Hackers Stole Information From IAEA Servers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers Stole Information From IAEA Servers

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday November 28, 2012 @03:30AM from the fjear-me-i-have-your-email-address dept.

porsche911 writes "A hacker group called 'Parastoo' have broken into an International Atomic Energy Agency computer and released details of more than 100 IAEA experts. They are asking the experts to criticize Israel's nuclear arsenal (English translation)." The IAEA confirms the breach happened, but that it was of a decommissioned server. The statement from Parastoo courtesy of Cryptome.

55 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 03:32 · Score: 1

OK and if they criticize Israel's nuclear arsenal, then what?
1. Re:Pointless. by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-28 03:41 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Then oh my god you guys, Israel will have so much egg on its face. They won't be able to be seen in public any more. It'd be, like, a big deal. How could the IAEA betray them like that without provocation? They were friends!
  
  But actually, they're of the opinion that Iranian nuclear scientists have been getting attacked lately, and they want that to stop. The Israel-criticizing was lower on the priority list. I have no idea how the summary missed this.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Israel getting criticized by the west? First time for everything I guess.
3. Re:Pointless. by hazah · 2012-11-28 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Prey tell, which side of the globe are you on?
4. Re:Pointless. by Redmancometh · 2012-11-28 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Pray*
5. Re:Pointless. by Martin+Blank · 2012-11-28 12:15 · Score: 2
  
  I see the sarcasm, but it's important for people to know that Israel is not a signatory to the NNPT and hence is not bound by its requirements for declarations and inspections. Neither is North Korea, Pakistan, or India, all nations with nuclear arsenals (North Korea's is perhaps debatable), and the only nuclear-armed nation that has not threatened to use one, though their policy of deliberate ambiguity basically precludes such threats.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
6. Re:Pointless. by hazah · 2012-11-29 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Why, thank you. I don't know what I would do if that particular mistake was not corrected for me.
It's an Iranian attack group. by gcnaddict · 2012-11-28 03:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Parastoo means swallow (as in the bird) in Farsi, for anyone wondering.

--
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
1. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by ColdWetDog · 2012-11-28 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  African or European?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by justthinkit · 2012-11-28 03:53 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Well, that certainly clears up who the attack group is. Good thing the group wasn't called BINGO or we would have to strip-search then incarcerate all old people. I am so relieved it is the bad guys. I just can't tell you how glad I am that they identified themselves. Swallows indeed! Now we know where to drop the bombs! Hmmm, I wonder if we can get any oil out of this...
  
  --
  I come here for the love
3. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  It's an Iranian attack group.
  Of course it is, because even Spiderman leaves an accurate calling card.
  Your friendly neighbourhood Spiderman.
4. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by iamgnat · 2012-11-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Laden or Unladen?
5. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Laden or Unladen?
  bin or unbin
6. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by stalky14 · 2012-11-28 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  /bin or /usr/bin?
7. Re:It's an Iranian attack group. by PPH · 2012-11-29 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  bin Laden, most likely.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Decommissioned Server by jeffy210 · 2012-11-28 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

"...but that it was of a decommissioned server."
Um, who cares if it's live, going, or in a pile in a room. If it has valid data on it it is still a viable target and needs to be secured in whatever way is necessary. It's even worse if it was a system that was still online, supposed to be marked for decommissioned and they just didn't keep up on securing it anymore.

--
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
1. Re:Decommissioned Server by Rick+Zeman · 2012-11-28 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  "...but that it was of a decommissioned server."
  Um, who cares if it's live, going, or in a pile in a room. If it has valid data on it it is still a viable target and needs to be secured in whatever way is necessary. It's even worse if it was a system that was still online, supposed to be marked for decommissioned and they just didn't keep up on securing it anymore.
  No kidding. If it was decommissioned the drives would be destroyed at best, powered off and offline at worst.
Israel is not a signatory to NPT by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 03:50 · Score: 1

They, along with India, Pakistan, and North Korea, are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That's a pretty poor club to be in, but if we're going to complain, we should complain about all of them for not signing up. I don't see a particular reason to pick on Israel. Unlike the other three, it isn't even clear they've done any nuclear tests.
If this is about other countries that are chafing under the restrictions of the NPT (==Iran), then tough. You signed up for it. Deal with it or withdraw from it, and if the latter, then we'll add you to the above list that get regularly criticized for not being part of it.
So... by benjfowler · 2012-11-28 03:56 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This script kiddie is anti-West, anti-White, anti-Israel, anti-civilization, whatever. I guess, that in Anonymous' eyes, he's a hero then.
1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  They just seem to be anti-nuke to me, and addressing the glaringly obvious fact that the IAEA gives one nation a pass. Non-proliferation doesn't work in such an environment.
2. Re:So... by tnk1 · 2012-11-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  The IAEA doesn't have to give Israel a pass, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Iran, incidentally, is a signatory and should be cooperating.
3. Re:So... by fredrated · 2012-11-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Can't they just take a page from GWB's playbook and simply unsign? I seem to recall he backed us out of the test ban treaty and other treaties he felt were inconvenient.
4. Re:So... by tnk1 · 2012-11-28 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Iran could certainly "unsign" or abrogate the treaty, but then that would be tantamount to admitting that they are building nuclear weapons, which they are trying to avoid until their first nuclear test.
5. Re:So... by cfalcon · 2012-11-28 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  You should look into why nations sign the NPT to begin with. Hint: there's more to it than just "As a non-nuclear state, I won't seek nukes."
6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  The non proliferation treaty doesn't just say "I won't make nuclear weapons".
  It commits nuclear powers who have signed on to assist non-nuclear signatories in the development of civilian nuclear tech in exchange for the non-nuclear signatories guarantee that they will not develop nuclear weapons and commits them to submit to inspections that verify they are not using the knowledge and materials gained for weapons.
  What Iran is allegedly doing is accepting the assistance they as a non-nuclear signatory are entitled to, but not holding up their end of the bargain (not develop nuclear weapons and submit to inspections to verify that they are not developing nuclear weapons*).
  If Iran were to withdraw from the Nonproliferation treaty now, it would be analogous to a "dine and dash" (since they've been receiving assistance with their reactor program for some time.) And chances are other signatories of the NPT would respond with sanctions and/or war.
  The speculation is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and plans to withdraw from the treaty only after they have nuclear capability trusting in the assumption that no-one will invade a nuclear power to prevent war.
  *note: even if they are not actually developing nukes, they can still be in violation if they fail to comply with the inspections mandated by the treaty
7. Re:So... by TheCarp · 2012-11-28 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm but, currently, there seem to be a number of parties that consider them claiming they are not building nuclear weapons as being "tantamount to admitting that they are building nuclear weapons".
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
8. Re:So... by tnk1 · 2012-11-28 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  True, but beside the point. If their stated goal is their true goal, (ie. only building nuclear power reactors), then there is no need for them to abrogate the NPT because their stated goals would be in compliance with the treaty.
  Of course, as a matter of completely complying with the treaty, they not only have to have the right goals, they also have to submit to inspections for the assurance of compliance. They also have to operate their peaceful program within certain restrictions that are meant to prevent rapid transition of their peaceful program to a weapons program (ie. provisions about dual use equipment and materials).
  In short, Iran may well be telling the truth, but even if they are, providing assurance to other countries is just as important, if not more so, to the matter of non-proliferation. Therefore, whatever their ends are, they also have to use the prescribed means.
  There's really no advantage to them in abrogating the treaty like there was in the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty. We wished to construct an ABM system, and did not plan to do so secretly, so abandoning the treaty was the simple result of that. Also, to be technical, in the case of the ABM treaty, there was a clause the permitted withdrawal from the treaty with six month's notice to the other side, which was done. Bush didn't so much "unsign" the treaty as he simply activated the agreed withdrawal mechanism. Obviously, this had the same effect, but was done with respect to the treaty's provisions, as opposed to simply abrogating it, or like Iran may be doing, covertly breaking it while feigning compliance.
phew! by MagicM · 2012-11-28 03:57 · Score: 4, Funny

I misread that as "Hackers Stole Information From IKEA Servers". I was worried there for a moment.
1. Re:phew! by stalky14 · 2012-11-28 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps their coveted cinnamon roll recipe?
If Astronomers get hacked... by BergZ · 2012-11-28 03:58 · Score: 1

On the topic of scientific organizations being hacked:
If Astronomers get hacked is the scandal a "Star-gate"?

--
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
1. Re:If Astronomers get hacked... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly what's needed is a Star Czar
  For the War on Stellar Terror
2. Re:If Astronomers get hacked... by tnk1 · 2012-11-28 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  At this point, I think we could just say that it is multiple Star Wars.
3. Re:If Astronomers get hacked... by NeverVotedBush · 2012-11-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  That's no moon!
O'Rly? by jeff13 · 2012-11-28 04:21 · Score: 1

Well that's so Tuesday. Would you swallow? Funny that the AP came out with this story just yesterday...
AP Exclusive: Graph suggests Iran working on bomb
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-graph-suggests-iran-working-bomb
Isn't it great Iranians work in English?
Oh, my favourite part; "leaked by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program ..." ROTFL! Geee, wonder who THAT could be?
1. Re:O'Rly? by Martin+Blank · 2012-11-28 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  The left side of the graph labels the power output in kT/sec with a plateau around 1.6E13 (16,000,000,000,000 kT). This strikes me as problematic.
  So, too, does the part of the article that says, "The bomb that the United States dropped on Hiroshima...had a force of about 15 kilotons. Modern nuclear weapons have yields hundreds of times higher than that." A handful of weapons are in the megaton range, but most weapons are 300kT or smaller. It's enough to devastate a military base or a city core, but it's less than two dozen times the size of the Hiroshima bomb. It's been this way for decades as delivery systems have gotten more accurate, allowing for smaller warhead sizes that use less fissile material, making each weapon less expensive.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Israel versus Iran by schneidafunk · 2012-11-28 04:25 · Score: 1

I would assume the data would have more damning information on Iran's nuclear plans versus Israel, but that is just a guess.

Anyone have any educated knowledge about what kind of data they could be releasing that would be unknown to the general public?

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:Israel versus Iran by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  The article I read about this says they want the IAEA to inspect facilities at Negev Research Facility which has never been inspected by the IAEA. Not for weapons specifically, just that it's a nuclear facility that never gets inspected by the IAEA for safety or to find out what exactly is done there.
2. Re:Israel versus Iran by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps they have data that proves Tom Clancy was right. Israel gets their nukes from the USA. So much for non proliferation.
3. Re:Israel versus Iran by Martin+Blank · 2012-11-28 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  It never gets inspected because Israel's not part of the NNPT. They don't have to submit to inspections.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
4. Re:Israel versus Iran by Martin+Blank · 2012-11-28 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  Israel developed their nuclear program with help from the French in the 1960s before the NNPT took effect. They may have stolen designs from the US, but they also have a very high-caliber arms industry of their own. I doubt the US would have given them weapons after the NNPT took effect, and even before it, the US was expressing concern that the French assistance could lead to an Israeli bomb, something that might have been seen as very unbalancing in those days.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
5. Re:Israel versus Iran by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  They don't have to submit to inspections because Uncle Sam is their friend. Let's not be naive or misleading. Israel has the backing of western nations so the same rules don't apply. You can all try to justify this how you want but its the truth.
  Other nations that were not signatories to the NNPT were placed under sanctions, threats, etc. for even considering nuclear weapons. No one ever really speaks about the ones that are in the possession of the Israeli regime. No sanctions / sieges, no diplomatic negotiations, no sabotage, murders, threats of attack, not even criticisms are leveraged by western nations. Why not?
  Israel was once required to submit to inspections but the US inspectors noted that due to the advance notice requirements and Israel's ability to hide its operations they were basically useless.
  Why did this change and why don't western nations even care anymore? Given what we have seen Israel do with unrestricted bombing of neighboring nations, is this fair, but we are all up in arms with Iran doing the same?
  Here is a hint to the answer. Friends matter, rules....not so much.
Why? by nasalicio · 2012-11-28 04:43 · Score: 1

Why does a decommissioned server still have valid data on it nevermind remaining online and accessible to the world?
1. Re:Why? by flyingfsck · 2012-11-28 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  ...because they were monitoring decommissioned nukes with it of course.
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
What is the nature of the data they stole? by JSBiff · 2012-11-28 05:52 · Score: 2

As far as I know, IAEA is energy focused, not weapons, and so wouldn't keep things like CAD files for nuclear weapons or parts on its server. From the article, it sounds like it was information stolen about people who've worked with/for IAEA?
1. Re:What is the nature of the data they stole? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Har har har, IAEA has very much to do with nuclear weapons, considering the "waste" of power plants is what you put in bombs. Why do you think everyone gets so up in arms about peaceful nuclear energy? By simply having a nuclear reactor, you can create weapon grade materials.
Stole? by Necreia · 2012-11-28 05:54 · Score: 1

I'm seeing a huge inconsistency between data 'theft' or 'stealing' and 'pirating' here on Slashdot. I read the article and didn't see any reference to the original data being deleted. Was it just copied or "pirated", or was it actually taken off the machine with the original data removed?
1. Re:Stole? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm seeing a huge inconsistency between data 'theft' or 'stealing' and 'pirating' here on Slashdot. I read the article and didn't see any reference to the original data being deleted. Was it just copied or "pirated", or was it actually taken off the machine with the original data removed?
  The difference between piracy and theft is that theft deprives the original owner of something. In this case, they have deprived the owner of the secrecy/exclusivity of the data. So it would be more technically accurate to say they stole "secrets" but that gets clunky to say so in common language we just say that the information was stolen.
  Context matters.
Hackers Stole Information From IKEA Servers? by FilmedInNoir · 2012-11-28 05:56 · Score: 1

Maybe JYSK was behind the attacks!
No! I want to live in my happy pocket universe. :(

--
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
1. Re:Hackers Stole Information From IKEA Servers? by PPH · 2012-11-28 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Assembly instructions for the Fjell uranium enrichment centrifuge, no doubt.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
Hackers stole ... by maxwell+demon · 2012-11-28 06:33 · Score: 2

Now, which one will get more comments about how it is wrong: The use of the word "Hacker", or the use of the word "stole"? :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:Hackers stole ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  Now, which one will get more comments about how it is wrong: The use of the word "Hacker", or the use of the word "stole"? :-)
  Stole wasn't used incorrectly. We're talking about stealing secrets, once you make a copy (especially if you then distribute it) then it's no longer secret, so in that context you have indeed deprived the owner of something because it's no longer a secret.
Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-28 09:13 · Score: 0

There ain't no such thing as a "decommissioned server" that's still connected to the Internet!
I'm not in their database anyway by ProudlyBrown · 2012-11-28 09:52 · Score: 1

I have far too much taste to furnish my home with kitschy Swedish ready-to-assemble tables and cabinets.

Oh, wait...
That's only partly true. . . by JSBiff · 2012-11-28 11:00 · Score: 1

"considering the "waste" of power plants is what you put in bombs."
Not in general - spent nuclear fuel from a reactor that's been running for 18 months has a lot of fision products and decay products which make worthless for use in weapons. If you really want to create weapons grade plutonium, you put fuel slugs in the reactor and only run the reactor for something like 30 days, then pull the fuel out - you breed enough plutonium to extract, while not producing much of the "junk" which ruins it for weapons use. But, you can't breed much in 30 days. So, you need to do this over and over and over, then take all that fuel, run it through a PUREX type reprocessing plant to seperate the Plutonium, and enrich the PU up to 90%+ purity.
Because of this, no nation has EVER made bombs from spent nuclear fuel - they use dedicated-purpose reactors for making bomb material. Now, on the other hand, *enrichment* facilities are of great concern, because if you can enrich uranium to 5%, you can enrich it to 99%, and make a Uranium bomb. But, for a uranium bomb, you don't need a reactor at all.