Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iran Says Siemens Helped US, Israel Build Stuxnet

Posted by Soulskill on from the fair-and-balanced dept.

CWmike writes "Iran's Brigadier General, Gholam Reza Jalali, accused Siemens on Saturday with helping US and Israeli teams craft the Stuxnet worm that attacked his country's nuclear facilities. 'Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,' Jalali told the Islamic Republic News Service. Siemens did not reply to a request for comment on Jalali's accusations. Stuxnet, which first came to light in June 2010 but hit Iranian targets in several waves starting the year before, has been extensively analyzed by security researchers. Symantec and Langner Communications say Stuxnet was designed to infiltrate Iran's nuclear enrichment program, hide in the Iranian SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) control systems that operate its plants, then force gas centrifuge motors to spin at unsafe speeds. Jalali suggested that Iranian officials would pursue Siemens in the courts, and claimed that Iranian researchers traced the attack to Israel and the US. He said information from infected systems was sent to computers in Texas."

38 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Whose enemies? by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA: "Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,"

    Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Whose enemies? by ae1294 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FTA: "Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,"

      Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

      Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

    2. Re:Whose enemies? by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Informative

      Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

      Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Whose enemies? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) established the US, USSR (Russian Federation replaced the USSR in the treaty), UK, France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non-Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited from, among other things, possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of eventual nuclear disarmament.

      So the US isn't obligated to give up nuclear weapons right away, but the US is disarming.

      SALT I&II
      INF Treaty
      START I reduced nuclear inventories by 40% - 6,000 warheads for US
      New START will reduce the US arsenal to around 1550 warheads

    4. Re:Whose enemies? by vxice · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons" citation please. According to numerous reports by the IAEA there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    5. Re:Whose enemies? by masshuu · · Score: 2

      The US is actively dismantling nuclear weapons. US has moved from huge stockpiles of tends of thousands to thousands now. They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead. Just because the US still has nukes doesn't mean they aren't working toward disarmament. The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes. Might I also note both sides still have teams on full alert, like back in the cold war days, ready to press a button and fire a couple thousands nukes within 1 minute and their entire arsenal in 15 minutes.

      --
      O.o
    6. Re:Whose enemies? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which the US also signed. Care to explain how they're moving towards disarmenent, as the treaty obligates them to?

      I think you must've missed the whole thing about the U.S. going from over 30,000 nukes just a few decades back to under 10,000 today (of which under 2,000 are active). Kinda a big deal, but hey, why keep track of annoying facts like that?

    7. Re:Whose enemies? by prgrmr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure. There's the SALT 1, SALT II, START I, START II, START III, SORT and New START treaties with the USSR/Russian Federation. The US had 32,000 nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and are down to a little over 3,000 weapons deployed, and another few thousand in inventory, being decommissioned or used for R&D, with the full implementation of the New START treaty dropping deployed weapons to 1,550.

      It's physically and politically impossible to eliminate 32,000 nukes over-night. And while you may argue with the length of the time table, a 95% reduction in weapons that are manned and ready to use certainly ought to count for "moving".

    8. Re:Whose enemies? by zonky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agreed, reduction has occurred. But you're not naive enough to sit their and pretend that Disarmament was ever the intention of the Nuclear powers under this treaty. The NPT was a political tool to coerce nation states into a public declaration that they wouldn't seek Nuclear Weapons - a damned if they do, and a damned if they don't approach. It completely fails to address the fact that Middle Eastern nation states live next door to a nuclear power who they have been at war at multiple times over the later half of the 20th Century who they distrust.

    9. Re:Whose enemies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead.

      That's because they've moved to the "dial-a-yield" nukes (up to 350kT nukes using super-grade Pu-239) on cruise missiles and away from ICBMs. Only Trident subs have short range missiles, rest is moving to cruise missile deployment. It is anticipated that all nukes in US will be moved to cruise missiles only.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_%28nuclear_warhead%29

      So yes, US has moved away from MIRV because they've moved away from ICBMs. It's all cruise missiles now. Each aircraft carrier has enough nukes onboard to flatted a significant part of this planet.

    10. Re:Whose enemies? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Israel didn't sign the NNPT, nor did India, Pakistan, or the DPRK, unlike India , the DPRK and Pakistan, Israel never tested a nuclear weapon, hasn't threatened anyone with one.

      Iran signed and ratified the NNPT, so it's supposed to follow the rules.
      So bringing Israel into a discussion about NNPT does what exactly?

      I see, and the facts show that the US, Russian Federation, UK, France are all decreasing their nuclear stockpiles over time, China really isn't increasing theirs while a number of former Soviet states that had nuclear weapons gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine).

      So I guess that the nuclear powers are slowly abiding by the stipulation in the NNPT to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

    11. Re:Whose enemies? by zonky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.

      The NPT calls for disarmenent, not a reduction in stockpiles - which is sort of the point- the treaty is worthless, other than as a beating stick for large powers over smaller nation states.

    12. Re:Whose enemies? by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.

      The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.

    13. Re:Whose enemies? by jekewa · · Score: 2

      Who is always the aggressor in the Middle East?

      Uh, the sons of Adam?

      --
      End the FUD
    14. Re:Whose enemies? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      The DPRK ratified in 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal in January 2003. As is allowed under the rules of the treaty. And so now everyone has an idea of what they are doing.

    15. Re:Whose enemies? by ae1294 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just fine thank you? The US has been reducing nuclear capacity for 30 years...

      But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.

    16. Re:Whose enemies? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you fucking kidding? "No one is threatening Iran"? I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

      The US and Israel threaten Iran all the time. Journalists usually refer to it as "saber rattling". Mind you, Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon, and yet they are threatened repeatedly by two countries that do have an inventory of nuclear weapons.

      If you really want to deal with "regional threats", how about getting Israel to ditch all their nukes? For that matter, how about getting Israel to stop stealing land from Palestinians? The settlements have done more to destabilize the region then any bellicose Iranian rhetoric.

      Meanwhile, you seriously think that devout fundamentalist Muslims would really drop a nuclear weapon on their own holy land? Jerusalem is pretty important to them, too. For that matter, what evidence do you have that they want nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy?

      Oh, and by the way, please leave the strawman "traitorous lover of Persians!" at the door. I can dislike Iran while simultaneously standing up against stupid people who wish to exploit the ridiculous behavior of the Iranian government for political gain.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    17. Re:Whose enemies? by memnock · · Score: 2

      Siemens is a company, not a country. While state politics probably play a part in business decisions, really they're most interested in who is going to pay them for something they sell or service. Through the eyes of "capitalists", perceived commercial needs of potential customers will lead the company's decision in what it sells to who. I'm not trying to judge that process, just pointing out that Siemens might not be quick to let one country's (or group of countries') rival status be a deterrent to doing business with either set of countries.

      --
      "To stop the terrorists."
    18. Re:Whose enemies? by md65536 · · Score: 2

      I think you must've missed the whole thing about the U.S. going from over 30,000 nukes just a few decades back to under 10,000 today (of which under 2,000 are active). Kinda a big deal, but hey, why keep track of annoying facts like that?

      Not as big of a deal as when the department store here had a half-off sale on socks for $100! Still kind of expensive, but where else are you gonna save $100 on a pair of socks?!

      The US should have made 30,000,000 nukes. Then, they could look like Mother Teresa when they go down to just 10,000,000.

      So the US has under 10000 nukes, how cute.
      Iran has 0.
      But hey, facts are annoying if they don't come in the form of misleading ratios.

      Besides, what harm could any group do with only 10000 nukes?

    19. Re:Whose enemies? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And don't start with that "he was mistranslated" bullshit"

      Perhaps you should educate yourself?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy

      The Persian language has no idiom for "wipe off the map". That idiom belongs to English.

      Also, he was quoting Khomeini. A better translation is "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time". Doesn't have quite the same scary ring to it, so some "journalists" decided to spice it up a bit by adding idiomatic language that doesn't exist in the native tongue.

      You should also look into the long history of covert CIA ops that the US has taken in Iran. It's not very diplomatic when you engineer the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of another sovereign country.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    20. Re:Whose enemies? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, never mind that they are also underneath four different UN sanctions regarding their nuclear program...

      I'm sure it's just hype in the media.

    21. Re:Whose enemies? by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2

      Uhm, no. When I read the translation of his statement, the message that I get is "we want Israel to collapse just like the USSR did".

      Calling for regime change in Israel doesn't mean "kill every last Jew in Jerusalem". If regime change did mean genocide, then we would killed all the Iranians back in the 50s when our CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran.

      Also, Ahmadinejad is very careful to elaborate a difference between Jews and what he sees as "Zionists". It is a careful elaboration that is often forgotten when it comes time for him to be a pariah. For instance, he will proudly state that there are Jews in the Iranian Parliament. I wonder how many Iranians are in the Knesset.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    22. Re:Whose enemies? by ae1294 · · Score: 2

      destroyed.

      Peaceful nations representative by some type of democracy (any form of governance where the people are well represented) which provides for stability, both economically and sociologically, deserve nuclear weapons.

      Haha

      The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (known as the 28 Mordad coup[1] in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States as operation TPAJAX.[2] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[3]

    23. Re:Whose enemies? by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      If by 'disagree with,' you mean 'have their democratically elected governments overthrown by, to be replaced with dictator strongmen puppets over a 70 year period', then yeah. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic, either. If you don't know it happened, you can confidently argue from ignorance!

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    24. Re:Whose enemies? by cavreader · · Score: 2

      I know I will be slammed for this but if there is one nation on the planet that actually needs nuclear weapons it is Israel. They are surrounded by countries that have not been shy in announcing their desire to drive the Jew's into the sea. And it is hard to find any country on the planet doesn't have a sizable portion of their population who feel the same way. The Arabs could give a shit about palestine they are just pissed Israel was able to defeat them 3 times in all out war. Let Iran get nuclear weapons because if they do it will guarantee the total destruction of their country should they make the slightest move to use them. The big danger is countries like Iran and NK who would have no qualms about supplying nuclear weapons to non-state actors. But even if they did that as soon as the first nuke detonates it can traced to it's origin pretty easily. A lot of people would die in the first bomb but the response would be immediate and devastating.

    25. Re:Whose enemies? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.

      That's inaccurate. The Vela incident(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident for those too lazy to go over to Wikipedia) was pair of flashes of light detected in 1979 in the Indian Ocean that was consistent with a nuclear test. But, and this is a big but, no other aspects of a nuclear test were present. No radioactive material was found, no characteristic seismic events occurred, and the flashes were only seen by a single satellite. It could have easily been a malfunction or a meteorite or a series of lightning bolts. It is only once one assumes that it really was a nuclear test that Israel and South Africa become likely responsible. However, after the fall of the South African government, there's been a lot of disclosure of their NBC weapons and while there was a disturbing amount of all three, it seems that there nuclear program was not advanced enough as of that time to have engaged in the test. So, the joint test is extremely unlikely. It is still possible for it to have been just an Israeli test but this runs into its own problems including it requiring Israel to have run a quiet, complicated naval operation very far from their normal areas of operation.

      There are serious problems with the NPT, and Israel probably has nuclear weapons, and Israel's activity in that regard is one motivating factor for Iran, but that doesn't make the Vela incident good evidence for any of that. Moreover, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not a good reason for Iran to ignore its treaty obligations.

    26. Re:Whose enemies? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Nuclear weapons are not the reason why the DPRK and Iran want their own, conventional weapons are. In the past decade the US/UK and their allies have invaded two countries, and realistically neither the DPRK or Iran could resist with their conventional military. From their point of view the US manufactured intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and used it to get the UN to agree to their actions, so the same thing could happen to them.

      The only thing which can protect them is the threat of nuclear retaliation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Whose enemies? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The central point is that the NNPT was a cosy agreement amongst powerful countries to cement their own military superiority.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Potential FUD by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I view everything which comes through government channels from Iran as Potential FUD. The rigged election, suppression of protests, detentions, disapperances, etc. of political opponents smells worse than when the Shah was running the country. For all we can tell they didn't really have a worm at all, but failed to read the owners manual properly.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. I'm sure it's nothing... by darien.train · · Score: 4, Funny

    People send all sorts of crazy data to Texas all the time. I believe they publish it in their schoolbooks.

    --
    I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
  4. Obviously propoganda by Taelron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So let me get this right, they spent all this time and money to design, develope, and deploy this software. To conceal it and hide its presence, but you now want us to believe that they simply configured it to send data to an IP in Texas? If the stuxnet really did phone home with information, the developers would have programmed it to send to relays in other parts of the world to further hide its origin. If it DID send data to a Texas IP, I'd think any logical thinking person would realize its someone else trying to cast blame on the US... More FUD from Iran...

  5. Iranian Idiot by TheJodster · · Score: 2

    What the hell does Siemens have to do with the code running in their SCADA systems? Siemens sells PLCs and SCADA software. YOU hire someone to program it for you. At no point in the transaction does Siemens have a copy of your code or architecture unless you GIVE it to them... dumbass.

    --
    A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding...
    1. Re:Iranian Idiot by donotlizard · · Score: 2

      I'm sure that Siemens, like Honeywell, Schneider Electric, Allen Bradley, etc., employ programmers, electricians and project managers who integrate control systems of varying scale.

  6. Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert! by darien.train · · Score: 2, Funny

    Not sure what google adverts the rest of you are seeing on this story but mine are hilarious. http://i.imgur.com/U6jCz.png This is why I don't turn it off (as well as supporting /. ad revenues).

    --
    I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
  7. making crap up? by raist21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the controller's were part of a closed network, hence the reason for sneaking the stuxnet virus in via USB. Why on earth would it be trying to report back to anywhere?
    Either, I have my facts wrong, or somebody is just making crap up to point a finger.

  8. Thank you by ALeavitt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.

    --
    This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
  9. Re:Not buying it the propoganda... by Leekle2ManE · · Score: 2

    I find the claim that they traced it to Texas dubious as well. From what I recall of our (US) military/gov't comms, the most that Iran would have discovered is that the data trail led to a European or Arabian (Israel?) location where we have assets before the trail disappeared when it started bouncing off of secure (about three layers of cryptography) comm satellites. If they were able to trace the data trail through all the satellite jumps it would have led them to Virginia, SC, La or a number of other places other than... Texas. Granted, it's been over twelve years since I was involved in gov't comms, but I would think they would have made things easier since then.

    Having said that, if there was a data trail to Texas, I wouldn't put it past some nutjobs in Texas trying something like this and thinking they were being patriotic. But the folks I have in mind wouldn't be working hand in hand with Israel either.

  10. Re:Muslims bomb their holy sites by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    Last I checked, Christians and Jews weren't the ones sending their children off with BOMBS strapped to their chest. Only when the mission has been successful, the mothers weep with pride and joy among their community as to what a great little martyr he became. Fucking savages!!!

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.