Slashdot Mirror


Iran Forced To Replace Centrifuges To Stop Stuxnet

Trailrunner7 writes "Reports that Iran had recovered from the infection of the Stuxnet worm may have been overblown, as a new report suggests the country is being forced to replace thousands of expensive centrifuges damaged by the worm. The report from the website DEBKAfile cites 'intelligence sources' in claiming that Stuxnet was not purged from Iran's nuclear sites and that the country was never able to return its uranium enrichment efforts to 'normal operation.' Instead, the country has said in recent days that it is installing newer and faster centrifuges at its nuclear plants and intends to speed up the uranium enrichment process, according to the country's foreign ministry."

35 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Nuclear Iran. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Iran believes they need nuclear weapons to be taken seriously. Why? Because they have seen that when a country has nuclear capability no one, especially the US, fucks with them.

    The World is going to have to pay for generations the complete and utter fucked up foreign US policy - even when we're a broke run down ex-Super Power.

    1. Re:Nuclear Iran. by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really, we aren't performing drone strikes, incursions, and firefights with Pakistan's border patrols on a daily basis? No, nuclear weapons alone does not make you immune from US military involvement, having a stable and friendly government is the only way to partially insure that.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Nuclear Iran. by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      having a pro-US dictatorship is the only way to partially insure that.

      FTFY.

    3. Re:Nuclear Iran. by kevinNCSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they have seen that when a country has nuclear capability no one, especially the US, fucks with them.

      Yea, we would definitely never ever fuck with Russia even a little bit in the entire history of it having nuclear weapons, and certainly not Pakistan since they're nuclear armed. Well at least we wouldn't bomb them. No? We're doing that? Oh. Well, maybe just a few missiles, but we would certainly never send any troops into their territory without permission and kill- oh? oh.....wait, never mind, what are we saying again?

    4. Re:Nuclear Iran. by localman57 · · Score: 2

      Who sells guns to drug dealers who can't pass a background check? Straw purchasers. People who look legit, then resell them.

    5. Re:Nuclear Iran. by halivar · · Score: 2

      Because of China's patronage. It's got jack-shit to do with DPRK's purported nuclear weapons. IOW, the GP is spot-on.

    6. Re:Nuclear Iran. by chrb · · Score: 2

      WHO is selling them these new centrifuges?

      Iran has manufacturing capabilities to build the centrifuges. The parts and materials are imported from Chinese, Russian and Western companies - but these are dual use parts and materials, and the Iranian government use front companies, so it is not so obvious what is going on. The U.S. does have sanctions against several Iranian and Chinese companies for supplying materials.

    7. Re:Nuclear Iran. by localman57 · · Score: 2

      Man. Then that really sucks. Because Iran used to be a pro-US dictatorship. WTF do we do now?

    8. Re:Nuclear Iran. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you mean having your leaders killed but then fighting an insurgent war for almost 10 years wasting 100s of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. If Iran were serious about wanting to destroy the Great Satan TM this sounds like one of the better approaches.

      Note that Iran lost an admitted 188000 dead (and an estimated 500K-1M dead) during their almost-eight-year-long war with Iraq.

      We've lost a total of just over 6000 fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan over a similar period.

      Somehow, I don't think that Iran would see us losing 1/30th the number of men they lost fighting Iraq (which they couldn't defeat, but we did - twice) as a "better approach".

      And this not even counting population disparities. They have 1/4 our population, and lost 30 (low end) to 160 (high end) times as many people as we did fighting in Iraq....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:Nuclear Iran. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, what you're describing is not "Fucking with them".

      Fucking with them would be, launching airstrikes and cruise missiles on Pakistani capital trying to kill the leaders of the Pakistani government. Which is precisely what Obama/Hillary is doing in Libya.

      Kaddafi has no nukes, so Obama is free to bomb Libya.

      Pakistan has nukes, so he can't do that even if they suddenly decide today they hate the US and announce an alliance with Al Qaeda and declare jihad.

      Best thing to do would've been for USA to mind its own fucking business and not get involved in the territorial disputes and internal politics of the Middle East. Btw this isn't an Obama bashing session, Dubya was three times worse than him, and actually it goes all the way back to Churchill and FDR, when they decided to play Emperor and carve out new nation-states on a whim.

    10. Re:Nuclear Iran. by treeves · · Score: 2

      Where "very early 70's" means before 1979. A strange definition of 'very early'.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    11. Re:Nuclear Iran. by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 2

      having a pro-US dictatorship is the only way to partially insure that.
      Tell that to Mubarak

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    12. Re:Nuclear Iran. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      If your choice is between a pro-US Dictatorship, and a dictatorship that is anti-US, which would you choose?

      Sometimes the world doesn't give you fluffy bunny rabbits, sometimes it is rattlesnakes it gives you.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Nuclear Iran. by udoschuermann · · Score: 2

      No, not being actively opposed to US interests is the key. And that's not a unique position for the US, it's common throughout history to all nations (and people) who have the power to enforce their views.

      Nobody wants Iran to have nukes because Iran has been busy painting itself as an irrational radical, possibly just crazy enough to actually lob a nuke at Israel, provoke a major response from the US, and cause a major fire storm across the region to drag us all into another world war.

      Given the alternative of dropping a few heavies on Iran's nuclear facilities and causing deaths and unavoidable backlash, I think Stuxnet was nothing short of brilliant in its intent, design, and execution. It just screwed up equipment, nobody died from the damage. I wish all future wars were fought like that, rather than cities lying in ashes and people being crippled or killed by the thousands.

      --
      --Udo.
    14. Re:Nuclear Iran. by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The threat from Iran is not that they would launch an attack against Israel or anyone else with the capability to strike back but they would have no problems with threatening to provide the nuclear capable weapons to non-state actors. Their threat has never been that they would use the weapons it's the threat of being able to provide these weapons to 3rd parties. And the first non-state actor that gets their hands on a nuke will detonate it somewhere in the world with no cares about retaliation. MADD would not be in play. By the time the source of the weapon can be traced back to it's manufacturer what are the chances the responsible country would be hit back multiple times without people pissing and moaning about collective punishment not being fair? In other words they would get away with launching a nuclear weapon with little fear of the retaliation which is the only thing that has kept the other world powers from launching nukes at each over in 65 years.

  2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Windows has a lower total cost of ownership.

  3. not credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    DEBKAfile is not a credible source of news. I remember in Gulf War 2 when they were reporting on the imminent launch of WMD gas my Saddam on US forces. This should not be on slashdot.

    1. Re:not credible by Desler · · Score: 2

      That's not really setting a high bar.

  4. Re:WTF? by CaptainDelaware · · Score: 4, Informative

    How can replacing thousands of expensive centrifuges be cheaper than replacing the infected computers??!! Dude, WTF?!

    The centrifuges were damaged (due to the worm) and would remain damaged even when you replace/clean the infected computers.

  5. Re:WTF? by Freddybear · · Score: 5, Informative

    STUXNET did real physical damage to the centrifuges by playing with their operating speeds.

  6. Score one for someone. by Lance+Dearnis · · Score: 2

    Sounds fun as hell, and pretty probable too, TBH. Number one is hat Stuxnet got in there -before-; nothing keeps it from being re-inserted, possibly with modifications to avoid re-detection. Secondly is - think back to your corporate IT department and how often they make all their fixes right. They screw up sometimes, don't they?

    Trust me, the Iranian government's a lot worse. They've got less expertise, less experience, less skills, and a language barrier to deal with most the time. I'd consider it a safe bet that they could've screwed up the cleanup, especially since they also tend to go cheap compared to other militaries (Look at rifles for a basic example here).

    Either way, whoever's doing Stuxnet, good job here. I've got more faith in this then I do our diplomat's efforts for the reasons mentioned before - we bend over backwards for anyone who DOES have nukes and invade people who give 'em up. Doesn't take much IQ to see that throwing out your weapons program is a boneheaded idea if you're not going to take that 500 million bribe straightaway and retire before you get bit in the ass.

  7. Re:WTF? by localman57 · · Score: 2

    Some of the research says that there is executing code in the embedded controllers of the centrifuges, not just in the computers that control them at a high level. I'm not sure that they can be certain that the infected centrifuges themselves won't cause a reinfection of other systems. They may need to kill the patient to cure the disease.

  8. Consider the source by andy1307 · · Score: 5, Informative
    DEBKA is NOT a reliable source. It's Israeli disinformation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debka.com

    Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view; the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics," adding that Debka had partnered with the right-wing news site WorldNetDaily for a weekly subscription product.[3] Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[4]

    1. Re:Consider the source by swilde23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to antagonize here, but I am amused by someone saying "consider the source" linking to wikipedia to prove their point. (I don't necessarily doubt that Debka is "unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics"... it's just the principle.)

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
    2. Re:Consider the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I cannot begin to describe how un-reliable Debka file is. It's not even disinformation, it's just a mid aged guy with a lap top sitting in his provincial home in Israel, making up stories. For some reason, foreign press often quotes it, but everyone in Israel knows it's BS.

  9. Re:Time for StuxNet 2.0! by localman57 · · Score: 2

    I'm picturing some Israeli air-force tech with a Sharpie writing "StuxNet 2.0" on a hardened spike as it gets loaded onto an aircraft...

  10. Re:Stuxnet by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

    DEBKA is a known source of Israeli military and intelligence disinformation.

    Any claim from this source is science fiction.

    http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/08/debka-makes-us-dumber-again.html

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  11. Re:Stuxnet by AB3A · · Score: 2

    Whether it is or is not an intelligence disinformation tool, DEBKA is generally regarded as being very unreliable. I wouldn't trust anything written there unless it were confirmed by at least two other independent sources.

    --
    Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
  12. You're all missing the point by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's an editorial, for crying out loud. Of course it's biased.

    The real news is that Iran is scrapping somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 centrifuges and replacing them with "faster" and "improved" ones. They supposedly announced this in a press conference, so I presume this can be independently verified apart from DEBKA's claim?

    The rest of the article is conjecture, so feel free to come up with a better theory of why Iran is rebuilding their enrichment program from scratch.

  13. Totally Fixable by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Stuxnet is a really complex and well thought out windows worm but it's not magic and it can be beaten. Abusing holes in windows isn't some new thing that stuxnet invented.

    Dealing with windows worms isn't nearly as complex as creating them.

    Easy clean up process:
    1) Disconnect affected windows machines from your network.
    2) Overwrite the disks on these machines with zeros at least once.
    3) Physically break the USB, firewire, sound, floppy connectors, extra disk connectors, serial ports, parallel ports on the motherboard of these computers. Break them in such a way they can't be fixed without significant effort.
    4) Reinstall windows from clean CDs. Do not connect the machine to any network.
    5) Reinstall SCADA software from clean CDs. Do not connect the machine to any network.
    6) Setup one OpenBSD filtering bridge per SCADA control system to filter traffic to and from your new control machine and only allow traffic you have to. That means SCADA control traffic only. No windows update, no anti-virus updates, no domain authentications, no STP, and if possible not even ARP. Test with tcpdump and if 1 single network packet you don't fully understand gets though start again from step 1.

    Done.

    BTW I'm not a US citizen, a US visa holder, or in US controlled territory. I suspect that any US citizen or anyone in US controlled territory who assists Iran in any way is committing a criminal act. US export laws.. land of the free.. my arse.

    1. Re:Totally Fixable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're assuming that none of the SCADA devices in the network are infected with a copy of the worm.

  14. It isn't because of nukes by brokeninside · · Score: 2

    Pakistan's nuclear arsenal most likely consists of warheads with yields comparable to Fat Man and Little Boy. It's delivery systems are most likely limited to those that can deliver these warheads to their immediate neighbors. The intention of the arsenal isn't to deter a super-power that sits on the other side of the world but to deter India.

    The US could bomb Pakistan at will and not face any consequences it does not already face. What's Pakistan going to do, promulgate information on how to build nuclear warheads to foes of the US? Or maybe they might fund beligerents who are actively in state of war against the US?

  15. Re:Dear IRan... by 1s44c · · Score: 2

    Dont use industrial machines that run Windows....

    Just saying.....

    I agree totally. However if that's what the retards at Siemens give customers Iran has the choice to use it or reverse engineer it and setup their own software. Reverse engineering this stuff might well take years.

  16. Re:Stuxnet by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    If you're going to discount a source, do it right. The article you cited just says they were employing faulty math when reporting one bit of information. I guess 34 knots is ridiculously fast for a naval group? I'll take your word for it, but it doesn't seem like a smoking gun for "This is a biased source." It's from 2008, maybe they learned what a reasonable speed for a naval group is since then?

    The wiki page is somewhat more damning. The -real- reason to reject this specific article as pure rumor is the unnamed sources bit.

    This just in: unnamed sources revealed to me that Iran's secret Death Star is not actually behind schedule for completion, it's actually fully functional!

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion