. Same with GE and others. They run everything from nuke plants to little benchtop lathes and aerospace applications. How this person decided that it *had* to be the Iranian nuke plant baffles me.
How does he know that it wasn't targeted at various military targets? Iranian medium and short range missile installations also come to mind. Does he *have* the Siemens PLC configuration from the nuke plant in his hot little hands? Or does he even have the model numbers?
Reading TFA, no.
Peterson believes that Bushehr was possibly the target. "If I had to guess what it was, yes that's a logical target," he said. "But that's just speculation."
Well, there you go. Nothing to see here.
That's not to say that actual cyber-warfare is not happening, but to come out with wild-ass speculation and present it as newsworthy reminds me of Fox "News" and the rest of the Murdoch "empire."
--
BMO
Definitely. Using more conventional power generation technologies, they are a target for aerial bombing. If a nuclear power plant were to be bombed, any sort of disaster might occur making the bomber look extremely evil. (The only way they could hope to get away with it is to make the bombing look as if it came from Iran itself.) In any case, enemies would be less inclined to attack a nuclear power plant as opposed to conventional ones.
As to who is responsible for the targeted malware? I can't imagine.
Texas? That's just a state though, not a country.
Or better, if so, what does it say about the moral character of the person who wrote it?
I mean seriously, say what you want about international politics, there are human beings there, on the ground. Any action that intentionally endangers those people is irresponsible. Whoever wrote it, CIA or not, should spend the rest of his life behind bars... along with whoever authorized its production and distribution.
This is just not an acceptable action... no matter who the target is or why.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That's a very idealistic view. There are several people who would argue that destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities is actually protecting lives, not destroying them. Of course, that all depends on Iranian government intentions. But considering the many discussions held in Iran about destroying Israel, a world without Israel, etc, it's not exactly a stretch to imagine that Iran would use its nuclear capability to attack Israel. It's also not difficult to imagine that Israel would attack Iran's nuclear program, as they have in the past with Iraq and Syria. Iran's program would be the first operational Arabic nuclear program that hasn't been destroyed by Israel before becoming operational.
Israel does not live in an idealistic world, from their point of view they can't afford to not attack an enemy nuclear installation just because there's a guy there sweeping the floor who may get killed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
There's one non-secular country in the world that is famous for it's disregard for anyone but itself and its fundamentalist religious belief in their own specialness in the eyes of their own god, which they believe justifies their evil actions.
Fundamentalist Muslims are not limited to one country.
Intolerance isn't exactly limited to borders drawn on a map...
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
In many ways it would actually stabilize the region to have Iran beat down somewhat--you know, at least from Israel's perspective.
That was the thinking by the Neocons and the far right in Israel when the choice was made to attack Iraq, but it wound up backfiring. Israel felt and probably is much less safe now, since it galvanized the Arab world to cooperate with Israel even less and support "reisistance" groups like Hamas even more (Iraqi politicians like Muqtada Al-Sadr are now supporting them), and swung Iranian public opinion toward throwing out the moderate Khatami and voting for Ahmadinejad (the first time at least), and the expansion of training camps in Iraq meant that Israel now has long-term problems. Israel's generals can't say it openly, but in many conversations to the press it's been treated as a given that the whole misadventure put the region on less stable footing and has overall hurt Israeli security.
Brilliant - let's get one up on the Iranians by messing with their nuclear reactor controls! What could possibly go wrong?
Maybe less than would go wrong if Iran got the bomb?
I don't know how likely that is, but I'm guessing whoever did this probably has a different calculus than I do for weighing the two, like (Iranian civilian deaths)= 0.1(own civilian deaths). So from their perspective, probably not much could go wrong.
Iran is not an arabic country. They are actually quite different than the surrounding countries and this is way Ahmadinejad is sticking his neck out as much as he does.
I would have to agree. Sadly, certain three-letter organizations have also been known to fire hellcat missiles into busy streets to get one or two specific individuals and to hell with anyone else. Carnage as a method of controlling public opinion is given a very specific name. State-sponsorship of such carnage is a serious offense in the eyes of the World Court (now the ICJ).
Yes, I accept the argument that certain nations have... issues... that make certain technologies inadvisable. It does NOT help that two such nations were given nuclear technology by the US, and this has indeed been used as justification for equally hazardous nations possessing the know-how. That was a seriously bad mistake, as deliberate violations of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty by key members of the Security Council makes it much much harder for the UN to enforce said treaty. But that is just the point. This is a UN issue, the US by being a member of the UN is subordinate to the UN on all international matters - whether it likes it or not. I would point out that the reason that the League Of Nations collapsed was because of nations deciding their political agendas were more important than the good of all.
Perhaps the UN lacks teeth. Perhaps the members of the Security Council would like to explain why said teeth were pulled, knowingly and willingly, by each and every one of them. Perhaps they would also like to explain what "Security" they propose to offer when there's nothing to offer it with. No, of course they won't. And the bombs will continue to be planted/launched, people will suffer indiscriminately (in violation of many other laws - not to mention every manual ever written on how to wage war), nothing will change. Further, the purported objectives will never be met.
(I say "purported" precisely because manuals like "The Art of War" specifically prohibit senseless killing or destruction. Can something be a true objective if you pursue a path that you know MUST fail, that every text tells you WILL fail, that every attempt in history to succeed by that path HAS failed? If you really want to achieve a result, would you not follow a path that would really achieve it? Of course, you have to consider the possibility that those giving the orders really do believe in what they claim they want, but are too deluded, too far under the Napoleonic Complex, to comprehend that they are wrong. That is actually a bit more likely than the 1984 scenario of a permanent war, engineered to subvert the minds of others, but no less terrifying. Consider this - if the people in high office are all criminally insane, and the population is knowingly electing them, what does that tell you about the population?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
So some innocent people should die for the sake of crimes that might be commited in the future?
That's the same bullshit excuse used to justify nuking Japan. Most Americans are completely stupid. They claim that nuclear weapons are terrible and should never be used and anyone who uses it is evil, but the minute someone brings up the fact that America is the only country to use it, they suddenly backtrack and claim that it was used to "save lives" based on military estimates.
Assuming that the Wikipedia article is correct, Israel has had nuclear capabilities (~20 bombs) during the '73 war and did not use it, even though the Arab military success at the beginning of the war was definitely more than "very little provocation".
But considering the many discussions held in Iran about destroying Israel, a world without Israel
Citation needed.
AFAIK Iran has never advocated the destruction of Israel with a "kill all jews" kind of vibe. What Iran has said is that they'd like to see the current government (of Israel), which from their point of view is based on aggressive nationalistic idealism and presents a threat to Iran and the world, become a thing of the past.
Besides, Iran nuking Israel is one of the dumbest things they could do. It is not advocated by Iran, instead it is advocated by various US right-wing/neocon publications as their wet dream which supposedly hastens the "return of Jesus" (through the battle at Armageddon as told in the Bible). Yes, seriously.
What is missing from this seemingly exciting fiction of Iran wanting to nuke Israel is the fact that it would be suicide, and no matter what you may have been told or heard, the Iranian leadership is not stupid. They play a good game of geopolitical chess.
You must understand that Iran is sitting on top of a vast pile of resources (e.g. oil). Given that similar neighbouring countries have already been invaded (Iraq, Afghanistan) or otherwise succumbed to the US sphere of influence (e.g. Georgia), Iran has every right to try to acquire any defensive measures it can. So far Iran has demonstrated that they want to live in peace without being invaded or having to give up their resources to someone else. Is that somehow bad?
Besides, if Iran is not developing nuclear bomb capability, they most certainly should! Iran obtaining nuclear bombs is the only thing that will pacify the Middle East. It will create a stand-off where a MAD scenario prevents further aggression between Iran, the arab states and Israel. This includes the usage of any nuclear bombs. This will force the parties to negotiate.
If you're afraid of Iran getting the nuke, are you not worried of some nutjob buying/bribing themselves such a device from Pakistan?
Just sayin'.
Yeah, you've got a idealogical lunatic running the country (I think we've heard that joke before) but he'd be gone by now if the mass media didn't think that MJ's funeral was more important than protestors being gunned down by the Iranian goverment.
Right. Because the US being all concerned about politics in Iran will bring about political change in Iran? Doesn't everyone get all antsy when the US takes interest in foreign politics? And isn't Iran among the least likely to take political cues from the US (or the rest of the MJ-living world, for that matter)?
Seriously, wanting to persue peaceful nuclear power isn't an issue. Hell, if they wanted warheads they could just BUY them.
Really now. And who's going to sell them to Iran? Always better to have your own means rather than be dependent on others. The idea that this is all about peaceful application is still very suspect.
That's because it does. You just need to be a *little* slyer. (Not much.)
This is one point where it really does matter what the target OS is. If your USB is vfat, then you can't have allow execute set to true. But if you use a properly targeted file system (say ext3), then you can set execution permissions. Or even just make it a tar.gz file, and when it's expanded, it ends up with execute permissions set. So you open a jpeg, and actually execute a script that opens the jpeg while executing something else in the background.
(Allowing tar files so set the execute permission is a big weakness...and a vast convenience. But that should require running a separate script or chmod with root permissions.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Citation needed.
See above.
AFAIK Iran has never advocated the destruction of Israel with a "kill all jews" kind of vibe.
When your conference is called "A World Without Zionism", the "vibe" is pretty obvious.
What is missing from this seemingly exciting fiction of Iran wanting to nuke Israel is the fact that it would be suicide, and no matter what you may have been told or heard, the Iranian leadership is not stupid.
Apparently someone has told you that Muslims are afraid of death or dying. There's a documentary called My Trip To Al-Qaeda by Lawrence Wright, highly recommended. One of the insights he comes out with is that, through his discussions with jihadi fighters, they tell him that one of the differences between them and us is that we love life, and they love death. All of the rewards they will get, all of the salvation and good times, happen after they die, not before. A suicide mission for a jihadi is the way out, that's the reason they're there, that's the end game for them. It's not something they fear, it's something they look forward to. And their people venerate them for that.
Iran obtaining nuclear bombs is the only thing that will pacify the Middle East.
Right, because if there's one thing we know about fundamentalist Muslims, it's how rational and reasonable they are. How many people were killed in the riots in Afghanistan over the possibility of some douche in Florida maybe burning a Koran at some point in the future? Reason and rational discourse don't exactly play a huge role in these people's lives.
If you're afraid of Iran getting the nuke, are you not worried of some nutjob buying/bribing themselves such a device from Pakistan?
Absolutely, but I don't even think that's the biggest threat. I think the biggest threat is the Soviet nukes that are unaccounted for. When the Soviet Union collapsed, there were a lot of local military commanders that were looking to make some cash selling the hardware they controlled.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You could look at it that way. Frankly, I think calling it "idealistic" is a cop out. If anything, I find the idea that these actions are needed to secure safety and peace to be pretty laughable. Just because someone else spouts rhetoric? Seriously? When is the last time Iran (as if a whole country is one guy with a single consistent opinion, another laughable concept) did anything to Isreal other than spout off rhetoric?
Its one thing to make academic arguments about what may or may not happen or what may or may not being about some manner of safety for one group, even at the epxense of another, but, when you cross over from making statements about what you think to actually taking risks with other peoples lives, you lose my support.
So far, I am entirely unconvinced of the "threat", and wish the Iranians the best of luck in producing nuclear power for themselves.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Whoever did this, knew EXACTLY what they were going for. That means that they had insider knowledge of the full set-up. It could be Germany, Russia, Israel, or US in that order. It is possible that Russia gave the information needed for this to another country. That would be Israel or US.
Personally, I wish that this had not been found or announced yet. I would rather that it completed its mission.
this was a high-level inside hack. somebody is going to go missing. where they came from or end up will tell you who really orchestrated this one.
oh, and by the way, note that it was a broadcast inside hack, going all over Iran and elsewhere to get to the prize.
tells you two things. one, Iran has the nuclear stuff very highly compartmented. the originators did not have access to ring 0 of the secret program despite presumably working for the contractor.
two, there should not be any commodity stuff hanging on the side of any sensitive system. the worm got all over because there were Best Buy laptops running open market software.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Unless the plant design is some ghastly soviet relic(and possibly even then) it should be possible to force a shutdown without actually breaching the fuel containment or causing any appreciable contamination of the environment.
Cooling systems, for instance, tend to be big, and more or less have to be either aboveground(for massive air exchange) or next to a nice cool body of water. And, since they are cooling systems, hiding their IR output is going to be a trick. If you lose your cooling system, you have not that much time to drop the moderators into the core and shut the thing down, or get a nice pile of molten radioactive slag that has to be entombed more or less forever.
Any decent design will have a failsafe in place to deal with cooling failures in a recoverable way and a plant design has to be serious shit for the coolant failure to cause a meltdown that breaches containment.
Dropping a series of bunker busters right into the containment vessel of the reactor itself would, indeed; be deeply tactless and unlikely to win friends; but a nuclear plant has other vital systems...
The Bushehr reactor is operated under an international agreement, allowing Iran to operate it and generate power, but keeping the fuel under control of Russia. This was negotiated in order to allow Iran the capability to operate power generating facilities but keep the fuel cycle under control, avoiding diversion to weapons development.
If anyone (outside of Iran) gets caught sabotaging the reactor, it supports Iran making the argument that outside powers (under control of the West and/or Israel) can't be trusted. It is in our best interests to see this plant suceed. It will support the idea Iran can deal sucesfully with the IAEA and others in the development of nuclear power facilities and medical uses.
Have gnu, will travel.
Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life. There's nothing for a fundamental Muslim in this world other than armageddon. Why does an Arab care if Persia gets destroyed?
If you were a fundamentalist jihadi fighter, what would you believe your rewards in the afterlife would be if you destroyed the enemy of your religion? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? How about the way your family and friends would see you, would they be proud of you for attacking their eternal enemy or embarrassed because you caused so much death?
Don't make the mistake of assuming that Muslim mentality is anything like what your experiences have been. Priorities are completely different.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I'm inclined to believe that no matter how difficult the language may be to translate, someone speaking on the world stage would be able to enlist enough advisors to craft a speech that avoids massive "lost in translation" pitfalls.
If they were accidental, yes. The trouble is, there are one or two organisations who like to deliberately come up with... interesting translations of his speeches and send them to the press, and the press just laps it up.
And then ... Iran dumps nuclear waste in the nearest orphanage and tells the world your bombs did it.
What you're saying is a great idea, with a press that checks it's facts and or honest enemy. On both counts, our own press and Iran can be considered to be somewhat lacking ... and we all know what the entire world press is just dieing to believe ...
"That's the same bullshit excuse used to justify nuking Japan."
No excuse was needed. In Total War the enemy either surrenders or is destroyed. They must be beaten into either submission or death, and it does not matter which. There was no conceivable reason to consider the enemy civilians of Axis powers as anything but targets.
WWII was literally an existential struggle, so there is no logical justification for not doing everything to destroy Japanese resistance. A land invasion would have been tremendously costly, and there was less than zero reason to value _enemy_ civilians more than own side soldiers.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You sound like a fundamentalist Christian wack job who is just as dangerous as the Muslims that you seem to have a problem with. Given that we're close to or past Peak Oil at this point, does it really seem so far fetched that the Iranians want a different energy source? Even if they are building a bomb, they are a long way from having a delivery system. Even if they get a delivery system, they are unlikely to use it for the reasons stated.
Last I checked there are a bunch of Fundamendalist Christians in the United States armed forces. Does that mean that we're about to start the rapture to bring about the second coming of Christ? What makes you think that the the Arabs are any more likely to do so in the Middle East?
You have to realize that what leaders say in public to appease their people, and the actions that they take in private are often times very different.
Get a subscription to Stratfor. Do some research.
Ahh. And you're assuming that the extremist Arab Muslims want to live long, happy lives here on earth, right? Islam's rewards happen in death, not life.
Muslims no more believe in "rewards in death" than do Christians, who also believe in the afterlife. Your bigotry against Islam here does you no service.
Breakfast served all day!
Zionism is a nationalistic political movement. It does not = JEW.
Many jews around the world are AGAINST Zionism.
Putting whole country (Iran) into the same boat as a religious extremist group like Al-Qaeda, is beyond idiotic.
Leaders of a country the size of Iran have much more at stake and much more to consider than the single minded goals of a few nutjob imams.
Comparing Iran with poor, repressed and backwater afghani people is ignorant.
The level of education in Teheran and other Iran cities is quite high.
You basically know absolutely nothing about what you are commenting on.
You come off as an ignorant, hate mongering idiot.
Though I'm not surprised you where voted +5 insightful I am ashamed that Slashdot has such ignorants amongst its ranks.
I see no more of a threat from Iran than from Egypt for example. Only bullshit propaganda from Israel and the US on behalf of Israel.
The missile doesn't care if its warhead is nuclear or conventional.
The trigger mechanism sure does.
I don't think they share those same concerns. They don't care about dying as long as they kill the enemy. Preservation of life is not their primary goal, destruction is.
Where do you get your information from? Prime time news? Late night TV? There are a lot of factions in this country who want us to attack Iran. Don't be a tool. Use your head. Iran is the only thing standing in the way of US hedgemony over the Middle East. Of course you are going to be told that they are fanatical wack jobs who are a threat to everyone.
The Iranians are having a hard enough time keeping the regime together. People want power here and now, in the present. They use religion as a vehicle to obtain that power. There might be some wack jobs who believe in an afterlife and paradise and virgins. They are not a significant enough majority to build a bomb and use it, despite what the talking heads on the idiot box might be telling you.
Our beef is with anyone who gives us a reason to maintain boots on the ground in the most resource rich region on the planet. If you kid yourself into believing anything else you are deluded. Al-Qaeda sucks and all, but more people die every year in motor vehicles than Al-Qaeda has ever killed for as long as they have been around. Yet for some reason we haven't declared war on Ford and Toyota.
I feel bad for the Israelis but they are every bit as off their rockers as the Arabs are. We really should nuke the holy land and be done with it. That way nobody gets it anymore and they can find something else to fight over. Nuke the Temple Mount for World Peace.
That last passages describes exactly what jihadi martyrs hope to achieve by dying. On earth they live in a world full of suffering, violence, fear, and humiliation, which all goes away once they die and gets replaced with grace and paradise. Modern Christians do not live in the same hostile environment as Muslims do.
Except, I guess, for the modern Christians who live in the Middle East? What does "the same hostile environment" mean, anyway? Are you implying that every Muslim interprets the Koran the same way you -- a non-Muslim -- have chosen to? There are Muslims living right down the street from me who have absolutely nothing in common with your "jihadi martyrs". I could go over to their place right now and borrow a cup of sugar. Likewise, a good friend's cousins live in Iran right now. They are nice, pretty girls who like skiing.
Or are you implying that whackjob Christian fundamentalists never harmed anyone? Timothy McVeigh said he was at peace with his God, and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean Allah.
But I think we're getting closer to the real foundation of your posts today, which is that A.) that you hate Islam, probably because you're a fundamentalist Christian yourself or close to it; B.) you therefore hate Arabs because you believe all Muslims are Arabs or Arab-controlled; and C.) that these beliefs do, I'm afraid, make you a bigot.
Breakfast served all day!
Welcome to Western media 101 - Iran's reactor bombed by West. Iran blamed for irradiating orphans - More crap at 11
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.