Slashdot Mirror


Stuxnet Still Out of Control At Iran Nuclear Sites

Velcroman1 writes "Iran's nuclear program is still in chaos despite its leaders' adamant claim that they have contained the computer worm that attacked their facilities, cybersecurity experts in the US and Europe say. Last week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after months of denials, admitted that the worm had penetrated Iran's nuclear sites, but he said it was detected and controlled. The second part of that claim, experts say, doesn't ring true. Owners of several security sites have discovered huge bumps in traffic from Iran, as the country tries to deal with Stuxnet. 'Our traffic from Iran has really spiked,' said a corporate officer who asked that neither he nor his company be named. 'Iran now represents 14.9 percent of total traffic, surpassing the United States with a total of 12.1 percent.'"

361 comments

  1. Don't worry Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...patch Tuesday is coming. ;)

    1. Re:Don't worry Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it'll fix 2009's problems...

  2. Half of the Summary is not true? by Stregano · · Score: 0

    According to half of the summary, experts say that half of it is not true, but we are going to go ahead and provide links and go into it anyway. "The second part of that claim, experts say, doesn't ring true.". Why even start explaining the second part if you just said that experts say it is not true?

    --
    The world is how you make it
    1. Re:Half of the Summary is not true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this was previously reported here:

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/2344218/Iran-Admits-Stuxnet-Affected-Their-Nuclear-Program

      But we did not have any information with which to refute anything at that time.

    2. Re:Half of the Summary is not true? by sanchom · · Score: 1

      From the summary: "[...] he said it was detected and controlled. The second part of that claim, experts say, doesn't ring true." The second part being, "and controlled". The summary then goes on to give reasons why experts believe that the second part of that claim isn't true. What's wrong with that?

  3. This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unlike those kids at Anonymous, the perpetrators of stuxnet are showing who are the real hacktivists.

    Targeted precise strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, this is a bigger win for freedom and security in the free world and anything wikileaks or their supporters could dream of doing.

    I commend these hackers for slowing down the evil Iranian government's nuclear ambitions.

    1. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These weren't 'hacktivists'. These were government employed/contracted hackers.

    2. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by wampus · · Score: 3

      Yes indeed. Go team Mossad.

    3. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hacktivism is not what governments do. They strike, and this was a strike. Probably from Mossad. Likely not from the US, since we don't have people who could get the worm the last inch.

    4. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your glee might be tempered a bit when this thing gets propagated to Europe, North America, and the rest of the world.

      It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country.

      Your local power company? Not so much.

      Viruses and worms seem unlikely to honor boundaries forever. At least a surprise bombing run on a reactor in Iran is unlikely to hit Con-Edison in NY.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by alexborges · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

      --
      NO SIG
    6. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by future+assassin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      >Targeted precise strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, this is a bigger win for freedom and security in the free world and anything wikileaks or their supporters could dream of doing.

      More like cripple them so the US with the approval of other Arab countries like Saudi would go in and start another war for extra few years of oil supply.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    7. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the virus works in the USA/Europe?

    8. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by icebike · · Score: 2, Funny

      If it didn't when sent, it will upon return.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by wampus · · Score: 1

      That was sarcasm. I am not a fan of either of the parties here.

    10. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      What makes you so sure about that? A computer virus could discriminate just as much as a real biological virus yah know.

    11. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      Other than Siemens controllers being less common in the US, why wouldn't it?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    12. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      It hasn't hit the USA or Europe so far and it's been out for quite a while. As for why, this clearly is the work of Western national cyber warfare agencies, I don't think they would want to cause havoc amongst their own citizens.

    13. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country. Your local power company? Not so much.

      I dunno man.

      I'd put my local power company up against those "Your nuclear power plant control software license has expired please obtain a valid license" clowns any day.

      The local guys may be clowns too. But the difference is that my clowns can at least download a patch.

    14. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      http://www.zdnetasia.com/stuxnet-infections-continue-to-rise-62201930.htm

      There are infections in Step 7 showing up at what I'm guessing are either automation companies or companies with big in house automation support, given that they are known to Siemens.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    15. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The difference is that if a stuxnet attack is reported in the USA/Europe, the location will be visited by black suits wearing sunglasses and they will plug in a device, wipe out the virus as well as any trace they had been there, and any personel involved will get the whole "We were never here, nothing ever happened" spiel. It might also involve several waves of the hand, the flash of a peculiar device, and all the sudden these folks lose the memory of ever being visited by such individuals. In fact...wait...no...NO!..

      Who am I?

      What was I writing?,,,

    16. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      totally agree. stuxnet rocks! probably engineered by our govt., though.

    17. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Your glee might be tempered a bit when this thing gets propagated to Europe, North America, and the rest of the world.

      It already has: it was first detected outside Iran. It does no significant damage outside the correct environment. Stuxnet

      It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran.

      The guys at my local power company can request (and receive) assistance from Siemens, Microsoft, the US Government... Iran? Not so much.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    18. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by icebike · · Score: 1

      And when the Iranians finally figure out how it works and revise it and send it back to us it will be VERY Discriminating.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    19. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by wmac · · Score: 0

      How about hacktacking US military? If we bring their network totally down perhaps we can avoid them from starting/participating in more wars and therefore make the world a more peaceful place? You know that US has started/participated in almost 50 wars.

    20. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's as simple as downloading the source code and modifying it.

      I'm sure the designers of stuxnet never thought of that.

    21. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 2

      Hah, Hah, Hah, right. Creating a huge power vacuum is going to create peace, hah.

    22. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike those kids at Anonymous, the perpetrators of stuxnet are showing who are the real hacktivists.

      Targeted precise strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, this is a bigger win for freedom and security in the free world and anything wikileaks or their supporters could dream of doing.

      I commend these hackers for slowing down the evil Iranian government's nuclear ambitions.

      I hope you swallow, 'cause the Mossad guys get all twitchy when you spit (something about Leviticus and Gawd getting angry about seed on the ground).

    23. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      And what exactly has it done to those systems? Nothing? Right.

    24. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by headhot · · Score: 3, Informative

      The attack was very specific. Uranium enrichment requires and exact rpm over a long period of time. Most industrial equipment does not have that exacting level of tolerance needed.

    25. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

      It is using them to propagate, which is more than nothing.

      It isn't breaking any hardware given its enormously specific payload, but that can be remotely updated.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    26. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

      Enrichment does not require EXACT rpm. Its a centrifuge, nothing more.

      Thousands of industrial applications require exact speed (far greater exactness than a centrifuge). Electrical Generators, Paper machines, rolling mills, sewage pumps, blower motors, automated bottling lines, automated assembly lines of all kinds.

      Try not to make assertions your experience will not back up.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    27. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's unlikely that any of the machines you list require the exact speeds that Stuxnet is programmed for (even other uranium enrichment centrifuges are unlikely to operate at exactly the same speeds). And yes, enrichment centrifuges do require precise speed control, though it is true that many other machines also do.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    28. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Coldegg · · Score: 1

      Guys, when Iran figures out how to reverse engineer the Stux... and, when the Death Star is FINALLY operational, you bastards in the US will finally pay.

      owayt.

    29. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by icebike · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, enrichment machines to not require precise speed.
      You made that up. Post a link or retract it.

      All it requires is high speed for a sustained periods. Precision is not a criteria. It doesn't matter whether it is 2000 rpm for 5 days or 2100 rpm for 5 days and 18 hours. There are no precision requirements for centrifuges. Its a trade off between the number of Gs you can induce over a period of time. There is no special precision requirement.

      Its not like a paper machine where if one of the drying drums goes .002 rpms faster than the rest the web of wet paper breaks and the machine is useless.

      Centrifuges are big machines, and you have to spin them up carefully using a stepped speed profile while getting up to speed or coming to a stop.

      The worm simply radically alters the speed in unpredictable ways, spinning them up, then dropping to very low speeds, very quickly the jacking them up again. Doing this very fast breaks the machines. The worm's job is to break the machines.

      The worm is not trying to alter the product. Its trying to break the machines. Do some reading on this subject, PLEASE.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    30. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by quokkaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole piece is based on a Fox News article. That by definition makes it unreliable. Quoting anonymous "security experts" is worthless and just citing the number of users signing on to Stuxnet security sites is hardly any better. I don't know if the Iranians have this thing under control or not and in all likelihood neither does Fox News.

      While you luxuriate in your little cocoon of ideologically induced ignorance, others might like to consider some of the facts:

      1. Iran as a signatory to the NPT has a right to run nuclear power plants. Even Hilary Clinton doesn't object to the Bashehr facility.

      2. Bushehr facility is a Russian VVER pressurized water reactor. Russia is supplying the fuel and taking away the spent fuel. PWRs are very unsuited to producing weapons grade material. They must be shutdown for refueling. To produce PU239 uncontaminated with significant PU240, which is for all practical purposes inseparable from PU239, you need a short fuel cycle. The frequent lengthly shutdowns makes this an infeasible proposition. PU239 contaminated with significant amounts of PU240 is just not much use for weapons - it would fry the bomb makers with significant risk of premature detonation.

      3. Iran certainly has an uranium enrichment program and this would give them a "break out capability" but whether Iran is actually producing or about to produce nuclear weapons is another matter entirely and not supported by any substantive evidence.

      4. Whether Iran's nuclear program is "evil" is at most a matter of opinion. However, what would be construed as evil by most thinking people is the installation of the Shah by the CIA at the behest of British oil interests with the support of the British government. Rather unsurprisingly, nations tend to know their own history and mostly do believe in their right to self determination. Viewed against this historical backdrop, the most likely factor in triggering an Iranian weapons program would be a continuing and ramped up aggressive posture by the United States.

    31. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guys at my power company don't connect control systems to any network outside the process control environment. That's just common sense.

    32. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Coldegg · · Score: 1

      That's what she said.

    33. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Coldegg · · Score: 1

      You try and hack the US government...

      Give /. a shout out from pound me in the butt prison.

    34. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Clearly? How do you know it wasn't Saudi warfare? They've got the money, plenty of smart people (especially in reverse engineering, which is useful in spec'ing from a snatched or bought sample centrifuge), and are Iran's primary foe in the world. They've been trying to get the US to bomb Iran for years, and are the primary target of an Iranian nuke programme.

      How do you know it wasn't Russian marketing? The more Iran wastes uranium, the more Iran needs Russia. The longer it takes to get a fuel stockpile, the longer Iran needs Russia. Plus Russia isn't entirely evil, and is itself an old and longstanding enemy of Iran in more ways than it is an ally, and could just be defending itself from Iran's nuke programme. Likewise China.

      Those are three very plausible sources of Stuxnet. And they're all increasingly Eastern, including the ultimate Eastern of all - not Western.

      Iran is a very dangerous and isolated state. It's got lots of enemies with the means and motive to unleash Stuxnet. The question is which had the opportunity, which I expect we will never know, as Iran's windows of vulnerability in this respect are some of the most closely guarded secrets ever.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    35. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by nanospook · · Score: 1

      Engineered by someone intimately familiar with their systems and facilities.. like maybe other Nuclear Scientists with a conscience..?

      --
      Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    36. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scared little sissy, arent you?

      Listen, they might have oil, but in the last 200 years, only innovation that came out of there are suicide bombers. They will not, unless scared little sissies like you tell them even without being asked.

    37. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2

      ... this is a bigger win for freedom and security in the free world and anything wikileaks or their supporters could dream of doing.

      You know, as far as brainless and brainwashed idiots go, you are near the top. "Freedom"?! What fucking freedom is improved by this?! Whose?! Israeli supremacist thugs to dick around the region unopposed?! "Freedom" of US military cartels to send their mercenaries to run over Iran and murder millions?! What the fuck are you, delusional fool, blabbering about?!

      And no, do not even attempt to bring "democracy" into this as a "democratic" Iran would just as proud to be able to defend itself as its despotic version.

      "Security"?! You mean Iran is responsible for starting wars in the region, as opposed to a pair pooor, oppressed, blushing innocents like the Israel and USA. Eeeeveryone is picking on these dewy eyed, lips quivering defenseless darlings who never hurt a fly ...

      Or is it that you think that nukes from Iran are more likely to get into hands of Al Queda wackos than those from Pakistan?! That brain thing of yours, you do use as a door stop, right?

      I commend these hackers for slowing down the evil Iranian government's nuclear ambitions.

      And there you have it. The world according to an Israeli or US AC moron (there is no chance that imbecile lives anywhere else):

      Killing and maiming hundreds of thousands in a war of aggression based on lies and fabrications = good because US/Israel always good! By definition! No matter what assholery they commit!

      Financing a war of a lunatic dictator on Iran, complete with chemical weapons = good because US/Israel always good! Just because! No matter what atrocities they commit! It is all those who dare to not genuflect who are responsible!!

      Propping up a corrupt, vicious dictator in Iran whose secret police murdered tens of thousands = good because US/Israel always good! By God's Orders! No matter what oppression they support!

      Starting exactly ZERO wars abroad but trying to resist the thieving paws of the US and Israel = EVIL! EVIL! EVIL! (best screeched at the top the lungs, with veins popping out and spittle flying all over, while wrapped in an US flag).

      And people mod up this stupidity so dense that it is a wonder that it does not have its own event horizon ...

    38. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by jorghis · · Score: 2

      I do not know much of anything about centrifuges or uranium, but I know I have seen a number of articles claiming that this was designed to speed up centrifuges to the point that the uranium was rendered useless.

      Here are two examples I found with a quick google search, not necessarily the most credible sources, but there are plenty of people claiming it:

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/wikileaks_stuxnet_cyberwar_and.html
      http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/11/stuxnet-worm-did-likely-target-iranian-nuclear-facilities/66604/

    39. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      I wrote:
      > ...enrichment centrifuges do require precise speed control...

      icebike writes:
      > Precision is not a criteria.

      > ...and you have to spin them up carefully using a stepped
      > speed profile while getting up to speed or coming to a stop.

      As I said, precise speed control.

      > The worm is not trying to alter the product.

      Nor did I say it was.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    40. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US has already filled too much vacuum. If they empty a bit of it , it won't harm if others fill that.

      Or you think US should fill all the vacuums, like in people's countries, unowned oil wells, ...

    41. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, we'll be returning to a multi-polar world soon enough once again. The new cold war is just getting started.

    42. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's all speculation for now. I'm sure we'll find out eventually who did though, maybe in 5-20 years, these guys are going to want their names in the history books.

    43. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      I guess I'll dissect your comment before going to bed.

      Unlike those kids at Anonymous, the perpetrators of stuxnet are showing who are the real hacktivists.

      If you define real hacktivism merely in terms of access to the resources to pull off an attack, then I call bullshit on your definition: you do what you can with what you have. If you define it merely in terms of the chosen target, I'll point out your bias and disregard your statement.

      Targeted precise strike on Iran's nuclear capabilities, this is a bigger win for freedom and security in the free world and anything wikileaks or their supporters could dream of doing.

      Yeah, messing up with the nuclear facilities of any country surely leads to a safer world (hint: there's sarcasm). As if it weren't bad enough with all the people advocating against nuclear, now everyone will be paranoid because nuclear plants aren't secure. A few friends of mine work on such a facility, and they still hear people afraid of a second Chernobyl. The conclusion they would draw is simple: nuclear power is unsafe and we are literally sitting on top of a nuclear bomb.

      Finally, why mention Wikileaks? Aren't you biased enough? I've read the few cables related to my country, and I think that only something good would come out of those leaks: more honest diplomacy, and maybe the US will stop committing so many international crimes. Also, at least for those leaks I read, no one is at risk of dying or being hurt (well, to be honest, a lot of pride has been hurt ;) ).

      I commend these hackers for slowing down the evil Iranian government's nuclear ambitions.

      You must be crazy if you think that this was done by a few freelancers. Have you read how Stuxnet works? Given the amount of intelligence required to pull this one off, at least one big government was behind it. That's cyber warfare, if you ask me. What's commendable in waging war, I do not know.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    44. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by onepoint · · Score: 1

      It's rather interesting that most people view this as a government related issue.
      But think for a moment, besides the relief that the Iranians don't get the nukes working just yet, Whom else might profit from this.

      GE and ABB ltd.

      Well that got me thinking. Both these companies are big and in the electric game. Both are familiar with this aspect of technology. Both could pull it off.

      what a perfect way to cause buyers to distrust your product.

      Ok now I got to hid LOL

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    45. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Baloney. Iran and Saudi may have chilly relations, but they are not Iran's primary foe. I see Israel as the one rattling the saber, instigating UN sanctions, etc.

      As for Iran and Russia, dream on. The more Iran "wastes" Uranium, the more oil they will use themselves rather than export. It leads to instabilities in the oil market, and despite the price increase, OPEC views it as a negative thing since it makes their control unstable.

      Also, both of these countries have not engaged in aggression in the middle east in decades. Israel on the other hand has invaded its neighbors and continues to act belligerantly on the international stage.

    46. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Stop reading sites like American"thinker", they are full of cretins.

      You can't ruin uranium by other-centrifuging it. If anything, it only enriches it faster and undoing the centrifuging can be made by simple mixing of the product (uranium hexafluoride in this case).

    47. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Why not Siemens? Planned obsolescence, plus German national security.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    48. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by 4phun · · Score: 1

      It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country.

      Your local power company? Not so much.

      I dunno man.

      I'd put my local power company up against those "Your nuclear power plant control software license has expired please obtain a valid license" clowns any day.

      The local guys may be clowns too. But the difference is that my clowns can at least download a patch.

      Everyone seems to have missed news from Japan that Toshiba has a fab that just experienced a single millisecond glitch in the power supply to the whole factory. Every chip in production may have been ruined and many industrial processes totally destroyed. The effect may last until Fed or March and could affect the global price of certain chips.

      I wonder if this was an effect of an accidental Stuxnet controlled glitch in Japan affecting the power in the Toshiba plant? It is so strange that it happened to the whole plant and lasted for a mere fraction of a second.

    49. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Israel is only defensively a foe of Iran, except for Iran's necessary propaganda. Saudi Arabia is locked in a global battle for Islam with Iran. Which is why the Sauds have been trying hard to get the US to invade Iran. Saudi Arabia is a lot closer to Iran's military and missiles than is Israel, and SA's rapid military growth is a very rattley saber. Your dismissal is just the conventional wisdom's blind spot as to the actual regional geopolitics.

      Like the aggression. Iran is active in Iraq and probably Afghanistan. It has backed aggression around the world, especially in the Mideast, particularly in South Lebanon, for decades. Israel's aggression is limited to seizing places from which militias launch actual physical attacks, which were carved out by the British for precisely this mutually destabilizing death spiral. Especially in South Lebanon, where Iranian supported Hezbollah has created its own nation in the vacuum left by the failed Lebanese state (occupied and controlled by Syria) from which attacks are routinely launched into Israel. I strongly disagree with Israel's methods of responding in there, fighting terrorism with terrorism. But I don't mistake Israel's overzealous aggressive defense for actual territorial expansion the way Iran (and Russia, for that matter) have demonstrated far from their borders with military aggression for years, through today.

      OPEC is just fine with unstable prices that stay above $75 a barrel, and reach over $100. The more oil Iran uses domestically, the less oil Russia competes with on the open market. In this case

      Your reads are what we see on the news. That kind of superficial insight doesn't merit baseless condescension like "baloney" and "dream on". Get past what you're fed, or quit shoving it at me.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    50. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ, it's so strange to see you condemn Iran as aggressive and yet dismiss Israel's as 'defensive.' Iran has not been in a war of aggression since the 19th century.

      Yes, Iran and Saudi have been both fighting over their interpretations of Islam. Fortunately, most of the Muslim world follows neither.

      I wouldn't call Israel's strategies as defensive. Israel moved into South Lebanon in the first place partly over claims that it was part of the land of Judea and Samaria, Hizbullah didn't even exist until Israel occupied the land and claimed it on behalf of Zionism.

      Quite the contrary, I think you are mistaken by what you've been reading and what passes for conventional wisdom ie "what we see on the news." However, I don't think I can change your mind, although I regret being so harsh in my initial response.

    51. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Stuxnet won't backlash on the USA or anyone other than its intended Iranian targets because it is looking for a highly specific combination of factors that would never be found anywhere else. Possibly down to a "I was sold to Iran" tag encrypted into the serial number of a chip on the Siemens controllers.

      1. When you've got a multinational cyber strike force with the economic resources of Saudi Arabia handling the bills, and
      2. when you are required by each of the cooperating countries to spend at least as much effort to assure that your product is completely inert everywhere other than your intended target, and
      3. when you've got a delivery system that draws on the combined human resources of the CIA, KGB, and Mossad to get your product to the right place...
      4. it sounds fantastic.

      But hey, the idea that the SR-71 Blackbird could be built, tested, and deployed for many years before anyone knew it existed was also fantastic. All those weird cover stories about being able to shift the orbits of spy satellites whose cameras could read license plates! Wow!

      Of course all of this post is just hype. Just another conspiracy theory. There is of course no way that secretive elements of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Pakistan, India, and Russia would ever get together to run a covert operation to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear threat. It would take some kind of really serious mutual concern for all those countries to cooperate in such an endeavor.

      I'm kind of curious about what Stuxnet's sibling is doing. The one that has infiltrated the Iranian missile program and will somehow assure that some little thing will keep going wrong and keep them from ever gaining launch capability. I'm guessing random failures of the stabilization system that would mimic aerodynamic instabilities... that would be hard to track down if done right. And as an insurance policy, some component near the payload that would function perfectly well-- until exposed to the radiation of a nuclear warhead. Whereupon it would send a signal that would trigger some other component to do something like shut down all the engines 2 seconds after launch, assuring that the bird is dead and splattered all over its launch pad.

      --
      Will
    52. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Mysteray · · Score: 1
      This has the most information.

      I saw that, but I haven't heard any evidence that it was Stuxnet. We've learned a lot more about how Stuxnet works and that it specifically targets sites with hundreds of high-speed motors from controllers that are only made in Finland and Iran. Somehow I don't picture Japan importing motor controllers from either of those places.

      Of course, it's possible that this is an as-yet-unrealized function of the all-powerful Stuxnet, to cause a short power glitch in three Tokyo prefectures. Not content with merely shutting down Iran's nuclear program, it was also designed to cause a decline of "8% of the overall global shipments of the NAND flash memory" in Jan/Feb 2011.

      Perhaps a simpler explanation is that an ordinary power glitch found its way past some UPSes and caused a factory to reboot. It happens.

    53. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Iran's backing Hezbollah in Lebanon counts as aggression. It's hundreds of miles and several (hostile) countries away from Iran's borders.

      Israel invaded South Lebanon when the Syrians were the ones launching rockets from the advantageous highlands there into Israel. The "Judea/Samaria" propaganda is to satisfy the British and American funders and military backers who carved up the region according to those myths, and for Israelis sucker enough to buy it. The British carved up the "Levant" as it carved up all the colonies from which it withdrew at its own pace: designed to set local tribes at each other for foreseeable generations, keeping them all down while the UK and its allies sells all sides weapons. Israel's aggression doesn't extend beyond securing or eliminating active threats, including South Lebanon and Gaza, and Libyan and Iraqi nuke reactors. The past couple generations (Baby Boomers) have been neocons with the usual incompetence beyond running up debt, arms budgets and defeats, and is really unnacceptable. But the point is that an Iranian nuke doesn't protect Iran's borders from Israel, because Israel has no designs on Iranian territory. Iran has designs on Israel's territory controlled by its clients, particularly Hezbollah but other proxies will do. Those are two very different military postures, as heinous as each is. I'm not dismissing Israel - to the contrary. But I am making the distinction that is quite evident from the actual facts.

      And they are very different than the military conflict that is locked into the conflicts between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which each of them distract themselves and everyone else from by (mostly rhetorically by the Saudis) attacking Israel. That conflict between just those two countries would be bad enough, but they play it out among many of the world's Muslims, some of whom are really bad guys, and who are active in extremely volatile and globally critical places.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    54. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by nemesis9 · · Score: 1

      I oppose your portrayal of the Iranians as "evil", what makes you so holier than everybody else?

    55. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Smiths · · Score: 1

      Have some perspective.

      Its not Iran whose been invading and bombing countries and refugees in the Middle East for the past 40 years....That would be the US and Israel...Iran not having a nuke just means that will continue. What are you happy about? More ignoring international law in and dominating weaker states.. Yea!! /s

    56. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a German who has to work with Siemens consultants and software every day - the answer to your question is: It wasn't Siemens because whoever did this has skills. Siemens doesn't.

    57. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      You may well be right about the aim of breaking the machines. Someone needs to get one of these and see what happens. I don't advise loading it with uranium whilst testing though :-)

      You are wrong about needing a "precise" speed. This you can work out from simple engineering. a) We know that enrichment requires a very high speed (that's why there are embargos on high speed centrifuges). b) we know that building such centrifuges is very difficult (one of the articles even mentioned that they have to run at super critical speed) c) we know you don't then (can't afford to) build a machine which is able to run much faster than the speed you require. This taken together means that you run the machines as close to their maximum speed as you can "safely" sustain. Any imprecision in the control system means you have to reduce the maximum speed by that much.

      You are probably also wrong about messing with the product. What the virus does is to at, one point almost stop the centrifuge, then accelerate it again. It then continues for a long time and then goes through a speed up slow down cycle three weeks later. That will not only be bad for the centrifuge, it will shake the product and cause the Uranium to mix pretty well. Iff this happens more often than the minimum time for Uranium separation this will mean that essentially the production of properly separated uranium will halt.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    58. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      C'mon. The guys who wrote Stuxnet are quite likely programmers in a serious part of the "military industrial complex". Even if they didn't think of the idea of the virus coming back, this was probably the main thing making stains on the pants of their managers. It went out as a targetted specific, state of the art, anti-military weapon. It will come back as a broad attack old fashioned piece of vandalism with headlines about "nuclear weapons under threat". What could be a better way to drive up military "cyber-war" budgets? It was probably just their professional pride that stopped them releasing an SDK along with the command and control PCs.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    59. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The WikiLeaks cables. Read them.

    60. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by xded · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether you need a precise speed or not, probably the faster the better (but not too much, since the outer wall of the rotor already spins over mach 1).

      What's for sure is that if you spin a centrifuge down and nobody notices, you are going to mess up the whole downstream process, ending up with far less enriched uranium at the end of the chain.

    61. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, all those settlements on the West Bank in violation of multiple agreements dating back to 1967, that's not territorial expansion at all. Same with the Golan Heights. Israel is expansionist. It's just that they've learned the lesson of Gaza that they need to keep their expansionism to bites small enough to chew.

    62. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do the guys at your local power company prevent the autodetection and autoexecution of USB keys in every system connected to the process control environment? How do they load software updates and extract data for reports?

    63. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "To produce PU239 uncontaminated with significant PU240, which is for all practical purposes inseparable from PU239, you need a short fuel cycle. The frequent lengthly shutdowns makes this an infeasible proposition. PU239 contaminated with significant amounts of PU240 is just not much use for weapons - it would fry the bomb makers with significant risk of premature detonation."

      You're quite right. Which is why it's interesting that Iran has spent so much effort developing the ability to produce heavy water, which is useless for Bushehir's PWR-style reactor, but which is very useful for small, dedicated reactors that can be used for producing PU239 with a very short fuel cycle. In fact, this is exactly how India and Pakistan made their first atomic bombs -- by illegally repurposing their western-built heavy water research reactors. I say "illegally", because the countries that supplied the reactors (the U.S. and Canada) did so with the specific provision that they not be used for weapons manufacture, a term of contract that both India and Pakistan violated, and which until recently the U.S. and Canada were pissed off about sufficiently that they refused to do any exchange of nuclear technology with those two countries for decades. I disgress, but the point is: a small heavy-water reactor is a well-known alternative path to nuclear bomb production, and it is demonstrably easier than the highly-enriched uranium path. Bushehir might be irrelevant, but other technologies being pursued by Iran are not.

      There are lots of ways for Iran to pursue a nuclear power program, or even a research program, without alarming people about parallel weapons programs. Building Bushehir isn't any cause for particular alarm. Building thousands of centrifuges and a heavy water "research" reactor are.

    64. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by ppanon · · Score: 1

      True, but if you vary the rotational speed on a regular basis then you will set up mixing currents that undo the mass-based sorting effect of the centrifuge. It won't take much of a variation to undo the work of hours and limit the isotope purity that you can achieve.

      Which makes me wonder about that North Korean atomic bomb test that appeared to fizzle a few years ago. Maybe they got hit by a variant that never made it out. I could see them skipping that part of quality control and never testing the refined product to detect that the isotope purity wasn't anywhere near what it should have been for the amount of time the fissionable material spent in the centrifuges.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    65. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by lewko · · Score: 1

      How does withdrawing completely from Gaza, constitute expansionism?

      Moreover, considering there was an unbroken Jewish presence in that area dating back thousands of years, are you sure it isn't the Muslims who are expansionist? You don't hear a single Jew talking about driving the Arabs into the sea. Ever. Yet it's the subject of daily programming in the Arab world, even shows aimed at kids.

      Sorry. The Jews are a few million, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs. Whose really the small fish? The Jews just want to be left the fuck alone.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    66. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you believe in MAD then you should believe that the only thing a non-nuclear Iran accomplishes is that Iran gets shit upon.

      What about the evil American government's nuclear reality? As the only nation to ever actually nuke anyone, I think you have to be more concerned about us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    67. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Don't be crazy.. the people who wrote Stuxnet just didn't realize that a centrifuge can spin at any speed.

      I think icebike knows a little more about uranium enrichment than a multinational government-funded sabotage team..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    68. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is funny to see people commenting here like if nothing happened at the last two weeks.

    69. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by kestasjk · · Score: 2

      1. Iran as a signatory to the NPT has a right to run nuclear power plants. Even Hilary Clinton doesn't object to the Bashehr facility.

      Their covert enrichment facilities violated the treaty, so the treaty is void. (The west doesn't oppose the Bashehr facility because it's harmless civilian power, just what Iran says it wants.)

      If signing the NPT meant you could enrich uranium using centrifuges from Pakistani arms dealers with no-one knowing it would be pretty pointless; it is designed to allow the peaceful use of nuclear power with enough checks and balances to prevent it being put to use creating weapons.

      2. Bushehr facility is a Russian VVER pressurized water reactor. Russia is supplying the fuel and taking away the spent fuel.

      Yup.. It makes you wonder why Iran is mining and enriching its own uranium, doesn't it?

      3. Iran certainly has an uranium enrichment program and this would give them a "break out capability" but whether Iran is actually producing or about to produce nuclear weapons is another matter entirely and not supported by any substantive evidence.

      • They lied about owning enrichment facilities which they would have been legally entitled to as signatories of the NPT, if they had declared them and allowed regulators in to monitor their use/purpose.
      • They have turned down and turn down offers to use uranium enriched elsewhere (something not generally granted to those who break the NPT).
      • They have substantial fossil fuel reserves, which make going for nuclear power economically questionable at best.
      • The money they put into enrichment to 20% uranium for medical research reactors makes no sense from a $/health standpoint (especially when they are offered it as part of a trade for uranium which could be applied to weapons, and as a nation aren't known for cutting edge medical research).
      • You can't wait until half the bomb casing is all that's left to do until you start regulating states with uranium mines and enrichment facilities, when the enrichment process makes up the vast majority of the work.

      4. Whether Iran's nuclear program is "evil" is at most a matter of opinion.

      Okay, but whether they are trying to produce nuclear weapons really isn't..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    70. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Iran certainly has an uranium enrichment program and this would give them a "break out capability" but whether Iran is actually producing or about to produce nuclear weapons is another matter entirely and not supported by any substantive evidence.

      Everyone in the neighborhood thinks they're producing fission bombs. We have the elaborate scheme of Stuxnet (along with some targeted assassinations) concocted to prevent the operation of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Why go through that trouble and risk, if there's nothing dangerous there? The Wikileaks release of US Department of State records shows numerous governments in the region accepting that and several of them have been advocating military strikes for a few years now. The analysis of the worm indicates that it attacks, among other things, a controller made by an Iranian business that wasn't revealed to the IAEA.

      Whether Iran's nuclear program is "evil" is at most a matter of opinion. However, what would be construed as evil by most thinking people is the installation of the Shah by the CIA at the behest of British oil interests with the support of the British government. Rather unsurprisingly, nations tend to know their own history and mostly do believe in their right to self determination. Viewed against this historical backdrop, the most likely factor in triggering an Iranian weapons program would be a continuing and ramped up aggressive posture by the United States.

      So what has Iran done recently to demonstrate that it has self determination? It voided the result of the last election and the theocracy part isn't subject to democratic reform. So we have an undemocratic government trying to make a nuclear bomb. It might not be "evil", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop it, if only for the sake of survival.

      In addition to an unelected government getting the nuclear bomb, we also have a remarkable issue of proliferation. First, there are at least two governments, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, likely to develop their own nuclear weapons, should Iran succeed. Second, Iran has been making special military deals with Venezuela, which involve trading missiles to Venezuela. Even if Iran never sends a nuclear tipped missile to Venezuela, all the other countries in the region have to worry that Venezuela might in the future get nukes from Iran. That means that Brazil and Argentina have incentive to develop nuclear weapons as well. In other words, we have the potential for proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout a considerable portion of the world with a subsequent increased risk of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism.

    71. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Enrichment does not require EXACT rpm. Its a centrifuge, nothing more.

      You're trying to separate two chemically identical molecules which only vary slightly in mass (about 1% difference in mass). Even a slight variation in rpm jostles the mix and reduces the degree of separation.

    72. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by khallow · · Score: 1

      Baloney. Iran and Saudi may have chilly relations, but they are not Iran's primary foe.

      Just because Saudi Arabia isn't the primary foe of Iran doesn't mean that Iran isn't the primary foe of Saudi Arabia. From here:

      Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.

    73. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Iran certainly has an uranium enrichment program and this would give them a "break out capability" but whether Iran is actually producing or about to produce nuclear weapons is another matter entirely and not supported by any substantive evidence.
      Buying A.Q. Khans cook book for making nuclear arms is substantive evidence. As for #4 the American people have not forgotten whose embassy was invaded and hostages taken from. Nor which country was providing explosives and designs for improved IED's.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    74. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Elbowgeek · · Score: 1

      I'm not a hacker (and have yet to play one on TV), but my understanding is that Stuxnet is very specifically targeted at those particular systems, which I understand don't run standard desktop OSes, so the likelyhood of infection outside of Iran's facilities is minimal apparently.

      --
      Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
    75. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by AB3A · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Your glee might be tempered a bit when this thing gets propagated to Europe, North America, and the rest of the world.

      "It seems just as likely that the guys running Turbines for your local power company are no better equipped to handle this than Iran. In Iran, they have unlimited budget and first call upon the best brains in the country."

      It already has. It doesn't matter.

      Stuxnet was VERY selective. It targeted only the S7 315 and 417 Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC). It looked for specific code blocks and data structures on those devices. You need to know that PLC applications code is usually custom written. It looked at the I/O networks and tried to find at least 33 instances of one of two models of a high speed motor drive. These are not ordinary Variable Frequency Drives. Had they come from the US, they'd be subject to export restrictions. The ones in use came from Finland and were also constructed locally in Iran.

      Speaking as a control systems engineer, I don't know of any other massively parallel processes that involve many dozens (hundreds?) of high speed drives like this --other than Uranium enrichment. That's why the risk to other plants, including the Bushir nuclear reactor, are relatively small. The malware will install itself in the development workstations but it won't do much.

      This is a good thing because had the malware been less selective, it would have done pretty much what you suggest. Most of you probably have little idea as to the extent and ubiquity of these PLC devices. The S7 PLC line is extremely popular and you'll find one in nearly half of all industrial settings around the world. If there were a malware that blindly attacked these devices, the world economy as we know it would take a massive change for the worse.

      THAT is why nobody has done a broad based attack against PLC gear before. It will blow back on them. Once you realize what a PLC is and how widely it is used, you will also realize that an attack against this platform is the equivalent of a nuclear attack in the software world. In the case of a PC you only lose data. Most data can be restored. In this case, you lose an industrial process and it may be significantly damaged. An attack will almost certainly blow back on you and your neighbors. It will make the economic malaise of the present look tame by comparison.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    76. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Iran as a signatory to the NPT has a right to run nuclear power plants. Even Hilary Clinton doesn't object to the Bashehr facility.

      Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, has a responsibility to allow the IAEA to thoroughly audit their nuclear program to ensure that they're not creating nuclear weapons.

    77. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and you can read about this or at least infer it from the discussion in patents now thirty years old.

    78. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote My Cousin Vinny in response to your comment:

      "Vinny Gambini: Uh... everything that guy just said is bullshit... Thank you. "

    79. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Uranium enrichment centrifuges have a tolerant range and deviation within this range will not cause the isotopes to mix up. Stuxnet causes the centrifuges to deviate by such a large margin that the isotopes get very much mixed up.
      The rate at which the deviation occurs is also important. If the centrifuge slows from 600rpm to 580rpm in two seconds, the contents get mixed up much worse than the same slowdown over a day.

      Also, the article doesn't say that Iran hasn't gotten Stuxnet out of its most sore spot. Likely it will target power production and media next, and this traffic is the sign of its controller making lists of targets.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    80. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viruses and worms seem unlikely to honor boundaries forever. At least a surprise bombing run on a reactor in Iran is unlikely to hit Con-Edison in NY.

      That depends on whether France will let us use their airspace...

    81. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Here we go again. Moronic "justification" #1: "I don't need to explain why I am right, cause, like, I am right and good by definition! Mom told me so! And you are, like, wrong and evil, just because, like, you don't agree with me! So there!"

      Its no wonder that all these veritable intellectual giants have to post as ACs.

    82. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is true...and I'm still opposed to more countries getting nuclear weapons. I really wish nobody had them. The other possibilites are vile enough, but nuclear weapons threaten to take the planet back to nobody living on the surface, or for 3 miles down, except radiodurans bacteria.

      OTOH, a *SMALL* local nuclear war would solve the global warming problem. Might take us all the way to the start of a new ice age. (Probably not. There's too much CO2 in the air and in the oceans and the continents are out of position.) But I wouldn't like to live anywhere within a thousand miles of the war, and on the downwind side anywhere within a few thousand miles. And we could expect cancer rates to surge for hundreds of years all over the globe. (And faster evolution of bacteria, of course. They've got a large enough population to support the increased mutation rate, and their breeding pattern tends to eliminate unhealthy lines without contaminating the healthy ones, unlike those that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction depends on a low rate of mutations to remain healthy.)

      I really don't like nuclear weapons. Plagues at least only decimate a few species.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    83. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post doesn't justify or merit an intelligent response. It's vitriolic and just echoes the standard anti-American/anti-Israeli bullshit that's popular to spew nowadays. "Waah, I hate America so I'll bash them and pretend I'm an intellectual because I can use a few big words!"

    84. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's Russia's insurance policy for keeping Iran's nuclear program peaceful. Poison the batch enough such that it's useless for making bombs, but not so much that you still can't use it for powerplant reactor fuel. It's a way of meeting the contractual obligation while still saving face on the international scene in regards to a much disliked client. And I still wouldn't rule out some technical collaboration with the U.S., Europe, and Israel (Russia's actually more friendly with Israel than most people would think, but they tend to keep it on the down-low.) If it can help to avoid airstrikes leading to another big conflict in the Mideast, it's a good thing.

      Of course that's just my guess, finding out the whole story is likely something that would involve another release of some nice wikileaks material.

    85. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      More of the "I am, just, like toooo smart for you! I do not, like, have to explain myself! Cause, you see, like, I am too smart for you! Did I mention, me smart, you stooopid? Yeah!" kindergarten stuff. Just keep on whining like that and it is bound to gain you oh-so-much credibility and to utterly destroy your opponents arguments! Oh and keep on wandering why your views are so "unpopular" outside of the ignorant-and-proud-of-it redneck crowd.

    86. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Everything you said is true...and I'm still opposed to more countries getting nuclear weapons. I really wish nobody had them.

      That is a noble and quite logical notion. Unfortunately it does not match the insane nature of greed and lust for power and it is these two that rule the world, no matter what propaganda is being spewed to obscure this obvious fact. Mentally disturbed people run the show everywhere and they try to make their insanity the "norm". Just look at systems like Capitalism where whomever is the most insane with avarice is deemed most meritorious, examine lunacies such as Feudalism still present throughout much of the world, take a peek at the way greed and desire to dominate others perverted any attempts at creating some sort of sanity, as in the Soviet and Chinese "communisms" which resulted in a madness even worse than what they aimed to repair. Etc and so on.

      I really don't like nuclear weapons. Plagues at least only decimate a few species.

      Speaking of plagues, I really do not have high hopes for humanity. Nuclear weapons are a child's toy compared to what artificially engineered biological or other nanotech weapons can do. Nukes, even with their associated long term fallout have geographically restricted impact (unless there is so many of them used as to cover the whole planet). Self-propagating and self-replicating nanoscale agents have no such limitations, nor do they have a "half-life" (unless specifically engineered so).

      So I am quite seriously expecting the shit to hit the fan in a few decades or so when these technologies become viable and inevitably spread. The investment of money and materiel required to make this stuff is a tiny fraction of that of nuclear weaponry - soon everyone will be able to get their hands on this tech. Then come mass-extinction-level nanotech events. Race-specific extermination viruses. And all kinds of similar fun. Trust me, there will be a time when whoever is left will be looking back at nukes in the same way we look at ballistas, with a word "quaint" coming to mind.

    87. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the uranium rendered useless. What it does is break the centrifuge by running it through a program of speed changes known to damage the centrifuge much faster, overriding failsafes and programming to do so.

    88. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they require precise, constant speed. Why else would you need power supplies with very low harmonic distortion? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/u-centrifuge.htm

      Consider this: Centrifuges are spun as fast as possible to maximize yield. At those speeds, they are susceptible to vibration. Vibration is bad, because it will remix the gas (or maybe just fly apart). So the likely trick is to run the devices at fastest anti-resonance physically possible. A few RPM faster or slower, and yield drops dramatically.

      Two ways to fix this are to take units that react the worst offline and/or run them at a slower anti-resonance. Both reduce yield, exactly what is going on in Iran.

      Ramp RPM up and down fast enough, and you get shear mixing as well, maybe even hit some resonance. Also bad.

    89. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that counts, then let's also count the US arming Israeli settlers, who use those guns to shoot Palestinian civilians in an effort to claim more land. Is the US involved in aggression against Palestinians then?

    90. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I call strawman on that. Nobody has ever made the claim that Iran feels threatened that Israel will colonize their land. They are however worried that Israel will bomb their country or aid and abet terrorists who are trying to overthrow the government (like Mohajiden-e-Khalq who bomb civilians). Hypothetically, if Iran were to get a nuke then it would probably cut down on a lot of these Israeli belligerent actions e.g. threatening to nuke Iran, openly talking about bombing sites in Iran, aiding groups like the PKK who attack Iran, etc. (Granted both countries have been aggressive to one another in at least words, but since Israel is the one with nukes, it has more impunity)

      You're trying to redefine the conflict using narrow terms. Israel is involved in South Lebanon now to contain the Hizbullah threat, after they had to publicly break their policy and muzzle the right-wingers who claimed that South Lebanon was part of Greater Israel. Remember when Israel withdrew from South Lebanon under Sharon? I'm not surprised the Lebanese don't trust Israel when they say they're done with trying to claim the land, especially when there are Israelis who insist Israel should annex South Lebanon like they do for Golan Heights. Maybe you're trying to convince the wrong people, go get the Lebanese on board with your view that Israel is not malicious.

    91. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      How does withdrawing completely from Gaza, constitute expansionism?

      Withdrawing from Gaza was a long and difficult process that took decades, it finally happened when the pragmatists managed to overpower the right-wingers, Zionists, and settlers in government and get some real change in the hopes of reducing international pressure and changing the dynamic to favor keeping the West Bank settlements. It was a good step, but one example does not mean there's no such thing as expansionism; did you see the massive protest within Israel while it took place? Heck, even Sharon himself insisted on keeping West Bank settlements and expanding them while he took the Gaza ones away; Netanyahu has soured US-Israel relations with his refusal to stop construction in West Bank.

      Moreover, considering there was an unbroken Jewish presence in that area dating back thousands of years, are you sure it isn't the Muslims who are expansionist? You don't hear a single Jew talking about driving the Arabs into the sea. Ever. Yet it's the subject of daily programming in the Arab world, even shows aimed at kids.

      Muslims would be expansionist if they were trying to make Israel part of Jordan or Egypt, but they're not. The issue is the living Palestinian families who were evicted forcibly from their land or fled from the fighting and even have their house keys from 1948. Jewish claims to the land from millenia ago are hard to balance with the idea that living people were forcibly evicted without compensation. Meanwhile, you clearly haven't been reading right-wing Israeli/Zionist/Jewish newspapers, ranting about the Ha'avrim (Arabs) and how they should be all expelled into neighboring countries like Jordan. The New Yorker did extended interviews with Israeli settlers who are pressuring the government into doing it. Have you listened to right-wing Israeli minister Avigdor Liberman?

      Sorry. The Jews are a few million, surrounded by hundreds of millions of Arabs. Whose really the small fish? The Jews just want to be left the fuck alone.

      So the Jews are David and the Arabs are Goliath? Arabs look at it as the Palestinians are David, and the Israelis are Goliath. I think even the Palestinians say they want to just be left alone. There's blame to go around.

    92. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      So what, the dictator-king of Saudi Arabia has a grudge against another country? Who cares? Public opinion surveys show Iran has something like an 80% approval rating in the Arab world. The US should focus more on bringing democracy to Saudi Arabia rather than try and do their bidding.

    93. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      THAT is why nobody has done a broad based attack against PLC gear before. It will blow back on them. Once you realize what a PLC is and how widely it is used, you will also realize that an attack against this platform is the equivalent of a nuclear attack in the software world. In the case of a PC you only lose data. Most data can be restored. In this case, you lose an industrial process and it may be significantly damaged. An attack will almost certainly blow back on you and your neighbors. It will make the economic malaise of the present look tame by comparison.

      Might there be people who don't care about "blowback"? People who now know that it's possible to write this kind of virus (one that targets PLCs), and who will gladly set a modified version of Stuxnet free to work its destructive "magic"? It's true that few states would want to do this—at least those that have a significant computer-PLC based infrastructure...but then there's always those "non-state actors". How to get viruses to propagate is well-known these days. All that would be needed is enough knowledge to broaden the spectrum of PLCs that will be manipulated by the payload of the Stuxnet descendants, and a person so inclined could generate a world-wide catastrophe. Heck, a group of 15 year old kids could probably do it.

      I think that Stuxnet was probably created at the behest of a state—the U.S. and Israel seem likely suspects. However, these creative people have made a terrible mistake: when the wrong people create a Stuxnet variant...well that is the definition of "blowback".

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    94. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think that energetic considerations will limit the danger of "grey goo" to being no worse than other bacteria. The more specialized they are, the more of a "hot-house plant" that requires special conditions to flourish.

      I *could* be wrong, but if so I'd find it quite surprising. (OTOH, there could be specially tailored plagues that only attacked, say, blonde people. But I think that they'd be quite fragile. And in this context I'm considering nano-mechanical plagues to be no different from ordinary plagues. This, however, could be wrong, because they can use materials other than proteins in their structure. But if they use any structural elements other than C, H, O, & N their ability to propagate within organic material will be quite limited.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    95. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so this is all the British fault and poor Israel is just the victim of it? Let's blame the British for making Israel invade Lebanon and Syria!

    96. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      I think that energetic considerations will limit the danger of "grey goo" to being no worse than other bacteria.

      I can see that you are quite deficient in the area of Machiavellian deviousness. But then again, you probably should take it as a compliment.

      Consider this, just one example out of thousands: I make a version of one of the most common bacterium that is present everywhere, say e.coli, except that in addition to its usual cycle it produces very small (so that the strain on its metabolism is negligible) quantities of the VX nerve gas...

      Then I release the thing into the wild. Because its a very, very common bacteria that lives everywhere, within weeks or perhaps months, there would be whole areas of the globe where the concentration of a potent chemical weapon of mass destruction exceeds lethal levels. Within a year the whole globe would be uninhabitable by any life-form with a nervous system susceptible to VX as the production of the gas would reach hundreds of tons per minute ...

      Etc and so on. You simply underestimate the countless ways in which advanced bio-weapons can produce utter devastation...

      I *could* be wrong, but if so I'd find it quite surprising.

      See above. Sadly, you are very wrong indeed, although I too wish that it weren't so.

      But I think that they'd be quite fragile.

      How so? The plague would attack everyone but only blond people would suffer massive organ failures, while others would merely get some fever and act as incubators and propagation vectors by sneezing the weapon onto the blond targets.

      Again, there are countless ways of wreaking devastation that open up with easy availability of nano-scale-technologies and it only takes a sufficiently devious mind to find them ...

    97. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Taking your example:
      If it makes, as you suggest, VX nerve gas, then it need to pay for the excess production. The more the bacterium produces, the more it needs to pay. It's competition (other e-coli) don't need to pay that price, so they out-compete it.

      Now if it's to the bacterium's advantage to make the poison, then it can do so. Even if it's to the advantage of it's cohort. But this wouldn't be. E-coli depends on having live hosts. Dead, or really sick, hosts don't help to spread it. (Dysentery is a special case here.)

      Additionally, when bacteria make a chemical, they prefer to make do with VERY small amount. So they concentrate on exceedingly potent poisons that doen't spread easily. Other things aren't as advantageous to them.

      So I think your proposed modified e-coli would end up being *less* dangerous than many naturally occurring plagues. It is, however, included in the term "plagues". When I said nano-machinery would be no more dangerous than plagues, I was including this kind of modified plague. (I can think of plausible modifications...this just isn't one.) As for the plague against blond people being fragile, this is because it would need a very selective attack vector. Otherwise it would quickly mutate into just another plague against people.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    98. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      If it makes, as you suggest, VX nerve gas, then it need to pay for the excess production. The more the bacterium produces, the more it needs to pay. It's competition (other e-coli) don't need to pay that price, so they out-compete it.

      This is irrelevant. You seem to misunderstand the nature of such competition. In the very long term, you are right, the modified bacteria will be out-competed by the more efficient one in many places. On the scale of maybe hundreds or thousands of years, if ever. More "efficient" organisms exist everywhere and yet older forms survive all over in various niches. But with a difference of efficiency of, say, 10% the modified bacteria will still spread to a very significant degree in the short term before evolution or mutation renders it less effective. It if occupies only a 1% of volume of all e.coli globally at its peak, it would still mean hundreds of tons of VX gas per minute.

      I took all this into consideration. That is why VX or other agent which only requires a very small amount of gas per cubic volume (and thus very slight amount to be produced by each bacteria) is perfect for the task of genocide. Even with very low efficiency of the whole process, the effect would be still deadly.

      E-coli depends on having live hosts. Dead, or really sick, hosts don't help to spread it. (Dysentery is a special case here.)

      Err no. e.coli is a bacterium that lives everywhere, the soil, ponds, etc. There many many strains of it that can be found in pretty much any place where bacteria is present. Volume wise the bacteria that lives on animals is a tiny fraction of bacteria that lives on plants and in water and soil.

      Additionally, when bacteria make a chemical, they prefer to make do with VERY small amount. So they concentrate on exceedingly potent poisons that doen't spread easily. Other things aren't as advantageous to them.

      A very, very small amount multiplied by trillions of trillions of cells of individual bacteria? As I said, even with efficiency far below 1% it would still mean the end of nearly all humanity on Earth within a few years.

    99. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you talk crap like this all the time?

      The Shah was not installed by British you retard. The Shah was against the British and officially nationalized the Iranian oil 1973, which pissed the British off. Read the book by Gholam Reza Afkhami that is about the Shah.

      You retard.

    100. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This is irrelevant. You seem to misunderstand the nature of such competition. In the very long term, you are right, the modified bacteria will be out-competed by the more efficient one in many places. On the scale of maybe hundreds or thousands of years, if ever. More "efficient" organisms exist everywhere and yet older forms survive all over in various

      That's not in accord with how I understand the evolutionary process. If a variation doesn't have an advantage, then it will never become a significant factor.

      I took all this into consideration. That is why VX or other agent which only requires a very small amount of gas per cubic volume (and thus very slight amount to be produced by each bacteria) is perfect for the task of genocide. Even with very low efficiency of the whole process, the effect would be still deadly.

      I disagree. You are still going to need to manufacture it more rapidly than it breaks down over whatever area that it has dispersed to. That means that something that disperses rapidly is insanely expensive for a bacterium, unless it has a local use.

      Err no. e.coli is a bacterium that lives everywhere, the soil, ponds, etc. There many many strains of it that can be found in pretty much any place

      OK. I have to give you this one. It's still not ideal from the bacterium's point of view, but evolution has no foresight.

      A very, very small amount multiplied by trillions of trillions of cells of individual bacteria? As I said, even with efficiency far below 1% it would still mean the end of nearly all humanity on Earth within a few years.

      There are a lot of cells of the bacterium, admittedly, but just how many will be sporting the modified genes. I'd bet the fraction would be immeasurably small. It require additional cellular machinery, it's energetically expensive, it requires extra raw materials, and it provides no advantage. This is not the recipe for a mutation that survives.

      Additionally, I'm not even certain that it's safe for e-coli. It could be, I suppose. Not having nerves, however, doesn't mean that they aren't affected by similar molecular pathways.

      It would certainly be more successful to engineer a bacterium to derive energy or resources from VX and have it succeed. That pathway needn't require any energy except when the appropriate chemical was around.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    101. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      That's not in accord with how I understand the evolutionary process. If a variation doesn't have an advantage, then it will never become a significant factor.

      That is a common misconception about evolution. Adaptation and competition amongst species have a very large stochastic element and small efficiency differences become accounted for only over very long time frames. That is why there are tens of thousands of strains of bacteria even though there are variations in efficiency between them and many occupy essentially the same niche. But because the stochastic element is so large and the population sizes so immense, the lower efficiency species survive quite well in many places. The stochastic element becomes less pronounced in more complex species where the population sizes become much, much smaller than that of single celled organisms. Also the evolutionary processes in more complex species are more specialized at the expense of robustness so that small differences have large impact on natural selection due to these accelerators (complex organisms have chromosomes which localize cross-over exchanges to particular zones of the overall DNA, use sexual reproduction, have multiple copies of genetic material etc - all meant to speed up adaptation). The price for all this however is an inability of complex organisms to change their biochemistry in any radical way, a feat that bacteria can perform given sufficiently adverse conditions and long enough time.

      I disagree. You are still going to need to manufacture it more rapidly than it breaks down over whatever area that it has dispersed to. That means that something that disperses rapidly is insanely expensive for a bacterium, unless it has a local use.

      Again, if the bacteria was using the gas for its own purposes, rather then being engineered to make it for another task, you would be right. Evolution would select for toxins that are localized within the cell as to make the cell less digestible by other organisms. As it stands however, the production rate of a gas (which naturally would vent into the atmosphere, very much like other by-products of bacterial activity such as methane during fermentation) would determine how deadly it would be, which would express itself as a number of particles of the gas per cubic volume in a particular area, which would be a direct function of the number of bacteria present. True, the gas would dissipate and be absorbed by various naturally occurring absorbers but given enough bacteria the production would quickly exceed the absorption rate. A particularly devious system might involve actually producing a precursor that becomes active only by contact with some naturally occurring common substance and so the final airborne particle would be only the final stage of such reaction designed to reduce the environmental absorption rates and to maximize the release into the atmosphere.

      There are a lot of cells of the bacterium, admittedly, but just how many will be sporting the modified genes. I'd bet the fraction would be immeasurably small. It require additional cellular machinery, it's energetically expensive, it requires extra raw materials, and it provides no advantage. This is not the recipe for a mutation that survives.

      Again, you imagine (for reasons that I cannot understand) the competition between bacteria as all-or-nothing, on-off scenario. It is not. A new strain of bacteria can spread merrily all over the place, combine with others, dominate small areas, be dominated in others based on a myriad of random factors. As I explained, the stochastic element accounts for a lion share of short-term survivability of new strains, of which this would be just one. Your view of evolution is more in tune with that of very complex, small population size organisms, such as primates.

      Furthermore, a particularly devious scientist can introduce a retro-virus into the scheme where it would spread and modify t

    102. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by HiThere · · Score: 1

      OK. I can see this being done by a virus that mutates the genes of a bacterium. That happens, and will create desired (by the virus) variants. And, if successful for other reasons, could maintain itself, re-infecting bacteria that mutated away from the modified form.

      I'm still not convinced that it's practical, but this sounds much more feasible than your prior suggestions. (I'd expect a huge problem with viruses mutating to be forms that didn't do anything that benefited them, but there's no obvious cost driving them away from the action.)

      N.B.: This ALL comes under the heading of plagues. My original assertion was that nanomachinery is unlikely to be any more dangerous than plagues, so the more dangerous you conceive plagues as being, the more true that statement is.

      Nanomachinery distinct from plagues would have at least one of several characteristics:
      1) it's hereditary material wouldn't be DNA or any close relative.
      2) it's backbone structure would not be based around carbon
      3) it would use wheels, gears, or ratchets
      4) a significant proportion of its mass would be in the form or crystal matrices.
      5) it's controlled from the outside by em or magnetic transmissions.
      6) it maintains a web site. (OK, I'm being silly.But there are other things not listed that would qualify it, I just can't think of them right now.)

      And of course there are things in between. So far, however, synthetic life doesn't come close to the boundary. (Though you could make a case about virus particles having most of their mass in crystaline form. I'd need to know more before I'd accept that, though. I think that when a virus is active it's not crystallized. Could be I'm wrong.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    103. Re:This Is Real Hacktivism by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      3) it would use wheels, gears, or ratchets

      That is not necessarily true. At a scale small enough, any talk about "ratchets" and "wheels" becomes silly, as the mechanics becomes wholly unlike that of the macroscopic world. Short range atomic forces become a factor, atomic electrical fields have very large effects, your "levers" are two atoms long, etc. This is what leads to a whole new range of nano-scale "mechanical" problems such as "protein folding".

      So to assume that nano-machinery would be just like some kind of car engine - only smaller - is missing the point entirely.

      4) a significant proportion of its mass would be in the form or crystal matrices.

      What gave you that idea? Carbon based life is, on the cellular level, nano-machinery of just one possible type, out of the whole wide class of all conceivable nano-machinery. It uses specific materials and processes out of a vast range of theoretical possibilities. Thus "bio-tech" is merely a specialist sub-section of a far wider field of "nano-tech".

      Technically, a genetically modified bacteria which has inserted into it a set of genes to produce some kind of nano-structure that does not occur in biological realm goes already beyond bio-tech and crosses into the wider nano-tech field.

      5) it's controlled from the outside by em or magnetic transmissions.

      See above. This is not a requirement at all. Nano-tech can be powered by a huge array of power sources - including direct use of biological processes - and obtain its instructions from whatever source it was designed to obtain them - including internal storage (which is what carbon-based life does), EM signals, radiation, chemical signals, etc - and any combinations of these.

      My original assertion was that nanomachinery is unlikely to be any more dangerous than plagues, so the more dangerous you conceive plagues as being, the more true that statement is.

      The above points you presented explain why you believe that nano-tech is so limited as compared to bio-tech (i.e. the sub-section of nano-tech that focuses on carbon-based - so far - nano-machinery of life) because you self-restricted your own definitions so narrowly as to exclude the most potent forms of nano-technology from the scope of your consideration. In truth however nano-tech is theoretically vastly more powerful than bio-tech, because while nano-tech has at its disposal all of the tricks of bio-tech, it also has a range of materials and processes far beyond those available to mere bio-tech. In practical terms, nano-tech is a superset of bio-tech.

  4. The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think this attack just shows the difference that good engineering can make. Most worms out there are relatively unsophisticated, or are developed by people with limited means to pull off quick scams.

    Stuxnet shows what a truly determined adversary can do. One who knows your internal processes. One who understands your industry-specific software - the stuff nobody outside the industry ever touches. One who has a large team of talented programmers, carefully designing and building the attack. One who has access to government resources - the ability to tap communications lines, inject traffic, etc. One who is funded strategically - they don't want to hold your business for ransom for $1M, they want your $100B company to collapse so that one they favor can take over, or whatever.

    The software out there that runs on intranets around the world is some of the most insecure stuff you'll ever see. It rarely gets subjected to serious attack, and the vulnerabilities aren't evident to the average corporate IT guy who is just doing basic due-diligence. Your average PHB doesn't want to pay for testing that will actually uncover serious flaws - they want the system to look good to their customers and have the right bells and whistles - and pricetag.

    We'll see more of these attacks in the future - count on it...

    1. Re:The difference engineering makes by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      True enough, but from a business standpoint does it make sense to spend $100 million over 5 years securing your environment properly to avoid a virus that may or may not cost you anywhere near that much, when there's a possibility that something could _still_ infect your intranet?

      I think due diligence (and only due diligence) makes sense for many intranets, there's no need to go all apeshit crazy when all your preparations will cost productivity and may have been for naught anyway.

    2. Re:The difference engineering makes by KublaiKhan · · Score: 1

      Well, partly right, anyway.

      The proprietary-machine-specific payload on the worm is pretty sophisticated stuff, yes. On the other hand, the delivery mechanism, from what I remember reading, was pretty much a standard off-the-shelf worm.

      I would agree with the thought that there will be more attacks like this in the future, though; it seems like exactly the sort of thing a good industrial saboteur would be looking at.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    3. Re:The difference engineering makes by Zurk · · Score: 1

      the difference is basic stupidity. It was PHB stupidity which made the SCADA systems run windows - an operating system so unreliable the majority of servers are running a homegrown unix (linux) to ensure stability. If you insist on building your industrial infrastructure out of paper and cardboard, you should assume the first hurricane to come along will blow over your origami construction. A decent airgapped SCADA system running on any decent unix (heck just use a bunch of sun enterprise boxes on solaris to run it) would never be vulnerable to this sort of an attack. Build your industrial infrastructure on industrial equipment or face the consequences. since when is windows certified for running anything much less nuclear plants ???

    4. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this attack just shows the difference that good engineering can make. Most worms out there are relatively unsophisticated, or are developed by people with limited means to pull off quick scams.

      Whatever. I'm making a fortune on v1@gr4 sales!

      Stuxnet shows what a truly determined adversary can do. One who knows your internal processes. One who understands your industry-specific software - the stuff nobody outside the industry ever touches. One who has a large team of talented programmers, carefully designing and building the attack. One who has access to government resources - the ability to tap communications lines, inject traffic, etc. One who is funded strategically - they don't want to hold your business for ransom for $1M, they want your $100B company to collapse so that one they favor can take over, or whatever.

      Huh. Thanks for the tip! Now I know how to invest all my v1@gr4 $$$ - taking down big mega corps and demanding $100 BILLION dollars! Because today's megacorp does in fact have 100 BILLION dollars!

      Your average PHB doesn't want to pay for testing that will actually uncover serious flaws - they want the system to look good to their customers and have the right bells and whistles - and pricetag.

      Yep, it's true. We had a whole chapter in the "IT For PHBs" in my MBA program: "Cutting corners, making it look good, and blaming IT"

      We'll see more of these attacks in the future - count on it...

      Funk'in A Yeeeeeaaaaaaah! Yee-Haw! There's money out there for the taking!

    5. Re:The difference engineering makes by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 2

      You don't even know the difference between a SCADA system and the PLCs controlling the equipment, why should anyone take your industrial network security musings seriously?

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    6. Re:The difference engineering makes by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Most virus writers have little or no cost of failure, aside from the time invested. If the virus isn't as successful as they'd like, they just write another one.

      The whole point of this attack was (or seems to be) in launching a specific attack against a target where, if you fail, they will succeed in creating weapons to annihilate you. There are no do-overs. Once the target is aware of his vulnerabilities, he will likely close them forever, and the time to find another vulnerability (if one even exists) may be greater than the time it takes him to succeed. That's pretty good motivation to get it right the first time, I'd say.

    7. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Because today's megacorp does in fact have 100 BILLION dollars!

      Of course they don't - but that is what they are valued at, which of course takes into account likely future earning and not just cash on hand.

      So, somebody looking to do industrial sabotage isn't trying to get a payment from the company that they're taking down. Instead they probably work for a government that wants to see the company go down so that some other company can take its place (think nationalism). They wouldn't ask for a ransom - they're not doing it for a payout - they win if the company goes bankrupt. The programmers themselves of course don't win big - they're just collecting salaries like anybody writing software for a living.

    8. Re:The difference engineering makes by wampus · · Score: 1

      The target was workstations that program embedded systems. Why the hell wouldn't you program your general purpose motor drives on a general purpose operating system?

    9. Re:The difference engineering makes by Zurk · · Score: 2

      and what gave you the impression i dont ? If the SCADA systems interfacing to the PLC werent infected stuxnet would never have been able to reprogram the PLCs. Are you claiming Siemens' WinCC/PCS 7 on Windows platforms was NOT infected by stuxnet ? or that infecting the equivalent of s7otbxbx.dll on a unix would ever have been possible without root privileges ?
      Maybe you should reevaluate your own knowledge of SCADAs and PLC systems.

    10. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The attack is a neato hybrid of windows/plc stuff. Yes there are installations out there that use windows software to control these things. Go look at all the SDKs for the major players in the PLC space. They *ALL* have dev kits in windows. You would have to be stupid not to have one of your targets platforms as the 90% OS out there... Your customers are going to insist on it.

      People are also making this out to be something amazing. It is just another worm. Also *MOST* plcs out there are seriously open. Like not even trying open. It is the way they were designed. It is cooked into the modbus spec. There is 0 security in them. What little there is quite laughable and at most would get you into legal trouble. But wouldnt stop you.

    11. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because you want to control and sanitize the data fed into the general purpose motor drives in the first place ? its sheer stupidity to have a plain vanilla general purpose operating system programming your motor controllers when you can have a sanitized operating system ensuring the security and reliability of the data sent to them in the first place. its the same reason your web browser should run in a sandbox. and the same reason your general purpose java applet runs in one. and also the same reason your web browser should not be running as root.

    12. Re:The difference engineering makes by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 1

      does it make sense to spend $100 million over 5 years securing your environment properly to avoid a virus that may or may not cost you anywhere near that much, when there's a possibility that something could _still_ infect your intranet?

      It all depends on the situation and the cost-benefit. If that intranet is backing your country's nuclear weap^H^H^H^H energy program- which almost every nation on earth has condemned, and at least one has expressed the desire to bomb to ashes- then yeah, it might. Dunder-Mifflin Paper's Scranton office and a state nuclear development apparatus probably have different security requirements, let's leave it at that.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    13. Re:The difference engineering makes by wampus · · Score: 1

      And would the attacker who was pretty determined to hit this particular target stop just because they ran Linux? No, but you'd probably not hear too much about the exploits that got patched.

    14. Re:The difference engineering makes by syousef · · Score: 3, Informative

      One who has a large team of talented programmers, carefully designing and building the attack.

      http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdf

      Symantec speculates a team size around 5-10 not including QA (whatever the heck that means).

      Personally I think there is probably a "team" of 1-3 people sniggering to and congratulating themselves. (Probably adding "Stupid Americans"). That is if they haven't been shot.

      I'll give you talented, though.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    15. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should check exploit-db.com before you say idiotic shit like "this would have never been possible on X or Y"

    16. Re:The difference engineering makes by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Personally I think there is probably a "team" of 1-3 people sniggering to and congratulating themselves. "

      No, I don't think this is the kid sitting at home ala "War Games," and here is why (from the article):

      And Iran's anti-worm effort may have had another setback. In Tehran, men on motorcycles attacked two leading nuclear scientists on their way to work. Using magnetic bombs, the motorcyclists pulled alongside their cars and attached the devices.
      One scientist was wounded and the other killed. Confirmed reports say that the murdered scientist was in charge of dealing with the Stuxnet virus at the nuclear plants.

      Wow, you know they're serious when the cyberattack is coordinated with targeted assassinations.

    17. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stuxnet shows what a truly determined adversary can do. One who knows your internal processes. One who understands your industry-specific software - the stuff nobody outside the industry ever touches. One who has a large team of talented programmers, carefully designing and building the attack.

      You make not only an interesting point but an allusion (perhaps indirectly) that may counter all those folks saying "what happens if it comes back". I personally wonder what Siemens' role in this was. As the description says, the virus specifically targeted a vulnerability in the Siemens software Iran was using on their centrifuges. That software is known to have been pirated, so it will not be updated. It is logical to assume that A) Stuxnet cannot affect licensed, updated versions of the Siemens software if it targets this vulnerability, and B) Siemens may have had a role to play in designing Stuxnet, for whoever sent the attack be it Mossad, the US, or someone else. Siemens is a Government contractor for every major Western nation and many Middle Eastern ones.

    18. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The other issue is the whole black swan thing. Your competitors probably aren't going to invest so heavily in security. So, they'll be at a cost advantage. It is guaranteed therefore that given sufficient time you will go out of business.

      The question is then which will happen first - you going out of business, or your competitors all being taken out by a worm that you survive? Most managers would put their money on the former, and most of the time they're right. And that is why we don't have much security...

    19. Re:The difference engineering makes by DoninIN · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think this attack just shows the difference that good engineering can make. Most worms out there are relatively unsophisticated, or are developed by people with limited means to pull off quick scams.

      Stuxnet shows what a truly determined adversary can do. One who knows your internal processes. One who understands your industry-specific software - the stuff nobody outside the industry ever touches. One who has a large team of talented programmers, carefully designing and building the attack. One who has access to government resources - the ability to tap communications lines, inject traffic, etc. One who is funded strategically - they don't want to hold your business for ransom for $1M, they want your $100B company to collapse so that one they favor can take over, or whatever.

      The software out there that runs on intranets around the world is some of the most insecure stuff you'll ever see. It rarely gets subjected to serious attack, and the vulnerabilities aren't evident to the average corporate IT guy who is just doing basic due-diligence. Your average PHB doesn't want to pay for testing that will actually uncover serious flaws - they want the system to look good to their customers and have the right bells and whistles - and pricetag.

      We'll see more of these attacks in the future - count on it...

      This, is why stuff that is important should NOT be connected to the internet. OR allowed to come into contact with jump drives or PCs or anything else that has been exposed to the internet. This is simple. This is stupid. This seems like an old guy railing about the dangers of new technology. This is absolutely true, and will continue to be true. Further examples will be provided by reality for the remainder of your lives. I will continue to be right. This advice will continue to be ignored because it is inconvienent or stupid or old fuddy duddy thinking whatever.

    20. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. But, they would be stopped in their tracks. After all, nobody contributes kernel code from general-purpose operating systems, so there is no way a worm could sneak in the back door, right? :)

    21. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Symantec speculates a team size around 5-10 not including QA (whatever the heck that means).

      Uh, good thing that programmers don't need QA or managers, and so on.

      And yes, QA matters for an operation like this. You're probably having spies plant the bug, and they could get killed in the process. You don't risk spies on code that isn't tested.

      Likewise, a fizzled attempt will likely trigger countermeasures making a future attack more difficult.

      QA means getting it right the first time. That probably means creating a simulated environment and testing the software out in this environment. Sure, you don't need actual centrifuges and turbines, but you probably need software that emulates the feedback such machines would return to their controllers. I'm sure they didn't factor that into their "5-10" count.

      I've worked on some IT projects where quality was serious business, and you can easily spend as much on testing as you spend on development. For a typical military-style coding effort factor in a WHOLE lot more.

    22. Re:The difference engineering makes by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I am sitting very close to a server running Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter, how do I make it be unreliable / make it crash?

    23. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I tend to agree. No guarantees that they were involved, but they could have cooperated with efforts (providing source code, helping analysts understand potential vulnerabilities, witholding patches, etc).

      I'm sure that the usual NATO allies were all on board - certainly the nation where Siemens was headquartered and the US OKed the attack. Companies don't just do business with the Mossad or whatever without making sure their parent governments are OK with it.

      The US triggered a massive refinery disaster in the USSR back during the cold war. This involved the full cooperation of vendors.

    24. Re:The difference engineering makes by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

      based on the level of competence one would need, i think it's fair to say we won't be seeing a Wikileaks cable pointing the finger at U.S. intelligence as the Stuxnet authors any time soon.

    25. Re:The difference engineering makes by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I am sitting very close to a server running Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter, how do I make it be unreliable / make it crash?

      Cut the power cables to the cooling fans...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    26. Re:The difference engineering makes by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      The management processor will detect the issue and shut down the system before damage occurs.

    27. Re:The difference engineering makes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      What gives you the impression that if Siemens used a Linux distro instead of Windows they would stop forcing their customers to stick to the default passwords?

      There have been security problems with USB drivers included in Linux kernels supplied by popular distros.

      --
    28. Re:The difference engineering makes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Pull the power?

      --
    29. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      proof or stfu.

    30. Re:The difference engineering makes by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You just need more guns :)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzRF-5IWrm0

      --
    31. Re:The difference engineering makes by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Stuxnet shows what a truly determined adversary can do. One who knows your internal processes.

      Gee, I wonder who would that be. *cough* IAEA *cough*

      They tried but found nothing to show Iran is enriching fuel for military purposes. But they got all info they needed to commission the development of a sophisticated, precisely targeted worm...

    32. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is no cure for stupidity. but we hope the linux admins would be more knowledgeable than the windows point and drool morons.

    33. Re:The difference engineering makes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Which would be equivalent to a crash.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    34. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats correct. linux code is throughly vetted by being completely open. there are NO secret hidden backdoors in the code. or people would see them. thats the power of running a vetted OS.
      a worm cant sneak into a linux backdoor if there is none. nor can it zero day exploit a linux box on an airgapped network. that is simply not possible. there is no infection vector AND there is no data path.

    35. Re:The difference engineering makes by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      In my experience a controlled shutdown isn't the same as a crash. An OS crash is generally when the system ABENDS not when it shuts down in an orderly fashion. Besides what server would survive such an event in the first place? After all the question was how do I make Windows 2k8 R2 DC crash not how to stop a server.

    36. Re:The difference engineering makes by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Causes all servers to crash, including Linux. I need examples that only take down Windows.

    37. Re:The difference engineering makes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference between the (obviously jesting) "how do I make the datacenter server sitting nearby unreliable/crash" and "how do I force it to shut down". Once either of the two are done, the result is the same. And indeed cut fan wires are going to take longer to diagnose than most OS crashes.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    38. Re:The difference engineering makes by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      I really don't get the technical details of all this, but my understanding is that Stuxnet spread, at least in part, through USB keys and the like. In that way it *was* able to attack systems not connected to the Internet.

    39. Re:The difference engineering makes by syousef · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think this is the kid sitting at home ala "War Games," and here is why (from the article)

      Nor do I. 1-3 experienced programmers. Not teenagers. Probably in their mid 20s to mid 40s.

      Wow, you know they're serious when the cyberattack is coordinated with targeted assassinations.

      Life is cheap in espionage.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    40. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lay the machine on its side.

      Remove all expansion cards.

      Grind some of the finest steal wool available between you hands above the expansion slots.

      Plug in and remove cards from all the slots.

      Replace the cards in their original slots.

      Power on the system.

      It should fail to boot.

      Power cycle it a few times.

      It should boot.

      It is now an reasonably sensitive seismograph.

      It detects vibration by crashing.

      I realize it would crash any OS but posted anyway as a public service.

    41. Re:The difference engineering makes by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think the percieved difference in competancy comes down to cost. *nix admins can download or put together solutions to little problems and read the docs while those on MS Windows have to purchase something based on more limited information and purchase access to the docs. Once you have to get a purchase approved by someone or go through process then the MS Windows guy are wasting time the *nix admins do not have to. There is also the problem that people with zero experience or training are sometimes considered MS Windows admins (unfairly lowering the reputation of the entire bunch) while many on the *nix side are former software developers.

    42. Re:The difference engineering makes by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      Even experienced programmers do not write low level hardware control code without access to a lab and facilities where they can test the effect of that code. That means a model centrifuge of some kind connected with all the needed industrial controllers. That means access to more resources than just 1-3 programmers. Sure; there will certainly be a small core of experts doing most of the coding.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    43. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and privilege escalation exploits are unheard of on Unix...

    44. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, good thing that programmers don't need QA or managers, and so on.

      Programmers do need QA managers, the more arrogant among them just think they don't because their overblown ego tells them they write flawless code. To get an idea of the difference between QA managed software development and non-QA managed seat-of-your-pants development contrast the stability of Windows 7 with Windows 98 (AKA. Blue-sceen city).

    45. Re:The difference engineering makes by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Pff, probably the same men that also programmed the virus. I'd still go for about 1-3 people.

    46. Re:The difference engineering makes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference between the (obviously jesting) "how do I make the datacenter server sitting nearby unreliable/crash" and "how do I force it to shut down".

      Uh, what? Here, let me help you, in one case it crashes, and in the other it is safely shut down. It probably logs the reason for shutdown, too.

      Once either of the two are done, the result is the same.

      No, one result is a crash and the other is a safe shutdown. See what I did there?

      And indeed cut fan wires are going to take longer to diagnose than most OS crashes.

      The system is going to log the reason for shutdown (thermal critical) and shut itself down. It [probably] won't shut down just because of a cooling fan failure. All cooling fan failures will be logged as well. Any modern server has multiple fans and can run with less than all of them. Multiple fan failures in sequence in the log will send you to look at the server.

      Seriously, you just want to be contrary. Stop it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:The difference engineering makes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, life is cheap everywhere. You can buy a life in this country for a handful of thousands of dollars and that's chump change really given the typical income, anyone can afford it if they really want to. The problem is the high likelihood that the person you will try to buy the hit from will be a cop, it seems to happen on a hilariously regular basis.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    48. Re:The difference engineering makes by AB3A · · Score: 2

      If Stuxnet was indeed targeted at the Uranium Enrichment facility in Natanz, it would have taken exactly what the Symantec paper suggested.

      You think talent alone is all it takes?

      You would need process engineers with at least an understanding of how gas centrifuges work and who know how to set the couple hundred registers for a high speed VFD --one of which was designed and built in Iran; and two models of PLC gear. You'd need network specialists to collect information from the target (there was an Italian football web site that earlier versions of Stuxnet sent data collected from WinCC --but that web site never saw the traffic). There was a rootkit to write, a few private keys to steal, inside knowledge of the WinCC and S7 development package, and intimate knowledge of the embedded systems in an S7 PLC. I know many smart people with tremendous background experience. None of them have this combination.

      Nobody learns the breadth of this knowledge overnight. This was not two guys in a basement. If anything, Symantec's estimates are low.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    49. Re:The difference engineering makes by Drekkahn · · Score: 0

      Well if you rely on technology that is invented and mastered by your enemies "The West" then you are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks.

    50. Re:The difference engineering makes by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh! :)

      I was being facetious - 5-10 is WAY less than stuxnet took to get right.

      I didn't even mention engineering support. If your goal is to destroy a nuclear reactor, how do you ensure that whatever you plan to have it do will destroy it? Chances are you either need to test it out on real reactor components, or gather data from people who have tested real components and have a good idea of how they perform, etc.

      I imagine that when this worm hit things must have gotten pretty exciting in that bunker... Granted, I don't know what the worm actually does - if it just shuts things down then it would be no big deal. However, if I were trying to take out a facility the last thing I would have it do is an orderly shutdown...

    51. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      open the case and pull one of the CPUs. linux and solaris have hot plug CPU support. in 2001 you could take a E6000 running solaris and yank half a dozen of the CPUs and the system would go on ticking. can windblows do that ?
       

    52. Re:The difference engineering makes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Which makes this a very interesting test case.

      I'd bet that already there are people looking at it and saying to themselves "Now how can I adapt this to attack this other device?". And at the same time, of course, they're also looking on improving the attack system, etc.

      Somebody above said "There'll be more attacks like this. Count on it." and I'm sure that he was right, if only because now there's an example of the art around.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re:The difference engineering makes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What reports say it does is to vary the speed of the motor driving the centrifuge. In a manner totally not observable. The goal was that nobody should know it was happening, but the isotopes not be separated properly.

      I imagine that it ran for a considerable time before anyone even detected it. Possibly only when a test of the output showed separation failure. Certainly that was the intent. Then they needed to figure out what was causing the problem...

      OTOH, I haven't been following this. Maybe it was detected some other way. If so, then it hasn't been the success that it's designers hoped for.

      P.S.: This is based on old news that I read when this first surfaced. It could have been superseded by updated reports, and it's no more reliable than the news on the internet. But it seems quite likely to me.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    54. Re:The difference engineering makes by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Read his post again. He already answered that.

      I wouldn't go quite as far as he did. I'd say that if you boot your system from read only media, and mount the hard drives (and any other mountable or writeable media) as non-executable, then you would be relatively safe. Not quite as safe as with his approach, but I haven't yet heard of an attack that would work.

      N.B.: This depends upon your initially having a good copy of the OS on the ReadOnly media. This is where things start breaking down. Getting an OS without holes which is also capable is quite difficult. (Which BSD claims to have that? Can't remember.) But if your system has no holes, then it should be secure even if you allow internet connections. But allowing them is false bravado. Don't do it.

      The air gap between the system to be protected and the external universe is the basic security. ANYTHING which penetrates that must be suspect. This included USB drives as well as people. USB drives can generally be handled by mounting them as non-executable. The people are an area of vulnerability that is more difficult to handle.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    55. Re:The difference engineering makes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect this was a team of hundreds of people..
      1. dozens of intelligence guys on the ground gathering technical details on the system to attack
      2. dozens of analysts coordinating and validating the information
      3. a few dozen software developers
      4. a couple of psychologists and human engineering experts
      5. at least as many testers as developers
      6. a control team
      7. management...
      etc.

    56. Re:The difference engineering makes by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      In both cases the computer is not running. You just want to resist seeing they're the same. Don't bother stopping it - I'm out of here.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    57. Re:The difference engineering makes by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      By "you" you mean "everyone who has bothered to chime in on this subject but me". Granted both groups are pretty small but your panty-bunching is hilarious.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Iran now represents 14.9 percent of total traffic, surpassing the United States with a total of 12.1 percent.'"

    If a few iranian nuclear engineers can cause such reverberation, that probably only indicate that the security site generally does not get alot of traffic.

    1. Re:Traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume they're talking about botnet traffic...

    2. Re:Traffic by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      I think they're talking about forum registrations and such actually. The article is sketchy on details.

  6. Iran... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ahmadinejad's speech needs to be heard from the perspective of knowing something of Persian culture. We tend to think we understand people by what they say and in this case and, frankly in most cases we do not when Iranians speak. For example: If someone dies, it is considered not polite to just say "Shogi is dead". You break it gradually. So on the first inquiry, "Shogi is feeling unwell" is the reply, then, "Shogi took a turn for the worse" , then "Shogi has passed". Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance. This makes it very hard to teach new ideas in Iran. Speak to a Persian and you are met with "Yes Yes, this I know, next thing please" The Persian culture is actually a very beautiful thing full of warm people, but they are NOT American People. They are a seperate culture. when Ahmadinejad announces ____ fill blank. we believe him, Persians think "there goes Dinner Jacket again.."

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    1. Re: Iran... by Threni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance.

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen` and `we have no homosexuals in Iran`?

    2. Re: Iran... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do not, I do as many Persians do and ignore him. Most there believe they have no voice anyway (see last election).

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not admitting it, is he? :)

    4. Re: Iran... by wmac · · Score: 1

      His theory is to put west in defensive state and Iran in offensive when it comes to talking shit. Most of the propaganda is for that. He accused Khatami (previous president) of putting Iran in defensive in international talks.

      However I would prefer to be in defensive in "talks" instead of "actual everyday life".

    5. Re: Iran... by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      I feel for you, I really do, to have such a rich culture taken over by an ideology. As terribly flaws as we Americans are, perhaps there are two things you can learn from us: 1. It is ok to admit you don't know something, as that is how you learn more. 2. When a government is oppressing its citizens, it should be removed by any and all means necessary to accomplish the task.

      I am hoping the US does not get involved directly in a war with Iran. I also wish the citizens would find a way to take control their own destiny, with whatever form of representative government you choose.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      #1... ok, although it's not just an American thing, you know

      #2... whom are you kiddin' ?

      And don't sound so condescending. US is but a part of a larger western civilization, it's had its glory days, it's had and still has its many failings.

    7. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Persian culture is actually a very beautiful thing full of warm people, but they are NOT American People.

      When Ahmadinejad denies the effectiveness of Stuxnet, he is lying. This is not an unusual thing for him to do, either, based on his past behavior, so the only surprise here is that anyone would think there was anything "beautiful" about it.

      Furthermore, if the Persian culture were so beautiful and warm, why does it manage such a convincing pretense of the most grievously hateful, greedy, selfish, violent, sexist, backward, theocratic barbarism outside Africa itself?

      Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance.

      It is also stupid. So he compounds his ignorance with willful ignorance. The more a fool, he.

    8. Re: Iran... by Xaositecte · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Furthermore, if the Persian culture were so beautiful and warm, why does it manage such a convincing pretense of the most grievously hateful, greedy, selfish, violent, sexist, backward, theocratic barbarism outside Africa itself?

      It's sorta've like if the Kansas board of education got elected to national office, and started running shit in America. Or like how we Americans are had to be very clear during the Bush years that, yes, our American government is a bunch of assholes, but individual Americans aren't necessarily like that.

      A good portion of the population isn't like that, and is embarrassed by it.

      I've known enough individual Persians who aren't religious lunatics to know it's not an inherently broken culture. There's just a lot more lunatics per capita.

    9. Re: Iran... by Coldegg · · Score: 1

      The Kansas board of education is hardly hardline Iran. Not even close.

      Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

      You can't say "That guy shot a dog, he's just like Hitler". In that way, just because you didn't like something Kansas Ed did doesn't mean they are ready to start committing honor killings and killing protesters.

    10. Re: Iran... by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      They also need to understand words have meaning. It's fine and well that they can say one thing and mean something else, but they need to understand the rest of the world will judge them on what they say and do not what they thought they implied.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    11. Re: Iran... by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen` and `we have no homosexuals in Iran`?

      He's saying things his constituents want to hear, just like other fucking cunts say things like "we don't torture" or "the US government does not spy on American citizens without a warrant". In both cases it's not ignorance, it's deliberate deception.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. Re: Iran... by formfeed · · Score: 1

      So how do you explain
      [...] the holocaust didn't happen

      "I don't wanna hear about the holocaust anymore"

      we have no homosexuals in Iran

      "Men holding hands and kissing are not homosexuals."

    13. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sorta've like

      it's sort of like
      or
      it's sorta like

    14. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because being unwilling to admit your ignorance is totally beautiful. Give me a fucking break, it's barbaric and amazingly stupid .

    15. Re: Iran... by lul_wat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe if Britain and the USA didn't start this mess by overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 there wouldn't be a problem regarding the oppresion of citizens. If you have a time machine let me know.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    16. Re: Iran... by enrevanche · · Score: 1
      No, like almost all politicians, he is saying what those in power who supported his election want him to say. The constituents (voters/citizens) are usually just pawns in a system that is for the most part rigged (like here in the good old U.S. of A. - perhaps not quite as rigged as Iran, but rigged none the less).

      But you are absolutely right in that it is deliberate deception. If he even wanted to tell the truth he would not remain in office long. Anyone who rises to his level already knows what he is expected to say.

    17. Re: Iran... by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      It's hard to find examples of religious lunatics exercising power in the States recently :P.

      I imagine the targets would be different, and the system we've got in place still has enough protection that they can't go out and be quite so blatant about it, but I can easily see a highly religious government in the states doing things like arresting homosexuals for sodomy, or getting a lot more hard line on "christian values."

    18. Re: Iran... by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      I also misused "there's"

      Should have been "there are."

      Probably another two or three mistakes in there that I'm not seeing either. If you're going to be a Grammar Nazi, do it right, goddammit.

    19. Re: Iran... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I imagine the targets would be different, and the system we've got in place still has enough protection that they can't go out and be quite so blatant about it, but I can easily see a highly religious government in the states doing things like arresting homosexuals for sodomy, or getting a lot more hard line on "christian values."

      Or, say, preventing them from getting married...

    20. Re: Iran... by Frogbert · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Another example:
      People also get confused with chants like "Death to America" which isn't as extreme as it sounds once translated. For example a Persian stuck in heavy traffic is often heard to say "Death to Traffic".

    21. Re: Iran... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0

      The Kansas board of education is hardly hardline Iran. Not even close.

      They damned sure would be, if you gave them the necessary political power.

      Seriously... do you think the Iranians are somehow genetically different from the rest of us?

    22. Re: Iran... by andyjb · · Score: 1

      > Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance.

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen` and `we have no homosexuals in Iran`?

      he's really a progressive ?

    23. Re: Iran... by Tom · · Score: 1

      You don't need a time machine. Standing up and preventing your government from doing these stunts again and again would do.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if the Muslim Arabs didn't start this mess by overthrowing the Sassanid Empire in 644 there wouldn't be a problem regarding the oppression of citizens. If you have a time machine let me know.

    25. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May be but it is still lies !

    26. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Shogi took a turn for the worse"

      He's just sleeping.

    27. Re: Iran... by lewko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scroll up, douchebag and realize that there are people in Islamist states who have been killed for writing a single article. There are people in North Korea who disappear for speaking badly about the Government.

      All the people marching in the streets this week about Julian Assange... Where were they when it was Iranian, North Korean or Chinese dissidents? Nowhere.

      These people don't truly care about freedom at all. If anything, their reflexive anti-American views are the exact opposite. People serving jail time for opposing their government must look at Julian Assange like a spoilt little brat.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    28. Re: Iran... by lewko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When he says 'let's nuke Israel and kill another six million Jews', I don't see how you can compare that to even the worst thing a Western politician has EVER said.

      And if that's truly what his constituents want to hear, then they too deserve everything they get.

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    29. Re: Iran... by lewko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously... do you think the Iranians are somehow genetically different from the rest of us?

      Err... Yes?

      Just as black people are genetically different to whites, Asians are to Swedes.

      Did your brain just explode? Or is this where you call me a racist?

      --
      Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    30. Re: Iran... by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does that Persian then go out and burn tokens which represent traffic in a street rally?
      Do Persian public representatives chant "death to traffic" in unison as the first order of business after getting power?
      Is being beaten to death by mounted police / getting stoned to death a bizarre pastime for Persian women?
      Are covert uranium enrichment facilities just another wacky Iranian cultural quirk?

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    31. Re: Iran... by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      And maybe if the ayatollah had allowed Khatami more power to reign in extremists in the military the revolution would have corrected that coup more easily, but we have to play with the hand history dealt us..

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    32. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine the targets would be different, and the system we've got in place still has enough protection that they can't go out and be quite so blatant about it, but I can easily see a highly religious government in the states doing things like arresting homosexuals for sodomy, or getting a lot more hard line on "christian values."

      Or, say, preventing them from getting married...

      Yeah, because that compares so well with stoning people to death or hanging them for their 'moral' crimes. Please...try to find better examples. Of course you won't, but that won't stop you from trying.

    33. Re: Iran... by mangu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People also get confused with chants like "Death to America" which isn't as extreme as it sounds once translated.

      Yeah, right. The GP said If someone dies, it is considered not polite to just say "Shogi is dead". Yet you say "Death to America" is not that bad. WTF?

      If your language is so incoherent, then it's your duty to take better care how you speak.

       

    34. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... context is everything. Death to Traffic might be inoffensive because traffic isn't actually alive, and certainly isn't a recently deceased person. That's not incoherence, that's simple sensitivity to context.

    35. Re: Iran... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. The Templars engineered that and put the blame on the US government.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    36. Re: Iran... by memyselfandeye · · Score: 1

      You don't need a time machine. Standing up and preventing your government from doing these stunts again and again would do.

      You do need a time machine if you want to stop the real culprits who started this cyberwar in cyberspace with their cybermissile. No, I'm not talking about the United States, or Isreal, or Saudi Arabia or even Theodore Donald 'The Rat' Finch AKA Mr. "Hack the Planet." No, the real villan here is clearly the CYBERMAN !!!!

    37. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may be genetically different, (every single human is somewhat different in a way), but we are not incompatible. Else, we wouldn't have a Barack Obama or Tiger Woods doing what they do.

      Ona side note, Iran's language and ours are in the same linguistic family, you know.

    38. Re: Iran... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Ahmadinejad's speech needs to be heard from the perspective of knowing something of Persian culture.

      This is the "what he really meant to say" game. It's been played by politicians and dictators for many decades. Give a rousing tirade to your base, then get apologists (sincere or not) to explain that you didn't really mean what you said.

    39. Re: Iran... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance.

      Gee, I didn't know there were so many Iranians at slashdot!

    40. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll try to put aside my Western outlook for a moment.

      But at the very least, isn't it objectively the case that by being polite in this way, one is also being terribly inaccurate? Isn't this custom an extremely inefficient way to disseminate information? Isn't it the source of lots of trouble and misunderstanding, as people act on the incorrect information they have at each stage of a revelation?

      Surely at the boundary with other cultures this causes a lot more trouble than it is worth. (As exemplified by others' reactions to Ahmadinejad's speech...)

    41. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so your line in the sand is a little bit before Iran's - but it's still a hell of a long way past my line in the sand - it's all a perspective mate.

    42. Re: Iran... by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      Scroll up, douchebag

      Why was that comment not modded flamebait? Isn't anyone with mod points over the age of 15?

      BTW, mod this (my) comment "offtopic", please.

    43. Re: Iran... by mcgrew · · Score: 0

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen

      FYI, a "cunt" is a woman whose worthless for anything but sex. A better choice of words would have been "prick" or "asshole".

    44. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of this:

      Cat Joke

    45. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, it is considered dishonorable for a man to admit ignorance.

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen` and `we have no homosexuals in Iran`?

      Pretty easily: He's not admitting ignorance, is he? No, he's steadfastly committed to it, as stupid and wrong and disproven by emperical, non-theoretical evidence as it may be. Ergo, he maintains his honor.

      Y'know, come to think of it, that reminds me of a certain political party we've got here in the US...

    46. Re: Iran... by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

      So how do you explain that fucking bearded cunt in a suit saying stuff like `the holocaust didn't happen` and `we have no homosexuals in Iran`?

      He's demonstrating ignorance, but not admitting it.

      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    47. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your language is so incoherent, then it's your duty to take better care how you speak.

      ??? Do you understand what translation is? Their language is very coherent, with reams of secondary meanings, contextual subtleties, etc. The language is not incoherent at all -- it's the translation that's incoherent. Basically, this means that either English is too simplistic to meaningfully translate the phrase, or the translator went for a "literal" translation instead of a meaningful translation.

      I'm sure "damned traffic" would translate about as horribly into Persian as something similar "All traffic should not only die, but then spend the afterlife in pain and suffering." Does that make your language incoherent? Does it mean it's your duty to take better care how you speak?

    48. Re: Iran... by mangu · · Score: 1

      That's not incoherence, that's simple sensitivity to context.

      So, considering that many of the Israel citizens lost most of their families to the Holocaust, shouldn't you be a little more sensitive to the context?

      Hypocrite! You and all of the Iranian and Arab people, you are nothing but hypocrites.

      I'm neither Arab nor Israeli, I'm technically neutral in that context, but I heavily lean toward the Israeli side of the conflict.

      There's a whole lot of difference between defending yourself from homemade rockets fired across the border and stoning to death a woman that had sex with another man two years after her husband died.

    49. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously... do you think the Iranians are somehow genetically different from the rest of us?

      Err... Yes?

      Just as black people are genetically different to whites, Asians are to Swedes.

      Did your brain just explode? Or is this where you call me a racist?

      I'm sorry... but you're incorrect. Persians might be genetically different from non-Persians, but your country of residence has absolutely nothing to do with your genetic makeup.

    50. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you said that you want to kill and rape Jeremi's mother, you took it way too far in this internet discussion.

      But in reality, you didn't say that. Similarly, Ahmadinejad's quote about Israel is not what you claim it to be.

    51. Re: Iran... by genner · · Score: 1

      When he says 'let's nuke Israel and kill another six million Jews', I don't see how you can compare that to even the worst thing a Western politician has EVER said.

      And if that's truly what his constituents want to hear, then they too deserve everything they get.

      .....but Dan Quayle misspelled potato once.

    52. Re: Iran... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, then as a citizen of the US, I must be very careful to speak precisely.

      Don't be silly. English is widely known as one of the more confusing languages in the world. As a native speaker, I rarely notice this, but when I think carefully, it certainly seems plausible. Just for example (and to stay in topic) baseball fans shouting in unison "Kill the umpire" aren't considered to be in a conspiracy to commit murder. Not even if one of then commits an overt act. (Say throwing a beer bottle at the umpire.) That's what the law calls a conspiracy to commit a felony, but it's never seen as one, because nobody takes "Kill the umpire" literally.

      Then there's the street in San Francisco spelled "Gough", which changes it's pronunciation from area to area. "Go", "Golf" without the "l", etc., but is never pronounced "Gup" (ref. hiccough). In passing I note that my on-line spelling dictionary doesn't recognize "hiccough" as a valid word, suggesting instead "hiccup", even though "hiccough" is the more traditional spelling. Perhaps that's now seen as British, rather than American, English.

      I can easily interpret Iranians chanting "Death to the US!" to be analogous to the baseball crowd chanting "Kill the umpire!". Whether it is intentionally stronger or weaker is probably neither a cultural nor a linguistic fact, but rather determined by the emotions of the crowd. (There have, indeed, been times when an Umpire has had his life endangered.)

      And it is also quite common for people to avoid saying that someone is dead. People don't like to be directly reminded of personal tragedy. This is not uniquely Iranian (though it may, perhaps, be stronger there). But morticians and bereavement cards commonly speak of "The dear departed", and avoid the direct mention of death. I expect that it's a human universal. (As are chants like "Kill the Umpire".)

      There are many studies in the fields of "The madness of crowds". We don't tend to see them in action as often now because television is a distancing medium. We see things happening in isolation. This is one reason why college campuses are fertile places for demonstrations. City streets don't work nearly as well, because of the vehicular traffic. Revival meetings are carefully structured to take advantage of this, and work environments are carefully structured to avoid it. When a crowd feels wronged, it's likely to act so as to get revenge. The distinction between a crowd and a mob is minor...and all important. But mobs that don't have leaders are idiots that are likely to burn down their own homes. Sometimes a leader arises spontaneously, and if that happens it's likely to be someone who is totally driven by emotion with no thought of consequences. More often the leader is pre-planned, and the instigation of the mob from the crowd is intentional. In that case the mob *can* be channeled into harmless displays of emotion. Or can be channeled in other ways.

      Mobs are dangerous, and they are often used against oppressors. But they also tend to dissolve, and leave their erstwhile members at a loss to explain their actions.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    53. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a problem with translation...it's a problem with the Islamic ideology which goes something like this...
      "death to anything I don't agree with" followed by an obligatory "death to American and death to Israel" for good form.

    54. Re: Iran... by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Oh good, the Zionists must have been busy that day.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    55. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acknowledging that a foreign language might be internally consistent isn't exactly an espousal of anyone's foreign policy.

    56. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      English is widely known as one of the more confusing languages in the world.

      Don't be retarded.

      Just for example (and to stay in topic) baseball fans shouting in unison "Kill the umpire" aren't considered to be in a conspiracy to commit murder.

      Sort of like how in japanese when you are asked Ogenki desu ka (how are you), if you reply with Watashi wa daijobuda yo (I'm fine), you sound like an asshole. You are supposed to reply Mijime desu wa (I am miserable).

      Then there's the street in San Francisco spelled "Gough", which changes it's pronunciation from area to area. "Go", "Golf" without the "l", etc., but is never pronounced "Gup" (ref. hiccough).

      1 word: Hanzi.

    57. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody said it wasn't a risky place to live. lol

    58. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Persians are Aryan by bloodline, just like (probably) you and me.

      Regardless, the only limits to religious douchebaggery are those imposed by the local culture, not the race. Christian fundamentalists in the US share almost exactly the same Strangelovian cultural ambitions as Wahhabist Muslims. (Interestingly, neither of these interpretations of the two faiths are more than a few centuries old.)

    59. Re: Iran... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      My Japanese is quite limited, but I'm informed that spoken Japanese is sufficiently vague that people frequently sketch out characters in the air to clarify exactly which meaning they mean.

      And I still say that English is widely known as one of the more confusing languages. I can accept that even though, as a native speaker, it rarely confuses me. And in this I'm not even talking about the various dialects. In that context the clear winner is either China, or perhaps one of the South-Ease Asian countries. (Burma? Thiland?) This is because the tone structures are more variable so that people from one village have trouble understanding people in a nearby village. I'm really thinking more about word order, modifiers, parts of speech, etc. It doesn't really help that classically English grammars were based on Latin, a totally unsuitable match. So people practically ignored the grammar, and evolved the language free-form. Then there's all the borrowed constructions. Here I'm not talking so much about borrowed words (though that does interesting things to the spelling) but borrowed grammatical features. E.g. some words pluralize by adding an -en, because that was how it was done in Norse. So, oxen. Most of these have dropped away, so now one only encounters constructs like "shoen" in quotations from older times. (E.g., "Shoen" I got from the LykeWake Dirge.)

      Every language has features of this sort, but English has gone through sufficient tumult in recent centuries that the language has changed to near unintelligiblity. Try to read Edmund Spenser's "Faerie Queen". He wrote in a deliberately archaic style at about the time of Shakespeare. Spanish, by contrast, has had only minor changes since the writing of El Cid, centuries before then. (I think it may have been around the time of Chaucer, but I've never checked to be certain.) Partially this was caused because the Norman-French (speaking a distorted form of French) conquered an Anglo-Saxon speaking country. But not thoroughly enough to impose their language on the peasantry. So, over the centuries, the country's "upper-crust" began to speak an Anglo-Saxonized French, and the common folk began to speak a Norman-Frenchified Anglo-Saxon. This continued until they were speaking about the same language. But the official grammar was that of Latin, because the schools were run by the clergy, who considered Latin to be the only worthy language. (It's more confusing than that, as I've left out the influence of the Gaelic languages. [Other languages, Brithonic, Pictish, etc. only came in via the modifications that they had already made to Anglo-Saxon].)

      Anyway, because of it's recent history, when English went out into the international world (about the 1800's) it had no qualms about adopting forms and words from other languages. Some fit, some didn't. And there were also indigenous innovations, that were thrown into the mix. There was already such a swirling stew of changes, that a few more weren't resisted. But in any particular area there needs to be a critical proportion of people accepting a change. If they do, then there needs to be some reason for it to spread. Books will work. Radio shows. But they need to catch a popular fad, so most changes just die away. Others, however, linger. Words enter most easily, but turns of phrase can also enter. And occasionally a new grammatical construction will show up. Most die out quickly, but some are adopted.

      And none of it is planned. It just evolves.

      And that's why I believe it when people tell me that English is one of the world's most confusing languages.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    60. Re: Iran... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      P.S.:
      I left out one major reason, because I'm largely ignorant of it. But it's already important, and is likely to be of increasing importance, so I should mention it.

      Already most speakers of English don't have English as their first language. And the proportion is growing. To what extent this will change things is impossible to state, but I'm assured that it already has a great affect on the direction of the evolution of English. The guess is that the English of a century or so from now would be nigh unintelligible to a current native English speaker. Because of grammatical changes. Speculation is that the language is in the process of splitting into pieces, but that's only one alternative.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    61. Re: Iran... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a big load of crap.

      1) The only information available that everyone uses as source are documents from CIA. How do you trust CIA? CIA is an intelligence agency. It's missions also include disinformation.

      2) Mossadegh was a retard and a traitor. Majority of the Iranians dislike him. He caused problems with other nations, forced Iran to take more loans, printed new money with his ugly face on, forced women to wear hijab again, threatened to close the parliament and asked for dictatorial powers (in fact I believe he did close the parliament) but then the people could not take it anymore.

      Nothing is more funny than seeing foreigners write about Iran and Iranians. I think an Iranian know more than a foreigner. Especially foreigners that try to act as if their country is "free and democratic where everyone love each other"

    62. Re: Iran... by Coldegg · · Score: 0

      Nice, we're comparing allowing somebody to get married to locking some guy up in jail for the rest of his life.

      How are those even comparisons?

  7. Wikileaks DoS connection? by jamessnell · · Score: 1

    Heh, maybe the pwned machines in Iran are being re-purposed to help in the flurry of DoS attacks both against and in defense of Wikileaks?

  8. Re:The real question by wampus · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read about how this thing works, the real payload is a rootkit for a motor drive plc built by an Iranian manufacturer and spinning in the range needed to enrich uranium. It was also targetted at the desktop software designed to program said motor drive, which is windows. If they were running Linux, I'm sure there are a few zero day sploits out there suitible for hiding a rootkit dropper. The people that made this thing had time, information, legitimate driver signing certificates, and resources. I doubt there are many platforms that can deal with such a determined attacker.

  9. Not Convincing by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

    a) Everybody in Iran with a Stuxnet-infected computer is going to be trying desperately to get rid of it and everybody in Iran with a computer that they even suspect may be infected with anything is going to be trying to read up on Stuxnet. They are not going to believe that it won't harm their systems. They are going to believe that every little glitch might be Stuxnet come to steal their secrets (whether they have any or not).

    b) If most of the Iranian traffic to these sites was coming from people at the the Iranian nuclear facilities studying Stuxnet there would be very little of it because there would not be all that many people assigned to such research.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  10. Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank god for Iran's successful nuclear program. We are soon to see the end of the Middle East living in fear of Israeli terrorism and wars.

    If the IDF terrorists, who are use to gunning down women and children, got their asses kicked so hard by the tiny but bad-ass Hezbolla fighters in Lebanon. Just imagine how quickly the IDF is going to be put down by a real military like Iran's.

  11. so.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Iran obviously hasn't had experience fixing their in-laws computers and are actually wasting their time trying to save their familly photos. FORMAT!

  12. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

    You think the Arab nations will be so glee at the thought of a powerful Iran? In case you haven't been paying attention, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The wikileaks cables show quite clearly that Iran doesn't have much support from their Arab neighbors.

  13. truth vs US propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder if those spikes they are detecting aren't payback for the origins of the worm....

  14. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by wampus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I wouldn't cry if the entire region nuked itself into giant molerats, to be honest. People die all the damn time, why not a bunch of angry people? The land would be poisoned and worthless, but the same set of assholes have been fighting over it for the last 6000 or so years, so it can die, too.

  15. Thanks, Israel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Thanks, Israel!
    Sincerely,
    The Rest of the World (including, we now know, much of the Middle East)

  16. Spengler saw this last year by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The columnist who writes for Asia Times On-line (www.atimes.com) under the name Spengler foresaw this situation last year. He noted that 95+% off the software that was being used in Iran was 'pirate-ware' from the West. He noted that there was an Iranian government-run file download site that held hundreds of popular Western software packages along with their kraks, passwords, and keygens. He predicted that this would allow viruses to run amok throughout Iran at some point in the future.

        He also quotes a BBC reporter who states that almost nobody except government officials and their goon squads (and old ladies, of course) still believes in fundamental Islam in Iran. She (the BBC reporter) says that only about 2% of the population regularly go to Friday services at the mosques in Iran. And over 5% of Iranians are addicted to cheap Afghanistan heroin, the highest addiction rate in the world. Unemployment among the young is in reality over 50%. She says that Iran currently resembles the Soviet Union in the late 1980's; it's a country that will just fall apart in the next ten years if the rest of the world just leaves them alone and lets it happen.

        At the time of the revolution in 1978, Iran's population was about 27 million (I remember the number quoted as 50 million at the time) and now it is over 70 million: a direct result of Khomeini's exortation for young people to -'get a-fuckin'- (in a manner of speaking) and make lots of babies. When Khomeini died that policy died also, and Iran launched a massive birth-control program. Now, the children of the revolution are having almost no babies and the birth-rate in Iran is 1.6 children per couple; one of the lowest in the world. But their remains this huge bulge in the population demographic there; all the people born in the 1980's.

        They call themselves 'the burnt generation'.

        If any of this is true then we shouldn't worry too much about Iran. We should never actually believe anything that they say. And we should, on an individual-to-individual basis, offer whatever assistance that we can. Nevertheless, I would recommend NOT offering any detailed technical assistance to people in Iran on any specific technological project over the web until the Iranian government stops all this 'Death To America' nonsense as offical government policy.

        Thank you.

    1. Re:Spengler saw this last year by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And this is supposed to be comforting how? I mean, I can't find confirmation for anything that you say apart from the fertility numbers, but if Iran is a collapsing nation of heroin zombies, that doesn't exactly inspire my confidence in the stability of that part of the world. Add nuclear weapons to the mix and you'll see that something could possibly go wrong.

    2. Re:Spengler saw this last year by sponga · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it could be the the worse case scenario

      An older generation who has all this younger youth generation under its authority and gun, they will just become cannon fodder and sent to he front lines when war breaks out. They want to go out on a bang and be remembered, revolutions no longer exist since the machine gun came out.

      Front of the line : Students and the educated
      Back of the line : Elders and clerics watching

      You gotta remember these are the same people who used their population to clear mine fields during the Iraq/Iran war

    3. Re:Spengler saw this last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is supposed to be comforting how?

      It's not. How do wounded, cornered animals act?

  17. Carefully Targeted by IronicToo · · Score: 1

    The researchers who found this noticed it will only activate on certain controllers that are controlling centerfuges built in either Iran or Poland I believe. There are additional restrictions, I think something about a certain percentage must be or Iranian manufacture of something. Since there are virtually no Iranian centrifuges outside of Iran it is as targeted as it is possible to be to only Iranian nuclear processing facilities.

    1. Re:Carefully Targeted by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, not true.

      It was targeted at a particular Siemens chipset. That chipset is used world wide and not just for centrifuges. (its already infected Iranian turbine generators).

      But again, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, viruses and worms are built using the skeletons of other viruses and worms.

      Iran will eventually figure out this tool, and tailor it to new targets. Centrifuges do not have GPS chips installed. They don't know where they are. At best the controllers that run them know a time zone and a language setting. How long will it take to adjust that?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Carefully Targeted by Coldegg · · Score: 1

      That's great that they are going to figure it out and its going to pwn us all.

      Except for the fact that patches are in the works that will make it unuseable.

      But, it was a close call and stuff.

    3. Re:Carefully Targeted by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Iran will eventually figure out this tool, and tailor it to new targets.

      • Does this whole episode give you the impression that Iran have the IT expertise needed?
      • Are there examples of defectors from western countries giving details of critical western military facilities to Iran?
      • Do Iranian agents have access to private keys owned by western technology vendors and signed by western certificate authorities?
      • Is there some western project/target based on SCADA systems that Iran is really keen to attack, which would actually make a difference if set back / taken out?
      • Does Iran, which can't even register its own WinCC systems, have a large pool of industrial systems-engineering expertise to call on?
      • Could Stuxnet be modified to have an alternate payload while avoiding detection by anti-virus?
      • If the Stuxnet authors are sympathetic to the target country, and involved in government, wouldn't they be well qualified to give effective advice on mitigating any derivative threat?
      • Since the number of 0-day exploits, the stolen private keys, and the highly targeted nature of the worm are all that make it impressive, yet are all useless against another target, what parts of Stuxnet could Iran reuse?

      I could go on; Iranian citizens killing their own nuclear experts, the lack of loyalty among Iranian students, the lack of funds, the number of targets, Iranian vs US/Israeli software industries/expertise. It's a somewhat neat idea, but it's completely absurd.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:Carefully Targeted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already affected other Siemens machines. I'm staying AC for a reason, but a family member is already knee-deep into combatting a variant that has infected US equipment.

  18. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "wikileaks cables show quite clearly "

    LOL

    What a fucking idiot.

    Way to make a complete fool of yourself. Iran has massive support from the populations of their Arab neighbors.

    But, golly!, yes the anti-democratic US propped up governments in the region have different view of Iran...

    Someone needs to smack the fucking shit out you.

  19. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by abigor · · Score: 1

    To be more precise, the Saudis have been putting strong pressure on the US to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake".

  20. Nucular, really? by olden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Stuxnet chatter is still observed around the planet, including in Iran and the US. Duh.

    Now how exactly does this "expert" come to the conclusion that, somehow, activity from the US etc must be from infected home PCs, yet the same from Iran must be from some seekret uranium enrichment plant, which typically wound not be connected to the internet?

    Oh, my bad, forgot, this comes from ScareTV... Never mind.

    1. Re:Nucular, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the origin of stuxnet is obvious to anyone except a complete retard like yourself.

    2. Re:Nucular, really? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. There are 5 or 6, rather likely points of origin, and several others only slightly less plausible. No one candidate gets more than 30% probability in my mind. And it's that much only because I'm counting them in all of the coalitions that they might be members of. I'd give the US and Israel each a 20% probability of acting almost independently, and those are the highest probabilities. 20% is only one chance out of five.

      If you think it's obvious, then you need to explain your reasoning better. Otherwise it looks like prejudice.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  21. Um, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because today's megacorp does in fact have 100 BILLION dollars!

    Of course they don't - but that is what they are valued at, which of course takes into account likely future earning and not just cash on hand.

    So, somebody looking to do industrial sabotage isn't trying to get a payment from the company that they're taking down. Instead they probably work for a government that wants to see the company go down so that some other company can take its place (think nationalism). They wouldn't ask for a ransom - they're not doing it for a payout - they win if the company goes bankrupt. The programmers themselves of course don't win big - they're just collecting salaries like anybody writing software for a living.

    I think I could get a $100 BILLION dollars if a couple of these guys chip in.

    Some from these people

    And of course these people could cough it ALL up as well as
    these guys

    Just say'in.

  22. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there would be, e.g. specialist niche software like Step 7 is often a pile of bugs duck taped together.
    Even so several of the attack vectors smack of Windows security, in particular the fucking autorun exploit. Actually, looking it up, even the Step 7 vulnerability was rather Windows flavoured.

  23. Traffic Spike Proves Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so security sites have experienced a lot of traffic coming from Iran. How does that prove that the virus is still affecting them? Do you mean to tell me that the only reason people have for visiting security sites is because they are being affected by stuxnet? What if they have another virus? What if they have no virus and are pursuing preventative measures? What if there is an increased general interest in computer security?

    The "adamant claims" jab cuts both ways. We can make the baseless assumption that the Iranian government is plagued by this virus despite adamant claims otherwise, or we could point the finger at American media and say that the Iranian government is no longer affected by stuxnet despite adamant claims by the American press. The press has the same reasons to misrepresent the situation that the Iranian government does, so we can truly learn nothing from these back and forth claims.

  24. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Angry people... like you?

  25. Michael Kristopeit... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    ...Is that you?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Michael Kristopeit... by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      No, Michael Kristopeit would say something mind shatteringly profound like "Ur mum calls herself the burnt generation."

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    2. Re:Michael Kristopeit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, his keywords are "pathetic" and "you are NOTHING" (the capitals are important!). And he'd never post anon; he'd lose his old chestnut of "ignoring" anons by shrieking at them about how they're hiding something.

      And, like DocHoncho said, there's not enough "your mom" jokes.

  26. Re:Virus and Iran again in front page? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, this is a serious "nerds at war" story. Slashdot would be remiss to not cover what might be greatest exploit of weapons grade professional hacking in world history. How long before Slashdot "friends" find themselves on opposite sides of an actual war where key infrastructure is literally exploding? Because that's exactly what those worm coders did: Blow up uranium centrifuges in militarized underground bunkers. This really is the start of a new era in the history of nerddom, and if anything, it should be getting more attention from nerds. Maybe some of the authors of that worm even have user accounts here.

  27. Uh... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I thought the hosts that Stuxnet was targeted at weren't connected to the internet at all, meaning the surge in traffic can only be coming from collateral damage infected hosts. Meaning it is spreading but not really damaging anything.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Uh... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      The theory is that the machines were infected via thumb drives. The traffic is supposed to be coming from thousands of Iranian "nuclear scientists" sitting in internet cafes desperately searching for a solution to their Stuxnet problem.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Uh... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      meaning the surge in traffic can only be coming from collateral damage infected hosts

      Viruses typically don't browse security sites. People trying to remove viruses, however, typically do.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  28. Maybe NSA is redirecting Anonymous' attacks.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ...not likely but that would be hilarious,

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  29. i can haz infection? by alphatel · · Score: 1
    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  30. Note to self by fishbowl · · Score: 2

    When I'm a leader of a rogue state, I will not connect the control systems of my super-secret nuclear facility to any external network.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Note to self by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      But will you epoxy up all the USB connectors on your minions' computers?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:Note to self by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      Connect the minions to the internet, not your death ray. The death ray should only be controlled by big red buttons mounted directly on the device.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    3. Re:Note to self by Kelzar · · Score: 1

      And that, sir, is why you will never be the leader of a rogue state.

  31. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your an angry people..

    should make you think..

  32. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A link to Foxnews that cites an anonymous source? Stop wasting our time.

    Coincidently the CAPTCHA word is "brazen"

  33. Man in charge of fixing situation murdered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those who can't be arsed to RTFA:

    "And Iran’s anti-worm effort may have had another setback. In Tehran, men on motorcycles attacked two leading nuclear scientists on their way to work. Using magnetic bombs, the motorcyclists pulled alongside their cars and attached the devices.

    One scientist was wounded and the other killed. Confirmed reports say that the murdered scientist was in charge of dealing with the Stuxnet virus at the nuclear plants."

    Nothing else about this article really seems that new or surprising. That fact that the people in charge of getting rid of Stuxnet are being murdered is surprising. More fingers pointed toward a government organization looking to take out a few people to preserve its investment. Or perhaps more fun would be that it reminds me of the book Daemon. Stuxnet is on the loose and now that its showed up in the news reports its out for BLOOD!

  34. maybe the second part is true by stupendou · · Score: 1

    Just because there is a spike in traffic from Iran doesn't mean they haven't got Stuxnet under control at their nuclear facilities, does it? Maybe the worm is just still in the wild on other machines and the country is infected?

  35. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You think the Arab nations will be so glee at the thought of a powerful Iran? In case you haven't been paying attention, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The wikileaks cables show quite clearly that Iran doesn't have much support from their Arab neighbors.

    "wikileaks cables show quite clearly "
    LOL....

    Yes, you are right. The vast majority of Arabs actually are in favor of a strong Iran. Their propped up autocracies aren't in favor of that of course.

    A poll recently done in the middle east showed that 80% of folks there thought that Israel was a threat. 77% thought that the US was a threat. Far down the line 10% thought that Iran was a threat. This was the "Common People off the street" type folks.

    Be nice though, just because you are right and he has been watching too much Fox News doesn't mean that should be falling off your rocking chair there. Settle down, put the coffee away and maybe listen to some soothing music for a few hours - or wait till you are at least fourteen before you keep posting to /.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  36. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Coldegg · · Score: 1

    Wow, did somebody teach you how to use a computer so you can push your propoganda online?

    Don't you have some of your citizens to subjugate and terrorize?

  37. The Truth is out there by Wolfling1 · · Score: 1

    So, what happens when (if) WikiLeaks reveals that the source was an American Military CyberWarfare Lab?

    Will it then be considered an act of war?

    Will the Iranians be justified in seeking compensation and damages via the UN?

    Is America prepared to pay such a price? Or will the international community bend at the knees once again? All hail the American Greenback! Without which, we shall not prosper.

    1. Re:The Truth is out there by Skidborg · · Score: 1

      You act as if Iran doesn't have any other enemies. It could have been Canadians responsible for this for all we know.

      --
      Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
    2. Re:The Truth is out there by jjohnson · · Score: 2

      If it were Canadian, it would have asked permission before installing itself. And then annoyed you by constantly telling you that it's ready to uninstall itself at any time if it's overstayed its welcome.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:The Truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      waht's your problem? you want them to have the bomb?

      Wikileaks does not get that information on its own. There's an idiot inside who leaks it.

      so, if it happens,

      we find that idiot, try him for treason, shoot him.

      Wikileaks? what wikileaks?
      -----------

      I ahve news for you. Being a boyscout emphasising on honour and truth and all is fine if the world were full of boyscouts. That technique will not work against ajmenajabad.

    4. Re:The Truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would be useless, because it would all have been in french anyway.

    5. Re:The Truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were installed in most places in the U.S., the admin would keep giving it permission.

    6. Re:The Truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent quote! Thanks for the LOLs this morning!!

    7. Re:The Truth is out there by khallow · · Score: 1

      Will it then be considered an act of war?

      Probably. However any hostile action by Iran would be a valid pretext to finish the job of destroying these facilities.

      Will the Iranians be justified in seeking compensation and damages via the UN?

      Nope.

      Is America prepared to pay such a price?

      The US would not pay.

    8. Re:The Truth is out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it were American, it would have taken out Urean Reactionaries in Iraq and later stated that's what it intended to do in the first place.

  38. Microsoft in Iran by trawg · · Score: 1

    I sort of find it entertaining that the US government appears to be happy for Microsoft to export Windows to Iran so that it can be used in their nuclear industry.

    But at the same time companies like Amazon, Mastercard, Visa and PayPal are so scared of Wikileaks (and/or the US government's reaction to their commercial relation to Wikileaks) that they're pulling their commercial ties as soon as possible.

    Of course, as soon as they switch to Linux, I assume it (and open source) will painted as the evil, terrorist supporting operating system that it truly must be!

    1. Re:Microsoft in Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft doesn't export Windows to Iran. The Iranians are running pirated copies.

  39. Re:You Fucking Piece Of Garbage by vaporland · · Score: 1

    you're posting under the correct name... A.C.

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  40. Re:The real question by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    No, I'd be more inclined to run MS-DOS than Windows 7. At least it isn't a multi-tasking OS and if I have a program running, I'm unlikely to have programs running in the background.

  41. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by daft_one · · Score: 0

    Well, but brown though.

  42. Re:The real question by jorghis · · Score: 1

    You are more inclined to run an operating system that has *NO* protection of resources of any kind than windows 7? Even if you believe the "windows is full of holes" propaganda at least windows 7 is making some attempt at resource protection. MS DOS does not make any attempt whatsoever.

    Simply stating that you are safe because MS-DOS does not support multi tasking is misguided. Viruses were spreading in MS-DOS systems before most people reading this site were even born. Even if your concern is a background task doing something nefarious you still are not going to have much luck: A sophisticated virus could easily run a multithreaded operating system and have MS-DOS running inside a vm. The user would never know the difference.

  43. Re:The real question by Announcer · · Score: 1

    Could the Commodore 64 possibly be immune? ;)

    --
    Willie...
  44. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    American polls are always wrong, and they've got a lot of practice figuring out how to ask questions and decipher the answers of their countrymen. I don't think polls of "common people off the street" in Arab countries, where the questioner could be the secret police and there's little culture answering polls "for the common good" (whatever that is - all we have is polls, and they're always wrong), are going to be much more than a rorschach of what their propaganda (state and/or religious) trains them to say to strangers.

    Non-Shiite Muslims have seen ample reason to fear Iran. Shiites, too, whose local theocracy is mostly laissez-faire, would see Iran as a threat. Iraqis who can still remember the 1980s war fear Iran. Saudis especially fear Iran, because Iran is indeed the biggest actual threat to Saudis now that Iraq is a threat almost entirely only to itself. Generally Arabs don't think even other Arabs should have a nuke, Persians even less - and who could blame them?

    The simple way to see your results is on a logarithmic scale. Arabs will say that Israel and the US are such extreme threats that other countries like Iran barely register, but normalize the hyperbole and Iran is also considered a threat along with those other nuke powers whose actions are consistent with the propaganda Arabs hear all the time.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  45. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point was that if you are running a nuclear reactor which is the quintessential example of real-time needs, hopefully you are then running a real-time operating system instead of a general purpose operating system. MS-DOS isn't a real-time operating system, but its closer in the sense that your indexing service isn't going to randomly kick on and lock an important file causing a big boom.

  46. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *cough* Israel *cough*

  47. Re:The real question by stretch0611 · · Score: 1

    Could the Commodore 64 possibly be immune? ;)

    The C64 does not have an internal hard drive.

    The C64 does not utilize boot sectors.

    The C64's operating system is stored on ROM chips (which by definition can not be written to.)

    While I do not think it is immune to viruses, The above points should mean that a hard-reboot (i.e. power reset) would wipe the virus out of memory severely hampering the ability of a virus to linger.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  48. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No body would bat an eyelid, if US and Israel were nuked either.

  49. Re:The real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuxnet is a Israeli Jewish program.

  50. Re:The real question by Announcer · · Score: 1

    Exactly my point. :) If they were smart, they'd rewrite their equipment control software to run on good Ol' Commie 64's, with the code stored in ROMs. Someone, somewhere, may have already figured this out, and runs all kinds of super-secret, mission-critical stuff that way!

    Of course, I could be wrong. ;)

    --
    Willie...
  51. It's only been brown for the past 1k years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People soon forget that it was Albinos of all India and Pakistan and Iraq-areas that founded the mostly European nations and interbred. Ever since the Whites were kicked-out, you see the entire civil infrastructure that greened the region to crumble and turn to sand as the topsoil blows away into the air as dust.

    Then when Europe is doing well, people start buying foreign-made goods and wares by using Instruments of Debt; once these currencies leave the host country and into one of those sand-people territories, it only returns to buy land and rent-space. The exodus prior to the muslims was when Islam kicked the Zoroasters out of the middle-east, yet they re-settled in Los Angeles; Now their enemies the muslims have been immigrating at a rate of 9-million in 8 years since Bush, and the Zoroasters are just looking at the problem of these savages no-different than property owners durring the LA Riots.

    1. Re:It's only been brown for the past 1k years. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People soon forget that it was Albinos of all India and Pakistan and Iraq-areas

      Relatively new genetic research has revealed that white people used to be numerous in Africa. Presumably they left because they heard about someplace with less sunburn risk. Indeed some believe that they were in the majority.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  52. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the same set of assholes have been fighting over it for the last 6000 or so years.

    I think you can say the same thing about every region in the world.

  53. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Kelzar · · Score: 1

    I'm getting mixed signals. Is your comment a bad joke or just a confused rant? Maybe you should use emoticons to clarify in the future.

  54. Simple, same as by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Simple same as the American's have LONG denied the holocaust against the natives and the concentration camps for Americans whose ancestors came from Japan. Or that those who wrote "All men are equal" really meant "White MEN, with sufficient standing, that we approve off, are equal, somewhat".

    Being a cunt is not restricted to beard faces.

    And really, does the US have any right to talk about the treatment of homosexuals? The republican cunts are now blocking reform of the "Do not ask, do not tell" policy until they get a tax cut for the super rich. I think we got a new arm race. Who can produce the biggest cunt in a suit.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Simple, same as by gtall · · Score: 2

      The U.S. has long admitted the "concentration" camps if by that you mean concentration camps light rather than what the Nazies were engaged in.

      The U.S. also fought a bloody civil war over slavery, a million people lost their lives in it. You may have heard of it. At the Constitutional Convention, there were anti-slavery folks. Eventually, they compromised and produced a constitution that America eventually grew into.

      Now, let's take a list of Muslim countries where respect for minority rights is built into their system. I can only think of one, Indonesia, and that's if you forget when the majority periodically goes on a Christian hunting bender.

      Incidentally, the rich in the U.S., which we'll consider the top 5th of the population, pay 86% of the income tax (2006 figures). And this is after the Bush tax breaks. It gets even more lopsided if you consider the top 1% of population, would would be considered rich by anyone's imagination, pay 39% of all income taxes. So we see that the rich are more or less funding the 50% of the pop. that pays no income tax. They do, however, pay sales taxes, but the rich pay them too.

    2. Re:Simple, same as by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, the rich in the U.S., which we'll consider the top 5th of the population, pay 86% of the income tax (2006 figures). And this is after the Bush tax breaks.

      And yet 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.

      It gets even more lopsided if you consider the top 1% of population, would would be considered rich by anyone's imagination, pay 39% of all income taxes.

      The top taxpayers are paying taxes on only 50% of their income due to the laws that enable them to dodge other taxes. This doesn't even include other compensation like stuff the company owns that they get to use, which usually includes car and driver, jet and pilot, and that sort of shit (for those people especially.)

      So we see that the rich are more or less funding the 50% of the pop. that pays no income tax.

      No, you have that exactly backwards. Since the rich are not paying taxes on all of their income, the poor are funding the acquisition of wealth by the rich.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Simple, same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When have Americans ever denied the rounding up of Japanese Americans? I've heard defenses of it, though mostly from older folks, but I've never heard anyone say it didn't happen.

      The whole thing was done completely in public. Newsreels showed the camps, and appeals from interned Japanese made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The San Francisco Examiner ran a headline, "OUSTER OF ALL JAPS IN CALIFORNIA NEAR!" The actual internment orders and instructions on where the Japanese should report were plastered on every lamp post on the West Coast. It's been taught in grade schools for decades.

    4. Re:Simple, same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The republican cunts are now blocking reform of the "Do not ask, do not tell" policy until they get a tax cut for the super rich. I think we got a new arm race. Who can produce the biggest cunt in a suit.

      Right...damn these new tax cuts for the rich!...Wait, oh no! They've been in place for 10 years and this is just extending them longer so everything is the same as it is now? Thats crazy, how on earth have we survived this long without their money...

      Maybe its just me, but I'd rather take a chance with the super rich paying the same taxes they have for the past 10 years and maybe, just maybe, doing something good with their money. Or we could just give the government more money to flush down the toilet with nothing to show for it...

    5. Re:Simple, same as by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Simple same as the American's have LONG denied the holocaust against the natives and the concentration camps for Americans whose ancestors came from Japan.

      Um, I realise you're only a small furry creature, and English isn't your first language, but you REALLY need to meet Bob.

    6. Re:Simple, same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing around the C word to insult people you simply disagree with makes you look really intelligent, and thus makes me take your argument seriously.

    7. Re:Simple, same as by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      I was taught about the mistreatment of Native Americans in elementary school, again in Middle School, and again in high school, including the fact the US government routinely violated treaties and deliberately infected them with disease. I was also taught about Japanese internment camps, the illegal seizure of their properties, the supreme court decision made on clearly racist and reactionary grounds that allowed them, and the fact that despite their family was illegally forced into camps, many Japanese Americans still served their country with distinction in the military. America is, and always has been, a work in progress. "All men are equal" is an ideal to strive towards, not a statement of reality. Comparing Don't ask Don't tell to the government sanctioned wholesale murder and persecution of gays is ridiculous. One limits their ability to serve openly in the military, the other makes it impossible for them to exist openly at all. The punishment for one is a discharge from the military, the other is death. The reality is Don't ask Don't tell would be gone already if it weren't for the fact that Congress still has a lot of old white men who are from a time when Blacks couldn't sit at the same lunch counter as them, as they die off the ridiculous policies that exist to placate their homophobia will be gone too.

      America is far from perfect when it comes to civil rights and treatment of minorities, but at least we are on a path to making things better, not worse. Men like the leaders of Iran are trying their hardest to go in the opposite direction.

    8. Re:Simple, same as by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      If approximately 1/2 of the population pays zero income tax, how does that equate to the poor funding the rich?

      Also, since we all have various deductions starting with the standard exemption, standard deductions (not to mention interest paid on home mortgages - a middle class 'loophole'), nobody pays taxes on _all_ their income. So we're arguing only on the relative ratios.

      Eliminate all the loopholes and more money comes in with lower rates. I would also argue to eliminate the cap on FICA, and make it a straight percentage for all personal income - that could make Social Security and Medicare solvent in perpetuity, with money left over.

      Wealth, along with many other social characteristics such as market power distribution, popularity in high school, and almost every interesting aspect of living systems (A.K.A. complex adaptive systems), follows an energy equation that evaluates to an inverse power law distribution. See the Lorenz curve and the Gini coefficient. Making the markets bigger - globalization - has the natural effect of increasing the size of the peak, which makes it appear that the wealth is becoming more concentrated. It isn't, just the size of the curve is being increased.

      The fact of the physics is that the power law distribution is the most efficient from an energy point of view, and all living systems including economic systems will tend to converge to that. Both concentrating wealth and distributing wealth require increasing amounts of energy (== power and money) to maintain as the system departs from the natural curve. A wheat field is 'equitable' but is not natural and requires energy (fertilizer, pesticides, plowing, etc.) to maintain it against the natural forces of nature.

      Also increased is the length of the long tail of the distribution, as it now includes the billion or so people who live on $2 per day. Compared to them, you are probably in the top 1% or at most 5%.

      Note also that both historically and physically, those who achieve the peak wealth tend to distribute it relatively rapidly, usually within one or two generations. Vis. Carnegie, who funded hundreds or thousands of colleges, libraries, museums throughout the US and died essentially broke, on purpose; and Buffett & Gates, who are going around the world convincing billionaires to give away their money at death. Zillionaires and their families don't stay that way. Look at the feudal estates in Britain, most of which are now owned by the State. Wealth becomes increasingly expensive to maintain in a free politico-economic system, so voluntarily or involuntarily, the money gets recycled within a generation or two - unless the family adopts a husbandry approach, where they no longer (psychologically) 'own' the underlying assets but administer them for the greater good. This is where 'old money' comes in.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    9. Re:Simple, same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that the top 5th of the population pay so much of the income tax, is that they earn an overwhelming portion of the income in the US. Their income tax rates are near an 50 year low.

      The income and wealth distribution in the US has gotten more unqual than most of the Latin American former 'banana republics'. I'm guessing you live in an Ayn Rand world where this is a good thing, but I think the gradual disappearance of a vibrant middle class is a sign of the end of the US time as a dominant world power.

      Sadly, I don't see much changing, as the wealthy in the US no longer see much of their well-being as being tied to that of their fellow countrymen.

    10. Re:Simple, same as by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Some perspective is needed here. Note that I said "perspective", not "denial and defense". The Japanese internment camps did not feature Zyklon B and gas ovens. What happened wasn't right by a long shot, but it isn't even in the same league as the Nazi purges. "All men are created equal" didn't have the same meaning then as it does now, because at the time it was intended as a rejection of the presumption that nobility were inherently superior to commoners, not a declaration of universal suffrage. It's true that in order to have the right to vote one had to be a land-owning white man, but generally, Constitutional protections covered all non-slaves.

      "Biggest cunt in a suit" comes dangerously close to invoking a mandatory Rule 34 google search.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:Simple, same as by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      And yet 5% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.

      I'm not sure how to understand this claim. What does it mean to "own n% of the wealth"? What is "wealth"? Do the rich have money lying around their villas in huge bulging bags? Do they earn 95% of all the salaries in the US? Do they have 95% of all money in the banks? Do they own 95% of all the real estate? Or maybe you are thinking about "paper" in the form of stocks, bonds, and IOUs? As it stands, your claim is meaningless. Yes, of course the rich are wealthy. That's called a "tautology". I think your statement really comes to saying, "being rich is evil".

      It gets even more lopsided if you consider the top 1% of population, would would be considered rich by anyone's imagination, pay 39% of all income taxes.

      Hmm. I suspect that your reasoning is something like this: "Because the rich own 95% of everything, they should...what? Pay 95% of all the taxes? But you don't say what the wealthiest 5% of the population pay in terms of income taxes...you just claim that the top 1% pay 39% of the income taxes. It seems reasonable that if you were to include the other 4%, it would add up to a nice chunk of money. Why don't you tell us how much the top 5% pay? I'm smelling funky statistics and cheap rhetoric here.

      Disclaimer: I am not rich. I would like to be rich, but can't be bothered to wear a tie and do the bullshit you have to do to get rich. I am pissed as hell at the financial elite—the "best and brightest" who have just brought the world to the brink of economic collapse, and at the government whose "regulatory" agencies were either asleep at the wheel or actively collaborating. But that is only a small subset of the rich and powerful; mere wealth is not evil—stealing is evil.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    12. Re:Simple, same as by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      ...Comparing Don't ask Don't tell to the government sanctioned wholesale murder and persecution of gays is ridiculous. One limits their ability to serve openly in the military, the other makes it impossible for them to exist openly at all. The punishment for one is a discharge from the military, the other is death. The reality is Don't ask Don't tell would be gone already if it weren't for the fact that Congress still has a lot of old white men who are from a time when Blacks couldn't sit at the same lunch counter as them, as they die off the ridiculous policies that exist to placate their homophobia will be gone too.

      I am having trouble understanding your viewpoint; perhaps you could help clarify things for me? I suppose it's true that I'm somewhat old. I studied at Berkeley from 1966-1970, and participated in lots of demonstrations—including those in support of the Black Panther Party, the Free Huey Newton campaign, and the Third World Liberation Front. Yet, I must have more in common now with those benighted bigots I fought against than you of the (presumably) younger generation—I don't see what's wrong with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

      I understand this policy to mean that mere evidence of homosexual inclinations or private behavior is not an offense as far as the U.S. Army is concerned. It becomes an issue only if individual soldiers choose to make an issue out of their sexual desires and practices. What's wrong with that? I think nobody should bring their sex life to work, and throw it in the faces of their fellow workers (or soldiers, in this case). I think it's odious to discuss one's sexual exploits at work, no matter what one's preferences are. What is the alternative to "don't ask, don't tell"? I can only assume it must be "Do ask, do tell". In other words, let's make a big deal out of everyone's sex lives. And I think that's repulsive. I don't want to hear about Corporal Jones having an affair with the Captain's wife, and I don't want to hear that Privates Bob and Bruce are getting it on. Please be careful to note what I'm saying: I am not offended by these things, I am offended when the participants insist on telling me about it.

      However, that seems to be exactly what the opponents of the current policy want: homosexuals in the military should be free to tell everyone how wonderful being homosexual is, and what they like to do to each other, and so forth. (If I'm misunderstanding the goal of this movement, please do correct me.) I don't see why they should be allowed to conduct themselves in a way that I would find unacceptable for heterosexuals. You know, homosexuality has been around for a long time—but sometimes I think that today's homosexuals believe they just now invented it. Well, it's not that big a deal.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    13. Re:Simple, same as by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      When a straight soldier discusses his/her sex life, it's a social faux pas as you say- on the same level as evangelizing co-workers during business hours. But when a gay soldier does the same thing, the consequences are significantly more severe: immediate discharge from the service. Seems like a double standard.

      Besides, I've worked with a few homosexuals who eventually trusted me enough to tell me that their "roommate" was actually their partner. I can't imagine what kind of psychological effects are incurred through being forced to pretend their own love lives don't exist. We're not talking about sordid details here (I wouldn't be interested either) but don't you have some vague idea of whether or not your coworkers are married? That's the kind of dishonesty that "don't ask, don't tell" requires: gay people have to pretend their relationships don't even exist. Frankly, that expectation seems incompatible with the code of honor I've come to expect from the military.

      And that's even before getting into cases like Jene Newsome who followed the rules only to be discharged because the police ratted her out.

    14. Re:Simple, same as by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      You may be right about the disproportionality of the punishments meted out to homosexual soldiers who discuss their relationships vis a vis heterosexual soldiers who do the same thing. But is it really true that heterosexual offenders always get away with little or no punishment. For example, what if a male heterosexual soldier discusses his sexual exploits in front of a woman soldier after she has made clear that she doesn't want to hear this, and she then lodges an official complaint? I would expect him to be treated quite harshly. I don't know how the Army really handles this kind of case—though I do know that the Army has always had something of a Puritan streak when it comes to sexual matters, and know for a fact that extramarital affairs have often called down severe punishment on the participants (especially if both are in the military). This is actually quite sensible, as such a betrayal undermines the mutual trust that is an absolute requirement for soldiers who may go into battle.

      If the facts of the case are indeed as they are presented by the blogger that you linked, then I agree that the woman officer's punishment was outrageous and unjust. However, the link from the blog to the original news article is broken, so I'm left in some doubt about what really happened.

      I'm trying to be reasonable about this. Perhaps I'm not as well-informed as I should be. I had thought that "don't ask..." meant that homosexuality is an offense only when a soldier flaunts his sexual nature. But now as I think about it, I wonder why there should be special rules for homosexuals. I think everyone should be bound by the common rules of courtesy and mutual respect. What I'm afraid of is that the gay rights crowd wants to make homosexuals immune from all rules—perhaps permitting flagrant sexual acts in the barracks, and (oh, the horror) pink underwear. OK, maybe I'm being silly, but the activists don't seem to have made their goals clear.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    15. Re:Simple, same as by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      For example, what if a male heterosexual soldier discusses his sexual exploits in front of a woman soldier after she has made clear that she doesn't want to hear this, and she then lodges an official complaint?

      Rightfully so, but notice that there isn't a law saying that the braggart should be discharged immediately, regardless of the presence or absence of extenuating circumstances.

      This is actually quite sensible, as such a betrayal undermines the mutual trust that is an absolute requirement for soldiers who may go into battle.

      In exactly the same way asking gay soldiers to hide their identities undermines that trust. In fact, "don't ask, don't tell" makes gay soldiers susceptible to blackmail for that very reason!

      If the facts of the case are indeed as they are presented by the blogger that you linked, then I agree that the woman officer's punishment was outrageous and unjust. However, the link from the blog to the original news article is broken, so I'm left in some doubt about what really happened.

      MSNBC covered the story, then the ACLU challenged the police department only to receive this reply which makes it clear that the police officer saw the marriage license through the window. Clearly Ms. Newsome's wife needs to answer the charges brought against her (who knows if they're valid?) but as far as I can tell Ms. Newsome didn't ask and didn't tell.

      But now as I think about it, I wonder why there should be special rules for homosexuals. I think everyone should be bound by the common rules of courtesy and mutual respect.

      EXACTLY.

      What I'm afraid of is that the gay rights crowd wants to make homosexuals immune from all rules—perhaps permitting flagrant sexual acts in the barracks, and (oh, the horror) pink underwear. OK, maybe I'm being silly, but the activists don't seem to have made their goals clear.

      That silliness is probably a result of the fact that social conservatives routinely say that gays want "special rights". Recently, a friend's younger brother realized he was gay after graduating from college. He's a very committed Republican, and I was horrified to hear him repeat similarly silly notions like "gays already have the right to get married." Later, he claimed that legalizing gay marriage would destabilize society, which seems absurd considering that only ~4% of the population is gay.

      By the way, do you mind if I post this conversation to my gay marriage article? That's the place on my website where I'm putting topics like "don't ask, don't tell", and it's refreshing to talk to someone civilized.

    16. Re:Simple, same as by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Erm, "wasn't asked, and didn't tell"

    17. Re:Simple, same as by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Sure, feel free to use our conversation as you see fit. It was good to converse with you, as always. While I have had to seriously revise my views on "don't ask, don't tell", I don't think we see eye to eye on the gay marriage thing...Maybe I will write a short piece on what I think of that issue; writing always helps me to clarify my thoughts (if only because I notice that I'm saying something stupid).

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    18. Re:Simple, same as by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      Thanks; if you ever finish it please let me know.

    19. Re:Simple, same as by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty difficult to keep the fact you are heterosexual or homosexual out of the workplace entirely, especially in a situation like when you are in the military and around your coworkers for 99% of your day. Guys have pictures of their wives/girlfriends, they call home, they get care packages sent to them. I'm not saying they should have a gay rights parade in the middle of camp xray, but under the current policy, if a female soldier hits on a gay male soldier, and he says, sorry but Im gay, he can be discharged, and that;s ridiculous.

    20. Re:Simple, same as by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've changed my mind on this issue, as is reflected in my reply to Khayman. Quite simply, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is a deception. It implies a degree of personal freedom that is not inherent in the actual policy of the U.S. military.

      Things like "gay pride demonstrations" on military bases are exactly what I am afraid of—and I think it's what most people who oppose changing the policy fear.

      It would help if the persons who are supporting the change were better communicators. First, they should point out that "don't ask, don't tell" does not imply any degree of tolerance for homosexuals in the military, that it is enough to trigger a discharge if the military finds out even through indirect means that a soldier is homosexual. The policy is not what it appears to be. Second, the proponents of change should be specific about the changes they want. As I stated in another posting, the rules should be the same for everybody. For example, the military could make any public display of affection an offense. It could make public advocacy of sexual matters (homosexual, heterosexual, whatever) out of bounds. I'm pretty sure that political rallies are already forbidden on military bases. I know this will not do away with actual oppression by individuals so inclined—but at least it would remove the official cover for such actions.

      I've had homosexual friends and co-workers. Most of them were nice people (well the friends, for sure). However, there was one exception. This guy would wear hot pants (tight short shorts) on cute little suspenders to work (it was an unusually tolerant employer—the official dress policy was "at least wear underclothes"). He never missed an opportunity to demonstrate just how gay he was. His non-work talk invariably centered on sexual matters. Once, a female co-worker and I were having a conference in an office; the door was open. Mr. Hot Pants walked by, stopped, pointed to a tin of tea on the desk in front of us, and said "Hey, are those condoms?". Neither of us knew what to say. I don't think I have to tell you just how much I did not like Mr. Hot Pants. Do you get the picture? That's the kind of thing I don't want in the work place.

      This employer was a bit too tolerant, but you did wind up knowing everybody's sexual orientation. My boss was a lesbian with two kids. I don't know where the kids came from, but they were obviously well cared for. She was also absolutely the best boss I ever had. My respect for her is immense. She helped me when I needed help, and stayed out of my way when I was making progress. She lobbied to get me stock options and annual raises in excess of 10% (this was during the boom days, before the big dot.com bust). During a very bad time of my life, a homosexual man saved me from an injustice by telling the truth on the witness stand in court. He volunteered to testify, at considerable risk to his personal safety.

      I think our society has to get sane on this topic, and that admonition applies to both sides in the dispute. Like Rodney King said, "Why can't we all just get along?". Yeah, I know, ain't gonna happen.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  55. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by owlstead · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it, the US is catching up quickly:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

  56. Wondering.. by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

    What ever happened with the assertion that the Windows product family got super safe and stable in recent years and the old stigmas aren't true any more? Seriously, I should not have to read these kind of news if that'd be true. What gives?

  57. Please stop by mangu · · Score: 3

    I don't know why every time someone mentions Mossadegh he is moderated insightful. You don't need a time machine, just try to inform yourself better instead of repeating old political propaganda from the Soviet Union.

    First of all, Mossadegh wasn't really that democratic at all. For instance, Wikipedia says "Realizing that the opposition would take the vast majority of the provincial seats, Mosaddegh stopped the voting as soon as 79 deputies just enough to form a parliamentary quorum had been elected."

    Second, Iran was in deep economic trouble from the oil industry nationalization under Mossadegh. With or without CIA intervention, he was doomed to fall sooner or later.

    Finally, if the CIA were able to manipulate foreign governments that well, they should get better results. If they succeeded in overthrowing Mossadegh then why are they unable to overthrow the Islamic government of Iran?

  58. Or to title it more succintly by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The Coder Who Came in from the Cold.

  59. Please, mod parent up by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    We know that the virus constantly changes the speed of the centrifugues. We have no means to know if it was targeted at destroying equipment (by the mechanism the GP stated), reducing effectivity (by the mecanism of the parent) or both. We can only know that reducing efectivity is more likely, since the mix is way more sensitive to acceleration than the machine, and it is very unlikely that there is any hardware protection against small accelerations, while it is quite probable that there is hardware protection against damage to the machines.

    Now, the North Korean bomb failed in a way that is expected that implosion bombs could fail. It doesn't need external intervention to explain it, just some tiny error anywhere.

    1. Re:Please, mod parent up by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Now, the North Korean bomb failed in a way that is expected that implosion bombs could fail. It doesn't need external intervention to explain it, just some tiny error anywhere.

      Sure, but the nice thing about having the isotope mix off is that it would produce about the same result. I seem to remember the North Koreans bought centrifuges from Pakistan, as well as getting know how from China. The US was more likely to have agents in Pakistan to seed a virus, and the NK networks are more isolated than the Iranian ones, so it would have been less likely that a targeted virus like Stuxnet would escape.

      I guess the real problem is that you would think NK would be doing quality control on the isotope mix output with mass spectrometry, at least during the commissioning phase of the centrifuge cascades. On the other hand, if you could infect the system after commissioning, then the operators might fudge the operating results rather than admit something went wrong on their watch and risk the consequences.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  60. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since I'm living in the Middle East, I wouldn't cry if somebody flew another plane in the building you are in. People die all the time, why not you?

  61. Re:The real question by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    Yep, I'd probably choose an OS that has no protection of resources by any means.

    What do you want to protect your resources from anyway? It is not like there should be any task competing for those resources with your nuclear centrifugue controler. I don't even know why they use an OS at all.

  62. Re:The real question by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

    Well, Iran fits the exact description of a country that I expected to do the right thing, and run something like that from a simpler, more reliable system (no big interests on software companies, somewhat poorer researches). Based on current evidence, I guess we may be wrong.

  63. F YOU by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    >Last week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, after months of denials, admitted that
    Ok, so finally he admits, yes we do have a problem, and we can not contain it, so instead of asking other countries for help, seeing as if one of those things blow up, many will die.....no let's keep the party going by saying we think we have finally got it under control....
    even one of their one (anonymous....) seems to think it is not contained yet.

    Come on....these people wonder why they are discriminated against, not because of their beliefs....
    no, not at all, better to perish your people and not look like you need a hand then
    actually just get the job done and then end up needing to thank xxx country for stepping in....sheesh.

  64. OT -- your sig by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?

    A cake divided by zero is an infinite cake. If you can find a way to divide a cake by zero, well, CAKE FOR EVERYBODY!

    1. Re:OT -- your sig by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The cake is a lie.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:OT -- your sig by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you have no cake and divide that cake by infinity, how much cake do you have?

      Oh, you just answered BOTH questions!

    3. Re:OT -- your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be both an infinite amount of cake and infinite amount of the lack of cake, canceling each other out.

  65. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by genner · · Score: 1

    American polls are always wrong, .

    4/5 Americans agree in a recent poll.

  66. Re:The real question by HiThere · · Score: 1

    While the point is good, the approach is too limited.

    I'd recommend that a good copy of the OS be written to CDROM, and that the system be booted from CDROM. No hard disk. No writable media. Or you could have a hard disk (or even thumbdrive) and only use it for log-files.

    If this wouldn't work, because there needed to be state-specific memory, then use a hard disk, but boot the system only from CDROM. And when you mount the hard disk, mark it as non-executable. And NO network connections.

    This would mean that only the data files could be corrupted, and that no executable program could be "added" without physical replacement of the boot CD. That could even be locked shut, if you want. But even if you don't, then alteration of the system is going to require physical access. And you can run a modern OS. (Linux is my choice. I don't know how to do what I was proposing with anything else.)

    The basic rule for a secure system is "use an air gap to require physical access". I applied that, and a bit of additional hardening. (Boot the system from a ReadOnly media, mount writeable media as non-executable.) But the air gap is the basic security measure. With than even a standard system would be relatively safe.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  67. Re:Iran Saving The Middle East From Israeli Terror by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of radioactive fallout?

  68. Hopefully, it can be made to end here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blow the fucking nukes.

  69. traffic? i really don't get it now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what has traffic to do with the no. of infections or the damage that it did in nuclear sites?
    i heard these systems often don't even have have an online connection! and the initial attack and primary spreading is through USB sticks, right?
    so what kind of traffic from Iran are we talking about?
    They are googling for disinfection-tools from inside the nuclear sites?
    The worm is calling "home"?
    Again, what kind of traffic? I'm getting crazy,i don't understand the measuring. Please help me understand this ...
    thank you in advice!

    R3

  70. Re:Virus and Iran again in front page? by girlintrainingpants · · Score: 2

    Remember, there aren't as many true geeks are here as there are nerds who are just "teched out." That's why we have fewer good submissions like this and more stories about how to blow up stuff with a microwave or the biggest lego masterpiece ever created. :)

  71. Re:The real question by girlintrainingpants · · Score: 2

    The C64's operating system is stored on ROM chips (which by definition can not be written to.)

    How do you explain EEPROM or flash ROM? ROM is a narrow context.

  72. Here's my reflex for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When someone mentions the US I now think of people suffering like Bradley Manning http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

    You can thank the US government for that. As long as this continues the US is IN PRINCIPLE AND ACTION little better than North Korea or Iran or anyone else. The main difference is scale and overt brutality.

    Of course I now also think of internet censorship when anyone mentions the US, it was and is after all quite massive. Flawed and failing for sure but still a massive effort at censorship far larger than anything for example China has pulled off. Go USA... you always have to be "the best" don't you?

    You can thank the US government for that impression as well. No radical lefties needed as I and other rightists in Europe get all the necessary information straight from the US government actions. More and more of us are taking notice of the US as a totalitarian society, as a new enemy of humankind.

    The US is no longer "allies" to freedom: totalitarians can't ever be.

    Sure US "soldiers" aren't crushing skulls and torturing people in the streets of the cities of the USA just yet but that's bound to start sooner or later the way things are going, right now American's rights are worth shit if they speak up. The US is already acting like a new Soviet Union.