Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stuxnet Infected (But Didn't Affect) Chevron Network In 2010

Posted by Soulskill on from the collateral-damage dept.

Penurious Penguin writes "The Wall Street Journal, in correspondence with Chevron representatives, reveals that back in 2010, Stuxnet reached Chevron, where it managed to infect — but not significantly affect — the oil giant's network. According to a Chevron representative speaking to CNET, the issue was 'immediately addressed ... without incident.' The Stuxnet worm is believed to be the work of the U.S. and Israel, and this report is confirmation that it struck well wide of its intended targets. Chevron's general manager of the earth sciences department, Mark Koelmel, said to CIO Journal, 'I don't think the U.S. government even realized how far it had spread ... I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.'"

82 comments

  1. Payload was specific - Transport, not so much by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

    The transport used was fairly generic in nature, but since the payload was aimed at a specific controller used on centrifuges its not surprising that it had little effect elsewhere.

    Even if that Siemens motor controller was common, its use case in Iran was rather specific, and chances are the payload was pretty specific to exact firmware levels. From Wiki:

    While the worm is promiscuous, it makes itself inert if Siemens software is not found on infected computers, and contains safeguards to prevent each infected computer from spreading the worm to more than three others, and to erase itself on 24 June 2012.

    Had it been given a shorter life span than two years, chances are it would never have been discovered.

    The real risk here is that others have climbed on board this train and are using essentially the same engine for other purposes.
     

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Payload was specific - Transport, not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this should hardly be surprising. Even US government installations and quite possibly the non-secure networks of secure installations would have been affected.

  2. I wonder... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless Chevron is running centrifuges in Iran, Stuxnet probably wouldnâ(TM)t have been much of an issue as the Stuxnet code was pretty specific. But of course the real issue for Chevron it *how* they allowed Stuxnet to infect at all? What was the vector, and why was it either Interwebs connected or techs were using infected thumb drives?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:I wonder... by CodeheadUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm also slightly confused as to how it didn't get reported to the AV vendors at that point. Signatures could have been in circulation for some time, preventing the embarrassing situation that occurred when the thing turned up two years later and everyone had their trousers down.

    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it was anything like the spread at our work thumb drives is only one of the possible methods of attack. The others mimicked the conficker worm can is able to spread over peer to peer networks. In a company with many 10s of thousands of employees I'm not surprised they got infected. We here at an only slightly smaller than Chevron oil company got infected too, but the virus never made it as far as our control system networks. It spread globally through the business network though until they took all the file servers offline for a day to clean things up.

    3. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also slightly confused as to how it didn't get reported to the AV vendors at that point

      Of course it was reported to AV vendors, but not included in their signature files - you do the math.

    4. Re:I wonder... by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      Our govt has a very tight relationship with Microsoft, Symantec and McAfee. It's not surprising that certain things are not flagged as malicious. It's also curious that there are signatures in their database for things that have never been officially found in the wild. It's been noted a few times that Kasperasky has added signatures for virus's and trojans long before they show up in the wild.

    5. Re:I wonder... by icebike · · Score: 1

      Our govt has a very tight relationship with Microsoft, Symantec and McAfee.

      Given the impossibility of keeping ANYTHING secret in this country, how can you make such statements without a shred of proof? If such existed, someone would have spilled the beans long before now.

      There are other anti-virus products produced in Russia and Germany. These too totally missed Stuxnet.
      Are these companies compromised by the US government as well?

      Hanlon's Razor:
            Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

      It seems far more likely to me that McAfee and Symantec are just not very good at their job, or that they spend far more time figuring how many hooks they can embed in windows than they do perfecting their database of signatures.

      It also seems quite likely that Stuxnet deactivated itself so completely when Seimens software was not found on the machine that it presented no more risk than a simple text file. Something that does nothing never gets reported to any of these anti-virus vendors.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:I wonder... by capedgirardeau · · Score: 1

      I take exception to your statement the government can not keep secrets.

      The CIA has a budget estimated at 10's of billions dollars per year. The Military intelligence agencies probably at least that much as well. They obviously do something with that money.

      How many intel related operations and actions can you directly cite that are confirmed or well known to be intel. operations?

      They manage to keep their day to day operations around the world pretty well secret I feel. And have for many years.

      --
      Wax on, wax off baby!
    7. Re:I wonder... by icebike · · Score: 2

      LOL
      Posting this the day after the head of the CIA is forced to resign. Priceless

      http://m.voanews.com/1543302.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    8. Re:I wonder... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Posting this the day after the head of the CIA is forced to resign. Priceless

      Which has exactly ZERO to do with keeping or not keeping secrets.

      In other words, so what?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    9. Re:I wonder... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Where I work, p-2-p is blocked, and are most streaming / download services. As well, plugging a thumb drive into your desk-top logs you out and blocks your account - which is kind of stupid since portable hard drives work fine - but only if the guid for the device is registered on the network (but of course that could be spoofed).

      The REAL deterrent is that if they catch you using unauthorized hardware / software, you get escorted out permanently.

      At least that's the way we do it were I work...

      - Frosty

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    10. Re:I wonder... by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      The CIA has a budget estimated at 10's of billions dollars per year. The Military intelligence agencies probably at least that much as well.

      What other military agencies? I though the CIA was a military agency itself

    11. Re:I wonder... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re Given the impossibility of keeping ANYTHING secret in this country
      We got a tiny feel for it via news about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software)#Antivirus_vendor_cooperation
      "FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool"
      http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029-6140191.html
      http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/01/bavarian-government-caught-looking-for-skype-backdoor/
      So yes its "spilled" but usually years later and seems more of a telco/crypto/hardware/software curiosity by many.
      As for "no more risk than a simple text file" - you now have the open free for all that any nation can mess with the telco, hardware or software of another nation - no questions asked.
      Before that it was all 'hackers' 'probing' 'scams' 'kids' maybe the CIA faulty chips in the Soviet Unions pipelines... but to buy the unique hardware, test it and then try to pass it off as a non state actor is new.
      Now its a state free for all.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other anti-virus products produced in Russia and Germany. These too totally missed Stuxnet.
      Are these companies compromised by the US government as well

      Dunno. Maybe they're "compromised" by their own governments. Ever think of that, or do you just assume that anything and everything is the direct fault of the US?
      Hell, we don't even know for sure that it WAS the US and Israel behind Stuxnet. I wouldn't be surprised, but then again I would not be at all surprised to find there were other governments, either instead of or in addition to the US and Israel.

    13. Re:I wonder... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Our govt has a very tight relationship with Microsoft, Symantec and McAfee.

      And oil companies like Chevron?

    14. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately many of these windows systems are "Industrial Computers" running something like windows XP embedded with no anti virus installed.

      No antivirus is installed because these machines are on a network that is supposed to be isolated.

      These machine get USB thumb drives connected to them all the time to copy data around.

      If I had a dime for every time I had to deal with the fallout from the above I could retire.

    15. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That relationship is more political and financial than national security.

    16. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does. He let his guard down to the lady he had the affair with. She had accessed his email without his knowing.

    17. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuxnet is even scarier for that reason. Who knows what sort of information is sitting in the region stuxnet affects? Could it be the MV on a PID that's critical to safety? Could it be the output to a drive on a fan that's providing breathing air? Even worse, could it be a bunch of digital data?

      Very few tradesmen have the sort of knowledge base necessary to recognise the potential issue, so things could get even worse than Iran very quickly.

    18. Re:I wonder... by Digit+Machine · · Score: 1

      The head of the secrets agency couldn't keep his affair a secret.

    19. Re:I wonder... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Unless Chevron is running centrifuges in Iran, Stuxnet probably wouldnÃ(TM)t have been much of an issue as the Stuxnet code was pretty specific. But of course the real issue for Chevron it *how* they allowed Stuxnet to infect at all? What was the vector, and why was it either Interwebs connected or techs were using infected thumb drives?

      Probably infected thumb drives. Or hooking the infected PC to the airgapped network to update the software.

      These networks are airgapped for security as well as keeping miscreants off (they often have to run very specific OS revisions including patches and sometimes they need updating, or the controllers are being updated or changed or additional controllers being added).

      Problem is, how do you get the updated configuration data, software patch, etc. to the other side? Regardless of how you do it, it's a possible infection vector.

    20. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've personally seen infection of Stuxnet, and none of the western stuff found it.

      The chinese A/V software picked it up...

  3. Virus gives "Germ Warfare" by retroworks · · Score: 1

    new meaning

    --
    Gently reply
  4. Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put Microsoft on the list of terrorist groups.

  5. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus. Personally, I prefer the latter. The more effective we are in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action. I think everyone can agree harsh sanctions and computer viruses are preferable to all-out war. That is, so long as they work. Those who criticizes legitimate sanctions and the passive actions like computer viruses doesn't understand that their actions are just leading to all-out war.

    1. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is 0 evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA said as much.

      I trust them more than I trust a bunch of war mongering politicians and lobbyists for a certain country.

    2. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus. Personally, I prefer the latter. The more effective we are in slowing down Israel's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action. I think everyone can agree harsh sanctions and computer viruses are preferable to all-out war. That is, so long as they work. Those who criticizes legitimate sanctions and the passive actions like computer viruses doesn't understand that their actions are just leading to all-out war.

      FTFY.

      Also, you could change that to "The more effective we are in slowing down the USA's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action", but I think you get the point. Or I hope you do.

    3. Re:Give me a break by khallow · · Score: 2

      There is 0 evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The CIA said as much.

      There is the uranium enrichment process which is most of the work. Reading through intelligence reports, it appears that Iran is deliberately putting off the most provocative steps for now (well as of perhaps 2010, who knows about now). But that's not the same as "zero evidence".

      If one looks at the US Manhattan project, most of the work done outside of New Mexico was uranium and plutonium refinement. That required vast amounts of energy and huge complexes in numerous states. It was only in New Mexico at the twin locations of Los Alamos and Sandia, that the actual first atomic bombs were assembled.

      As I see it, once they're machining highly enriched uranium (called "HEU" in the above linked report), they're most of the way towards a primitive nuclear bomb such as "Little Boy" used on Hiroshima in 1945. I think they could have a test weapon ready in months at that point.

      Another key bit of evidence is the extreme hardening of much of their uranium enrichment facilities against conventional attack. If these facilities were just for civilian use, then they wouldn't have enough value to justify the degree of hardening used.

    4. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the mistaken assumption that Iran having nuclear weapons means people will die.

      That's not correct. In fact, it's a lot more likely that fewer Iranians will die when they do develop nuclear weapons. Of course, the USA, with nuclear weapons, had no problem with waging conventional (?) war in Korea and Vietnam even though they did have them...

      AC

    5. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid of the country that thinks absolutely nothing of blackmailing its "allies" at every turn.

    6. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another key bit of evidence is the extreme hardening of much of their uranium enrichment facilities against conventional attack. If these facilities were just for civilian use, then they wouldn't have enough value to justify the degree of hardening used.

      Maybe if they weren't being targetted by Mossad thugs they could afford to have unsafe nuclear facilities. As it is, their (civilian!) scientists are being killed left and right, and there was (at least) one (digital) attack in one of their facilities. You can't blame them for trying to defend themselves from attackers If it were your country instead you'd be all for defending from the agressors, but since they're dirty sand-niggers they obviously deserve it.

    7. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever see "Clerks" when the cigarette salesman points out the dangers of working for lunatics and all the guys building the new Death Star should have known? The rag-head sympathizers such as yourself never quite grasp the concept. DO SOMETHING ELSE if you don't want to get killed doing your highly politically provocative job. DUH.

    8. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever see "Clerks" when the cigarette salesman points out the dangers of working for lunatics and all the guys building the new Death Star should have known? The rag-head sympathizers such as yourself never quite grasp the concept. DO SOMETHING ELSE if you don't want to get killed doing your highly politically provocative job. DUH.

      I don't see where he is a sympathizer at all, you racist fuck. He made a perfectly valid point- they have been actively targeted by multiple military organizations, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to harden such facilities even if they aren't trying to develop a weapon. They spend a LOT of money on such programs, and to address the point the parent made it's also possible they hardened those facilities simply to show the "West" that they are not about to lose a bunch of research and technology to a small band of terrorists.

      The primary concern the US has about Iran's program is that materials/weapons will either fall into terrorist hands, or be given to them. The secondary concern is that Israel will freak the fuck out and launch an attack, dragging us into a very nasty mess which we don't want. Iran actually having their own nukes really isn't all that big of a deal in of itself- it's the political climate in the region and their current instability which are the big deal.

    9. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid of the country that thinks absolutely nothing of blackmailing its "allies" at every turn.

      So you're afraid of everybody then. Good to know.

      Back to the question you were actually asked: I'm more afraid of the followers of Islam. Not because Islam itself is inherently better or worse than any other, but because of the stranglehold it has on governments and society in general in the Middle East. I'm afraid of Islam for the same reason that any sane and rational person would have been afraid of the Christians during the Crusades, the Dark Ages, and the Spanish Inquisition. You've got a population willing to blindly do whatever some self-proclaimed "holy man" tells them to do, even when it flies in the face of all reason and common sense. As a religion, Christianity has managed to "grow up", even though it wasn't really voluntary, but Islam is still acting like a spoiled hormone-ridden teenager and isn't showing any signs of putting aside the childish behavior and temper tantrums.

    10. Re:Give me a break by khallow · · Score: 1

      they have been actively targeted by multiple military organizations, so it is perfectly reasonable for them to harden such facilities even if they aren't trying to develop a weapon.

      No. I don't buy that at all. I mostly agree with the second paragraph, but there are two addition concerns, both which coincide with your observation. Iran can also chose to use any nukes it makes. Nobody trusts them with this stuff. Also, we have to consider the other countries in the area. Saudi Arabia and Egypt may decide to develop nuclear weapons of their own in response.

      And Iran may pass on its knowledge or nuclear weapons themselves to its non-terrorist allies/associates such as Venezuela or North Korea.

    11. Re:Give me a break by khallow · · Score: 1

      Maybe if they weren't being targetted by Mossad thugs they could afford to have unsafe nuclear facilities.

      And there's that third piece of evidence. One doesn't just get targeted by "Mossad thugs". It's not like the weather.

      You can't blame them for trying to defend themselves from attackers If it were your country instead you'd be all for defending from the agressors, but since they're dirty sand-niggers they obviously deserve it.

      No blaming is going on here. But I don't mind making "trying to defend themselves" as hard as possible.

    12. Re:Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, now you're just trolling.

      Israel behaves as despicably than any other nation, and generally a lot worse than most. The attitudes and intentions of the leadership of that nation is simply abominable.

      As for Christianity having "grown up"? Bullshit. Utter bullshit. How can you claim any religion or religious person has "grown up" when and if they're still religious? Religion in itself is inherently childish.

      But Israel? Scumbags.

  6. uh, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.'"

    Someone didn't read up.

  7. Idiot. That is all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Idiot. That is all...

  8. Good Grief. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.

    So you think nuclear proliferation is acceptable and that Iran will manage being a Nuke Bomb owner in a sensible way? Really?

    A "bomb" in the hands or the Iranians is truly a terrifying thing.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good Grief. by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      But Iran won't infect Chevron (to no affect) with a nuclear bomb. C'mon, man, this is a Corporation we're talking about here! Have you no sense of proportion!?

    2. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.

      So you think nuclear proliferation is acceptable and that Iran will manage being a Nuke Bomb owner in a sensible way? Really?

      A "bomb" in the hands or the Iranians is truly a terrifying thing.

      And hundreds of bombs in the hands of crazy terrorist harboring and financing muslim government no eh ? See Pakistan.
      And although India is not a muslim country, they are about as trigger happy as the Pakistanis insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned.
      Israel, has hundreds of nuclear warheads, the majority of which are being carried on modern AIP submarines bought from Germany.
      And what about NK, a crazy country that fires real artillry shells on South Korea and even sinks SK ships ?

      The least of our worries is Iran.

      But I guess, same as Iraq, when you can't kind a rational casus belli just invent one. Now where are those WMD in Iraq ?

    3. Re:Good Grief. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      See Pakistan.

      Of course Pakistan is a HUGE concern. But that doesn't mean we should ignore Iran.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And although India is not a muslim country, they are about as trigger happy as the Pakistanis insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned.

      Fuck you! India has always held a non-first use policy (in other words, it will be used only as a retaliation to a nuclear strike). They have pretty open about this policy. I have never heard any one complain about Indian nuclear policy (unlike Pakistan which refuses to promise non-first use)

    5. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.

      So you think nuclear proliferation is acceptable and that Iran will manage being a Nuke Bomb owner in a sensible way? Really?

      A "bomb" in the hands or the Iranians is truly a terrifying thing.

      And hundreds of bombs in the hands of crazy terrorist harboring and financing muslim government no eh ? See Pakistan.
      And although India is not a muslim country, they are about as trigger happy as the Pakistanis insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned.
      Israel, has hundreds of nuclear warheads, the majority of which are being carried on modern AIP submarines bought from Germany.
      And what about NK, a crazy country that fires real artillry shells on South Korea and even sinks SK ships ?

      The least of our worries is Iran.

      But I guess, same as Iraq, when you can't kind a rational casus belli just invent one. Now where are those WMD in Iraq ?

      I agree, it's quite disturbing that Israel has these weapons.

    6. Re:Good Grief. by equex · · Score: 2

      imagine mitt romney with nukes.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    7. Re:Good Grief. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      I am and no fear was created.
      maybe you could update your troll bait since he lost the election.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    8. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Infact it may be more sensible to ask Iran to subscribe to No-First Use policy. But the US will not do that, because they themselves do not subscribe to such a policy (only India, China & NK do). US does say it will only use it defensively, but does not subscribe to Non-First Use.
       
      You should look at your backyard before criticizing the policies of other nations.

    9. Re:Good Grief. by fluffy99 · · Score: 0

      It's somewhat naive to think that Iran hasn't already purchased some nuclear weapons from a country that is willing to sell. North Korea wasn't interested in nuclear weapons for it's own use, so much as the political clout it brings and the financial benefit of being able to sell to countries like Iran. It Israel and Iran start to duke it out, I expect Israel would use small scale nuclear weapons first.

    10. Re:Good Grief. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      A nuclear weapon in the hands of people who have already used them and call for 'FIRST STRIKE' is truly a terrifying thing. There fixed it for you, at least it's accurate now. Especially when those same people are all to happy to murder innocent people by remote control and guilt it measured by, seems like they might be up to something, kill them anyhow and success is measured by effective of public relations lies about success and it's treason to tell the truth.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Good Grief. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Especially when those same people are all to happy to murder innocent people by remote control and guilt it measured by, seems like they might be up to something,

      Not quite.

      Most of those killed in drone attacks were terrorists: military

      --
      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
    12. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, get used to hearing us complain about it. There is no legitimate reason for India to have developed nukes. All it did was heat up an arms race with Pakistan, which in turn has now meant Israel, and finally Iran has to have nukes. The most unstable region in the world has nukes sprouted up all over it, and it's all thanks to India for some reason deciding they wanted to do a bit of dick waving. And don't make me laugh with "No first use policy" - I'm sure you're totally happy with Pakistan, Israel and Iran having the same policy, right?

    13. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A "bomb" in the hands of the Iranians is truly a terrifying thing.

      The USA is the only country to deploy nuclear weapons (Japan), anthrax (Korea), napalm or agent Orange (Vietnam) during a war. A "bomb" in the hands of the Americans is a truly terrifying thing.

    14. Re:Good Grief. by evanism · · Score: 1

      I am not an American, but I will tell you it is no accident that Russia had 2 nuke subs parked off the coast this week.

      The perception of everyone I speak to is that Romney is a crazy. His being elected would lead to a major war using false flag in a matter of months.

      What amazes me is the perception of Romney voters, they simply cannot see it.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    15. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look at your backyard before criticizing the policies of other nations.

      That's a load of crap. I don't have to live in some kind of imaginary Utopian society in order to point out the shortcomings of other societies. Pointing out flaws in a country does NOT imply your own country is somehow perfect, but that's what the majority of slashdot posters seem to assume these days.

      Infact it may be more sensible to ask Iran to subscribe to No-First Use policy. But the US will not do that, because they themselves do not subscribe to such a policy

      Utterly wrong. There are many reasons the US has not asked for such a policy, but not having one of our own is NOT one of those reasons. One reason is that we do not want to settle for just such a policy, another is that we know damn well that Iran will not set such a policy officially.

      Look, I'll be blunt with you. We might not have an officially stated policy of "Non-First Use" but for all intents and purposes that is exactly what we do have. Any nation, including the US, which launches a nuke better have a damn good reason for doing it, regardless of what policies they hold, or the rest of the planet will tear them apart like a pack of rabid dogs. The concern right now is that half the countries in the Middle East are more than willing to wipe each other, and themselves, off the face of the Earth because someone's camel shit on on the wrong patch of sand 4,000 years ago.

    16. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nuclear weapon in the hands of people who have already used them

      Plenty of people have used them. If you mean, in combat, then that's a different story.

      and call for 'FIRST STRIKE'

      Huh. Your history book must have had all the pages prior to 2000 torn out of it.

      those same people are all to happy to murder innocent people

      Really? You're really going to claim that ALL those people were 100% innocent, just hanging around minding their own business? OK then...

      by remote control

      Oh, here we go again with the "Real men don't use guns, they use swords" argument. Previously known as the "Real cavemen punch with fists, they don't throw rocks or use bone tools".

      I'd respond to the rest of your post but it sounds like your medications either completely wore off at that point, or the LSD was really starting to kick in.

    17. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China would have an unfair advantage against India, if India had not developed nuclear weapons. You should lookup Sino India wars, and current Chinese relations with India. China would have treated India the same way it treats most of south-east asia (in many countries Chinese is become the predominant language). I would even say China acquiring nuclear weapons was the reason India had to acquire them (and if not then, India would have definitely acquired nuclear weapons by now). And China had to acquire them, because the Soviets had nuclear weapons. And the Soviets had to acquire them because the US had acquired. As far I can see the US started the arms race (they had no legitimate reason to acquire them either).
       
      And you are wrong about Pakistan Israel relations. They have pretty good trade, good diplomatic relation until recently. Being a NATO ally has gotten a lot of favors from Israel. Israel could have no way wanted to develop nuclear weapons, just because Pakistan had them. Israel developed them, so that it can give them extra leverage in the hostile region. The reason the region (the middle east) is so unstable is because, UK, and for the past 6-7 decades the US have being fucking with their governments, and have made every effort to exploit their resources.

    18. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look at your backyard before criticizing the policies of other nations.

      That's a load of crap. I don't have to live in some kind of imaginary Utopian society in order to point out the shortcomings of other societies. Pointing out flaws in a country does NOT imply your own country is somehow perfect, but that's what the majority of slashdot posters seem to assume these days.

      You dont have to be a saint to criticize someone else, but if you are persistently criticizing someone of, say, cleanliness, you do have to make sure that you have taken every effort to be clean yourself (you have had the time, you have criticized for a long time). And not, no you dont get to criticize someone of cleanliness, atleast not with a straight face.

      Infact it may be more sensible to ask Iran to subscribe to No-First Use policy. But the US will not do that, because they themselves do not subscribe to such a policy

      Utterly wrong. There are many reasons the US has not asked for such a policy, but not having one of our own is NOT one of those reasons. One reason is that we do not want to settle for just such a policy, another is that we know damn well that Iran will not set such a policy officially.

      Look, I'll be blunt with you. We might not have an officially stated policy of "Non-First Use" but for all intents and purposes that is exactly what we do have. Any nation, including the US, which launches a nuke better have a damn good reason for doing it, regardless of what policies they hold, or the rest of the planet will tear them apart like a pack of rabid dogs. The concern right now is that half the countries in the Middle East are more than willing to wipe each other, and themselves, off the face of the Earth because someone's camel shit on on the wrong patch of sand 4,000 years ago.

      You are forgetting that the US has already gotten away with launching a nuke. The world was pretty weak at that time though. And I would expect most countries to use similar reasons to launch nukes and get away with it for similar reasons. Also, the concern that some middle east countries would like to wipe away another country, and their own, is a load of bullshit, that I expect only some Americans to believe. The ability to retaliate in kind by Israel would complete prevent Iran from launching nuclear weapons.

    19. Re:Good Grief. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ridiculous. There's no way China would ever nuke India, and everyone knew it. India isn't remotely comparable to other countries in the region - it has an enormous population and proportional military. They had no good reason to build the bomb and we all know it.

      Israel-Pakistan good relations? You're having a laugh! Pakistan barely keeps a lid on a bunch of guys who would happily see Israel obliterated.

      I also think you need a history lesson - the middle east was unstable LONG before the UK came around.

    20. Re:Good Grief. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Your neighbor who you just had war with, just started testing nuclear explosions. You would be silly and stupid to not do the same. If it comes to war, why is far fetched to imagine China nuking India? The only deterrent is India having nuclear weapons, and keeping the ability to retaliate in kind. Now that India has it, we would never know if China would have nuked non-nuclear India when it comes to war between them (which would eventually have to happen at some point of time in the future, may be decades/centuries away, but it still has to happen).
       
      And what use would population and military be, when you have weapon that is many many more times powerful that the only your enemy has. You can simply shock you enemy into submission. You seriously cannot see the power imbalance in would have created?

    21. Re:Good Grief. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Pakistan as a state has had decent relations with Israel forever. Just because there are some lonnies in Pakistan that would like to see Israel disappear doesnt mean Pakistan does not work well with Israel. Hell Pakistan even acquired radars from Israel. There have been times when their relations were very very cordial.

      Europe was also unstable for a long time too, in the past. Rest of Asia too. It doesnt mean the present conflicts and overthrowing of governments are not being orchestrated by the west.

    22. Re:Good Grief. by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Actually, make that, you had just lost a war with your neighbor, and you had to concede a strategically significant piece of land you had under your control. Now your neighbor starts testing nuclear weapons.

    23. Re:Good Grief. by equex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i was gonna brace for WW3 if that maniac won.Glad to hear russia are prepared too ;) I'm still not writing off that false flag operation, its not like Obama is an angel from heaven either.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    24. Re:Good Grief. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Innocent until publicly proven guilty in a court of law dickwad.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    25. Re:Good Grief. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Innocent until publicly proven guilty in a court of law

      You are quite mistaken, and a big hint is your phase, "court of law." A court of law is used in criminal matters to judge guilt or innocence before imposing punishment of the guilty. Dealing with Al Qaida, the Taliban, and company, is primarily a question of war and military action, not law enforcement, arrests, and courts of law. (Besides, what legal jurisdiction do you propose over the tribal territories in Pakistan? The Pakistani government itself cannot reliably control events there.) Bin Laden made his declaration of war on behalf of Al Qaida, and several years and many attacks later, the US returned the favor after 9/11. So it is war, not police raids, at their choice. If you don't like that, it doesn't change the facts one bit.

      Do these look like car thieves? How many police from what agency would you bring to overcome their numbers, machineguns and rocket propelled grenades? How could you arrest and try men before shooting in a situation like this?

      dickwad.

      Civility to match your understanding?

      --
      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. Sabotage by kwerle · · Score: 2

    You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus... The more effective we are in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action...

    Lemme start by saying that I agree.

    But isn't sabotage an act of war?

    The US seems to think so: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/pentagon-rules-cyber-attacks-and-sabotage-constitute-an-act-of-war-20110531/

    And that it justifies military response.

    1. Re:Sabotage by feedayeen · · Score: 1

      You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus... The more effective we are in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action...

      Lemme start by saying that I agree.

      But isn't sabotage an act of war?

      The US seems to think so: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/pentagon-rules-cyber-attacks-and-sabotage-constitute-an-act-of-war-20110531/

      And that it justifies military response.

      Countries weigh the cost vs benefits when engaging in a war, not all 'acts of war' are created equal.

      If hundreds or thousands of citizens die in an attack like the USS Maine (Spain), RMS Lusitania (Germany), Peril Harbor (Japan), 9/11 (Afghanistan), the US responds with an all out war where both sides suffer causalities. Other cases like the theft of American's property (Cuba), an embargo is sufficient for us to tell them that we don't like 'em.

      During none of the wars listed above did the US ever have a significant threat to it's existence even in the event of a loss, except maybe Cuba. But if you're Iran war would mean certain defeat, that cost calculation is even more skewed.

  10. page 13 i tried to post this a few months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/pdf/ICS-CERT_Incident_Response_Summary_Report_09_11.pdf

    page 13

  11. Mary (Percy Bysshe) Shelley turns in her grave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line: This remind ANYONE of "Frankenstein's Monster", or what?

    * What a lesson to learn, man... creating a soulless machination that has NO mercy, NO conscience, NO pity, and certainly NOT VERY GOOD JUDGEMENT either!

    APK

    P.S.=> Thus "the monster returns to "wreak havoc" on its creator(s)" it seems (assuming Chevron's a U.S. Industrial Concern, that is - I would say it is offhand, but someone correct me IF I am incorrect there, thanks-in-advance)...

    ... apk

  12. Re:US is truly more terrifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Americans are crazy and have no problem invading one foreign country after another. Even a foreign country that has done nothing wrong to them but has been bombed and its own citizens put into oppression the American government and their allies.

    At least Iran does not invade other countries nor threatens them unless of course the other countries interfere with them first.

    A reminder it was the US government who installed the Shah in the first place that started that countries hatred to the US. If any country that should give up its nuclear weapons it should be the US.

  13. Excercise I: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How a hop-based virus managed to "spread" to chevron's network is proably an excercise left to the reader.

    Anonymous Coward

  14. List of United States Intelligence agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AFISRA)
    Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)
    Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
    Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA)
    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
    National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
    National Security Agency (NSA)
    Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
    Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI)
    Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
    Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI)
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA/ONSI)
    Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
    Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI)

      These are just the ones we are aware of. Remember the NSA was classified when it was created.

    1. Re:List of United States Intelligence agencies by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      You forgot: Bloomberg Secret Soda Police (BSSP)

  15. Re:US is truly more terrifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Iran does not invade other countries nor threatens them unless of course the other countries interfere with them first.
    A reminder it was the US government who installed the Shah in the first place that started that countries hatred to the US.

    Oh look, another anti-US A.C. whose history book apparently only goes back about 100 years. Let's turn the pages back a little further, and see what we can find...

    "In 1729 Nader Shah successfully drove out the Pashtuns from Isfahan. By 1735 Nader Shah had regained territory lost to the Ottomon and Russian Empires, and in 1738 staged a very profitable incursion into the Mughal Empire. His military successes on all fronts earned him the nickname "Napoleon of Persia" or "the second Alexander".

    Oops, I seem to have spilled reality all over your carefully constructed shit-pile.

  16. Not a surprise by 40ohms · · Score: 1

    If your using the same controllers as the target for that virus, but your not running applications requiring precise speed control you would not even notice anything has changed. As I understand it, centrifuges rely on a well controlled rotation speed to hit a certain amount of G force. Most industrial applications don't require speed control to be that exact and generally are not going to be running fast enough to cause destruction from the stress. It sure is sad that the trolls have nothing better to do than take this subject so far off course this leads to 95% of the thread being useless garbage. I guess many of them are now unemployed and looking for something to do, since they seem to have at least another 4 years to find a job.

  17. How to Detect/Remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does one detect Suxnet or Duqu? I keep seeing these sensationalist and politicized regurgitated "stories", but never any information about how to detect or remove them. Does anyone know how?

    I've seen some systems with inexplicable behavior and I can't help but wonder if Stux/Duqu may be lurking.