Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Stole Information From IAEA Servers
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.
OK and if they criticize Israel's nuclear arsenal, then what?
Parastoo means swallow (as in the bird) in Farsi, for anyone wondering.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
"...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."
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.
I misread that as "Hackers Stole Information From IKEA Servers". I was worried there for a moment.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Why does a decommissioned server still have valid data on it nevermind remaining online and accessible to the world?
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."
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?
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?
Maybe JYSK was behind the attacks! :(
No! I want to live in my happy pocket universe.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
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.
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"
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.
I have far too much taste to furnish my home with kitschy Swedish ready-to-assemble tables and cabinets.
Oh, wait...
"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.