Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stuxnet Was Designed To Subtly Interfere With Uranium Enrichment

Posted by Soulskill on from the well-thank-god-it-didn't-infect-my-pc dept.

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."

10 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 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?

  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. This story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This story made my head spin. Slowly at first, but then faster, than slower again.

  4. Re:Resources, will, and motive by ciderbrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    Budget cuts in Britain would put a stop to that sort of thing. We can't even get a James Bond film off the ground with American money!

  5. 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.
  6. Re:Resources, will, and motive by makomk · · Score: 5, Informative

    I doubt that you would really need that many resources to do something like this.

    Aside from the problem that maxwell demon points out with the huge amount of secret internal information required, the attackers also obtained and used several zero-day vulnerabilities and driver signing certificates from two different hardware manufacturers. That's hardly trivial.

  7. Re:Resources, will, and motive by sigxcpu · · Score: 5, Informative

    I concur,
    Also note that whoever wrote the virus had very specific knowledge of the target.
    It would only act if more than 33 devices of one of two manufacturers were linked to one controller.
    It would act one way if the majority of the devices were from one manufacturer and do something else if there were from the other kind.
    I would guess that someone that worked there or someone that supplied parts to the project had a major hand in this.
    My guess would be that this is at least to some extent an inside job.

    --
    As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
  8. 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);
  9. More details by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's a lot more detail in the symantec virus "dossier". A very interesting and detailed read.

    --

    Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)