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."

62 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 Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iran attacked Comodo before Stuxnet was even discovered

      Comodo DNS almost compromised

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:Who started it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954, and installed a bloody right wing dictator in an effort to control Iran's oil.

      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.

    5. Re:Who started it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And Iraq had (ahem....) WMD. Until they didn't. After hundreds of thousands of lives lost, NADA. The US and Israel start this shit and then get upset when they get payback. The Iraq "adventure" turned out to be another Vietnam. To me it's even simpler - The US and Israel will blame Iran for anything and everything these days. I wouldn't believe the US or Israel if they said the sky is blue on a clear day. What I am happy to see is that the US is spending all it's money on wars and war equipment while other countries invest in medical care, education, etc. The US isn't shooting its self in the foot, it's shooting its self in the head as corporations subdue the population. Cut the number of teachers and police and firemen, cut education in general, cut as many social programs as possible and give that money to the military and war materials producers and spy programs (which, of course, don't know shit as shown by the Iraq WMD crap). The US - All War, All the Time! Over 1/2 of all US federal taxes go to their war machine and war related activities. The US is going the way of Rome. And as the US dollar continues its decline into worthlessness, I watch and laugh.

    6. 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?

    7. Re:Who started it? by Acetylane_Rain · · Score: 2

      So answer me this very simple question: Who decides who gets nuclear weapons?

      Let me add to that: Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons? Even if we assume that all of Israel's neighbors want to wipe it off the face of the Earth, none of these neighbors currently have nuclear weapons. Israel already has the best military force in the Middle East.

    8. Re:Who started it? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      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.

      Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities. I will also drawn your attention to this, where at least seven activities related to nuclear weapons development carried out by Iran are noted. And last, but not least, the UN Secretary General is calling for Iran to come clean on its activities. So the bottom line is, yes, we have proof that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapon.

      Why is it that USA should be the police of this world? Who gave them this authority?

      I'm afraid you're badly confused on this point. It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically, and the UN Security Council that is holding Iran accountable, as stated in my post above. (Among other things: "The UN Security Council has passed multiple resolutions demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment activities.")

      My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong? How do you confuse Europe for the United States? Are you trying to claim that the United States is not equal to European powers? Why do you have this prejudice against the United States? Do you post without reading? (Silly me, this is Slashdot.)

      The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers. To pretend that the United States is unique in that is silly and against the facts.

      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.

      I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited? No, why would it - there would be nothing to attack. Nuclear program is action, Stuxnet is counter-action, AKA blowback. See, very simple when you think about it.

      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?

      That is a pretty silly attempt at moral equivalency. I'm amazed that you would try it. But I'll throw in a history lesson for free - the US and Iran were allies until 1979, and World War 2 ended in 1945. Just think about it.

      Now, here are a few reasons why Europeans and others might have some concerns about Iran:

      Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas ?)
      State Sponsors: Iran

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. 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
    10. Re:Who started it? by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

      If you want to go develop nuclear weapons, in theory, no one will stop you. (ie: Israel, South Africa, Libya)

      If you sign the NPT, you have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology.

      But you can't say, give me all of your nuclear technology... and then turn around and use it to develop weapons. You've lied.. you've committed fraud to every country and foreign scientist that assisted you.

      And the consequences for that might result in war.

      That's the way it is.. if you want nuclear weapons and peace, then don't go to the international community and commit fraud.

    11. Re:Who started it? by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 2

      Right. US "only" invaded Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and probably wants to also go in Syria and Iran. I wonder who's the most --censored--.

    12. Re:Who started it? by rgbrenner · · Score: 2

      The countries themselves decided. There are two groups of countries:

      1) Those who have refused to sign the NPT. These countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They include South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, and India. They receive NO assistance from the international community. They have to develop their entire nuclear program from scratch.

      2) Countries that have signed the NPT. These countries have agreed not to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for peaceful nuclear technology (reactors, medical devices, etc). These countries receive extensive support, training, etc in developing reactors, etc from the international community. They also agree not to give any of this technology to non-NPT countries.

      The problem arises when a country signs the NPT, takes nuclear technology and support from the international community, and then after they have learned everything they can, they violate the NPT and develop weapons.

      That country has committed fraud, and forced other countries **that would have NEVER assisted them** develop nuclear weapons.

      And the consequence of that fraud is often war.

    13. Re:Who started it? by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 5, Informative

      That was the British because of BP owned the oil fields and the communist government stole them.

      Not quite. From WP: "1953 Iranian coup d'état"

      The 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States.The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979

      With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.[12] Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.

      History will be repeating itself, it appears...

    14. Re:Who started it? by Xest · · Score: 2

      I guess it depends on what arbitrary definition you use for "starting it".

      Iran has been funding, training, and arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to launch attacks in Israeli territory for a long time, and similar against US troops and interests in Iraq, and nowadays, Afghanistan.

      But of course, US conflict Iran goes back many decades, which is the reason they do this shit, so deciding "who started it" at this point is probably a largely meaningless metric of whether it's right.

      Despite this I agree, whether you start it or not, the act of continuing it means you can't complain when it, well, continues.

    15. 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
    16. Re:Who started it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The British deals for rights to the oil in Iran had been repeatedly renegotiated, never mind that they were questionable to begin with. The British repeated failed to live up to ANY of the deals they made with the Iranian government. The British walked out on continuing negotiations in 1949, and the Iranians nationalized the oil company in '51.

      Calling nationalization an act of war is insane. Overthrowing a government because of a commercial dispute is insane. Retaliation for economic treaty violations involves payment or trade concessions. Or do you think the government of Antigua should have been 'allowed' to overthrow the Bush Administration when the U.S. restricted online gambling in violation of the Marrakech agreement?

    17. 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.

    18. Re:Who started it? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Allow me to draw your attention to Section H of the IAEA director general's report dated 30 August 2012 on Iran's nuclear program, where it states, among other things: "39. The Annex to the Director General's November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency, indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device." In short, they have found nuclear weapons related activities.

      Sure, but those things are also relevant to nuclear power and non-nuclear weapons. That is all he is saying there.

      It is European Union members that are taking the lead in trying to turn Iran around diplomatically

      Yes, and your little cold war along with Israel's constantly "robust" language is sabotaging it at every turn.

      My question to you is, how do you get this so wrong?

      That would be my question to you. You actually illustrated the GP's point perfectly. The EU is trying to sort this out with diplomacy, the US is waging an active cyber war and Israel is busy assassinating Iranian citizens. Apparently the US and Israel feel they have the right to act that way.

      The United States has acted in its interests, just like other powers.

      Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between (cold) warfare and acting within international law and the legal frameworks that exist?

      I'm not surprised, but I'll work with you on this one - what did Stuxnet attack? Parts of the nuclear weapons program. If the nuclear weapons program didn't exist, would Stuxnet have exited?

      Unless those facilities were for civilian use, in which case they attacked a civilian target.

      Iran Threatens To 'Freeze' Europe for Backing Sanctions

      Fortunately Europe is not so dumb as to be totally reliant on Iran not to freeze to death. Seriously, how can you be dumb enough to believe that crap? Europe takes energy security very seriously and has already banned exports of most forms of energy from Iran.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  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 GPierce · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually FDR provoked the Japanese into attacking. This does not mean that the Japanese were the good guys. There were a lot of reasons why FDR wanted a war - some of them valid, but as barbaric as the Rape of Nanking was, these were not things that directly affected the US. Most US citizens were strongly against any kind of war.

      Under Roosevelt, we seized Japanese bank accounts and placed a military blockade against oil shipments to Japan. We were shutting down their economy, and there is no way the Japanese were going to put up with this. There is no way that we were surprised - there had to be some kind of response.

      Once the Japanese attacked, in view of the damage at Pearl Harbor, there was no way the US was going to admit their responsibility for provoking the attack, so for seventy or so years it's been "Pearl Harbor" sneak attack..

      --

      When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
    3. 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
    4. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      The Japanese also attacked our main base in the Philippines (taken from the Spanish-American war) at the same time hoping to knock us out of the game in the Pacific. They figured we'd take our ball home and go pick on Germany... One of the big Oops! Of the war. It was a calculated risk to "poke the bear" to keep our noses our of their business in the Pacific... It backfired.

    5. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      "Provoked" and "sneak attack" do not have to be mutually exclusive.

      But good luck trying to correct the historical record.
      Most Americans learn a very abbreviated version of history during their formative years.
      That version doesn't include 99% of the shitty things our country has done.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by oji-sama · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?

      Hint: He did not say it was okay, he stated that it wasn't unprovoked.

      --
      It is what it is.
    8. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by sFurbo · · Score: 2
      I completely agree with most of your post, and thank you for writing it, it is insightful and interesting. However:

      There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.

      I would say that murdering 6.000.000 prisoners of war, performing human vivisections, testing biological weapons, using chemical weapons, torturing prisoners, killing prisoners for human consumption and keeping sex slaves (source) stacks up pretty good against the US behavior, while admitting that that is a pretty low standard to beat, and that the US might not have beaten it by much.

    9. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Here is what he said, to refresh your memory:

      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.

      He is claiming, in no uncertain terms, that the US is at fault for Pearl Harbor. That they created an "inevitable military response" so that they would have an "excuse" to go to war. So if the US declares war, we're evil. If we try to use non-violent methods, we're creating an "inevitable military response", and we're at fault there too. The only morally okay solution is, apparently, for the US to roll over and die whenever anyone asks nicely.

      I wonder if that works in the other direction? Let's say the US decides to invade Canada. The EU, shocked by this, stations fleets nearby, embargoes the US, and provides the Canadians with supplies. Would you guys claim that the US is backed into a corner and has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war against the EU?

    10. Re:Pearl Harbor???? by BBF_BBF · · Score: 2

      Except your entire argument boils down to "ignore the fact that Japan was the hostile invader of China way back in 193*" (depending on which historian you ask).

      It doesn't matter if Japan was the aggressor or not; We were not allies with China at the time. We had no treaty obligations to satisfy as a result of any action Japan took during the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted his war, and so he squeezed Japan until they lashed out and dragged us into a global conflict that cost millions of lives. And later, we dropped the only two nuclear bombs ever used in a war on civilian targets. FDR ensured he got himself in the history books, and he didn't give a fuck how many people he had to turn into carbon scorch marks to do it. There's nothing you can say about Japan's conduct during that time period that can equal the evil we visited upon the world at the same time.

      girlintraining,

      Would the world be a better place if the US and other allies didn't apply sanctions to Japan, and allowed Japan to completely take over China and then given time to consolidate their holdings to prepare for war in 1949 instead of 1941?... Look at the war machine Japan created with just their holdings in Manchuria for 1941... what could they do if they were given more time and resources to prepare for war? The Japanese did not create their war machines because of the *sanctions*, the sanctions were put upon them because Japan was creating *war machines*.

      Oh, or did you think that *appeasing* Japan by giving them China would *solve* the problem? The Japanese would just say, "yeah, China's good enough, let's dismantle our war machines cause China's all we want, there's no reason to expand any more, there's no reason we would want to take over Indochina, India, Eastern Russia, etc, etc."

      Of course WWII showed that they wanted to take over those areas as well... purely for self preservation, of course. ;)

      Your argument is fatally flawed by making the assumption that giving China to Japan would stop their expansionistic agenda and would not eventually cause a conflict with the US, or their Russian allies (at the time they were allies.)

      Better to back a feral cat against a wall than a mountain lion.

  4. So? by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

    1. 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'.

    2. 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.
    3. Re:So? by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      We attacked their program... Attached to their infrastructure... First. Forcing then to clean it up put their anti-hackers ahead of our corporate security.... It's not like the govt told ITS OWN interests about the flaws!!!

      Laughingly, by forcing them to deal with Suxnet, we opened the box that ALL control systems are vulnerable to that type of attack... It's VERY common hardware not designed or intended to deal with the "Internet". I'd venture 90% of the places that use these control systems don't even KNOW what was going on. Of course most places in the US are "immune" because manufacturing and power companies are still backward enough they haven't connected their systems to anything. Thanks to SOX the majority of companies that might have considered hooking every toaster to the Internet have manufacturing networks in non-secured, but non-connected sub networks.

    4. Re:So? by Xest · · Score: 2

      So are you saying Iran isn't a bad nation?

      Are you pretending that Neda Agha-Soltan, an innocent civilian wasn't shot dead by her own governments militia trying to put down protests?

      Are you pretending that Iranian revolutionary guards haven't actually been arrested in Kenya? Afghanistan?

      Are you pretending it didn't really detonate a bomb in Argentina?

      Are you pretending that just last week Hezbollah didn't really admit to launching and piloting an Iranian drone over Israel proper?

      Are you pretending that Iran hasn't admitted to sending troops, and weapons to Syria to help put down protesters? That Syrian rebels haven't really captured Iranian revolution guards that were fighting with the Syrians?

      Are you pretending that Iran didn't in the past, and hasn't threatened to again shut down one of the world's major ocean oil-supply routes?

      People say "So?" like it's common knowledge that Iran does all sorts of evils because it does, and often even admits to it, and because unlike you, they aren't a conspiracy theory nut that believes that somehow, the US propaganda campaign against Iran is so strong that they've even managed to get Iran's leadership themselves to admit to many of the evils people bitch at them about.

      Honestly, I don't really like America nowadays much either, but fuck me, you've got to be a complete ignorant idiot to think Iran is somehow some innocent little harmless nation that's no threat to anyone and has never done any wrong.

  5. So, you refuse to shake hands with me, eh? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    ... There's no turning back now, this means war!

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Attributation by girlintraining · · Score: 2

    Is this like how when they catch a guy breaking into someone's home, they charge him with breaking into every other home in the neighborhood too? Suspicion isn't evidence. It isn't proof. And guess what, there probably won't ever be any proof. Everything about "cyber" warfare (please, god, can we get a better name?) is centered around deception. But if we're going to play the "I have in my hands the names of members of congress known to be in the communist party" rhetoric game... Well, Stuxnet did recently come up from behind them and ruin a lot of very expensive equipment... which many people suspect Israel and the United States to have jointly produced. Are we going to sit here and cry about how two sovereign powers ganged up on a third and then (whine! boo hoo! oh noes!) the third decided to give the other two a bloody nose right back?

    Propaganda. That's all this is. Rumors, hints, allegations, and nothing of any substance. Whoopde-fuckin-do. Neither side can be believed -- all the players are lying, cheating bastards when it suits their own political purposes. Hell, everytime some terrorist blows himself up in a public square, dozens of groups come forward to claim responsibility... and governments are no different. Publicity whoring is nothing new...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Yeah right by Sean · · Score: 3, Funny

    And they have weapons of mass destruction just like Iraq

    1. Re:Yeah right by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Pretty much, yes. They have chemical weapons and missiles, and are trying for nuclear. They also threaten their neighbors, and Europe. (Would have sent you to the old Copt news site that hosted that as well, but for some reason it seems to be off-line. Ideas?)

      Iran’s Chemical Weapon Program

      In April 1984, the Iranian delegate to the United Nations, Rajai Khorassani, admitted at a London news conference that Iran was “capable of manufacturing chemical weapons [and would] consider using them.” In 1987, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, Iran was able to deploy limited quantities of mustard gas and cyanide against Iraqi troops. The change in Iran’s policy with regard to chemical warfare was publicly announced in December 1987, when Iranian Prime Minister Hussein Musavi was reported to have told parliament that Iran was producing “sophisticated offensive chemical weapons.”

      As Iran’s chemical warfare capabilities grew, it became more difficult to determine which side was responsible for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. In March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, sandwiched between Iranian and Iraqi forces, was caught in chemical weapon crossfire that left thousands of civilians dead. A 1990 U.S. Department of Defense reconstruction of the Halabja incident reportedly concluded that both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons in Halabja. Iran allegedly attacked the town with cyanide gas bombs and artillery, and Iraqi forces allegedly used a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, the Defense Department study estimated that Iranian forces used more than 50 chemical bombs and artillery shells during the offensive. The Pentagon analysis of the Halabja incident is corroborated by a 1990 report co-written by Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. In his report, Pelletiere stated that there was “no evidence whatsoever that the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.” Because “blood agents were allegedly responsible forthe killing of Kurds at Halabjah,” Pelletiere concluded that “the Iranians perpetrated this attack.” . . .

      In an assessment of Iran’s chemical weapon development released in November 2004, the CIA concluded that Iran “may have already stockpiled blister, blood, choking, and possible nerve agents—and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them.” Earlier assessments put Iran’s stockpile of chemical agents at anywhere from several hundred to several thousand metric tons. In March 2001, General Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, testified before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was “the holder of the largest chemical weapons stockpile” in his area of responsibility.

      In September 2000, the CIA assessed that Iran’s chemical weapon program still relied upon external suppliers for technology, equipment and precursor chemicals, but that Tehran was “rapidly approaching self-sufficiency and could become a supplier of CW-related materials to other nations.” Since then, the CIA has reported that Iran was seeking “production technology, training and expertise” that could help it “achieve an indigenous capability to produce nerve agents.”

      One of the most recent assessments of Iran’s chemical weapon capabilities was revealed in a February 2005 report by the German news agency ddp, citing findings by Germany’s Customs Office of Criminal Investigations (ZKA). The ZKA reportedly believes that Iran has secretly carried out chemical weapon research and development in small, well-guarded unive

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. No certainty on attacks,but certainty on downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?...seems like the government is acknowledging that an IP address doesn't equal a person (or even nation for that matter).

    I know it's an over simplification...call it hyperbole to make a point.

  9. Sounds Legit. by wadeal · · Score: 2

    Because "American Intelligence Officials" are always reliable. They've never lied about anything ever before.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Re:This is just taste of what's to come by guisar · · Score: 2

    Do you REALLY believe the modern, current government of the us or any country is the right, proper, and most capable place for "securing" anything? Do you believe a centralized, procedurized and standardized approach to security is the most effective one?

    I would argue the breaches, not the protections are mainly due to government action and inaction. The government should protect public sytems- eg those owned by the federal and state governments and critical to its operation. The private concerns should do the same for theres. Like other aspects of modern warfare, a decentralized method of planning, offense and defense is the best strategy (IMHO).

  13. Then USA is Japan by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

  14. Gah by lightknight · · Score: 2

    I want off this planet, immediately. I can't...I can't facepalm hard enough when I hear shit like this.

    Morons weaponizing the internet. It's the idiot kid who needs to prove he's a hard ass to everyone else in the sandbox.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:Gah by Aryden · · Score: 2

      The thing I worry about the most is not the U.S. govt using things like this to provoke us into war, it's what they try to do with our freedoms and the internet to "keep us safe" from everyone else. They'd turn "Think of the children" into "Think of our national security" and we'd be right fucked.

  15. cyber war is just a figure of speech by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cyber war is like the war on drugs. Like the war on terror. Like all of the other 'wars' that are not wars at all. If this is Iran's idea of war then I say bring it on. It was idiotic of us to start this shit in the first place. When someone in Iran wants to buy something they go to a store. Disabling their internets would just slightly invonvenience them. For us it would be more than just a slight inconvenience. It would be a serious inconvenience.

    If the new idea of "war" is not to kill anyone, but instead to just disable some web sites well that's a new world order that I can back enthusiastically. Maybe the world will be civilized enough some day to fight wars completely in cyber-space through special video games approved by both sides.

    The idea of a cyber Pearl Harbor is one of the most idiotic things I've heard in a while. What these idiots don't seem to understand is that 'information super highway' is just a figure of speech. There is no actual highway or anything.

    "We won't succeed in preventing a cyber attack through improved defenses alone," Mr. Panetta said. "If we detect an imminent threat of attack that will cause significant, physical destruction in the United States or kill American citizens, we need to have the option to take action against those who would attack us to defend this nation when directed by the president. For these kinds of scenarios, the department has developed that capability to conduct effective operations to counter threats to our national interests in cyberspace."

    This statement is so clearly insane that I don't even know what to say in response except it's not the Iranians that scare me. It's my own fucking idiotic shit-for-brains government. I can just imagine these violent idiots starting a war based on some random Iranian dude taking down some e-commerce sites. Ooh, Americans are not able to complete their Amazon orders for a few hours. Boohoo. Let's go to war.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  16. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. 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!

    1. Re:How nice of you to notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quick! Invade Iraq^Hn! Weapons of Mass^H^H^H^HCyberspace Destruction found by US Intelligence Services! Bring out Colin Powell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HHillary Clinton! ...?Hey does anyone know how to make those red lines in MSWord go away? Ah don't worry about it. I'll publish this now.

    2. Re:How nice of you to notice by 1s44c · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      It's unclear if Iran did or didn't lauch any cyber attacks. However it's clear that Iran has been blamed for countless things since the Iraq invasion. Iran also has the world's third biggest oil reserves, oil reserves that the US is strong arming the world into not buying right now.

      I'm with your theory. The US is trying to justify an invasion in order to take Iranian oil. However the US can't justify a full scale invasion with a few computer hacks, they will keep blaming Iran for everything and anything until they stumble onto something big enough to justify an invasion.

    3. Re:How nice of you to notice by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2

      It's unclear if Iran did or didn't lauch any cyber attacks. However it's clear that Iran has been blamed for countless things since the Iraq invasion. Iran also has the world's third biggest oil reserves, oil reserves that the US is strong arming the world into not buying right now.

      I'm with your theory. The US is trying to justify an invasion in order to take Iranian oil. However the US can't justify a full scale invasion with a few computer hacks, they will keep blaming Iran for everything and anything until they stumble onto something big enough to justify an invasion.

      Never mind pretexts, the US cannot afford to pay for a full scale invasion of Iran, never mind the resulting 15-20 year occupation and bloody counter-insurgency (except perhaps in the warped minds of Fox News commentators and "Bibi" Netanyahu's wet dreams).

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  19. there are differences of ideological opinion by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    which is fine, this is life

    but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there are differences of ideological opinion by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      but what i can not tolerate is the death defying leap into stupidity represented by people who believe iran is after only nuclear power and not after nuclear weapons

      Well, every country can benefit from nuclear power. Most also don't want to be dependent on another country to keep fuel in those reactors, either. Especially when the countries that they'd be depending on have a long history of military aggression and refuse to participate in the Geneva Conventions, and have withdrawn from dozens of international treaties, while demanding other countries turn over their own citizens, who will upon deportation face indefinite imprisonment ahead of a mock trial, if one is even given. The people who currently control nuclear fuel simply can't be trusted not to leverage that access for their own political ends.

      And nuclear weapons are attractive for a great number of reasons, not the least of which is, once you're a nuclear power, the aforementioned countries can't bully you around anymore. Iran probably wouldn't be developing a nuclear weapons program with such furvor if it wasn't under constant threat of attack... and whose enemies on all of its borders were receiving large shipments of state of the art weapons from other nuclear powers.

      Do I think Iran should have nuclear weapons? Hell no. But do I understand why they want them? Absolutely. The United States' chief diplomat right now is a Predator drone in the region. You can't blame them for wanting to defend themselves -- and given the prohibitively-high cost of developing a military capable of providing adequate defense against its enemies, a nuclear weapons program is the only logical choice.

      Whatever I may think of their ideology, religious beliefs, etc., as a country, I can step away from that and recognize that they are a sovereign nation with clear and present threats to its continued existance and way of life. If we were really the humanitarians we tell our children we are in school, we'd spend less time hitting them with the stick and more offering them the carrot. Iran's nuclear weapons program is ambitious and costly, especially for the citizens who's quality of life is already marginal. The only reason a country in such a situation would put forth the resources to fund a nuclear weapons program is out of desperation. They're scared... and they have good reason to be.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:there are differences of ideological opinion by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet the US constantly talks about bombing the Iranian people because of a dispute with the Iranian government, chief of which seems to be the desire of the Iranian government to trade oil in currencies other than the US dollar. Bahrain with the direct support of Saudi Arabia and indirect support of the US government treated it's population far worse with hardly a whisper in US main stream press and complete silence from the US government.

      The US government can not call up 'The People' in any way, upon any issue. The US government is quite content to homicidally kill as many people as necessary guilty or innocent, whether in the name of justice or just as examples, to torture the guilty or even innocent as lab rats and, to abandon all principles of justice in the pursuit of corporate profits. Only in PR and advertising campaigns is the US the champion of democracy and justice, in reality it's all 'SHOW ME THE MONEY'.

      No different in this case. Iran attacking the US (just in case that doesn't work they'll through in Russia and China to the mix, ohh ahh), cyber Pearl Harbour, oh my God they are going to kill us all, it's all crap and bullshit, it's all 'SHOW ME THE MONEY'. The military industrial complex has discovered another route to the tax payer's wallet, billions are up for grabs and it is working every angle to get them.

      The question is would the military industrial complex via it's non-military holdings purposefully connect those holdings to the internet with lax security so that they will be destructively attacked. Have a hospitals prescription opened up to the internet for hacking so that people will die and they can say see we told you so. Pointlessly hook up power system to the internet so that some script kiddie can bring down all power in a major city for days, so they can say, we told you so. Hook up traffic control so that as many people as possible and or get injured will die in traffic so that they can scream over the media controlled channels 'SEE YOU SHOULD HAVE PAID US MORE, MORE, MORE'. Right now multi-national corporations and the psychopaths running them are a far greater threat than Iran. If the US military is desperate to fire missiles from drones they would likely be far better off targeting corporate board rooms than some mud hut in the desert.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  20. I hate to break it to you by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

    but this has been the human condition since day one, and will be the human condition long after you are gone, with any conceivable permutation on technology you can think of

    and yet we were still able to create civilization and all the benefits of that and we still possess all the good qualities you hold dear

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  21. No, the USA is the USSR by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

    Then USA is Japan . . . If there was ever a "cyber-Pearl Harbor", then Iran was Hawai, and USA were playing the role of Japan. Stuxnet was the first strike, you know...

    On the contrary, Stuxnet wasn't "Pearl Harbor", it was Kursk, where the US is the Russians and Iran is the Germans. Specifically Stuxnet is the counter-preparation fire to delay, disorganize, and confuse them, but it won't ultimately stop them. Stopping them would take wise leaders, and Iran has fanatics. Pearl Harbor was a strike on a nation at peace with the attacker, and the counter-preparation fire at Kursk was a strike against an adversary at war that is preparing a deadly move - in Iran's case, nuclear weapons. Iran considers itself at war with the United States and Israel, and will probably extend that to Europe. Why do you think missile defenses provided by the US are going into Europe? Hint: It isn't to defend against an American attack. It is related to the fact that Iran has been observed redesigning their long range Shahab 3 missile warheads, replacing the conventional shape with a spherical nuclear payload.

    Fire Support at the Battle of Kursk

    Just after 0200 on 5 July 1943, Marshal of the Soviet Union Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov received the call he had been waiting for. It was General Pukhov, commander of the Thirteenth Army, reporting that he had captured a German sapper. After some "persuasion,” the sapper stated that the anticipated German offensive against the Kursk salient would commence at 0300, less than an hour away. There was no time to lose. Without hesitation, Zhukov turned to Marshal Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the Central Front, and ordered the artillery counter-preparation to begin immediately.1

    At 0220, 10 minutes before German preparatory fires were to begin, the Central Front’s command post trembled as more than 600 Soviet howitzers, Katyushas2 and mortars opened fire on known and templated German artillery positions. This counter-preparation lasted for only 30 minutes but had a devastating impact on unsuspecting German forces preparing to attack. German artillery was unable to return fire in any organized manner until 0445, delaying the attack until 0530—two and one half-hours behind schedule.3

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  22. US intelligence increasingly convinced? by dgharmon · · Score: 3

    "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"

    Assuming such attacks took place then it would have consisted of phishing attacks against unsecured Windows desktops and there's no evidence it came from Iran. It isn't beyond the bounds of probability that US intelligence fakes cyber-attacks and then blamed Iran.

    --
    AccountKiller
  23. Total bullshit ... by dgharmon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Which ignores the fact that Britain had legally secured the mineral rights to virtually all of Iran

    You mean IRAN was going to take back what the British had previously stolen from them, their own oil. link

    --
    AccountKiller