Slashdot Mirror


Stuxnet Was Designed To Subtly Interfere With Uranium Enrichment

ceswiedler writes "Wired is reporting that the Stuxnet worm was apparently designed to subtly interfere with uranium enrichment by periodically speeding or slowing specific frequency converter drives spinning between 807Hz and 1210Hz. The goal was not to cause a major malfunction (which would be quickly noticed), but rather to degrade the quality of the enriched uranium to the point where much of it wouldn't be useful in atomic weapons. Statistics from 2009 show that the number of enriched centrifuges operational in Iran mysteriously declined from about 4,700 to about 3,900 at around the time the worm was spreading in Iran."

16 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. The problem with computer sabotage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..is that you leave one hell of a forensic trail, and so lose the inevitable propaganda war that follows your activities....

    Having said that, I still welcome our variable but rapidly spinning overlords...

    1. Re:The problem with computer sabotage... by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) You can't write a virus that will spread only along the specific route that leads to a target, and even if you could that doesn't guarantee it wouldn't get noticed.

      2) You can't write a virus that targets so many industrial systems that the one you're really targeting gets lost among the others, for economical, ethical and practical reasons.

      3) Why would they care about the public finding out? They were very careful to make sure it wasn't found for as long as possible, but once the Iranians know about it why would they care who else knows about it?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:The problem with computer sabotage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...3) Why would they care about the public finding out? They were very careful to make sure it wasn't found for as long as possible, but once the Iranians know about it why would they care who else knows about it?..."

      Because international affairs are NOT like a Hollywood action film, where the hero blows the villain up in the last 15 minutes of action, and then rides off happily into the sunset with the girl. In real life actions have results. Look at the state the US got into on the international scene when all the stories about deception and torture in Iraq started coming out. Don't you think that the Iranians will present this as an act of war, and use it in every diplomatic conference for the next 20 years?

    3. Re:The problem with computer sabotage... by El+Torico · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or are just hopelessly naive. You used the phrase "peace in our time" which is very close to what Neville Chamberlain said after allowing Hitler to annex the Sudetenland.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  2. Re:Resources, will, and motive by Chrisq · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are only two nations with the resources, will, and motive to attack Iran's nuclear ambitions in this way: America and Israel.

    It figures that hegemony would lead either state to such an antagonistic stance.

    While I agree that they are teh most likely candidates, I think Russia and China would be quite capable of doing this too if they turned their mind to it. Probably the UK, France, Gremany and maybe India. All have both nuclear and computer technology

  3. Re:Resources, will, and motive by silanea · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would not rule out Russia or China. Both have no interest in a strong Iran but every interest in an Iran that appears strong, since this ties and diverts US and Israeli attention and resources. It also sets a "benchmark" of aggression; as long as esp. China is less of a threat that Iran it can get away with quite a lot, barely noticed. A perceived Iranian nuclear threat can then also serve as justification for building missile defense systems and implementing other military measures that would previously have set off tensions with the Western nuclear powers.

    A simple case of cui bono?.

    --
    Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
  4. Re:Resources, will, and motive by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's equally likely neither Russia nor China would be very happy to see a nuclear Iran, but not want to be visibly seen discouraging them on the international stage. Stuxnet, lets either of them slow Iran's nuclear program, test a new concept of warfare, and leave the US and Israel holding the bad as "most likely." For them it's a win-win-win. Beyond that, intelligence orgainizations in the West now have a small taste of what someone else can do. It's going to keep the West in knots for a few years, hardening against "the last threat," while they've got the next threat now, and are working on the one beyond that.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  5. I don't know whats more worrying... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... the emergence of this type of worm or the fact that a consumer OS as security poor as Windows is being used in nuclear plants. And no, I don't think Linux or OS/X would be much of an improvement. OpenBSD maybe. But surely for operations such as this where a fault really could lead to numerous people dying in unpleasent ways a tested, secure real time OS from somewhere like Green Hills would be used? OK , in Iran I realise this wouldn't be possible but Windows isn't just used over there in important industrial applications.

    You wouldn't want Windows (or Linux or OS/X) flying your Airbus so why the hell do people think its ok to run indistrial sites with it??

    1. Re:I don't know whats more worrying... by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't seem to be getting the point dude. i don't care if the things were running Win9X the point is there is supposed to be an AIRGAP which the Iranians didn't bother with. It could have just as easily been an old Linux that hadn't been patched in forever (because the levels of paperwork to approve patches on those kinds of machines I'm sure is immense) or an old System 9 Mac, it don't matter because again it is supposed to be AIRGAPPED.

      An airgap means that there is NO net access and ANY device that is supposed to be brought from the unsafe side to the safe side needs to be treated as hostile and go through several levels of screening if allowed at all. Now from what I understand these machines have online activation (dumb) and have default passwords that can NOT be changed (really dumb) and then on top of that the Iranians didn't bother to securely lock down this attack vector nor get rid of even basic weaknesses like USB ports (super dumb) so trying to blame this clusterfuck of errors on ANY OS when the security team wasn't doing their job is just a waste of breath.

      Hell you could put an unpatched XP RTM as the controller and not have a SINGLE problem if proper airgap procedures are in place. But saying "If they only used X!" with whatever OS, be it real time or off the shelf, ignores the fact this was a highly targeted attack. If they would have used a RTOS I'm sure there would have been attack code written for it because the Iranians simply weren't following good security practices.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Re:Loudmouths by oji-sama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would think that Iranians would have noticed their Nuclear chief's resignation (and the possible nuclear incident) themselves.

    --
    It is what it is.
  7. Re:Resources, will, and motive by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would not rule out Russia or China. Both have no interest in a strong Iran but every interest in an Iran that appears strong, since this ties and diverts US and Israeli attention and resources. It also sets a "benchmark" of aggression; as long as esp. China is less of a threat that Iran it can get away with quite a lot, barely noticed. A perceived Iranian nuclear threat can then also serve as justification for building missile defense systems and implementing other military measures that would previously have set off tensions with the Western nuclear powers.

    A simple case of cui bono?.

    Ugh.. This assumes that

    • Intelligence agencies will ignore other superpowers because they are distracted by Iran,
    • That continuing to enrich uranium is somehow more aggressive than ships sunk by North Korea, hostages taken by Somalian pirates, economic wars by China over a prisoner taken by Japan from a disputed island, etc, etc, etc
    • That Russia or China are smart enough to set this intricate double-trap just so that they can raise the "benchmark of aggression" but that other powers aren't smart enough to just continue to monitor other powers as always,
    • That China and Russia are secretly using Iran as a reason to build controversial missile defense systems when until recently that's exactly what the US was going do openly,
    • And that by launching this attack they are somehow keeping Iran weak while it still looks strong, when Iran's enrichment facilities are the subject of such intense scrutiny that when the attack occurred the "weakening" of Iran was apparent long before anyone in the public even knew of the attack

    I am just at a loss.. It really is like each response after the next is competing to think of a more convoluted, absurd way that someone you don't suspect could be involved in it.
    I fully expect to scroll down and see some justification for why it's internal industrial sabotage of one Siemens subdivision versus another, or Iran launching it against themselves to get international sympathy.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  8. Every country, and a lot of corps could do this by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The sad thing is just about every country has the resources to do this. Siemens is based in Belgium too, so why couldn't it be Belgium ? I wonder what kinds of problems even a country like Luxenbourg would encounter in doing this. All it takes is budget, hiring a few capable Siemens engineers and throwing a few millions at it. Hell, a lot of publicly traded companies could do this by themselves.

    So at the very least, every single country could do it. It would probably be the easiest to do for Iran itself, having obviously maximum access to the systems to be sabotaged, and then they'd blame the enemy "du jour", mostly America, protestors, or Israel, or women, gays (I forgot: gays don't exist in Iran, except of course on pictures of their execution), or ...

    At the very least, add it to your list of likely candidates : America, Israel, Iran, and all other nations permanently on the security council : China, Russia, France, UK. These countries all have policy that military intervention (even if very low-level at the moment) is justified to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And Iran itself, is genocidally insane and obsessed with their, equally genocidal, religion. Additionally Iran's government is very, very afraid of losing power. So afraid, that they marched several hundred thousand children into minefields to prevent it (google "plastic key to heaven"), just 20 years ago.

    Frankly, more people should sabotage countries like Iran, or all muslim countries in general, for the simple reason that their handling of minorities can only be described as "genocidal". If we are to have any pretense of actually opposing racism, attacking countries with racist laws, and even attacking religions with racist laws, should be standard policy. Of course, for American politicians "racism" is just a meaningless 6-letter word that you shout at whatever political opponents you have to get special treatment for "special" racial groups.

    Say, special treatment depending on race, wasn't that the definition of racism just 10 years back ? It still is, of course, the definition of racism, but now democrats and republicans claim words have no meaning and we should help the "poor victims". Apparently, we should help "them" through becoming more racist.

    1. Re:Every country, and a lot of corps could do this by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with you 90% of the way but you can't criticize racism yet say we should sabotage "all muslim countries in general", you really can't. Iran may be a dark place, practicing Islam, but Islam didn't make it that way and their flavor isn't representative of the religion as a whole.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:Every country, and a lot of corps could do this by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The key here is knowledge. The knowledge to write Stuxnet is extremely hard to get (the holes in operating systems, the ability to jump from Windows to SCADA systems, knowing what speed the uranium was spinning), but this may not be impossible for someone who has a lot of connections, perhaps someone whose family has nuclear process engineers.

      There are a lot of people and organizations who don't like either Iran or Israel, and who would happily eat popcorn as both countries went to war with each other. It could be a guy in someone's basement who gets amusement from it the same way someone gets amusement from cracking root and rm-ing / on a university system.

  9. Re:Resources, will, and motive by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "economic wars by China over a prisoner taken by Japan from a disputed island, etc"

    If you mean Senkaku, they are firmly in Japanese control China can dispute it all they want, but they don't own the islands in any sense.

    I didn't say they owned the islands in any sense, I said they are disputed.

    I do not think for one second that China is capable of something so robust and intricate.

    That leaves pretty much the US or Russia. As Russia is the hacker capital of the world, I would put my money on them. Even the US government is too bumbling to ever get something like this right.

    Yes the Chinese aren't robust or intricate, and the US is bumbling, but don't Russians drink vodka?
    And the UK are too gentlemanly, and Africans don't have computers, so that's them out of the equation.

    Damn, who in this world of stereotypes and ignorance could have done it?

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  10. Re:Do you want economic collapse? by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is in no way antisemitism. It is a simple statement of fact. It does not say 'all Jews.' It does not ascribe any evil motives to them: they wish to protect their ancestral homeland, nothing wrong with that. It does not claim they control or dominate American politics, or spread any other false and malicious rumors about Jews. Who wouldn't want someone else to pay for their safety? If you can convince someone in an open and free society to pay for your defense, more power to you.

    Just as an interesting aside, do you know why a lot of Christians want to protect Israel? The Jews have to be there on Judgment day. No Jews, no Jesus. And the Jews die. Evangelicals want them there to die and ensure the return of their savior.

    Me, I wish them the Jews the best of luck protecting their country from the assholes surrounding them that wish them nothing but death. The kind of "Oh my God they're coming to get us!" thinking that is ridiculous bullshit when we Americans do it is absolutely true over there.

    But I am DONE paying for it. I am done paying for the world's police force. The world doesn't need that many cops, and someone else can take a turn anyway.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton