Slashdot Mirror


US Suspects Iran Was Behind a Wave of Cyberattacks

SternisheFan writes in with this Times article about more trouble brewing between the U.S. and Iran. "American intelligence officials are increasingly convinced that Iran was the origin of a serious wave of network attacks that crippled computers across the Saudi oil industry and breached financial institutions in the United States, episodes that contributed to a warning last week from Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a 'cyber-Pearl Harbor.' After Mr. Panetta's remarks on Thursday night, American officials described an emerging shadow war of attacks and counterattacks already under way between the United States and Iran in cyberspace. Among American officials, suspicion has focused on the 'cybercorps' that Iran's military created in 2011 — partly in response to American and Israeli cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz — though there is no hard evidence that the attacks were sanctioned by the Iranian government. The attacks emanating from Iran have inflicted only modest damage. Iran's cyberwarfare capabilities are considerably weaker than those in China and Russia, which intelligence officials believe are the sources of a significant number of probes, thefts of intellectual property and attacks on American companies and government agencies."

19 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. The Golden Rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

  2. Who started it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stuxnet - It's called blow back. USA and Israel attack a country through software and then get pissed when that country retaliates.

    1. Re:Who started it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We act like typical bullies, we throw the first punch then when they fight back we burst into tears and claim to be the victim. If you can't take it don't dish it out.

    2. Re:Who started it? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me, who started it? That would be the Iranian government with their covert nuclear weapons program

      I'm sorry, but this doesn't work with me. USA admittedly has enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth multiple times. And it's been more than half a century this happened. Why didn't Iran go after USA then? Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

      Then, we don't even have a proof that Iran has a program for nuclear weapons, we only know they are working on nuclear power.

    3. Re:Who started it? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For one the US is not assassinating ambassadors, has a hate to country X day, nor does it intend to wipe a country off a map, nor create pseudo terrorist armies who have no allegiance to the country their are in. Just there to attack a neighboring one and control a government against the will of its own people.

    4. Re:Who started it? by shiftless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet Israel isn't party to this treaty at all...and they already have 200+ nuclear weapon. Why aren't we invading and threatening THEM? Iran is the only one who needs to be invaded. Why? When was the last time Iran ever invaded or attacked a country?

    5. Re:Who started it? by Galestar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The U.S. started it decades ago by propping up a dictator in Iran. If you are too lazy to read history, I suggest you go watch Argo. Hint #1: pay attention to *why* the Iranians took those hostages. Hint #2: Argo took place in 1980. Saying "Iran started it" based on their alleged actions in the past decade when this has been going on for over 3 decades is just plain silly.

      It has not been demonstrated that they do actually have a covert weapons program. Iraq WoMD all over again. In addition, they are a sovereign country even if they were I would not begrudge them that. Several of their (hostile) neighbors have them, and the U.S. (also hostile) has enough nukes to decimate all life on earth... why should they not be allowed to pursue them? Stop crying foul over this bullshit.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Who started it? by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We stole their freedom so members of our parasitic upper class could profit. Iranians have every reason to hate the US, and every justification for any level of retaliation.

      Given retaliation in the field of war has historically meant the killing of civilians and war-rape, you should be careful with your hyperbole.

      1954 was before the current leaders of the United States were born, I would say no retaliation is justifiable in any shape or form. I live in a country where it is fasionable to call for the death of all Japanese in retaliation for what happened Nanjing in the 1930s (truly a horrific event, even compared to what was happening in Europe at the time), but it's not healthy, it's not productive and it's not right. Byegones are bygones, if you're American, you may retaliate against yourself if you feel it is justified, but do not wish upon your largely innocent countrymen what the Revolutionary Guard would have done apon them.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    7. Re:Who started it? by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran. The new government was going to welch on the deal

      Yeah, right. Who is Ignoring the facts now?:

      In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with the Shah Mozzafar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran.

      Any democratically elected government has the legal (and moral) right to roll back and change the terms of any abusive deal made by previous unelected rulers - even those made "only" half a century before by a dynasty than no longer "owned" Iran.

  3. Pearl Harbor???? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta that the United States was at risk of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor." "

    Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

    It looks we already attacked Iran with cyber weapons and this is retaliation.

    1. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We were already at war with the Japanese before they attacked Pearl Harbor via supporting China. It was a clandestine war, but as Shakespeare might say, a war by any other name would smell as rotten. As this article states, we were already moving chess pieces onto the Asian board before Pearl Harbor and who knows what really happened and the exact dates involved?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers

    2. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Durring Pearl Harbor, we were unprovakably attacked.

      The Japanese would disagree. The United States and its allies at the time were shipping arms and providing war-time loans to China and other countries Japan was at war with. The situation was such a problem for the Japanese that they invaded French Indochina in 1940 in an attempt to cut off the supplies of airplanes, machine tools, etc. from the United States into the region. The United States was also staging troops and equipment in the Philippines ahead of Pearl Harbor. The final straw for them was when the entire fleet was moved from San Diego to Hawaii, which to the Japanese looked like a clear sign the United States was planning on moving into the area, and thus restoring the supply lines to China. Making matters worse, after France fell the United States restricted oil shipments to Japan (amongst other countries), forcing the Japanese to attack european-controlled southeast Asia to secure oil (amongst other things).

      Feeling backed into a corner, their military advisors decided that a pre-emptive strike on the fleet was the only way to prevent the United States from interfering with the war effort with its navy. So to say it was an unprovoked attack is stupid -- we'd recently cut off oil supplies, were supplying arms to their enemies, and had recently moved our entire navy to a staging area, with the clear aim of moving into the contested region. I hardly blame you though for believing it was unprovoked -- it's what all the (revised) history books tell us.

      Mr. Panetta is making the same mistake we made 80 years ago: Backing our enemies into a corner. Well, what happens when you back any animal (or person!) into a corner? They attack, of course. And the United States has a long tradition of setting traps just like this -- using economic manipulation and supplies to tip the balance of conflicts while claiming it's not involved... and then using the inevitable military response by its enemies as an excuse to enter said conflict.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Get a grip, asshat. What would happen if any country attacked the US? Meanwhile, the US had been the aggressor for many, many years, and has attacked many countries which did nothing to the US. If you come and burn down my house, don't be surprised if I burn down yours.

  4. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You already fell for it.

    The US doesn't want sympathy, they want you to think Iran is actually a threat to anyone or anything. Expect lots of news about Iran did this bad thing and Iran is horrible in this way for quite some time. They want you to say 'So?' like it is common knowledge that Iran does all sorts of evils. They are setting it up to be 'Liberated'.

  5. Re:So? by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This might be a problem if the US wasn't doing it in return.

    If you are actively trying to sabotage someone else's infrastructure, you have to expect them to do it back. I'd put money on who started it.

    I have no sympathy for the US in this regard..

    Thing is, this is getting reported like it was something Iran was doing out of the blue. Nobody's saying anything about the US's cyberattacks on Iran in an attempt to shut down their nuclear program, irregardless of whether it was a weapons development project like the US claims it is, or if it really was a peaceful power reactor program. It's looking to me like this is becoming a severe case of 'Look what you made me do NOW' just before the US sends in the drones, cruise missiles and tanks. I feel Yet Another Desert War coming on...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  6. This is just taste of what's to come by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In a related Slashdot story yesterday we have this quote:

    'We would be much better served if we accepted that prevention eventually fails, so we need detection, response, and containment for the incidents that will occur.

    Really? Isn't that why DARPA created the internet in the first place, so our communication and command and control systems could survive a nuclear attack that we failed to prevent?

    So I guess we already DO accept the notion that prevention is going to fail and the worst possible thing may happen sooner or later.

    So what they're saying is we need to re-internetize the internet. In this I think they're probably right. To a degree we've de-interneted the internet by building inter-dependent applications which focused a lot on their utility to civil society and not what assholes could do with them.

    How hard can it be to integrate this into the smart grid? We have the a large part of the infrastructure. We have robust packet switched networks. This is doable and should be done.

    This is fundamentally the problem of modern society; it's what brought down the Twin Towers . We make something like a plane and never see it as a guided missile filled with explosive jet fuel. We build huge skyscrapers piling people on top of people and don't permit ourselves to think too much that this same arrangement of people represents a force multiplier to a determined enemy. Just an easy example from recent history; other possibilities abound.The more technologically advanced we become the more highly leveraged weapons we accidentally deliver into the hands of religionists and other madmen.

    There has to be a paradigm shift in ALL our thinking about the things, the structures of civil society upon which we depend, and not just in the thinking in intelligence circles because we need to vote "yes", even "hell yes" for the taxes which pay to make these things not just work, but secure.

    We are less secure today not because anyone is asleep at the switch or less concerned with security, but because we are not keeping up with ourselves technologically, in a certain sense.

  7. Fair enough proposition... by mevets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    However, each side believes their national infrastructure was sabotaged, and that they sabotaged the others weapons program.

    Both suffer from their respective militaries being infused into their very fabric, thus valid targets are practically moot.

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. How nice of you to notice by shiftless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How perceptive. Now observe as I do the same.

    I'm glad this article came up on Slashdot cause Lord knows Facebook is tired of my political commentary, and in the middle of the night too so maybe somebody will actually see my comment, and understand when I say this accusation IS COMPLETE HORSESHIT.

    Iran did not launch any fucking "cyber attack." This is nothing more than a convenient excuse drummed up by the U.S. to help justify an invasion. They have been searching high and low for a good excuse for some time. Now the stage is set. When some massive cyberattack hits the U.S. (not really causing any real damage of course, at least not to anything seriously critically important) guess who will be blamed? Why, it must have been Iran! Leon Panetta with his far-rearching vision and insight pointed out not 6 months ago this might happen! Quick, to arms!