Did I mention that a few of the Step 7 and WinCC components have Web-Frontends? Oh yes they do. Ok it's not the run time but the engineering and maintenance and you are supposed to secure them. But I can really imagine that going wrong.
Stuxnet worked because they had detailed intel on the facility and operation. Now a short reminder how stuxnet was injected into the plat. It was a worm that looked for a computer that has the engineering software and the right project. The worm then modified the PLCs control code and the SCADA logic. To work the modified project had to be downloaded onto the target devices. This was done by the engineers of the plant. All PLCs I know have a physical switch (often a key) that you need to set to download the PLC code. The reason this is done is security, not because of hackers, but because you don't want to bring your PLC offline by mistake on your nuclear power plant. It took stuxnet ages to actually work and only worked because it infected the a master project before it was downloaded into the plant.
It is kind of difficult to apply this to prisons. You need allot of inside info to pull this off. First form the PLC code view of things the different locks, switches or sensors are only a bunch of DI/DO or AI/AO. So there is not predictable way you can influence them, other than toggle them all and see what happens. I think the entire system will then be taken offline quite fast. Then the same policy applies as in a power failure. To make any targeted attack you need intricate knowledge of the engineering project and facility layout. But even then you need to infect the master project and it needs to be downloaded onto the PLCs. This basically happens once, when the system is installed. You may get some differential downloads when components are fixed and updated but that happens not to often.
Pulling something like this off is more along the lines of Mission Impossible than your average computer tug. Yes I think that stuxnet is material that could come directly from Hollywood. I don't know what went down with stuxnet, but is must have been a hell of an operation, of which we only saw the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe, just maybe, it may be possible for some organized crime or some country trying to pull out an political convict. But, honestly, getting a military grade helicopter and well trained mercenaries is far more cost effective that trying mess with the PLCs.
Ok just to spread some enlightenment. To totally clear the stuxnet from the system your need to do the following:
Get a clean computer and ensure that it is not infected for the time of operation. Then get a clean Step 7 Project. This is difficult, since they seem not to know what to look for. Basically reengineer the plant might be a good idea. Stop all operation at the uranium refinery. Unplug every system, this is PC, Industrial PC, HMI Panel, PLC, frequency converters and any other "smart" field devices. Wipe all the PCs with a new system and reinstall all software, ensure that the system does not get infected. For good measure flash the HMI Panels, PLCs and "smart" field devices with a clean firmware. Now "download" the Step 7 project into all system and thus wiping the infected configurations.
Honestly I am not sure what if that is less effort than the run the refinery at less capacity. Especially since that also means admitting that they had a problem all along.
I do that to... But if you think of the device emulating a keyboard and mouse... Does not help. So, just don't plug in unknown hardware. If you bought it, then at least you get to sue the device developer.
Is it that hard to disable autoplay? It is that hard to make your anti-virus software tread removable media like network drives? Is it that hard to properly configure user accounts to not have administrative rights? Is it that hard to teach people that opening a random file of unknown origin, being sent by mail or on an USB stick that hard?
Some things are easy, some things take a while to hammer in. When done properly security means no noticeable restriction to the user, unless she is doing something she ought not to do. My problem is that often the wrong measures are taken, such as completely disabling USB devices. The good news is that with Windows Vista and Windows 7, things are getting better. With UAC, developers are forced to write their programs to operate properly in user space, this makes real user / admin separation feasible. (Something that was almost impossible with Windows XP.)
True. There are three types of coders. The novice that don't understand their code. The advanced that understand their code, but no one else does. And the guru that writes code that every one understands and thinks is so simple to come up with.
Don't cry. Microsoft gave up on my a long time ago. I am a hardcore C++ native programmer and native can rip managed applications to shreds in nano seconds. Not only did they fail to provide a update / replacement for MFC (a good start, considering it was developed 92) but they almost completely forgot that there are native applications. I am not advocating one technology over the other (ok I am a bit), but certain computationally intensive tasks just don't mend well with.Net and I don't want to have a native-managed transition just to have a GUI. You know what I use nowadays on windows? GTKmm!
The trick is to automate the task and not tell anyone. Most people don't realize that it can be efficiently automated. Then kick back are browse the interwebs.
I never learned how to touch type, but by simple virtue of hacking in code for the last 10 years, I can type without looking at the keyboard. I don't type like someone that learned touch typing, since I programing and that emphasizes different keys. I basically only use 7 of 10 fingers and move my hands over the keyboard. I have seen many serious codes typing like this.
If you are serious about programming you can't avoid to learn to type without looking at the keyboard. I find the metric, to look at people using keyboard and mouse as a reliable metric about their programming skills.
One big thing they want to do is off shore wind parks. The offshore wind mills are larger than land based and have a 98% uptime. Following the calculation, something around 100 wind mils can replace one nuclear power plant. But these are also getting some opposition, since the construction disrupts marine life. (Though it depends on who you ask, since new artificial reefs also let marine life flourish.)
But yea. The French and other European neighbors have euro signs in their eyes. Just as a figure, something around 80% of french nuclear power is exported, that includes Germany.
Everybody want to go back to nature, but no one wants to walk.
Slashdot Mirror
And for all those that *need" garbage collection in C++ there is still this: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/ Just saying...
Did I mention that a few of the Step 7 and WinCC components have Web-Frontends? Oh yes they do. Ok it's not the run time but the engineering and maintenance and you are supposed to secure them. But I can really imagine that going wrong.
Stuxnet worked because they had detailed intel on the facility and operation. Now a short reminder how stuxnet was injected into the plat. It was a worm that looked for a computer that has the engineering software and the right project. The worm then modified the PLCs control code and the SCADA logic. To work the modified project had to be downloaded onto the target devices. This was done by the engineers of the plant. All PLCs I know have a physical switch (often a key) that you need to set to download the PLC code. The reason this is done is security, not because of hackers, but because you don't want to bring your PLC offline by mistake on your nuclear power plant. It took stuxnet ages to actually work and only worked because it infected the a master project before it was downloaded into the plant.
It is kind of difficult to apply this to prisons. You need allot of inside info to pull this off. First form the PLC code view of things the different locks, switches or sensors are only a bunch of DI/DO or AI/AO. So there is not predictable way you can influence them, other than toggle them all and see what happens. I think the entire system will then be taken offline quite fast. Then the same policy applies as in a power failure. To make any targeted attack you need intricate knowledge of the engineering project and facility layout. But even then you need to infect the master project and it needs to be downloaded onto the PLCs. This basically happens once, when the system is installed. You may get some differential downloads when components are fixed and updated but that happens not to often.
Pulling something like this off is more along the lines of Mission Impossible than your average computer tug. Yes I think that stuxnet is material that could come directly from Hollywood. I don't know what went down with stuxnet, but is must have been a hell of an operation, of which we only saw the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe, just maybe, it may be possible for some organized crime or some country trying to pull out an political convict. But, honestly, getting a military grade helicopter and well trained mercenaries is far more cost effective that trying mess with the PLCs.
Ok just to spread some enlightenment. To totally clear the stuxnet from the system your need to do the following: Get a clean computer and ensure that it is not infected for the time of operation. Then get a clean Step 7 Project. This is difficult, since they seem not to know what to look for. Basically reengineer the plant might be a good idea. Stop all operation at the uranium refinery. Unplug every system, this is PC, Industrial PC, HMI Panel, PLC, frequency converters and any other "smart" field devices. Wipe all the PCs with a new system and reinstall all software, ensure that the system does not get infected. For good measure flash the HMI Panels, PLCs and "smart" field devices with a clean firmware. Now "download" the Step 7 project into all system and thus wiping the infected configurations. Honestly I am not sure what if that is less effort than the run the refinery at less capacity. Especially since that also means admitting that they had a problem all along.
Use you own system as a sandbox. Unplug your hard disks and load a live CD. Then plugin the drive and see what happens...
I do that to... But if you think of the device emulating a keyboard and mouse... Does not help. So, just don't plug in unknown hardware. If you bought it, then at least you get to sue the device developer.
Is it that hard to disable autoplay? It is that hard to make your anti-virus software tread removable media like network drives? Is it that hard to properly configure user accounts to not have administrative rights? Is it that hard to teach people that opening a random file of unknown origin, being sent by mail or on an USB stick that hard? Some things are easy, some things take a while to hammer in. When done properly security means no noticeable restriction to the user, unless she is doing something she ought not to do. My problem is that often the wrong measures are taken, such as completely disabling USB devices. The good news is that with Windows Vista and Windows 7, things are getting better. With UAC, developers are forced to write their programs to operate properly in user space, this makes real user / admin separation feasible. (Something that was almost impossible with Windows XP.)
True. There are three types of coders. The novice that don't understand their code. The advanced that understand their code, but no one else does. And the guru that writes code that every one understands and thinks is so simple to come up with.
Don't cry. Microsoft gave up on my a long time ago. I am a hardcore C++ native programmer and native can rip managed applications to shreds in nano seconds. Not only did they fail to provide a update / replacement for MFC (a good start, considering it was developed 92) but they almost completely forgot that there are native applications. I am not advocating one technology over the other (ok I am a bit), but certain computationally intensive tasks just don't mend well with .Net and I don't want to have a native-managed transition just to have a GUI. You know what I use nowadays on windows? GTKmm!
The trick is to automate the task and not tell anyone. Most people don't realize that it can be efficiently automated. Then kick back are browse the interwebs.
I never learned how to touch type, but by simple virtue of hacking in code for the last 10 years, I can type without looking at the keyboard. I don't type like someone that learned touch typing, since I programing and that emphasizes different keys. I basically only use 7 of 10 fingers and move my hands over the keyboard. I have seen many serious codes typing like this. If you are serious about programming you can't avoid to learn to type without looking at the keyboard. I find the metric, to look at people using keyboard and mouse as a reliable metric about their programming skills.
One big thing they want to do is off shore wind parks. The offshore wind mills are larger than land based and have a 98% uptime. Following the calculation, something around 100 wind mils can replace one nuclear power plant. But these are also getting some opposition, since the construction disrupts marine life. (Though it depends on who you ask, since new artificial reefs also let marine life flourish.) But yea. The French and other European neighbors have euro signs in their eyes. Just as a figure, something around 80% of french nuclear power is exported, that includes Germany. Everybody want to go back to nature, but no one wants to walk.