Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US, Israel Behind Flame Malware

Posted by Soulskill on from the apparently-they-did-start-the-fire dept.

The Washington Post is reporting that the sophisticated 'Flame' malware was created by the United States and Israel in order to collect intelligence on Iranian computer networks. The intel was to be used in a cyber-sabotage campaign intended to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This follows confirmation a few weeks ago that the U.S. and Israel were behind Stuxnet, which caused problems at Iran's nuclear facilities. From the article: "The emerging details about Flame provide new clues to what is thought to be the first sustained campaign of cyber-sabotage against an adversary of the United States. 'This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,' said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. 'Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.' ... The scale of the espionage and sabotage effort 'is proportionate to the problem that's trying to be resolved,' the former intelligence official said, referring to the Iranian nuclear program. Although Stuxnet and Flame infections can be countered, 'it doesn't mean that other tools aren't in play or performing effectively,' he said."

10 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. Duh - Who else would have done it? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean seriously? Who else besides the Israelis a) hate Iran and b) have the technical chops to do it?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? by DynamoJoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sabotage: yes. Cyber terrorism? No. Warfare, yes, but not terrorism.

      --
      bah.
    2. Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > the only country ever to actually drop nuclear bombs on civilian cities, twice.

      True, and the US has used nuclear blackmail more than any other country, regrettably.

      But there is another perspective on having used the nuclear bomb in war - historical necessity. There are many who say that a "demonstration event" would have sufficed, that the nuclear bomb need never have been used in war. Unfortunately I don't believe that. I don't believe that there would ever be sufficient fear of the nuclear bomb until it had actually been used to demolish a real city and kill real people. Also unfortunately, there was a very narrow window when that could be done "safely" - without the threat of a full-fledged nuclear exchange. That was the few years when the US had the Bomb and the USSR didn't.

      Plus if you ever studied the period, you'll see that many feel that using the bomb saved at least a million lives on both sides - the cost of a protracted air/sea/land war in the Pacific. Even the Hiroshima bomb didn't convince Japan to surrender - they felt that there could only ever be one bomb like that. After Nagasaki, the surrendered because they thought that we could just keep dropping bomb after bomb like that - the first one wasn't unique. What they didn't realize was that at the time we'd made 3 bombs, Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki - that we'd shot our wad. I don't know how far in time we were from a fourth, and I don't know how Japan would have acted had they known we couldn't do it a third time, even.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  2. When we do it to you by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is an act of espionage and sabotage proportionate to the problem that is trying to be resolved.

    If you do it to us, it will be considered an act of war.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    1. Re:When we do it to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in other words... if someone were to inject a cyber attack on say... or nuke facilities??? posted anon due to moding

    2. Re:When we do it to you by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And if a normal person builds an aircraft carrier and conducts military exercises in national waters, they'd also go to prison. What is your point? If a government isn't allowed to do things that individual citizens can't, then it's not a government. It's a social club.

    3. Re:When we do it to you by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know what the Iranians have done to you that makes you happy that the US and Israeli government is dangerously meddling with Nuclear power plants and risking the lives of Iranian citizens

      Stuxnet only attacked specific hardware configurations known to exist in Iran's uranium enrichment facilities.
      Stuxnet infected other computers, but did nothing malicious to them.
      There was no risk to nuclear power plants or Iran's civilian population.

      but the Iranians haven't done anything to me, and so I'd prefer to take an approach of innocent until proven guilty before instigating a war against them.

      Innocent until proven guilty is a legal fiction created so that our system of justice can be fair.
      It does not mean you are innocent and outside the legal system no one has to abide by that standard.

      That said, allowing Iran to go nuclear would lead to nuclear proliferation amongst its neighbors.
      At the same time, directly attacking Iran would cause them to lash out, in all directions, at once.
      It's a lose-lose situation that Stuxnet turned into a moderate win.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  3. Re:Beating the War Drums by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So will you come back and admit to being wrong when you inevitably are?

    Israel has been trying to get Obama to go to war alongside them for quite some time now. He's refused. Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad. But declaring war right before an election? Absolute political suicide. His base would desert him, his opponents would mock him for his transparent ploy, and independents would look at the bill from Iraq and blanch.

    Now, if Romney wins, we might be in Iran by November of 2013... maybe. But I think Syria is the more likely candidate. He already wants to arm the rebels, and his party wants to go further than that.

  4. Other Disruptive Measures by raftpeople · · Score: 5, Funny

    The CIA has revealed that an entire warehouse of AOL CD's has been shipped to Iran...

  5. Re:Evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for Siemens, though on their medical devices, and, in a word, yes. In two words: fuck, yes. Hell, the girl from "Jurassic Park," who "knew UNIX" could hack at least one line of Siemens medical products.